Iceland: Is the UK a bully?
REYKJAVIK: On Saturday Iceland is holding a referendum. Not that you would notice it. There are no posters on the walls of Reykjavik, there are no public meetings or protest marches. It is the silent referendum. And yet many say that the country's reputation hinges on the result. Icelanders must decide whether to support or reject a deal to repay Britain and the Netherlands outstanding debts from the failed Icelandic bank Icesave.
When the online bank Icesave failed the British government covered the deposits of those who had put money in the bank. Now it is seeking to get the money back from the Icelandic government. A mere £2.3bn.
London and Reykjavik - and the Dutch - have been haggling over the terms for months. A deal was on the table but then the Icelandic president stepped in. President Olafur Ragnar Grimsson blocked the agreement. He said it contained long-lasting consequences for the Icelandic people and there had to be a national consensus. A referendum was born.
This saga (and that is what it is) has continued until just a few days ago. Indeed the chairman of the Icelandic treasury committee said they had been discussing nothing else for weeks and months. It has been the longest debate ever held in parliament. The Icelandic government has agreed that money should be repaid - the question is at what interest rate. They have argued down to the wire. The British say their "best and final offer has been turned down".
Now, as the two sides negotiated in London, there were doubts that the referendum would go ahead. Nobody knew 24 hours ago whether it was on or off. But something curious has begun in the cold-grey light of late winter. Early voting. On Thursday on the outskirts of the capital I found long queues of voters. Some were taking advantage of early voting to prevent any last-minute cancellation of the poll. They wanted their voices to be heard and counted.
Every person in the line said they would vote "no". They would reject the British offer. One poll suggests 74% could vote "no". The result could even be higher.
In the voting lines there was anger and much of it was directed at Britain. "They're bullying us," was the common complaint. Some turned on Britain reluctantly but nonetheless many fingers were pointed at London. Even the Business Minister complained that London was trying to muscle them. Only recently the Icelandic foreign ministry described the British action as "disproportionate, aggressive and highly damaging".
What incenses the people is that London used anti-terrorism legislation to freeze the assets of Landsbanki, the bank that operated Icesave's internet accounts. They also object to the rate of interest that Britain is seeking on the debt. "It smacks of profiteering," one voter told me.
I sensed that a majority still supported repaying the UK, but only if the terms were fair. Some would like to see the whole issue taken to the European Court. But a significant number of people don't want any money repaid. A fork-lift driver at the port of Grindavik said Icesave had nothing to do with him. He did not see why they should have to pay for "reckless bankers". One man said the scale of repayment was equivalent to what Germany had to pay after the war and would impose years of misery on the Icelandic people.
The British view is simple. They're not bullying; they just want their money back under international agreements.
Now there are consequences for a "no" vote. The UK financial Services Secretary Lord Myners has said that in those circumstances Iceland would in effect be saying "it doesn't want to be part of the international financial system." An IMF loan that Iceland desperately needs is dependent on it settling up with the UK and the Netherlands.
For a moment here I closed my eyes and imagined I was back in Greece. The voices and arguments were similar. There was resistance to embracing austerity. Many believed the recession was caused by greedy bankers and that working people are paying the price. The flaws in Greek accounting and the irresponsibility of Icesave are conveniently set aside. In both countries there is resentment and hostility towards the EU. In Iceland the EU is blamed for poor regulation.
So a "no" vote here in Iceland is not just a rejection of a deal, it reflects, too, a growing anger with spending cuts, wage freezes, unemployment lines, the hallmarks of Europe's time of austerity.
I'm 
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~44~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Difficult to comment without an idea on terms Gavin. Are we talking Lend-lease terms or Loanshark terms?
I have to sympathise. All across the world, we mere peons are being savaged to keep the fat cats in cream.
Complain about this comment
I can see both sides:
The Icelanders had no real say in Icesave and its not their fault it went bust, why should they pay.
On the other hand though:
They had no problem living the high life when all the money from dodgy loans and accounting was rolling in.
The same could be said pretty much Globally...
Complain about this comment
I don't know enough to judge,but I feel inclined to sympathise with the Icelanders. A few years ago I read on a website "If something appears to be too good to be true, then it is too good to be true." Investors chose to put their money in that bank. What next? Do we compensate the bloke who loses at roulette? Why should poor people, whether Icelanders or whatever reimburse rich people who made a wrong decision.
I don't know how much you now get if you save with a building society in the UK. I know it is under six percent and yet I have seen ads on the internet promising eleven percent. Will the people who fall for that be compensated as well?
What about the UK regulators? Why did they not spot the problem with Icesave or UK banks?
What is a British bank operating in the USA takes in massive deposits promising high interest rates , is outside of British control and all the deposits disappear?
Complain about this comment
Visiting Iceland is great. So you can support the Icelanders and have a good time as well.
Complain about this comment
Gavin,
... Many believed the recession was caused by greedy bankers and that working people are paying the price.
That just about sums it all up.
The only problem is that it is not just 'working' people: Austerity is inevitable and THE people affected by the consequences of Banker's greed will be pensioners, school children, college students, university scholars, social welfare recipients, social security beneficiaries, the homeless, the workless, the physically, mentally or otherwise impaired, people in need of medical treatments and the only people unaffected are the b----y Bankers who continue to receive their fatcat pay, conditions and ridiculous bonuses.
As regards Iceland: Giving the Icelanders a vote is a good thing but the bottom line is they are merely determining whether the Icelandic citizens pay for the misdeeds of the Iceland Banks or whether it is British and Dutch citizens who will have to pay ....... I think it is going to be 'odds-on' that they will vote to "stuff the British and Dutch people" and this debacle would then cost the British and Dutch even more austerity than the Icelanders.
The only thing I would then hope to see is the British and Dutch governments stand firm and keep the pressure upon the Icelandic government and people to take their share for the Icelandic Bank collapse and their share of this debacle - just as the British and Dutch are having to already pay for their own bank failures.
Not only is that fair but it is the Icelanders' international legal responsibility too.
All is fair when it comes to European comradeship and fellowship - let the Icelanders learn to live with that burden.
Complain about this comment
Icelanders lived very well for many years on the spoils of banks too big for them to handle. Now they don't want to return to where they came from. Reminds me of the Greeks.
Complain about this comment
How can you put up an article like this without explaining what the terms of the deal that Iceland is likely to reject actualy are
What is the length of the repayment term,
What interest rate is being charged
How much per year would Iceland have to find and what proportion of both current Gov Spending and national GDP does this repersent, how much per Icelandic tax payer
Complain about this comment
EU has been fiscally integrated and organized in a hasty and casual way. The main contradiction lies in the fact that although there is a common currency, the federal mechanisms and structures to regulate the flow of money around the Union and channel it according to needs (e.g to poorer regions in the event of a crisis) which is the case in all the federal states around the world, do not exist. There is only one solution to the current crisis and it is mainly political.
As for the Icelanders i think they are absolutely right to blame the bankers. A relatively rich, organized, siesta-free (for people here that love stereotypes) with high standards of living scandinavian nation shouldn't be held responsible and punished for the greed of the few. On the contrary they should be allowed into the EU and EMU... yesterday and provided with solidarity and any help available and necessary.
A European Union of the people(s) is far more appealing, democratic, safe, socially caring and human-rights sensitive than the current elite dominated and oriented format.
Complain about this comment
Iceland was happy to benefit from international law on fishing limits in the 1970s that wiped out the UK deep water trawling fleet. This cost the UK a lot of money, especially the deep sea fishing ports. Iceland was also happy to benefit from the banking boom in the good times again under international law.
The Icelanders can't have it both ways.
Complain about this comment
I don't understand how this situation has come about. If I borrow money to pay off other debts, I have to sign a legally binding agreement up front with terms and conditions including the rate of interest, duration, etc, and I can hardly whinge about these terms after signing up to them. Was there no contract drawn up, or was it badly drawn?
If the UK has moved the goal posts then I will be sympathatic to the Icelandic position, otherwise they should pay up. On the basis of the information available to me, I see absolutely no justification for the UK (and the Netherlands) to take on this debt - we have quite enough of our own, thank you very much.
Complain about this comment
As a dual national of the UK and Iceland I have looked carefully at the icesave dispute and have no choice but to vote no tomorrow, why should ordinary people bail out the mistakes of immoral bankers, it is not acceptable.
Complain about this comment
"The British view is simple. They're not bullying; they just want their money back under international agreements."
Incorrect. The British and Dutch decided to cover MORE than the international agreements stipulate (without consulting the Icelanders, and also turned that debt onto Iceland. That move was executed by the UK and the Dutch to keep savers confidence in their own domestic financial systems. Iceland has not for one second implied that it will not cover any/all legal obligations. The intent is to simply repay the legal obligation, while not allowing the UK and/or Dutch to profit on the situation at the expense of Icelandic taxpayers. Since the law is on the side of the Icelandic people, it is a good position to have.
Additionally, it is fair to point out that the IMF and the ratings companies are generating quotes and soundbites to amplfy the story of Iceland NOT wanting to repay their debt. Again, this is a media move. Iceland does want to repay their legal obligations. They do not, however, want individuals in a small economy to shoulder the load of inadequate regulatory systems. Not to mention that the situation was made worse by the use of UK anti-terror legilation. Icelanders will not fold quietly under the imperialistic strongarming of the blindly proud UK and Dutch, simply to get out of the pressure. They will wait. They will wait and negotiate a fair deal and repay their dues.
Complain about this comment
We're not talking about repaying the debt owed to the 100 or so UK Councils and Local Authorities that invested savings in the Icelandic Banks but the £788million GBP invested by individual savers whose lost those savings when the Icelandic banks collapsed.
The money owed to the UK Councils and Local Authorities has already been written-off and British citizens are having to pay that loss through cutbacks and savings that the Councils and Local AUthorities are already imposing on themselves.
The UK government volunteered (They didn't do this for the Isle of Man Banks for example) to honour the losses of the individual savers - real human beings - and is simply claiming back their monies which the Icelandic government had, honourably, agreed to do until their President reneged on the deal.
The rest of the world is having to pay for the 'mistakes' of their own national bankers - why not the Icelanders?
The Icelanders enjoyed the good times and benefits of having a lucrative Icelandic Banking system; the Icelanders just have to be honourable and accept that the individual British savers are entitled to get their money back otherwise it will be all British Taxpayers who have to take on that burden (some of the Icelandic debt already being visited upon them!) and that is even more unfair.
I sincerely hope that the British and Dutch governments stick to their stance of this being a matter of honour and that they shame the Icelanders into taking on their international responsibilities as well as looking after their own internal Icelandic Bank debts and problems.
Complain about this comment
It really is in the long term best interests of Iceland to pay up. Yes, the Icelandic people themselves weren't to blame for the actions of one of their banks but then that's always the case in these matters - it wasn't the British people's fault that the bankers were incompetant and yet we have to shoulder the burden now.
It might be a high price to pay, but if Iceland refuses to repay their debt they will solidify a reputation for being dishonourable and untrustworthy. No one will ever want to deal with them on an international level because they'll be worried that they'll just refuse to uphold their end of the bargain. It might be unfair given it's not the fault of Icelandic individuals...but it is true that their reputation is at stake here, which in the long term is far more valuable than £2.3bn..
Complain about this comment
"The British view is simple. They're not bullying; they just want their money back under international agreements."
What a laugh. Suddenly when the shoe is on the other foot, agreements matter to Britain. How soon they are to forget. I'm talking about the release of the mass murderer Magrahi and how the British government gave every assurance that if he were convicted by a Scottish court under Scottish law by a Scottish jury the US would give up its claim to prosecute him. And then he was released "on humanitarian grounds" because he had no more than three months to live as though that mattered or had any bearing on the agreement. Six months later I still haven't seen his obituary. He'll probably live a good long life back in Lybia for having murdered nearly 300 people, most of them Americans. Are British doctors under the NHS that incompetent or were they just lying?
BTW, I'm siding with Argentia's claim on the Malvinas. What is the UK doing colonizing the South Atlantic anyway? Last vestiges of the British Empire? Let the UK buy its oil from Lybia instead in return for having freed Megrahi.
Complain about this comment
My country is currently facing a similar mess, so I totally sympathize with the average Icelander, who will have to suffer years of misery thanks to the greediness of a irresponsible bankers/politicians.
At least they are not been called "a lazy people, a corrupt nation, etc" by their northern European counterparts. I wonder if having Nordic looks has anything to do with it...
Complain about this comment
Sorry, but what would have happened if the British government had allowed British Banks to fail, how much money would other international organisations have lost??? But they didnt and the British people have been left to pay the price. We are all paying the price for the recklessness of the worlds banks, I dont see why the Icelandics should be any different. They have had overall a much higher standard of living then their economy could actually support so if this brings them back to living in the real world with the rest of us, thats just plain tough luck.
Complain about this comment
RE: 3, EUprisoner209456731:
"A few years ago I read on a website "If something appears to be too good to be true, then it is too good to be true." Investors chose to put their money in that bank."
OK, reality check here. I saved with Icesave at 6.5%, my partner saved with Kaupthing Edge at 6.5% and also I saved with Tesco Bank at 6.5%, Egg at 6.25% and Birmingham Midshires at 6.5%
So, as you can see, the deal was not too good to be true, it was going rate. The reason we chose to split our money in this way was in response to the run on Northern Rock so that should any one of the banks we were saving with go bust or prevent us from making withdrawals we could still get at least some of our money. In total our savings were less than the £35000 guaranteed amount but we needed to know we could get at the cash.
So the reasons we "chose to put our money in that bank" was to minimise the risk of not being able to access our money whilst knowing that our money would be safe as Icesave and Kaupthing Edge were both financially backed by the Icelandic Government according to the EU requirements for these banks to be allowed to do business (and therefore make profit, pay taxes in Iceland and improve the standard of living of Iceland in general).
Simply put, it was not too good to be true because (1) it wasn't any better than UK based interest rates and (2) my money was guaranteed by the UK government who in turn had the money guaranteed by Iceland. This is not the result of greedy speculators trying to make a fast buck over the starving corpses of poor, disenfranchised Icelandic fishermen, it is prudent savers expecting the word of a sovereign nation to be honest.
"Why should poor people, whether Icelanders or whatever reimburse rich people who made a wrong decision."
Exactly. The wrong decision was made by Icelanders when they elected the government that chose to back Icelandic banks that had an account book of something like 5 times Iceland's GDP with no reserves, and then grew relatively rich on the proceeds of what was just a giant Ponzi scheme.
So You are right, why should we in the UK have to suffer lost government revenue that would certainly have to be cut from services to the poorest and neediest (benefits, NHS, children, elderly) have to fund SUVs and foreign holidays for a Country that made a wrong decision?
Complain about this comment
The problem is Iceland's tiny population. While £2.3bn is not *that* much in the grand scheme of things to the UK, it is an enormous amount per person for Icelanders - I believe to the tune of approximately £8,000 per person (including children and oaps). That is a lot of debt to bundle on a person...
Complain about this comment
Some people have been asking about the terms.
* Those being voted on: 5.55% fixed, 7 year holiday.
* Last offer made: LIBOR/EURIBOR +2.75% (same as the Nordic loans, currently 3.4%), , 2 years interest free, 7 year holiday
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
I.e. only a total fool would vote "yes" as the law is much worse than the current offer. Not that the above will be the reason many vote "no" - as noted, there's a wide variety of reasons why people will be voting "no".
@Alex
"Incorrect. The British and Dutch decided to cover MORE than the international agreements stipulate(without consulting the Icelanders, and also turned that debt onto Iceland."
In turn incorrect.
The UK/NL want Iceland to borrow the 20,887 euro guarantee amount only. There is an issue with how the payments from the dissolution of Landsbanki are treated. This is commonly called the Ragnar Hall issue and is essentially about whether the claims should be split or not (i.e. whether the Icelandic deposit guarantee fund (TIF) should be paid before the UK/NL, or whether they should each have the same priority).
When we read about 88% recovery, that assumes that the claims are split. If the issue was solved in Iceland's favour, Iceland would recover 100% and the other depositors 73% (using euro figures: 7.3b deposits, 6.4b assets, ~4b guarantee).
There is a clause in the current law that allows this to be resolved by an Icelandic court so that the TIF has absolute priority. As things are never simple, there is also a question as to the legality of any change in the English courts.
The odd thing is that Iceland doesn't seem to be disputing the current situation. At least, it wasn't mentioned in the counter offer to the UK/NL final offer:
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
Complain about this comment
As capitalism is about confidence in the banking system shall we view this referendum as a vote on that confidence. To vote NO may begin a backlash reaching the med; greece, portugal,& spain. It would be a lovely message for the bankers who think they are untouchable. This crisis is mainly about mis-management and as in any company wrong doers usually get fired.
Complain about this comment
Don't try and exploit on the interest rate, but am afraid Iceland need to pay their dues. If they don't then they will be isolated and the economic 'miracle' isn't going to happen again
Complain about this comment
Some of the comentators above have adopted the "so what...." approach.
The point still remains, whether you are in Iceland, the U.K., or the Eurozone.
The people have had enough!
Once again the poor working tax-payer is having to bail-out the incompetance of bankers.
Why?
Why should you, or I, or the house owner in Iceland have to once again bail-out the bankers, financiers, investors across the world?
Only to be told that if we didn't we would lose these bankers.
Let's lose them.....
Complain about this comment
@15.
He was tried in Scottish Court under Scottish law, maybe America should have found out what that meant before agreeing to anything.
"BTW, I'm siding with Argentia's claim on the Malvinas. What is the UK doing colonizing the South Atlantic anyway? Last vestiges of the British Empire? Let the UK buy its oil from Lybia instead in return for having freed Megrahi."
What about how we helped you in Iraq, now the shoes on the other foot, blah blah blah blah. America is a useless ally, what about self-determination for the Islanders, etc. etc.
Complain about this comment
I think it's outrageous that banks are allowed to provide a guarantee to their depositors where the guarantor has little to no input into the size of the guarantee. How can the international banking community, and especially the UK and Netherlands, expect the people of a country who have no input into or control over a business to pay for the failures of that business? I understand that local government in the UK was a substantial depositor of Icesave, and it appears to me that the UK government is now trying to recoup funds lost because they did not perform a proper risk assessment. This is a significant misuse of foreign relations, in my opinion, and will return to haunt the UK government.
Complain about this comment
#16 I'm afraid we all know the answer to your question. Even with rather low debt (i.e. Spain) Southern European countries are always suspect of being unsustainable, lazy, corrupt and basically ripping off their oh-so-efficient Northern European counterparts.
On the other hand, a North-South drift based on stereotypes and unfair generalizations might be what eurosceptics are after. Having Icelanders turned against Europe would work to their advantage too.
Complain about this comment
I sincerely believe that the Banks and their friends intentionally created this downturn to fleece us poor ignorant mortals of our money. It's all a huge global scam. We are being robbed left right and centre. If I was Icelandic I'd vote NO too!
Complain about this comment
The British say that they're not bullying and that they just want their money back under international agreements. This view is doubly wrong.
First, Iceland has no clear legal obligation to pay up. The authors of the EU directive governing depositors’ insurance schemes have said that the directive does not apply to a systemic banking collapse. Second, the directive does not oblige governments to ensure that such schemes have enough money in them. Governments are only obliged to ensure that such schemes are in place. The (private) financial sector is responsible for providing the schemes with funds. Iceland’s scheme was inadequate, but that is true of every country’s scheme.
Many of the legal aspects are shrouded in uncertainty. The only way to settle them with any certainty would be in court. The UK and the Netherlands have been wholly unwilling to go to court, and have instead resorted to arm-twisting Iceland into footing the bill, partly through their clout in the IMF and the EU.
As for bullying, remember that the British government used anti-terrorist legislation to freeze all Icelandic assets indiscriminately. This really pulled the plug for Iceland. Landsbanki, the Central Bank of Iceland and the Icelandic finance ministry were placed on an official list of terrorist groups along with a handful of other entities, including Al Queda, the Taliban, etc. The reputational damage for Iceland was massive, and this happened at an extremely unfortuitous moment. The freezing of assets brought down, e.g., Iceland's largest and most valuable company, Kaupthing Bank. Kaupthing was still viable as it had just secured loans from the Icelandic and Swedish central banks. It was just collateral damage.
Note the contrast with the manner in which the UK government dealt with the Lehman Bros collapse, when enormous amounts of money were siphoned from the UK to the US. Brown and Darling neither froze assets nor invoked terrorist legislation against the US authorities or any US banks. A schoolyard bully usually has the sense to pick on somebody smaller than himself and leave well off those who are bigger.
Add to that an unfair and sensationalist onslaught by the British media and an astounding, now well-documented chain of gross lies by the UK government, whether inadvertent or deliberate (politics for home consumption?).
Despite the legal uncertainties and the bullying (or because of it), Iceland has shown willingness to compensate the UK and the Netherlands up to the minimum specified for each investor by the directive. What Icelanders are still choking on is what they see as profiteering, i.e. excessive interest rates on the Icesave loan and other unfavourable terms.
Complain about this comment
Iceland has a similar population to the city of Aberdeen and its surrounding hinterland. It is tiny even compared to Ireland, Denmark, Norway or other small European nations. Their banking sector traded on this ignorance (if the third largest bank in Aberdeen offered you extra interest, would you consider it a good proposition?).
I heard some Icelanders on the radio this morning and in general they wished to pay back a fair sum of money, but not the whole lot at 5.5% interest over 15 years. Who can blame them? Most of them are not responsible for the banking shenanigans any more than you are, most of them only gained a little through general economic growth, many of them lost their savings when the shares in those banks collapsed.
So why is the Brown government so aggressive towards them? No votes in being nice to Iceland, but maybe some votes in being tough. Plus, for those who appreciate Scottish politics, in the weird world of the Scottish Labour party any economic crisis in a small independent Northern European country is something to be welcomed and even encouraged...because it supports Labour's long-standing "fear strategy" defence against Scottish nationalism. The fact that Iceland has the same population as Aberdeen (or Brighton, or Swansea) is here, once again, beneficially ignored.
Complain about this comment
The bankers and the so called 'fat cats' are NOT to blame for the mess we're in!
Its the culture they were trading in that led them to lend recklessly and government policies, certainly not their own fault.
why did people borrow if they cant afford to repay??
Its everyones fault, we all share the blame and we shall all suffer the consequences!
Complain about this comment
I think they should just do it intrest free. Makes life easy and we get our 2.3bn back. done
Complain about this comment
EUprisoner205456731 seems to forget that UK taxpayers have already paid to bail out their own banks. Much of that money has or will come from the pockets of those who cannot afford to save much. Now we are being asked to subsidise the irresponsibility of another country's banks! Roulette does not come into it. We are unlucky to be living in the UK under our own profligate and irresponsible government.
Complain about this comment
@24
Never mind Marcus Aurelius - simply put he hates the British people and agrees with anyone who opposes them on any level. Never mind the hypocrisy of an American siding with Argentina, which is claiming islands which were British before the country even existed and populated entirely by people who identify as British, when America still controls many overseas territories. If 9/11 had happened on British soil he'd probably be cheering on Bin Laden. Or perhaps he just loves fascist governments. Strange why he uses a British website to express his xenophobia, but, meh...just ignore him.
I agree with the general point many people are making here - the general population of all countries are having to shoulder the burden of a disaster a small number of greedy individuals have caused. It's not fair and those individuals still don't seem to realise how much suffering they've caused, but given the circumstances what else can we do but work together to get out of it? If one country is going to just refuse to do so...well, they're pretty much signalling that they don't want to be part of the international community and won't be considered for any other cooperative enterprise. In the long run that'll be far more damaging than honouring their debt.
Complain about this comment
"Meltdown Iceland by Roger Boyes" is quite an interesting account of how Iceland finds itself in the current predicament and the roles of individuals, institutions and countries leading them close to bankruptcy.
In any case, 2,5% above LIBOR does smack of greed on the part of the Dutch and Brits especially when broadened terror laws were used to seize assets of all Icelandic companies with operations in the UK. How much of a role did that have in drying out liquidity in the economy and therefore in my opinion Alistair Darling still has a lot to answer for - using terror laws against a fellow NATO ally.
Complain about this comment
The thing is that the UK and Netherlands did not guarantee the deposits made by Icelanders. They guaranteed deposits made by their own citizens in a foreign bank.
So basically the Dutch government bailed out individual savers who had invested their money overseas. If there had not been a banking panic, this money would have been lost to those savers. And rightly so: if I were to choose to invest in a business and this business goes bust, I loose my money too – no government is going to give me my money back.
So, the Dutch government has bailed out Dutch people. Why should the Icelanders pay? Their economy is doing terrible, and they have what.. 310 000 inhabitants? Vs the Netherlands with approximately 16 million inhabitants.
Who is better equipped to carry the 2.3 bn?
I have to admit though, that I have no clue about the terms, agreements or legislation on this matter.
But I do think that it is unjust for the Dutch to demand this be paid by Icelanders.
Complain about this comment
I do sympathise with both sides - but at the end of the day it is not mainly the bankers fault - it is our fault, so we have to pay.
Why our fault ? We voted in the politicians and governments who promised us high living standards, prosperity etc. We had elected representatives who praised the banks even as they loosened the controls. We bought into a totally free market economy.
I accept this was not everyone - but a large majority of people in Europe benefited from this in the boom times, and voted for this approach. So under a democracratic process society as a whole had shared compliance and hence responsibility.
We have learnt our lesson now but we still need to pay the cost of our education - and for Icelanders that is paying for their bank, and for the UK and Dutch it is paying for their failed banks.
Complain about this comment
"a mere £2.3billion"....without any sense of irony in your article...for a population of 300,000 people.
If only we had the same courage in this country to refuse to be robbed by the bankers (and the financiers and hedge fund traders etc ) Unfortunately the political consensus is that we have GOT to pay for their obscene wealth. And unfortunately, we can't apparently see through the propaganda to this effect.
And who in the official media is asking WHERE all this money has gone? Hint: first floor 3 bedroom flat in Kensington, October 2009...price=£7million!
Complain about this comment
I am very surprised by the reaction of some commentators.
Having spent many hours studying the subject; it is surprising one could venture an opinion. The subject is complex and there are many errors from the start. Indeed it is galling that privatization of profits and socialization of costs. It is only after the judicial review in a year or two, that wrongs maybe redressed. For now lets hope that the money lost by icesave will be recovered (80 to 90%of it) and accounts will be settled in a more dispassionate manner
Cheers
Complain about this comment
I wonder what is going to happen to Iceland when it can't pay its debt to UK and Netherlands...
Complain about this comment
According to the 'Times online' the terms are as follows:-
"Negotiators said that Iceland had been offered a two-year interest holiday worth about £400 million. Also on the table was a new floating interest rate on the debt, based on Libor plus 2.75 per cent, which would have represented a significant cut on the 5.5 per cent being charged at present"
Seems like a good deal to me!
Complain about this comment
The problem occurred because some British people were unpatriotic and decided to invest their money with foreign banks. For some reason, the British government decided to use British taxpayers' money to bail out the savers in these banks. Why? Is the concept of caveat emptor dead? If you invest your money in a foreign-owned bank, then you're investing in a foreign country and foreign businesses with the profits going to foreign shareholders. If more people invested their money with British companies and sought out British goods when shopping, we wouldn't be in such a mess.
Complain about this comment
Benefactor wrote:
"I can see both sides:.....
On the other hand though:
They had no problem living the high life when all the money from dodgy loans and accounting was rolling in."
Actually most of the Icesave money newer went to Iceland. It was lent to Baugur for investments in the UK and to doggy business in the outskirts of the British empire like Tortola and Cayman Islands. I think the UK has it share of the blame of the global financial crises because of all the British territory tax havens that are around the world.
Complain about this comment
This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain
I call the Greek government to default and then let's have a referendum if we will pay the debt back to lenders. I fully sympathise with Icelanders on this. Total war to bankers, markets and speculators. None of what was done was in People's name, even in the good years most people did not benefit or benefited very marginally (did not gamble though, had no idea of what went on), money went to bankers. Banks should had not been bailed (what is the moral argument here? why you use the moral argument with people, nations and not the bankers. This is absolutely preposterous). People have the right to revolt. What is happening globally is a disgrace.
Complain about this comment
Iceland has lived well off its banking operations and now when a problem comes home to roost, they do a Portsmouth and blame everyone else and want to wash their hands of it and walk away!
Fine but what goes around, comes around. Block the IMF loan and block their entry to the EU, which they now seem keen on.
You can't have your cake and eat it Iceland - ask Antoinette!
Complain about this comment
So the UK and Dutch governments used their own taxpayers money in order to protect people with excess money from losing it due to a poor choice of investment vehicle.
And then they decided to demand the money from the taxpayers in Iceland, because........ the bank which went bust came from that location.
The common thread in all of this is really quite simple to follow, and yet it is profoundly odd. I mean, really weird and nonsensical.
That is that governments have a mandate to spend taxpayers money interfering with markets in order to protect minorities from losing their investments. When the investments were made precisely to generate private profits.
That is odd. It is a very, very strange way of seeing this thing called he market.
On the one hand, the market is free and privately owned. So it is all good and fair that folks can make their own private choices, and keep their own private profits. That is the glory of the free market, and the embodiment of liberty and freedom and warm friendly bears and blah blah blah.
On the other hand, we have these monolithic governments handing out truly staggering amounts of money in order to correct the market.
NOT, take due note, to protect social services. NOT, take note, to protect those who have nothing from starvation and ruinous poverty. NOT, take note, to balance the divide between rich and poor.
The governments are correcting the market in favour of those who have funds to invest. In other words, the governments are making the market safe for the most wealthy in society, at the expense of those who work for the lowest wages.
In other words, the modern two party system is not devoted to any concept of a free market. It is rather devoted to the concept of a profitable gambling scheme for the most wealthy members of the society it is supposed to represent.
This is socialism without the social services. This is everything bad about socialism (high taxes, massive government, lack of democratic action) combined with everything bad about capitalism (no social services, massive divide between rich and poor, class stratification).
How I envy the warriors of the cold war. Please, give me one of the things those folks were fighting for! Either of them, I don't care.
Give me socialism where the state provides services and taxes the rich, or give me a free market where the rich and poor alike are free to invest, win and to lose.
But this business where the rich speculate and when they lose the workers are taxed to pay for it..... it is frankly obscene.
Nothing is greater evidence of the dysfunctionality of western democracy than the way the market has become rigged in favour of out and out greed. Why do the investors even bother to speculate? Why don't they just tell government how much money they want, and get the men with uniforms and guns to fleece it from the working class?
Why the absurd pretense of a market? Call it what it is, and be done with it: Feudalism.
Complain about this comment
If Iceland does not pay their debts then it seems that they have no interest in ever resurrecting their financial services industry because nobody in their right mind would ever trust them again.
Complain about this comment
The banks are certainly not perfect and many of their staff have made bad decisions but this is primarily an issue for the shareholders of said institutions to deal with (in some cases this is now the government, but for those banks the original shareholders effectively lost all of their investment, something they should have done a lot more to safeguard by dissuading reckless business models).
I am sick to death, though, of hearing everyone rail against "the bankers" as though there is somewhere a mystical group of a very few individuals who are responsible for the economic meltdown. There is not - almost everyone is in fact responsible for it, including very many people no doubt who are throwing abuse at the financial institutions.
For every bad lending decision there was a bad borrowing decision. How many people saved nothing during the good times? How many people loaded up their credit cards with debt? How many people based their financial security on the absurd belief that their house could continue to rise in value, above and beyond the already ridiculous levels they were at already? How many took out mortgages for incredibly high percentages of the "value" of the property without considering the implications of changes to interest rates or the possibility of negative equatity?
To go further, how many people cling to their absolutely ridiculous pension entitlements based on decades old assumptions about life expectancy? How many take utterly unproductive jobs in the public sector and then foam at the mouth every year for even bigger pay rises than they have already extracted from their pliant paymasters in the Labour government, whom they then return to power despite their gross economic mismanagement?
So, please, before you throw out the easy answers of blaming the "fat cats" take a long hard look at your own personal choices. As a society we have been living on the never-never. The bill is now due; grow up, suck it up and put your shoulder to the wheel. Anything else just leaves the mess for our kids to sort out.
Complain about this comment
“Many believed the recession was caused by greedy bankers and that working people are paying the price. The flaws in Greek accounting and the irresponsibility of Icesave are conveniently set aside. In both countries there is resentment and hostility towards the EU. In Iceland the EU is blamed for poor regulation.”
Gavin, do you believe that an employee, or a worker, or a fisherman, or, say, a simple physician with two kids and unemployed wife has got the possibility to assess whether the municipality officials are corrupt or that the bank filial on the nearest street corner is offering non-covered credits? Living on strictly limited incomes, he will cease the least opportunity to lease a car, or to be given some cheap credit in order to build up a two room flat, or to pay the bill of his daughter at the university counter. What next will happen is that he’s fired and the bank ceases his real estate. He’s broke.
We are accustomed to put generally the blame, say, on the Greeks, now on the Icelanders, as if all the ordinary people are greedy, corrupt, lazy and dull. I guess, we have always to take into consideration the role of the institutions that are entrusted to control the economy, to start from local authorities and to finish with the European Parliament. These are, in my opinion, the people to blame!
Complain about this comment
I am totally on the side of the Icelanders. The important figure to look at is the % of GDP which is expected to be repaid. The 8 000 Euro per person is equivalent to 16% of GDP for 2008. That would be the equivalent of the UK having to repay 428 billion Euro. The burden of the financial crisis should fall on everyone, it was caused by a GLOBAL instability.
As a UK taxpayer I do not want to pay to bail out any other country. The idea of "you enjoyed the last 10 years" doesn't hold with me, I was in school in the North of England for almost all of those years. We are asking these people to mortgage their children's future to fund our bankers.
Had RBS gone bankrupt I would have been really angry had any European country used anti-terrorist laws to try to get money back for their people at the expense of the British. That alone would have been enough to make me tell them to stick their loan somewhere unpleasant.
Anyone who has been to Iceland knows that they are honest, hard-working people. Not only that, they also welcome visitors and assume that tourists are honest too. On a recent trip to Reykjavik I visited a spa where you charged food and drink to a wrist-band and paid on exit. When we were leaving there was a queue to pay, so a member of staff was telling people that if they hadn't bought anything they could just deposit the wrist-bands and walk away without any further checks. Anyone trying that here would simply be taken advantage of, but over there paying your debts and being honest was a matter of pride. It seems so unfair that the UK and Dutch Governments are trying to take advantage of that sentiment and hold Iceland to ransom.
Complain about this comment
#6 & Gavin,
Very well put, there is no difference between Greece & Iceland (other than geography) in both countries the people there are asked to cover the loses of "tricky" book-keeping practices.
If we wanted to be more tabloid, we could say both countries are "fraudsters" one in the Euro zone, the other outside the Euro zone.
Maybe Greece can sell some islands to the Germans now what can we ask Iceland to sell us & the Dutch?
Complain about this comment
To take Europris, comments to the next level lets add "Beware of Icelanders bearing gifts" :))
Complain about this comment
It's time for the bankers that failed to be fired and those who broke the law to go to prison. Same with politicians.
Complain about this comment
It's a common practice of the ruling class to try to divide the labor movement and turn segments of the middle and working class against its other. The same happens here. They turn peoples and working classes (British, Dutch, Icelanders) against its other.
Solidarity is one of the bedrock principles of the labor movement. It has a pretty sound strategic and tactical basis: you can’t win if your ranks are divided. I don’t mean that you can’t have debate. I mean that we have to support certain general principles. Here is an example: public employees are not to blame for budget problems.
The general financial crisis did not happen because public and private employees and workers get a decent wage and have a decent pension that is a modest financial cushion to make sure retirement is not a path to poverty. It did not happen because people won the right to work 40 hours/week, to have free access to healthcare and to unemployment allowances.
It happened because some people did not want to reduce not their profit but the rate at which this profit increases.
Complain about this comment
Lenis;
It seems entirely fitting to me that the UK will have to bail out Iceland just as Germany will have to bail out Greece. Now who will France have to bail out? Perhaps they could start by bailing out themselves...or is that too big a task? Would Germany bail out France? That would be a tall order especially after it bails out Portugal, Ireland, Italy, and Spain. France has a lot of friends in Russia. Perhaps they could help. [China wouldn't help France any more than Russia would help the UK] Perhaps Iran could help France in return for a promise that it will veto any further sanctions against it America proposes in the Security Council. After all, it worked with Iraq.
Complain about this comment
@democracythreat
'Give me socialism where the state provides services and taxes the rich, or give me a free market where the rich and poor alike are free to invest, win and to lose.
But this business where the rich speculate and when they lose the workers are taxed to pay for it..... it is frankly obscene.'
I applaud this comment big time. the whole current system is nonsensical absolutely preposterous and a total disgrace to any form of intelligence! Nothing to do with democracy!
Complain about this comment
Of course the UK is a "..bully.."!
Ridiculous to even consider any other point of view.
However, the headline question should have read, Is the UK a 'bully' in what it perceives as the interests of the UK?
Well, again, of course 'yes': Just as Germany, France, Italy, Poland, Sweden, Russia, China, USA, Saudi, South Africa, India, Brazil etc. all are when their Citizens' interests are at stake...
Oh come on Mr Hewitt and people!
Do grow up and admit to living in the real World.
When was the last time altruism alone initiated any National and/or International policy?
Come to that, is the UNO intervention in Sudan an action solely borne of humanitarian concern, or anywhere else for that matter?
The general sympathy we can all share for the Grindvik fork-lift driver stating 'it was nothing to do with him' and his anger at being asked to cover for 'reckless bankers' is not sufficient reason for the UK Government not to act/persue the legitimate interests of the UK. It is what Governments do - - a major reason for their egregious existence - - and though it is a good deal more complex than when King Henvry VII set-up the Star Chamber for accountancy the basic principles remain the same. Pay the piper or your pips will be made to squeak even more!
Every Iceland Citizen has an individual Free-will Right & Responsibility to "reject" or accept the British proposal: Equally, the UK Government has the duty to take legitimate action if indeed such a rejection occurs.
Interestingly, in or out the EU the Iceland Government in this situation would be facing the same demands from the UK and facing the same consequences if it attempted to reneged on entirely legal requirements made upon it. Were Iceland an EU member the 'IMF loan' would still be needed as somehow I cannot see how Germany would yet again fork out as it is having to do under-the-table for Greece (yet another double-accountancy by the Paris-Berlin-Brussels axis) - - nobody in the Fiscal Money Markets world believes Greek austerity measures are not being paid for by Greece - - and Iceland's difficulty is that it really is a stand-alone economy.
Icelanders' one comfort will be that it will emerge from this crisis ina stronger economic position than Greece which once again is having its longterm economic-fiscal largesse corruptly hidden by the EU in order to maintain the fiction that one-size-fits-all EUrozone currency really can be applied from Athens to Lisbon to Paris and Berlin.
At least the British "..best and final offerr.." is probably a negotiating tactic: Within Iceland there will be scope for reflection and a mature decision arrived at.
The same cannot be said of the EU and Greece where the 'austerity' packages are breathtakingly unrealistic and inadequate: Will Greeks be retiring at 60? Yes. Will Greeks still receieve among the highest unemployment money in the EU27? Yes. It is the same with almost the entire Greek economic system! Will anyone in Brussels explain how these 'social-welfare' benefits are still feasible? No. Yet the EU talks them up as if they are the yardstick for every EU Nation in difficulty!
Icelanders: Time to bite the bullet - - your Nation enjoyed the benefits of offering the tempting investment packages - - and now your Nation though irritated by the UK's foolhardy 'anti-terrorism' legal ploys, must pay its bill.
The UK Citizens will do the same over the next 3 to 5 years whichever Party forms the Government. This will be in marked contrast to Greece where in 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 a 60 year will still retire 5, 6, 7, 8 years ahead of fellow EU Citizens!
Complain about this comment
Number 15, I’m sure if the Falklands were considered US territory and large deposits of oil had just been discovered, you’d be preaching self determination, it just happens to be the case the Falklands are a relic of empire. The NHS comment leads me to assume you’re American. I’m not even sure why it snuck into the debate anyway.
Iceland, higher return, higher risk. If the higher return is just a myth, why did you send your money there in the first place? It’s not as if anyone thought, you know what, those Icelandic banks, really steady, really secure. You all saw pound signs, big bright golden flashing pound signs.
Complain about this comment
The UK taxpayer is paying the cost of failures at RBS, HBOS, Northern Rock, Bradford and Bingley etc which will mean substantial cuts in public spending plus a very depressed economy. Thank you very much.
I sympathise with the Icelanders but in the end it was *their* banks who let them down. However the UK/Netherlands should attach some humility to their claims - after all it was the defunct and overpriced ABN Amro that RBS bought which was one of the main causes for the near collapse of RSS. So by all means some repayment is required but I suggest a sensible settlement of much less than 100% at very modest interest rates and over a time which the Icelanders can reasonably expect to be able to pay. We cannot recover our economy on the backs of a tiny nation with which, fish apart, we have had a long and excellent relationship.
I am just waiting - but not holding my breath - to see some bankers in prison both here and in the US where the collapse of Lehmann Bros caused such a lot of damage in London. Or at least bar them from being directors of companies for a substantial time so they have to earn their living like everyone else. After all, this is what happened to Nick Leeson for the loss of a mere £700million or so. A snip these days of corporate financial irresponsibility cost him 6 years in jail.
The bankers who have caused problems for the US, UK, Iceland and elsewhere seem to be getting away scot free because what is happening? The fraudsters who bought the many pigs in many pokes are being paid handsomely to unravel their dirty deeds. There seems to be no justice.
Complain about this comment
J Rugby;
"The problem occurred because some British people were unpatriotic and decided to invest their money with foreign banks."
I'm with you on this one. If you are going to put your money in a bank that is going to go broke through reckless mismanagement and then need to get bailed out by a government, it is best to put it in one that will depend on being bailed out by your own government. After all, if it isn't bailed out, you have someone to blame that you can vote out of office. Who in Britain will get to vote in Iceland's election?
Complain about this comment
@David
Soon the problem won't be the countries which default but the other countries who want to continue playing the preposterous and unfair game of gambling where the gambler is bailed out and the poor people on the street have to pay the bill. People will uprise. As time goes by, the first group of countries will increase and things will have to change! (BTW. Argentina survived from bankrupty and in three years found bankers to borrow from, the bankers are greedy and they forget easily, they go for short term profit!).
Complain about this comment
Mr. Hewitt;
Your article is not touching upon any of the important factors in this matter. That is really a surprise, I must say.
Many here have asked for the economic terms - they might not be known to you, but other questions are:
1) The disastrous principle that you make an unpopular financial claim a subject of a referendum, and
2) What will future creditors of Iceland make of that?
3) What will the terms of a bail out be for Iceland if it is ready to pay, and
4) where can Iceland borrow money if it decides not to pay after a referendum has said no?
5) The government of Iceland has just taken new steps in the process of a membership of the EU. What is going to happen in this process, if the referendum result is “no” and the parliament follows suit?
Complain about this comment
"If Iceland does not pay their debts then it seems that they have no interest in ever resurrecting their financial services industry because nobody in their right mind would ever trust them again."
Well... I still have my money in a bank. And so do you probably.
Also, my bank had to be bailed out, and is now pretty much state owned.. How about yours?
Why wouldn't we ever trust another Icelandic bank again? The next Icelandic bank will probably suffer so much scrutiny, it will be very careful.
This bill the Icelanding people have to pay, will roughly make up around 7400 pounds per person. If the Dutch pay it it would only be 175 p.p.
I assume the same thing will approximately be true for the UK.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This report does not describe the financial terms the British and Dutch governments are requesting of Iceland. It makes it a little hard to comment on something without having the full picture. In any event, there is a big lesson to be learned from all of this: Never put all your eggs in one basket, never trust your "friendly" neighbor nation to come to your rescue, and do not deposit too much money in their banks!!!
Complain about this comment
I fail to see the connection between Iceland and Greece. The banks in question were private entities. Iceland did not have a large public sector nor debts totaling 110% of GDP before the crisis.
And I fail to understand why they have to pay now deposit insurance. If the UK and Netherlands gov't did not require that, then that's their problem. To me this is moving the goalposts.
And what's the connection to Euro? They are not part of it (hence the need for IMF money to support their currency). If you have to add the key words, then you forgot "unelected officials" and "stalinist". After Greece and Euro is not too far fetched.
Complain about this comment
@MarcusAureliusII
No-one will bail out no-one. Domino will happen with the first serious sovereign defaults because they won't be able to pay anybody (Greece owes both to France and Germany). Just the whole system will collapse. Casino gambling type of capitalism where working people pay for bankers' and politicians' mistakes down the drain... as communism few year back. Good time (with a lot of turmoil of course) for a new synthesis where the balance between greed and humanism is better. New imperium!
Complain about this comment
If the governments of these nations own the losses of the bankers and the investors, then why do the governments not also own their profits?
We have a massively unbalanced market structure being propagated just now.
There are numerous posters here claiming that the ICelanders are responsible for "their" banks.
Well that phrasing implies possession, and possession implies ownership.
These banks do not belong to the people. The share certificates which define the ownership of these banks are owned by specific private people, and they are not owned by the people of Iceland. Nor by the people of the UK.
If the people are to own the failing of these banks, they ought to own the profits as well.
Why are the workers being told they must own only the losses, whilst the profits are owned by super wealthy individuals who travel the world and take advantage of low taxation through the corporate form?
This episode is hard evidence of the democratic process being used to take money from the taxpayer and gift it to the corporate elite. The system is entirely corrupt.
Complain about this comment
This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain
Although the governments and the banks are doing all they can to make the topic go away the continuing effects of what the bankers did arise. Until the banks are both punished and made to compensate though taxes for what they did the governments will find very litle support from citizens. If governments continue the way they have, there will be new governments as well....we can hope... and I do not mean a different party I mean a different type of government....one not owned by the banks.
Complain about this comment
"BTW, I'm siding with Argentia's claim on the Malvinas. What is the UK doing colonizing the South Atlantic anyway? Last vestiges of the British Empire? Let the UK buy its oil from Lybia instead in return for having freed Megrahi." - MarcusAureliusII
What's that got to do with this discussion?!? Or Megrahi, for that matter.
Anyway tangent or not, I can't allow this to go unchallenged. Would you care to explain your view on this?
We aren't "colonising the South Atlantic". We may have colonised it in the past - centuries ago, before Argentinia existed as a country. The Falklands have been British since the 1830s and before that were only Spanish and Argentine rule for brief periods before the British retook them. And most Falkland islanders can trace their family roots back well beyond the Spanish or Argentine occupuations.
But 200 year-old history is irrelevant - if we based sovereignty on what happened so long ago half of Europe would still be in chaos. The fact is that the Falklanders, who have lived there all their lives, have chosen time and again to remain British in democratic referendums. If you truely believed in democracy you wouldn't engage in petty tit-for-tat over a totally separate issue; you'd support the islanders to uphold their democratic rights to choose who governs them.
Complain about this comment
@vassilis
The swedish model shows the way. After its recovery from its crisis in the 90s, it emerges again as the most credible solution.
Sweden is the only country in Europe where the right made a universal shift to the left in order to be elected and not the opposite.
Complain about this comment
26. At 12:58pm on 05 Mar 2010, MarEndins wrote:
" ... eurosceptics .... Having Icelanders turned against Europe would work to their advantage too."
EUpris: The "EU"-Dictatorship is still not Europe. I certainly hope the Icelanders turn against the megalomaniac "EU".
Complain about this comment
32. At 1:24pm on 05 Mar 2010, Mugging Victim wrote:
"EUprisoner205456731 seems to forget that UK taxpayers have already paid to bail out their own banks. ..."
EUpris: As I say, I do not understand it all. However I do suspect that the UK government should not have bailed the UK banks out to the extent that they did.
As regards bullying: If the UK government is bullying the Icelanders, it would be consistent with reports of Brown bullying employees around him. I recently talked to somebody who works close to Brown. The contempt in which he held him and his associates was a surprise to me and would, I believe, be a surprise to Brown.
Given the contempt with which Brown has treated the British people by having the Lisbon Treaty signed, I think it is reasonable to guess that he is in the wrong .
Is Brown the worst Prime Minister the UK has ever had?
Does anybody know of a worse one?
Complain about this comment
@66 Blec,
How on earth can you fail to see the connection between the two?
People in both countries are asked to pay for crises that were their own, Iceland is bankrupt. Greece not yet but they may get there soon!
Both countries owe more than 100%, private or public what difference does it make when those countries have to pay for it. i.e. every citizen has to pay, so it becomes public. You can call "star treck" debt if you want the fact stays that the whole country has to pay for it, no "star treck"
Complain about this comment
45. At 1:51pm on 05 Mar 2010, Minus10 wrote:
" ... block their entry to the EU, which they now seem keen on."
I believe I read on Daniel Hannan's blog that a majority are now against joining the "EU". Please tell me if I am wrong.
Complain about this comment
47. At 1:53pm on 05 Mar 2010, David wrote:
"If Iceland does not pay their debts then it seems that they have no interest in ever resurrecting their financial services industry because nobody in their right mind would ever trust them again."
EUpris: I trust them more than I trust Gordon Brown or the "EU".
Complain about this comment
#58.
Again, please try to keep up, the return (for private savers) was no more than in the UK and the risk was also no more. The main reason for spreading money around is to avoid it being stuck if a bank had a run.
I sympathise with your depression that you have never been able to save any money at all, I don't know whether this is because you have never earned enough, or not been given enough pocket money or just wasted all the money you did get on drink and fast cars, however it is pointless you getting all jealous of those of us that had a few thousand to put away (and it will have been only a few thousand in the vast majority of cases). Rather than blaming those of us that have done well, perhaps you could just work a bit harder and save a bit smarter? MKay?
Complain about this comment
#63:
"Why wouldn't we ever trust another Icelandic bank again? The next Icelandic bank will probably suffer so much scrutiny, it will be very careful."
Having had money in Icelandic banks I can tell you it was not fun. Sure I got my money back, and in truth it only took a few weeks, but during that time I had no idea how long it would be and I couldn't access my money. The next time (if there is one) the UK government might refuse to refund UK savers and instead wait for Iceland to do it - as we can see if they are refusing to pay back the UK government under their obligations they sure ain't going to be quick about paying little people.
If the Icelandic government continues to screw around then no amount of scrutiny will help "next time" as the crux of the matter is that deposits (up to a certain level) are guaranteed by the host country's government - which we know is reluctant to honour those obligations.
Iceland has no real choice, pay up and pay up quickly. Sure the UK terms may be a little less than completely reasonable but given the terms Iceland tried to force initially allowed for arbitrary payment holidays and cancellation of the debt after a set number of years you can't really blame the UK and Netherlands for not playing nice.
If Iceland don't pay up, then they go back to fishing (where there will be other tensions with the UK) and tourism (but not much from the UK or Netherlands) with little hope of IMF loans and no hope of EU membership.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
The UK and Netherlands governments are indeed guilty of bullying. They share responsibility with Iceland for the mess, for several reasons.
They were among the strongest advocates for the deregulated financial sector which was allowed to run wild - in fact, without any real regulation at Eurpoean level to cover systemic failures such as we experience. They are trying to charge interest rates which amount clearly to profiteering (The Dutch even tried to get 6.7% at the outset!)
And to try to place 100% of the burden on to the Icelandic people for the sins of their bankers is just outrageous.
One key point is that the UK and Netherlands are just as guilty as the Icelandic government in failing to regulate Landsbanki on their own territory. It was long obvious to any observer with open eyes that the Icelandic banks were risky. Yet the UK and Netherlands did not carry out their legal responsibility under the EU 1994 Directive. This says (Article 6)that EU member states
"shall check that branches established by a credit institution which has its head office outwith the Community have cover equivalent to that prescribed in this Directive.”
Iceland as a member of the EEA is bound by the Directive, but it is still "outwith" the European Community. So they truly share responsibility for the mess.
Last point - it is very far from self-evident that Iceland is bound under European law to pay anything to the British and Dutch. I think they do have a shared political responsibility and should pay some share - but the UK and Netherlands have consistently refused to test their argument via the courts - instead, they have chosen to resort to bare-fisted bullying.
So a big No vote would give all three governments a chance to agree a sensible, fair outcome. And turn minds to the real issue - regulating the banks who are again escaping all control.
Complain about this comment
19. At 12:38pm on 05 Mar 2010, Drew wrote: The problem is Iceland's tiny population. While £2.3bn is not *that* much in the grand scheme of things to the UK, it is an enormous amount per person for Icelanders - I believe to the tune of approximately £8,000 per person (including children and oaps). That is a lot of debt to bundle on a person...
13. At 12:08pm on 05 Mar 2010, Menedemus wrote: We're not talking about repaying the debt owed to the 100 or so UK Councils and Local Authorities that invested savings in the Icelandic Banks but the £788million GBP invested by individual savers whose lost those savings when the Icelandic banks collapsed. The money owed to the UK Councils and Local Authorities has already been written-off and British citizens are having to pay that loss through cutbacks and savings that the Councils and Local AUthorities are already imposing on themselves.
Well, are we talking about 2,300m GBP or 788m GBP? The difference is quite large and, if the larger figure, represents 20,000 GBP of debt for each Icelandic family.
What is the comparable figure for bank-induced debt for a family in the UK?
What are the conditions of debt repayment demanded by the UK Government? We need to know if they are disproportionately penal to Icelandic families.
Complain about this comment
@79
Unfortunately Iceland does have a choice to pay or not. Any money bill in Iceland to pay back the UK is subject to Presidential approval, which can be subjected to a public referendum, and then denied, no matter what the Althingi think.
Complain about this comment
Those from the UK saying that the icelanders must pay for the consquences of THEIR banks must also then agree that it is fair that we have to pay for our banks?
Or is it just sour grapes?
I don't think we should have to pay out for our banks either. Their profits are firmly in the hands of their owners through pay and bonuses and now untouchable. They should be responsible for their losses personally and should not involve me bailing them out in the future.
Complain about this comment
If pre pack administration is good enough for companies why shouldn't it be good enough for countries. Ditch the debt and on you go.
Complain about this comment
re 11 - so it's OK for the British to have to foot the bill is it?Wouldn't we all like to have a referendum and say no to having to pay for propping up the greedy banks! Then we could all enjoy an even more massive financial crisis. Though I'm sorry the Icelandic people have been landed with this, it was an Icelandic bank & the Icelandic banking regulation that failed. The Icelanders were happy enough to enjoy the good life (as were the rest of us) when times were good. But I don't really see why they should escape the consequences of the actions of their banks, any more than we can in the UK.
Complain about this comment
@MarcusAureliusII
I'm assuming you're also an avid supporter of Guam being handed over to Australia. It's after all a relic of American Imperialism and who cares about self-determination, eh?
Oh wait, no. I forgot. You're just a partisan supporter of the US and hater of the UK. Most likely you were bullied at school by a bigger British boy or your wife left you for a British man. Hard luck mate, but your blind hatred of an entire nationality and cringeworthy jingoism towards your own isn't fooling anyone with half a brain.
Complain about this comment
JoanGaard @84
Absolutely correct and the British tax payers are already doing so.
As wellas the failures fo the British Banks the British Tax Payers are already paying for the debts owed by the failed Iceland Banks who had saving from the UK Councils and Local Authorities who are cutting back on services and making other savings as the British have agreed to swallow that debt.
What the British government are after is the lost savings of individual citizens who paid their money into the Iceland Banks in good faith and who should be treated honourably by Iceland who are looking after their own citizen's savings but reluctant to look after any other innocent savers.
Iceland is already doing quite well with the British government not demanding the loss of the local government savings be recouped from the Iceland tax payers - however their generosity is entirely bankrolled by the British tax payer who still pays Council Tax but is going to be getting less in return because of the Iceland banking failures.
Complain about this comment
democracythreat @#46
I pretty much agree with all of your synopsis but I have to say that the only redeeming feature of this debacle is that the British government is actually only seeking recompense for the individual private investors from the UK.
They are Serfs in your "feudal" society; the only difference is that the Icelandic government initially took the standpoint hat they would only protect their own citizens and hang any other individual resident outside of Iceland.
The British government froze the assets of the UK-based Iceland banks simply because of that cynical Icelandic decision and force Iceland to negotiate foreign investor recompense.
The British serfs are paying their feudal taxes to reimburse the UK Government for British and foreign investor debt owed by UK banks; the Icelandic serfs have simply got to bite the bullet and pay their feudal tax too and not try to do a Pontius Pilate at the expense of UK and Dutch citizens who are as innocent as the Iceland investors in all this.
Complain about this comment
@83, Drew:
"Unfortunately Iceland does have a choice to pay or not. Any money bill in Iceland to pay back the UK is subject to Presidential approval, which can be subjected to a public referendum, and then denied, no matter what the Althingi think."
That is not what I meant, Iceland really has no choice but to pay the money back, the alternatives are far more serious.
Even if the President vetoes any deal to pay back the money, and make no bones about it, the paying back of this money is no more than Iceland fulfilling its obligations and making good on its promises, then the UK and NL can still pursue repayment through the EU legal structure (leading to tariffs, sanctions and seizure of assets) or the international systems.
Failing that there is still the Royal Navy, and although I agree the chances of a landing party seizing Icelandic assets by force is virtually nil, the fact is that it still exists as an option.
So, on the face of it, I reiterate my statement, Iceland has no choice but to pay, and to expand that, the longer they mess about and deliberately wind up their creditors the less likely the UK and NL will be to accept anything favourable to Iceland.
Complain about this comment
This is a difficult situation to understand, but the way I've come to understand it is this:
One of the 2 large Icelandic banks - Kaupthing - operated in the UK through a subsidiary; the other - Landsbanki - operated through a branch. Supervision was, let’s just say lamentable. Both Kaupthing and Landsbanki were much too aggressive in thier lending.
The banks failed. Iceland's scheme had negligible reserves to compensate;
Britain's Financial Services Compensation Scheme compensated £19.9B and imposed levies of £170M.
Both the Icelandic & British schemes turned to the only resource: their own taxpayers. The Icelandic government simply does not have the £3.5B needed to cover its shortfall. The British government does not have the £20B needed to cover its own shortfall.
The biggest difference is this:
Britain has 56 million people; Iceland has 320,000.
Processes for the resolution of failed banks were inadequate. The world (except maybe the USA) has recognized that tighter financial regulation is necessary.
If the March 6th refeerendum goes ahead, Icelanders will be given their first opportunity to reject the claim that it must take financial responsibility for the failures of poorly administered banks and greedy bankers. Sounds right, doesn't it? Sounds like "Why the Heck are we bailing out failed banks and bankers?"
Personally, I think this may be an excellent precedent.
Imagine if the American taxpayers had been offered a referendum on whether or not to bail-out the Wall Street boys? Ask yourself where the American economy might be right now.
Complain about this comment
@91
"If the March 6th refeerendum goes ahead, Icelanders will be given their first opportunity to reject the claim that it must take financial responsibility for the failures of poorly administered banks and greedy bankers. Sounds right, doesn't it? Sounds like "Why the Heck are we bailing out failed banks and bankers?""
Again with the misunderstandings. This is not about Icelandic people bailing out failed banks and bankers, this is about the Icelandic government fulfilling its obligations to another government. Iceland needs to man up and grow some guts. The kind of guts that say "I made a promise, I keep my word".
Complain about this comment
The American public had to bail out our banks or take everyone down with us.Get over it Iceland.Why let your banks have such little regulations.We are paying for our greed and apathy,you should too.We need to control our rich and greedy.Angry punish the rich and the banks next and get back your money.Hopefully our government will do the same.When government acts irresponsibly than they will eventually have to pay for it.Our government deregulated banks and we are paying for it.Why because we elected them,that's why.Actions have consequences.
Complain about this comment
@ Bromley86 - Thanks for the correction! And the intelligent breakdown! Tough to extract this from the "noise" in the press about Iceland "refusing to pay its debts." Refusing currently passed terms, but that sells less newspapers, gets less clicks, etc. etc. etc. But the overall message remains. Bullying is in effect. The IMF, Fitch ratings, all basically creating drama around a negotiation when there is no indication of Iceland wanting to back away from legal obligations. Only the extortionate terms. Albeit in a poorly executed, and curiously backward netotiation style. . .
Complain about this comment
Lenis;
"your blind hatred of an entire nationality and cringeworthy jingoism towards your own isn't fooling anyone with half a brain."
Oh really? I sure have you fooled mate!
Complain about this comment
democracythreat @ 68 - Yes! if population is to "own" their local banks' losses - the same population owns the profits.
___________________
ChrisArta (don't remember where :o) "what can we have of Iceland". (approx.)
ChrisArta, Iceland has gorgeous woolen jumpers or rather cardigans, the knit is too "bity" for close fit, but fluffy and airy and thick-knitted and in excellent like a circle spreading out descending from the neck onto shoulders, design.
Highly recommended.
The other wonder is their self-heating all natural system with hot springs positioned under hot-houses with fruit and vegies and flowers and under open swim pools. And under houses I strongly suspect as well! :o)))
How to say, you won't sell coal to Newcastle, copper samovar-kettle to Tula - and gas to Iceland ! :o)))))
But one may run there, when it ends elsewhere.
The one who did it for Iceland was clearly in the plumbing mood on may be the ? 11th day of creation.
But the second thing can't be exported, only may be tugged over closer, together with the island.
____________________
Mavrelius, @69
"Considering that the US was the first nation to land men on the moon and the only nation to do it so far, then the moon rightly belongs to America. Mining operations could start in a few years."
And something in the line that Nortern Pole isn't Russian.
Well well. Well, Mavrelius, if Northern Pole isn't Russian may I enquire please tell me how are you going to get to your mining mission.
Complain about this comment
But then of course. You'll be going there direct. One way. Avoiding the Int'l Space Station. Right.
Complain about this comment
@Alex.
>The IMF, Fitch ratings, all basically creating drama around a negotiation when there is no indication of Iceland wanting to back away from legal obligations.
Actually, Iceland have never accepted that there is a legal obligation! That's the core of the problem.
In theory, this should be simple. Legal obligation --> debt --> loan. Iceland secures the best terms it can (it's welcome to go elsewhere, but even their best buddies the Norwegians won't lend them the money).
The problem is that, because they don't acknowledge a legal obligation, they believe that the state guarantee itself is up for discussion. From the referendum leaflet (English version):
"The Government of Iceland maintains that the EU rules on deposit guarantees . . . do not impose a legal obligation on states to guarantee
the deposits of customers of the banks"
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
Delaying giving the state guarantee until after the dissolution of Landsbanki formed the core of the first negotiations back in early-mid 2009 and, indeed, is still pretty-much the Icelandic position (that's what they mean by "profiteering" - they'd like the loan, if it has to exist, to be on or near interest free).
It's worth noting that, although the UK/NL probably have used/would use their relative influence with the IMF to bolster their negotiation position (aka bullying), it's currently the Nordic loan aspect of the IMF-led package that is contingent on Icesave being solved, and it's harder to make the case that the UK/NL are directly influencing Norway, Sweden, etc.
Anyway, if anyone's still interested, I've just finished reading a very detailed summary of the whole issue by a chap called Rebeleconomist (he's more mainstream than the name might suggest :) ):
http://reservedplace.blogspot.com/2010/03/on-thin-ice.html
Complain about this comment
WA;
"Well well. Well, Mavrelius, if Northern Pole isn't Russian may I enquire please tell me how are you going to get to your mining mission."
Haven't you ever heard of "outsourcing?' If we can't get Mexicans to do the work....we'll contract it out to Chinese. That's how we get all distasteful, dangerous, low paying jobs done. You don't expect us to pay American wages including overtime and workman's compensation for it do you? :-) Besides there are lots of Chinese who are experienced miners.
Complain about this comment
After pride, the fall
Complain about this comment
Cheryando, how very practical you are :o(
MA, you mean your next stage of means of transportation will be building live bridges to the Moon?
Well, can't deny, not very elegant, but , how to say . there is something in it. :o))))
For one thing, better than ? if you started thinking in termss of ?tunnels :o)))))
I actually had in mind this:
"From 2010 Americans stop the shuttle programme. They'll be able to get to the Int'l Space Stations only with a help of Russians. Thus, one would think, the next US Space Programme will be named
NASHA RUSSIA (our Russia), or, say, to rhyme it differently, something like NASA-RUSSA :o)))))))
Complain about this comment
Did they go to the moon? I read this years' Obama report on space and it said about the moon mission (by now of course cancelled - it was all a fiasco since the beginning) that despite America's technological achievements (NO mention to the moon landings!) and despite any involvement from other countries and private sector, the objective of a new moon mission is not achievable with present means and NASA should focus in more realistic objectives!!!!!!
I mean not even US government believes it why should we?
Complain about this comment
As for the question, Iceland has little to do with Greece. Greece, might have been a corrupted state and lets for a moment forget that it is the EU that funded in full knowledge that corruption but all it asked from EU is as a basic political support in its issues and in case it might be needed (and only in that case) a loan on previous interest rates prior to US private companies bad marking (at the end of the day if these private companies say you to go hang yourself, Germans and British and French will do it? So why listen to them in that case? Eh? That is the question!). At the end of the day if an EU state is to be subject to bad markings from US private companies what is the point of the EU?
Now in Iceland a whole different case evolved in the last years with several British and Dutch people thinking they found on Icesave the cow that makes milk and cattle without needing any food. But hey, wait a minute, these people were private people. And Icesave was a private company. So it is strictly the business of Icesave and its clients and nobody's else. Now if the British state wants to support the people whose money was lost that is another case. If the British state wants to take back this money from Iceland's state that is simply blackmail and extorsion against a little fragile state torn by a terrible crisis, of the ones who come there were people think too highly of capitalism.
I understand that people lost their life's savings. But they invested and lost. Why should each of Iceland's citizens pay for them? Is there any law where foreign investors have to be paid by local people when one investment of theirs fails in some locality?
Complain about this comment
Nik, they actually may be had to, if anything, to steal our excellent moon-crawlie, a tractor "Luna-khod Odin" (Moon-walk-1).
There is an American private chap to who we sold it to, honestly, he loves collecting space related things, and stubbornly buys for years Russian Sputnik-spare doubles (the originals kind of never get home), so he has to limit his appetites with doubles.
His motto is "What isn't NASA's - is Mine!"
So he bought them all, but still had spare blns left, and kept annoying us "sell me the Moon-Walkie-1". Russian Space Agency resisted, but kind of got used to the chap, in years, besides he behaved very well bought a tourist ticket, had the 30 mln dollar tour, and all. A good customer.
So they sold him Moon-Walkie-1. For the first year he was happy with the confirmation of money transit, from the bank, then he began feeling, like, nothing to show for the money, so he'd asked for a paper and got one stamped "this and that, had been sold, the property location is so and so :o))))) positioned there safely, delivery door-to-door not incl. into the price. :o))))
Then all again went well, but 2 yrs ago the Moon-Walkie vanished. It has a mirror to which rays of some sort has been constantly sent (by Americans) (since 1970) from the Earth, to measure how the Moon drifts away from the Earth annually. (it drifts away, at 38 mm a year so far).
So rays were dashed but didn't bounce back in spite of all the trials.
The Owner is un-consolable, suspects all of stealing the precious property, both NASA and us.
We say like come on, who the hell needs those 100 kilos, heaps of tractors here on the ground :o))) we didn't take it back.
But the American chap still suspects us or aliens, because his argument - check it out :o))) is that if a serie of US Apollo's are there as well, with mirrors attached to the 3 of them, minimum, formally - why NASA doesn't ping-pong a ray to own NASA ones.
Anyway. Moon drifts away at unknown now speed :o( We are blamed for expropriating capitalistic property - Again! :o)))) like, typical communists :o))) robbing fat cats :o)))
sad state of affairs. :o) :o)))))
Complain about this comment
Hmmm, complex situation... Here's what the players in this situation are thinking:
Prime Minster of Iceland
"The banks have made a big mistake with their sums. A lot of money which we thought was there is not. So Icelandic people&companies do not have much money and some have big debts they cannot pay. So we cannot get money by tax because the people&companies do not have it to give us. One solution is to join the EU which has lots of money. But other governments are stopping us because they want us to pay some debts first. But we do not want to pay those debts and do not have the money to pay those debts.
We are in trouble.
We cannot solve the problem so we will blame somebody instead. We will blame the UK and Dutch."
Mr&Mrs Iceland
"The banks have made a big mistake with their sums. A lot of money which we thought was there is not. The Icelandic government wants to tax us to pay debts. But we do not have much money and some of us have big debts of our own. We do not have the money to pay the tax. The Icelandic government wants to join the EU to get some money but we do not want to join the EU.
We are in trouble.
We cannot solve the problem so we will blame somebody instead. We will blame the UK and Dutch."
Prime Minister of UK
"The banks have made a big mistake with their sums. A lot of money which we thought was there is not. So UK people&companies do not have much money and some have big debts they cannot pay. So we cannot get money by tax because the people&companies do not have it to give us. We can get some money by taking it from Icelanders whose banks went bankrupt but there is a problem: they do not want to give it to us and may not have it in the first place.
We are in trouble.
We cannot solve the problem so we will blame somebody instead. We will blame the Icelanders."
Mr Banker
"I have made a big mistake with my sums. A lot of money which I thought was there is not. I told the governments it was very important they give me lots of money otherwise bad things would happen. The governments have given me lots of money. Bad things are still happening but now they are happening to other people.
I am not in trouble."
Regards, viewcode.
Complain about this comment
This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain
MA, that's exactly what I thought :o)))) all along.
We've been taught you are like this, you know :o))))
Here; a sample of Russian understanding Americans (recognise yourself, at the wheel? :o)))) travelling to the Moon. year 1930.
Well, the chances that the direct link to the 1930 film where a girl sings a song in English half in Russian, "Mary Dixon" she is (Lubov Orlova) will pass through are ... you know , like what :o)))))
dial in youtube khabeev 9th video from the top, 1:56 black and white
There is your whole trip to the Moon.
Complain about this comment
Well, just in case.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Q3WsGDcULs
Complain about this comment
The phrase "greedy bankers" is a load of rubbish. The bankers are just doing their jobs and they happen to have made a lot of mistakes. What do you want them to do? Refuse to risk anything that could possibly make money just incase they lose?
The economic problems caused by the banks are being caused by the banks as they are the ones who provided it in the first place. Joe Bloggs can't extend his business overdraft so has to shut down? The banks gave him the overdraft in the first place. Without the banks we would be nowhere near where we are today and despite this trouble - they have done far more good than harm so stop moaning and get your facts straight before you go on a generic "bankers are evil" rant.
With regards to this problem, I don't think the UK should be making them pay a high level of interest on it - they are a struggling country after all. However, I can't make a judgement on it as you don't seem to think figures are relevent to this story for some reason?
Complain about this comment
There are many here with opinions about banks but few that understand what the situation in Iceland really is. I have picked this quotation from BBC's article:
"Iceland's PM is urging voters to shun the "meaningless" referendum, called after the president blocked repayment."
What we are seeing in Iceland is one of the worst examples of populism for a long, long time in European democracies.
Complain about this comment
Iceland - another one of those countries having lived far above their means for decades until reality finally kicked in. Now they start pointing fingers, just like the Greeks.
Complain about this comment
Mathiasen wrote:
"1) The disastrous principle that you make an unpopular financial claim a subject of a referendum, and
2) What will future creditors of Iceland make of that?
3) What will the terms of a bail out be for Iceland if it is ready to pay, and
4) where can Iceland borrow money if it decides not to pay after a referendum has said no?
5) The government of Iceland has just taken new steps in the process of a membership of the EU. What is going to happen in this process, if the referendum result is “no” and the parliament follows suit?
.......
There are many here with opinions about banks but few that understand what the situation in Iceland really is.
......
What we are seeing in Iceland is one of the worst examples of populism for a long, long time in European democracies."
Mathiasen shows us here a real and deep contempt for democracy. There are a few points I would like to make about his position, but the most important is that it is open.
This is what drives Marcus up the wall, I think. And it annoys me, too.
Mathiasen is living in the 1500's. He openly and shamelessly refers to the will of the majority as some kind of idiotic evil. He sees nothing wrong with this position. In fact, he presumes others will agree with him. So you can imagine the social setting that Mathiasen is accustomed to, and how his circle of friends and associates behave, and what they say about democratic process.
Now the second thing to note is that Mathiasen is deeply, deeply concerned about what the creditors will think about government decisions. Look at his second great question, on the list. It is the bare query, with no qualification or temperance. The idea..... the mere possibility, that the creditors might be displeased... this is shocking to Mathiasen. He contemplates the idea that creditors might suffer a loss due to the democratic will of the people, and his moral compass rebels. He sees danger, and anarchy. A total disturbance in the proper order of the world. Again, note the casual confidence he holds that this is also how other intelligent people think. Nobody who thinks differently understands what is going on. Dangerous populism is based upon profound ignorance of the facts.
The third thing to note is the last question on the list: here we see mathiasen contemplate the utter absurdity of a popular vote, and we see his mind utterly reject the possibility that the will of the people might actually result in policy. He asks "What will be the result if the people vote NO?" This is amazing, really. It shows a massive contempt for the entire process of democracy. Mathiasen doesn;t see the vote of the people as anything more than a hurdle for real government to overcome. We see this when he tags onto the end of the question "and the government follows suit?"
One wants to grab mathiasen and shake him, and explain to his aristocratic soul that people voting IS A LEGITIMATE PROCESS. It is not something for governments to over rule when the result does not please them. It is not something for the creditors to consider as they decide the policies of the government.
Take a good look at Mathiasen, everybody. This is the sort of person we are dealing with, when we talk about the supporters of the EU. This is how they see you, and this is how they see the world of politics.
They despise you, they think you are stupid and that giving you any political power if dangerous. Furthermore, they are entirely obsequious to the interests of the investment bankers. They don't represent any ideal, only the financial interests of the bankers.
Now this ought come as no surprise. The institutions of the EU were set up by bankers in order for more profits to flow to bankers. They are privately controlled by bankers for bankers, via parties who depend on sponsorship from the financial sector.
But be aware, there is no mutual respect. If you are a common working person, understand that you are considered no better than a farm animal by the self appointed elites like Mathiasen. These guys, they truly do live in the 1500's. They see themselves as born to rule, and as the inheritors of grand aristocratic family traditions. They live, mentally speaking, in a fantasy world.
You cannot argue with such people, because there is nothing for them to be gained in argument. Like anyone who lives in a fantasy world, the European aristocrat needs to protect the fantasy by creating a massive edifice of lies. Truth, and thus argument, are the enemy of the fantasy. Therefore anyone who speaks truth will be shunned, and pushed away.
And at the heart of the fantasy, we find a paradox. It is neatly contained in Mathiasen's list of questions.
Consider that Mathiasen has one great concern. He has one question that he repeats in many forms. He sees one possibility as beyond all others, in terms of its potential for disaster.
That is, simply, that governments might not borrow money from bankers.
Mathiasen asks what will the creditors think? He asks from whom the governments will borrow money, if not from happy creditors? He asks where the government will go, if it offends the creditors?
And yet everyone, from turkey to norway, inside and outside the EU, is saying the same thing about the current crisis. Everyone is in complete agreement. Merkel, Sarkosy, Brown, they all say the same thing.
We've borrowed to much. We should not have borrowed so much. We need to stop living beyond our means.
We need, in other words, to stop borrowing from the money lenders in the names of our children. It is destroying our way of life.
So that is what everybody agrees upon. Now turn back to Mathiasen's great problem, and his most profound question.
What will become of us, if we cannot keep borrowing because the creditors are not pleased?
Mathiasen is the mouthpiece of a parasitical class of degenerates who believe the people of Europe are their animals, their property, to be farmed and fleeced for their private profits. They have corrupted the political process inside the members states and surrounding it, in order to use the shell of government to create debt that makes them rich. That debt, which is hard evidence of their utter corruption, is crushing the people of europe. And yet the mathiasen's of europe continue to bleat and complain, and to argue that the very worst thing that might done is to do anything at all which might offend the creditors.
There is something profoundly sick and twisted about a society owned and run by a banker, where the political decisions are made by the banker and every item in the land is owned by the banker.
That is not modern, it is not even humanity. It is degeneration, and a total rejection of the mind of humankind. It is greed and avarice put forward as intelligence and wisdom, and it can only end in crushing poverty for the vast majority of people.
Complain about this comment
Here is one debate where I'm ignorant of the many, many facts.
I feel for the average UK taxpayer/saver AND the average Iceland taxpayer/saver.
But, for me, this subject is definitely way over MY head (a "flock of turtles").
Complain about this comment
Why should Iceland be any different from the rest of the world? At the end of the day the bills have to be paid and that is what will go on for a very long number of years world wide.In some countries the bankers and leaders were more reckless and profligate and that is tough for their citizens now. I was always impressed with the high standard of the good life that Icelanders enjoyed and wondered how a country so isolated and dependent on fishing and some tourism could afford to live as they did. The truth is that they couldn't and now and for a long while they must pay the price.
Complain about this comment
BUT, SEE BELOW
Eli Reich wrote:
"The bankers and the so called 'fat cats' are NOT to blame for the mess we're in!
Its the culture they were trading in that led them to lend recklessly and government policies, certainly not their own fault.
why did people borrow if they cant afford to repay??
Its everyones fault, we all share the blame and we shall all suffer the consequences"
Agreed:) And, no offense to all the ...common wisdom posts about "evil bankers of the world."
Complain about this comment
#112. At 07:47am on 06 Mar 2010, democracythreat
I am not sure that I have everything from your long contribution in my head, but actually I think you should take a VERY good look at the quotation I made. I repeat it here for you:
"Iceland's PM is urging voters to shun the "meaningless" referendum, called after the president blocked repayment."
Also, to your indignation: There are constitutions within the EU that allows referendums and at the same time explicitly make an exception for taw laws. The referendum in Iceland is about taxation, and it is populism of the worst category. I find it unbelievable that Mr. Hewitt was able to ignore this aspect in his article.
I have no intention of course to change my preference for the representative democracy. It is by the way my understanding that this kind of government is supported by a large majority in the UK. (You don’t have to tell me that this different in Switzerland, since you have mentioned that numerous times.)
Complain about this comment
DemocThreat
Re #112
Agree with almost every point you make.
Mathiasen, Jean Luc, Jukka_R etc. all have a trait in common: The essential point when reading most of the 'pro-EU' lobbyist's comments is how quickly they slide into prevarication on the Citizens' Rights & Responsibilities and thereby expose their lack of support for 'Democratic' principles.
It seems they can never quite prevent themselves claiming to 'know' more, be better 'informed', have 'read the Treaty' and 'understood' so much compared to those ordinary Citizens. And, as a result, their lip-service to 'democracy' is that we often read on here: The Citizens' views will be taken into account but the 'clever' people will decide for them what is best for their futures.
The conceit and duplicity fairly much as Lenin ascribed to a capitalist-orientated bourgeoisie intelligentsia. Today's EUrocrats and their fellow-travellers are as indifferent and therefore every bit as much dangerous to the ordinary Citizen as any such group holding the purse strings and ultimate authority were in the past.
This should not be a surprise: Anyone in favour of the European Union constitution as it presently stands and functions cannot be in favour of fully functioning Democracy.
The EU and Democratic principles are incompatible.
Dare I say it: Most inhabitants of the British Isles - - unlike I assume quite a number of their continental neighbours - - have a historic-cultural instinct about what can be loosely termed 'fair-play' or 'equality of justice' and have sensed the EU is just another guise for a 'power-play' by 'big-Business/big-Government' which in the long-run intentionally reduces Citizens' free-will.
Complain about this comment
viewcode @#105
A very imaginitive perspective and I think you could not have characterised the whole mess more accurately!
Complain about this comment
I like to add an explanation to the bloggers here of something, which is probably unknown to most people:
The Nordic countries are already supporting Iceland with money and political advices (there are appr. 325.000 people in the country). It is likely that the Nordic countries will have to continue this.
The questions I ask in my contribution #62 are the questions that are being discussed among Nordic governments and Nordic newspapers. In other words these questions are not my personal questions only.
There are a handful of fundamental and principal matters in the case from Iceland and I hope the next article from Mr. Hewitt will reflect this.
Complain about this comment
@democracythreat
'...
That is not modern, it is not even humanity. It is degeneration, and a total rejection of the mind of humankind. It is greed and avarice put forward as intelligence and wisdom, and it can only end in crushing poverty for the vast majority of people.'
Very well said! Absolutely perfect. Just to say that in my opinion the poverty is not the big problem, it is the degeration of humankind and the insult to not only to intelligence and wisdom but also to common sense. We have to get rid of this degererate and sick system as soon as possible at the EU and the global scale and restore some common sense and humanity. This ridiculous situation has gone too far.
I express my sympathy to the people of Iceland and I hope they stand their ground and not been bullied. Not because of the money but of the principle. Humanity will prevail in the end. It is inevitable. Right now the EU elit is neoliberal and believes in this sick dogma. As things will become apparent I predict that the democratic process will produce challengers of the dogma (e.g. I have great hopes for France) and things will start to change for a new synthesis that puts first the humanity and not the profit.
Complain about this comment
Democracythreat - you're a dramaqueen.
"Mathiasen is living in the 1500's. He openly and shamelessly refers to the will of the majority as some kind of idiotic evil."
Oh come one. You know exactly what he meant and still choose to pretend you're oh so offended.
"He sees nothing wrong with this position. In fact, he presumes others will agree with him. So you can imagine the social setting that Mathiasen is accustomed to, and how his circle of friends and associates behave, and what they say about democratic process."
don't judge lest ye be judged...by the way, are you having dinner with your pal Nigel tonight?
Complain about this comment
@viewcode
Excellent exposition of the inherent contradictions for the people who support the inhumane degenerous dogma.
Complain about this comment
The EU has stopped representing the will of the people long time ago. It has to be redesigned in very different principles putting the will of the individual nations first.
Complain about this comment
RE: 117, CBW,
Also, there is a view long held by the average person .."Ask the "experts"..they will know..."
Thinking for oneself is viewed as dangerous..."when better men can"
do it for one.
For instance, one is only considered equipped to write a non-fiction book if that person has "credentials." (a doctorate, a title-ie, journalist--or a special standing in their society)
I've never tried to write a book, but the above group 6f "credentialists" always seemed like a club I WOULD NOT want to join.
Complain about this comment
Chris Camp @#111
I quote, "Iceland - another one of those countries having lived far above their means for decades until reality finally kicked in. Now they start pointing fingers, just like the Greeks.
Try transposing "United Kingdom" for "Iceland" in your quoted paragraph .... it works equally well!
My concern is that I am not sure that the British public have quite cottoned on to the dire mess the United Kingdonm is in as they have been cushioned by the Labour Government borrowing more money than the UK can afford, have introduced "quantitive easing" to create inflation to counteract the effects of the recession and have put off debt repayment, austerity and public expenditure cuts to another day ...... just like an addicted credit card user borrows from Peter to pay Paul and then borrows from Paul to pay Peter!
The UK is a busted flush (just like Iceland) so it will be austerity and hard times ahead for Iceland and the UK - whatever the result of the Iceland referendum or not-too-distant United Kingdom General Election.
Complain about this comment
Vassilis,
"The EU has stopped representing the will of the people long time ago. It has to be redesigned in very different principles putting the will of the individual nations first."
not sure how democracy works, but it usually means the rule of the majority. If one individual doesn't agree with the majority, tough luck.
Complain about this comment
Will the Dutch and British now have a referendum when Iceland wants to join the EU? Now that seems fair. "What goes around comes around" or "Sow as you will reap"
Complain about this comment
Oh poor Iceland - not! The simple fact is that although anyone might well have had sympathy for the people of Iceland being landed with a bill resulting from the poor management of their banks -it was the reaction of their Government to the crisis that was disgusting! Their Government at the time attempted to retrieve Icelandic money that was invested overseas(as quickly as possible) in order to avoid it being used to compensate the victims of their bankers. They attempted to do this in an underhand way and were prevented from doing so by the use of 'emergency' action which can also be used for anti-terroism - but so what! If they were acting honarably then it would not have been required. The behaviour and attitude of the Icelandic nation since has done little to prove that this action was wrong - infact all they are doing is proving that they are not to be trusted. Imagine if this behaviour was being exhibited by anyone but a northern european country - I doubt if the reactions/comments would be anywhere as forgiving as they are now.
We face massive cuts in our public services in this country as a result of the dept of our bankers - and so I'm in no mood at all to hear anymore moaning from the Icelandic.
Complain about this comment
Gheryando
Re #126
"...democracy... usually means rule of the majority.."
Been here before, haven't we!?
Less than 44% of eligible Citizens participated & 1 in 4 voted in 2009 for the EU Parliament:
Make of those numbers what you will, but please do not try to tell us the EU represents or enjoys the support of anything like a 'Majority' in a fully functioning Democracy.
Complain about this comment
Gheryando wrote:
"Democracythreat - you're a dramaqueen."
Well, perhaps, but in times past this sort of subject was considered dramatic. It is the taxation your children will suffer in order to keep the superior class of people in the manner to which they have become accustomed. It is servitude.
People fought wars and suffered torture in order to fight against this sort of feudal abuse. Furthermore, every decent idea and humane notion that ever graced the human species came from people you'd happily condemn as "dramaqueens".
If I'm a dramaqueen, then you're an obsequious sycophant who craves a pat on the head from those you've accepted as inherently better than yourself.
This issue of mounting debt and government interference in the market to protect the aristocracy isn't going to disappear from the public consciousness. It has historical precedent, and matters can only develop in one direction from the current status quo.
The thing is, the bankers do not have a ideal. They have no reasonable doctrine or philosophy. They are not guiding society towards a useful conclusion. They are simply out to get as much profit for themselves as they can, and then bask in their own power.
The word "parasite" is an excellent way of describing them, because like parasites they see themselves as distinct and separate from the human beings they farm for their pleasure.
In times past, in western liberal societies, bankers could hide behind a popular philosophy which promoted the freedom of all as encompassing freedom for themselves. They were able to protect themselves by appealing to a common love of freedom, and aspirations of opportunity. And where bankers were not able to do this, such as in draconian feudal societies where the rule of law was entirely absent, they were deposed in a violent and bloody manner.
What we see now is the abandonment of the western liberal philosophy which promises freedom and opportunity for all. The bankers are controlling not only capital, but also the political process.
I suspect this will have extremely dramatic consequences.
Consider that the consequences of the current "crisis" are that huge numbers of middle class people in Greece and the UK will now be thrown into the grinding poverty of the underclass. Badly paid government jobs are becoming even more badly paid, and taxes are rising and rising inexorably, in order to pay the bankers their interest. The increasing tax burden will crush small business people.
Meanwhile, those who profit from the system are becoming richer, but more isolated.
The reason I isolate the contempt shown towards the general populace by folks like Mathiasen is because this sentiment has a corresponding sentiment from the despised masses. They hate bankers, and their hate can be far more dramatic than the contempt shown towards them by bankers.
We've already seen hatred towards bankers during the crisis and bail out. Imagine how that will be compounded when a generation is brought up to hate them, and when every friend and relative speaks of them with naked hatred and loathing.
Complain about this comment
@Gheryando
When national sovereignty is given to a supernational elite we'd better ask the people via a referendum if they agree with this. I am pretty sure a referendum now in UK or Greece on EU wouldn't be very favourable to EU. The will of the people has not even be put to the test and when was put and the referendum provided the result that the elit did not like they ignored it and found ways to go around it. This is a very poor democracy in my opinion.
Complain about this comment
by not voting your forfeiting your right to complain about the result.
Complain about this comment
126. At 10:48am on 06 Mar 2010, Gheryando wrote:
" ...
not sure how democracy works, but it usually means the rule of the majority. If one individual doesn't agree with the majority, tough luck."
EUpris: The anti-"EU" parties in the UK (UKIP and BNP*) got a lower percentage of the British seats in the so-called "European Parliament" than their share of the vote had warrented.
If I remember rightly, Cameron was going on at the time about "will not let the matter rest" in regard to the disgraceful imposition of the Lisbon Treaty on the British people. The current Tory campaign for the general election indicates that that is exactly what he and the Tories are doing. On that basis, I consider that the Tories are not entitled to all those seats in the so-called "European Parliament."
* I suppose putting UKIP and BNP in one bracket will give ammo to those who claim they are the same. They ain't.
Complain about this comment
126. At 10:48am on 06 Mar 2010, Gheryando wrote:
" ...
not sure how democracy works, but it usually means the rule of the majority. If one individual doesn't agree with the majority, tough luck."
EUpris: Servus Oide! 70% of the British people did not want the Lisbon Treaty, but you don't seem to care about that. You "interest" in democracy is a ploy.
Complain about this comment
The Icelanders are getting a referendum today. Their President intervened to make it happen. The Queen should have intervened to make sure that we got a referendum. The Presidents of the Czech Republic and Austria and other countries should have intervened to make sure that their people got a referendum. I mean of course on the rubbishy Lisbon Treaty.
Complain about this comment
In the UK, bankers and politicians have tied up a lot of public - that is, our - money that could be better spent providing services for citizens (the sole reason we pay taxes in the first place). Our politicians failed to control the bankers appropriately, thus causing the problem and having to use our money to repair the damage.
In Iceland, the politicians there also have failed their citizens by inadequately regulating their banks. Unfortunately a lot of UK citizens and institutions had money in those banks. If Iceland as a nation is not prepared to repay what their failure of control has caused, who is?
We here have paid quite enough to ensure that our banking system has kept functioning. We don't intend to bail out the Icelanders as well, they need to step up and play (and pay!) their fair share.
Perhaps the key is 'fair' though - reimbursement is one matter. Additional payments are something different. I was quite shocked to find out how much money councils, in particular, had on deposit rather than being used to the benefit of their citizens. While understanding the need to have some 'operating reserves' the amounts quoted were excessive. But it still belongs to the citizens and needs to be paid back in full - but no more.
How did Jeffrey Archer put it? Not a penny more, not a penny less!
Complain about this comment
I hope the Icelanders vote NO. If that results in their "not being allowed to join the amazingly wonderful , peace, joy, jobs and love bringing EU", that will be for their good and ultimately for ours when we have left the "EU" and ultimately it will deprive the sick, arrogant, megalomaniac "EU" of military bases and will hence be of benefit to the world.
Complain about this comment
125. At 10:44am on 06 Mar 2010, Menedemus wrote:
" ..."
EUpris: I agree with what he wrote. Not only is the "EU" rubbish, the governance of the UK is rubbish as well. Having said that, if we can get rid of the "EU" we will have gotten rid of one load of rubbish. We still do need a government in the UK but we don't need this one or Cameron.
Complain about this comment
dt - thanks for ur lengthy reponse. I stick to my point that just because a nation's population votes "no" for repaying foreign debt, that doesn't make it right/legitimate.
Complain about this comment
Servus EUprisoner!
I am all in favour of letting the UK population vote on it. Or rather, let the UK population vote on EU membership after all parties have made their point about it.
Whichever way you (uk) choose, I accept it.
Complain about this comment
Oh and you ARE right that BNP and UKIP aren't the same.
UKIP are stuck in the 19th century.
BNP are stuck in the first half of the 20th century.
Complain about this comment
@105
My personal view (and not the views of the BBC) is that your last part is wrong.. Did Mr Banker really get his sums wrong?
Here's a snippet from the Serious Fraud Office website about investigations into one of the banks, I quote:
" The investigation will seek to identify whether misrepresentations or false representations were communicated by the bank in the push to attract UK investors. Another focus for the SFO investigation will be the decision making processes, which appear to have allowed substantial value to be extracted from the bank in the weeks and days prior to its collapse. "
Obviously these are only allegations so far and are being investigated so the concerned, whoever they are, could equally be innocent.. (and I'd like my post not to be pulled this time (#80) so only giving actual quotes from the SFO website, a government website).
Why should the Icelandic people be punished for this? This is a private matter and not a public or government matter. If you have lost money yourself then after the above investigations have been completed one should take legal action against the banks. This was not a public institution but a privately owned business.
If a sofa shop goes out of business and doesn't deliver your goods, then you don't go running to the relevant government asking for your money back do you? A government's money is from the citizens and there to spend on the citizens - you would be effectively asking your neighbour to compensate you.
Complain about this comment
Icelanders should vote no. Better poor but free! They do not need EU (in its present form: Ecomonic Imperium of Germany). Staaayyy Freeeee!!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Gheryando
Re #132
By not voting you are 'forfeiting your right to complain'.
There it is again!
The all-pervading anti-democratic attitude of the 'pro-EU'!
So, if a Citizen does not vote, but is Employed, pays Taxes, supports a Family and generally contributes to their Nation's society that one act of non-voting disqualifies them from any voice in the 'politics' of their Nation and/or your beloved EU!?
Truly remarkable how little value and interest you place in the Rights & Responsibilities earned by blood, toil, sweat and tears over many generations!
Complain about this comment
Vassilis,
you must be one of those public sector workers who are used to retiring at 53.
Complain about this comment
"So, if a Citizen does not vote, but is Employed, pays Taxes, supports a Family and generally contributes to their Nation's society that one act of non-voting disqualifies them from any voice in the 'politics' of their Nation and/or your beloved EU!"
Almost correct. Unless he/she is hindered to vote by force majeure, they forfeit their right to complain. There is, of course, always the way of becoming politically active. If you don't vote, you don't care about democracy anyways and are happy with the status quo.
Whats there long to rant about cbw?
Complain about this comment
@ 89
Well that is just sour grapes then isn't it. That's no argument.
Just because we in the UK are too timid to refuse paying these feudal taxes why should others be forced to do so?
I'm afraid that the same situation should apply as with Bernie Madoffs victims - they were suckered into high return 'investments' that were a 20 year long running ponzi scheme. Why did no-one question the high returns? Because they wanted to make hay while the sun shone, they were blinded by the promised returns.
The same happened here in a sense - the returns were high and many people didn't question why and so encouraged government institutions, pension schemes and individuals to invest too. while the sun shone. The icelandic banks were leveraging their returns and purchases on a carry trade and anyone who takes note of world economic matters will know that carry trades can collapse very quickly at saturation point or a dry-up of new funds. Add on top the amount that had been invested in property by these banks and you can see a very precariously built house of cards that did indeed topple very quickly. Even when the sun stopped shining, many councils were still encouraged to invest!
If you were told that these high-returns were safe then you have been mislead though negligence or perhaps even fraud.
I'm afraid the money has been lost or pocketed and we are paying the price already - there's no need to make other innocents suffer too.
Complain about this comment
I always have this impression that the Icelanders are a free-spirited, fair-minded and friendly people. This must be distressing for them.
However, I cannot offer them a crumb of comfort. This referendum has no upside for either Iceland, Netherlands or England.
What on earth do the Icelanders expect us to say? That we should swallow it? I deplore the decision to impose laws designed to combat terrorists; but why should the English bear the pain caused by Icelandic Banks? Someone has to pay. Should it be the English or the Icelanders? There is only one answer.
I have some sympathy with the argument that asks 'why should Icelanders pay for the mistakes of an Icelandic Bank?'. I feel the same way about RBS and the rest. However, we have no choice. This venal and lying government chose for us. They decided that WE should pay for the errors of the Banks. I would have let the lot go bust. The crash would have been worse, but the country would not owe £hundreds of billions.
So I understand the Icelanders situation. If I was Icelandic, I'd vote 'no' too. But I re-iterate. In a straight contest between economic pain for Icelanders or economic pain for the English, what do they expect us to say?
And when you do vote 'no' to not giving us OUR money back, you will not be able to call on us for anything ever again. No-one wins.
If you bite the hand that feeds, then you won't get fed.
What I do like about this business is that the Icelandic President has the right to put this to referendum. Our bunch in Westminster has robbed the Monarch and the Lords of any power at all and consequently we are in this mess. I'm not asking for a veto, just that the Monarch has the power to force an unpopular bill to go to a referendum. Quite clearly we cannot trust politicians of any colour to trust us with any decision except at the time when they are reluctantly forced to, at a general election.
Complain about this comment
I quite agree with David Horton's post.
Complain about this comment
@Gheryando
Well, I m not. I am a very hard working individual, high flyer in whatever I did, working 10 hours per day at least and working almost all weekends and keen to work until my brain and body stops functioning. I only hope this happens after 70. I have been at senior positions and have managed small but multi-national groups. Have travelled around Europe for my work. I don't like lazy people and I have encountered many lazy and hard-working people from many nationalites (Greeks, British, French, German, Dutch etc.). Please stop making arbitrary conclusions and stop believing in stereotypes. The general retiring age for men in Greece is 65 but due to lower age for women (this is changing now) and to very scandalous decisions with early retirement packages for certain groups (current government stopped this practice immediately) the *average* age has dropped to about 59-60 years which I agree that it is low. Check the average ages in different countries, I believe there are countries with even lower average. I think that the average in Europe is 63. I am for the increase to 70 years without any hesitation for vast majority of people including myself (although for manual construction workers working under the sun at 40 C might be an excessive age).
Complain about this comment
Apparently it is ok for British and Dutch tax payers to settle their debts for them ... it's all Greek to me! If they vote no then we need to be aware of the Icelandic businesses operating in the UK so we can choose not to give them another penny ...
Complain about this comment
Gheryando
Re #147
Ah, the timeless "..rant.." accusation. Whereas all your points are of course the height of thoughtful reasoning and erudition!
It is astonishing, not say frightening, if you really believe a 'vote' is all that matters to qualify a Citizen to be entitled to a voice in a Democracy!
You just informed two-thirds of the elegible Citizens of the 500+ million EU that their views do not matter in the least for 5 years as they did not Vote!
Tyranny doesn't come more blunt in word and attitude: Shame on You.
Rant?
No!
Appalled?
Yes!
Complain about this comment
Horton (the elephant) hatches the egg.
"Westminster has robbed the Monarch and the Lords of any power at all"
Oh that is so quintessentially European. Robbed the monarch and the Lords of power. Like they are entitled to any. What about the people's right to power Mr. Horton? Have you forgotten their power which is the only legitimate power? I'd guess not. Elitists only think about the elite. Even when Communists and Socialists talk about "the rights of the people", what they really are referring to is their rights as seen, defined, and permitted by the elitist despotic cliques who run socialist and communist governments. They are the same as the monarchs and lords only they are selected and named slightly differently...but not all that differently. Tsar...Commissar...Commie Tsar! Communism and Socialism including National Socialism are European doctrines that sprang from the same culture that accepted monarchs and aristocrats as normal and right. What will we hear next, the divine right of the EUSSR Council, politburo or whatever the new tyrants call themselvs?
Icelanders voted for the people who allowed the banks to operate the way they did. They are voting as to whether or not they will personally pay for the blunders and crimes that were not caught and punished by the people they elected before the crisis exploded, and they will take the consequences. None of the people who felt their net worth was rising while the bank scams were playing out complained then. What gives them the right to complain now? Perhaps Icelanders should apply to the IMF for aid. I think they could make a better case for themselves than the Greeks can. If Iceland was already in the EU, the UK and Dutch would have been paying out the billions to build bridges and highways there just the way the have in Hungary. Where's the beef? What would Britain have done with that extra couple of billion anyway? They certainly wouldn't have spent it on buying the military equipment their soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan needed but didn't get (don't blame Gordon Brown, he says he gave the military leaders whatever they asked for. Now why do you suppose they didn't ask for what the troops under their command really needed? Could it be because they knew the answer would be no, we can't afford it, we're using that money to earn high interest rates in Icesave instead?)
Complain about this comment
@CBW
Please address the folowing flaws in your argument:
1. a turnout of below 50% might have an effect on the policy-legitimacy of the EU (although I don't agree with this), but doesn't say anything about the sentiments of the people not voting. It's you who interprets their absence as a vote against the EU. Following your own logic from other topics, you can not make such a deduction (i.e. we can not know the reasons why people have voted)
2. if a turnout below 50% results in a lack of legitimacy (again, I don't agree with this), what is your opinion on the British MP Louise Ellman from the liverpool riverside consituency? (turnout in 2005: 40%; 2001: 34%). Following your logic from the Eu turnout, the absent voters in liverpool riverside have voted against the British Parliament (or even the UK as a state). Note that this is the same logic you apply to the EU. If you agree that this isn't correct, would you than agree that MP Ellman has no legitimacy? What's your view.
Complain about this comment
The fact that the British Governemnt decided to use tax-payer money to compensate the clients of private business which went bust does not necessitate other governments and other tax payers to do the same. The British public should revolt to the British government who used their money in this way.
Complain about this comment
From http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8552971.stm
'Arni Gunnarsson, a former Icelandic MP, told the BBC News website: "We have not forgotten how Britain used battleships against Iceland during the cod wars.
"We find this a very strange method of thanking the Icelandic people for sacrificing the lives of their seamen during World War II.
"The colonial attitude is still going strong. The UK should come to its senses."'
Imagine what will happen if we have south european sovereign defaults.
I predict total havoc in EU... We do not care to become poor, but we will protect our islands to our last drop of blood.
Complain about this comment
You seem not to be able to answer well to the following blatantly basic question:
1) Icesave is a private bank (no matter if it derived from the ancient state bank, it was privatised and functioned as a private one).
2) British and Dutch individuals and private investors invested their money in the bank being attracted by the high return rates.
3) The Bank failed following/causing a severe crisis in Iceland.
4) Now British and others demand their money back from the Iceland's citizens.
E? There is something that knocks me out of the ring of logic here! I mean, how can we set this example: "Invest in another country's private institution and if the investement fails then ask the money back from the country's citizens!"
Amazing! I have just found a smart way to make money. Set up an as-if bank say in Poland. Offer return rates of 200%. Then transfer 100 million there. In 2 years it will be 400. Then the bank will fail obviously. So then demand a refund from the local country that will be taxed of course on the citizens! Even if they refund the 50% that will be of course a 100% profit.
Unless someone here logically explains me the situation better, trying to justify why Britain asks for money back, I cannot but conclude that Icelandic people must not pay a single cent.
Complain about this comment
The first time I visited Grand Cayman Island, it dawned on me that I was looking at Britain's version of Switzerland. It seemed to me that this was where the British Government protected all kinds of money that would not dare be put in "more conventional" banks. Such banks don't have to take risks. The kind of investments they fund yield very profitable sure fire returns and they have many friends who will use any and all means to protect their interests because those banks are the repositories where their own money is kept safely guarded from any and all prying eyes that might lay claim to it.
Complain about this comment
Say what you like about Jean Luc's politics, he does make a devastating case against the idea that the UK has a more democratic system than Europe.
And it is not a trite point, either. I think what he is saying is crucially important.
Is there any point in criticizing Europe in order to perpetuate the westminster system?
I can't see the point. I mean, I can, but I don't see the motivation as honest or legitimate. Sure, a British patriot can defend jolly old england, and talk about the sense of "fairness" that the British are famous for (??), but that is mere mindless patriotism. There is no principle at play.
Jean Luc is dead right about the UK. The British system is an absurd example of how europe might be protected from non democratic procedure. If that is what is on offer as the sole alternative to the EU, I guess I'd accept the EU with open arms. At least the folks who make up the EU are living in the modern world, even if they deny it, and they live amongst folks who acknowledge the french revolution and the second world war actually happened. At least with continental Europeans there is a chance of having some sort of meaningful dialogue, even if it is a debate against feudal notions of how society ought to be run.
In the UK, there is nothing but shamefully obsequious pride in a forgotten empire and the queer belief that if one speaks with an English accent, one is intelligent by default. Well, I suppose there are exceptions to that rule, but they are so rare as to be the exceptions that prove the rule.
And that is why I sympathize and agree with Marcus, when he sneers at the European inability to celebrate the rights of common folks, and to hold the rights of citizens as self evidently important in the modern world.
It is a disgrace that Europe is still ruled by people who tart themselves up with bizarre titles like "Lord" and "Baron" and "Count" and "Prince". It is absurd and ridiculous. Every time I hear these titles, I want to grab my camera, in case the local witch doctor appears to do his magical rain dance, and bless the tribe.
Europe, a united europe, is very probably the best objective for thinking people. The question should not be whether Europe must be run in the way it has been run in the past, as either a religious cesspool or war and overpopulation or as a soviet and US colony. The question should be how modern ideas of liberty and human rights can be forced upon the system of credit and undemocratic control that permeates the party based aristocracy who rule the provinces as human farms.
But anyway, Jean Luc is correct to criticize the UK, and to mock those who suggest it is some kind of democracy worth protecting. Every principled argument that can be made against the current EU can be made tenfold for the UK.
We ought not be talking about how to protect the UK system from the EU, but rather how to improve the EU system for the people of the UK. Even though they think they are intelligent because that is what their state has told them, the people of the UK deserve a better system. And if they don't, their children do.
Complain about this comment
Dear Gheryando and David Horton
With all due respect to your entitlement of your opinion. What you guys are going on about, is exactly what creates the misperception of what this case is all about.
Stick to the facts, firstly; the vast majority of Icelanders acknowledge that due share a large part of the blame for this mess. What many Icelanders conceive though is the fact that the UK, Netherlands and the EU are ALSO legally responsible for the failure of regulating these Icelandic banks. This has indeed been resonanced with EU parlimentary members that were involved with establishment of the financial legislations that deal with exact these cases.
Now baring in mind, that even the majority of Icelanders are willing to pay the debt in FULL (basically they realize that a small country like theirs is in no position of demanding fairness from the "former" colunial empires of Great Britain and Holland), despite the co-responsibility of the British and Dutch government and their respectful financial regulators.
HOWEVER, the latest offer from the British and Dutch government for an IceSave agreement (which is still a better deal for Iceland than the one they are currently voting for) is incredibly unfair. Once the interest rates which the UK demand for have been adjusted for predicted interest rates in Europe, would produce many billion pounds IN PROFIT for the British government. In other words, each Icelander would have to pay £3000 pounds just for the profit which the UK and Dutch governements would obtain (and yes this is besides the actual debt along with reasonable interests)
Complain about this comment
DemocThreat
Re #160 & the stuff & nonsense content of #155
There is no 'devastating' point made at all!
It is the usual trivial 'pro-EU' announcement that UK 'Democracy' isn't as good as sur le continent: Well, the 'pro-EU' don't have to concern themselves with UK Democracy - - that is for the Britons to sort out -- whereas the British Citizens are and have every right & responsibility to be concerned with EU 'democracy' (lack of) as it increasingly encroaches on the UK Citizens' lives.
Surprised you don't see the same old, tired, unfounded formulaic 'EU is good, All else is bad' mantra!?
Nothing wrong with my pointing to Britons seemingly in the forefront of objecting to the EU as an institution: It has very little to do with 'patriotism' - - it is fact - - the average UK Citizen certainly does appear far more concerned about 'rule' from Brussels than his counterpart in mainland Europe.
This debate was, is and will be about the EUropean Union.
Offering the idea an 'instinct' for 'fair-play' & 'equality of justice' are among the traits and ideas for the British antipathy to the EU is just raising them as 2 among a whole gamut of reasons.
As I have had occasion to point out to you in the past the evolution of English Common Law is far different from that on the continent as is the whole concept of UK 'constitutional' Government.
That UK Citizens are much more cautious and have far more objection than their EUropean counterparts to handing over their National heritage to a bunch of venal, corrupt, anti-democratic elite in Brussels is just the way that things have emerged.
It is for the EU to persuade Britons that it has something better to offer: The drivel of #155 is that the UK Elections are not the issue, but the EU is, and it is utterly pointless for 'pro-EU' to attempt to disguise the democratic defecit that exists across the EU and its institutions.
The EU has failed for 3 Elections in a row to even muster 50% Voter participation; it is the EU MEPs that are claiming to represent 500,000,000+ Citizens. The Political Parties of G.B. do appear to have indeed significantly failed to represent British Citizens' views/perspectives on the Membership of the EU, Maastricht, Nice, Lisbon Treaties, but the EU is not foremost in UK Citizens' minds at General Elections anymore than it is at any Nationally held elections.
Hence my continual query (and notably never a factual reply) how anyone could claim they know Germany's Citizens support/favour the EU when at EU Parliament elections only 43.3% voted whereas at National Elections it was more than double that figure?
If that is how EU 'democracy' is characterised: Then that is for the 'pro-EU' to uphold - - they cannot have it both ways - - no UK General Election has been anywhere near as low as 50% (usually well over 60%), but 'pro-EU' try to attribute some sort of failing in the UK FPTP system which may or not be the case, however, as I say it has almost nothing to do with a debate on the EU.
Complain about this comment
DemocThreat
Re #160
Now, as to your utterly predictable and largely ridiculous diatribe against the 'English'.
If the Nation chooses to allow its elected rulers to be granted 'titles' that is for the UK/England to decide on: It is no more relevant to the actual 'democracy' available within the UK than the title 'Commissioner' somehow affords Msr Barroso etc. credibility!
Nobody is asking EUrope to adopt the UK/England 'democratic' methods: Yet another red-herring as it is clearly the EU version of democracy that is being foisted on a very reluctant British Isles Citizenry. The Uk does not have to win any argument on comparison of the democratic methods underway - - it is for the EU to provide proof positive it has more to offer the average UK Citizen - - and as there is a vast credibility gap not because of memories of 'empire' or the superiority of the 'english language', but because mainland EUrope has never been at the core of British sentiment or sensitivities.
For UK Citizens EUrope is a divertingly enjoyable place to live, work and play: The EUropean Union is a political construct and as such has yet to offer anything the British sense as being of particular use to them in their daily lives.
Let us be clear: You have often expressed loathing for the 'English speaking peoples', going so far as to describe them as the most 'blood-thirsty race' on the earth.
You have a view of the Historical impact of the English: It is wholly unwarranted and as absurd as any, but you are entitled to propound it.
Only you can explain how you have the nerve to live in Switzerland whilst originally emerging from such a terrible race of people! If I felt as you did a Himalayan cave would not be far enough to atone for my race's iniquitous past/present/future.
On the other hand, I could just put it all down to an over-active thyroid and assume with the correct dosage of medication a more rational consideration of the course of Human History may evolve in time.
Complain about this comment
v;
"Check the average ages in different countries, I believe there are countries with even lower average."
I think in France it is in their early 20s. Once they have their bac degree, get a job in government or a large corporation, and work for two years after which they can't be fired, its "BONJOUR PARESSE" which means hello laziness. That was the name of a best selling book in France about five or ten years ago. It's a prescription of a life of being employed as a middle management flunky and being well paid while never having to do another lick of work in your life. Lots of government jobs around the world are like that. Sad when that is the stated goal of many of France's brightest young people, a life of purposeless existance as a social parasite feeding off other people's labor.
Complain about this comment
@CBW
Re "It is for the EU to persuade Britons that it has something better to offer: The drivel of #155 is that the UK Elections are not the issue, but the EU is, and it is utterly pointless for 'pro-EU' to attempt to disguise the democratic defecit that exists across the EU and its institutions.
The EU has failed for 3 Elections in a row to even muster 50% Voter participation; it is the EU MEPs that are claiming to represent 500,000,000+ Citizens. The Political Parties of G.B. do appear to have indeed significantly failed to represent British Citizens' views/perspectives on the Membership of the EU, Maastricht, Nice, Lisbon Treaties, but the EU is not foremost in UK Citizens' minds at General Elections anymore than it is at any Nationally held elections.
Hence my continual query (and notably never a factual reply) how anyone could claim they know Germany's Citizens support/favour the EU when at EU Parliament elections only 43.3% voted whereas at National Elections it was more than double that figure?"
My question in 155 was aimed to understand your point.
You criticize the democratic legitimacy of the EU. This is only possible if you base yourself on a theoretic paradigm that explains 'democratic legitimacy'.
The questions in 155 were aimed to clarify from which paradigm you criticize the EU.
The analogy (to the Uk elections) that was made in 155 is indeed not by coincidence, as I suspect you have a very 'eclectic' way of criticizing politics, being rather blind for the issues that exist in the UK, whereas you are very keen on indicating issues that exist at EU level.(Hence your mantra 'venal, corrupt, anti-democratic elite' which you never substantiate).
And of course you are wrong to say that the EU should convince the Britons. The EU never asked the British to join and doesn't ask the British to remain member. On the other hand it's the British who asked (three times!) to join and it's the British who have the possibility under art. 48 TEU to leave the Union.
If the British are unhappy about how the Eu functions they have two options: propose a treaty revision (for this it will need to persuade the other member states, which is indeed very hard as the British have wilfully marginalized themselves in the EU) or leave the Union if they can't change it.
Complain about this comment
@MarcusAureliusII
I think Italy is lower (I might be wrong) but in any case the average is a very different case than the retirement age limit (which is usually the maximum, since people could retire before with some other criteria but not after in all countries). I have seen defamatory comparisons when the age of a particular (scandalous) early retirement package taken from Greece compared with the maximum retirement age of another country which is presented as comparison with like with like etc. BTW, I have seen early retirements at 55 or so in UK also, for these and other reasons the average retiring age is *always* lower than the maximum.
Gheryando's level of analysis of issues is that low and he seems to think if somebody criticises the current degenerate economic dogma is lasy and fan of being retired at 53 or so. Arrogance and ignorance combined.
Complain about this comment
Iceland has had a taste of what it means to create specific laws apparently there "to combat terrorism". They will be used at any and every opportunity... yesterday it was Iceland, tomorrow it could be you!
Also, why are Icelandic taxpayers supposed to pay back? What about, for instance bankers and particularly rating agencies who failed to spot the situation, yet they are still allowed to control economies, talked them down, bring them to their knees, reduce their ratings and make their life a lot more difficult than it should be?
Complain about this comment
dt;
"And that is why I sympathize and agree with Marcus, when he sneers at the European inability to celebrate the rights of common folks, and to hold the rights of citizens as self evidently important in the modern world."
I sneer at far more about it than that dt. I sneer at the incongruity between the absurdity of the entire incoherence of the construct of its civilization and the pomposity with which they boast about it. I rejoice that it is not a competitor to be taken seriously. It's like knowing someone who is so bad at something they don't even know how bad they really are and get angry when you tell them by pointing it out to them over and over again. It only makes you want to tell them even more :-)
I watched all the episodes of Rumpole of the Bailey again a few months ago. It's one of my favorite exports from the UK. It tells a lot about British life and society. Here was a lawyer, a junior barrister as they call him who solved all kinds of crimes ingeniously and got a large percentage of his clients acquitted, even guilty ones but could go nowhere because he had the wrong pedigree. In the US such a lawyer would have been rich and famous sought out by our very wealthiest criminals. Other lawyers who were more often than not bumbling idiots achieved higher status by "taking silk" having been chosen by the elites of the system and then there were the judges in red Santa Claus suits and horse hair wigs who were often none too clever themselves. "Yes my lord", "If it pleases you my lord." If he'd say "FYI" my lord that would have been the last case he'd ever tried. Even the fact that the program itself was not produced by BBC but by Thames TV probably means the owners of it had no insider connections, no pedigree themselves.
Brits have obsessed with their class distinctions for centuries. It's the object of their literature from Shakespeare to Dickens, to Shaw. Even Mark Twain poked fun at it with his novel "A Connecticuit Yankee in King Arthur's Court."
Rewatch the episode of "Britain Has Talent" where Susan Boyle makes her appeaance, it's on YouTube. Watch and listen to the moderators of the show who judge the talent. Horrible people who are IMO reflective of much of contemporary British society. Pay especially close attention to the blond woman, she's the nastiest of them all IMO. How telling that Boyle had to come to America to have any chance at a career. And what a difference it made in her life. Does anyone suppose it bothered the Brits when their hero David Beckham having made all the money he will ever need packed it up and left not for the French Riviera but for California USA? I wonder if he will ever tire of it.
Complain about this comment
findaburrito;
I was very angry that the US government used American taxpayer dollars to bail out AIG so that European banks that would have been slaughtered had it gone under were saved. Why should American taxpayers care if AIG took Europe's banks with it to Davey Jones' Locker?
v;
Wherever you go in the world, you will find people who never retired because they never actually worked a day in their lives. That is the nature of corruption or being born into a wealthy family. Two questions for Europe right now are; how many such people can it sustain without going broke and how much will those who do have to work put up with?
Complain about this comment
Just wanted to let you all know, on the basis of what I’ve read here, I’m totally changing my mind on European Union.
Like many discontented British and American contributors here, I am disgusted that the EU did not intervene in the domestic policitics of the a member state, here the United Kingdom, overturn the supremacy of it’s Parliament, usurp it’s monarch, impose a Federal Republic of Great Britain, forcing referenda in the English regions, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and Cornwall on the use of left hand drive electric vehicles, the Euro, the metric system, the role of parliament, the colour of the BBC newsreaders ties, and whatever!
Historicaly I am horrified that it failed to provide armed German, French, Dutch, Italian and Greek peacekeepers while Northern Ireland convulsed for thirty years, and that it failed to impose monthly referenda on the Northern Irish, Falkland, Channel Island, Bermudan populations etc to asses where their nationalities and allegiances lay. If you are going to be hoisted for non-interference, then interfere wholeheartedly.
It’s forked tongue outside of the Union also dipleases. I am galled by it’s failure to launch an immediate invasion of the United States to uphold it’s Constitution after the state of Florida was effectively disenfranchised, and George W Bush was reelected to the US presidency, so as to restore democracy there and forcing referenda on states rights, the use of left hand drive electric vehicles, the Euro, the metric system, the role of the Electroal college, the colour of the ABC/NBC newsreaders ties, and whatever!. It disgusts me that EU troops have not mounted coups is Afghnistan and Pakistan and imposed a Pax Europa on their peoples, to similar ends.
I further hold it beneath contempt that it has permitted the regimes of China and North Korea to continue, and has not mounted invasions here either.
Weak-minded cissy institution.
Not at all like the all powerful NATO, the Commonwealth of Nations, the Council of Europe, the World Trade Organisation or the United Nations. What have they forced you to do either?
Now let’s all turn the clock back three hundred to a thousand years, and get back to exterminating each other.
________________________________________________________________________
Mickalus signing off!
Complain about this comment
And to get to a point that is usually overlooked in economic forums. The most important trait of the human condition in my opinion is to help and aid the weak and vulnerable, the people that are in need (obviously I do not mean Germany to help Greece) I mean myself to retire at 70 so that the manual worker is able to retire at 60. If we all think more of the people around us who are at worse position than us, the world will be a better place. Otherwise, we will have arrogance, havoc and ultimately again wars. If our solution to Iceland which bankrupted and cannot pay back (rigtly or wrongly) is to bully with further economic sanctions seems to me that we have learnt nothing after 2 WWs. If we all we protect is the profit of the bankers, if this is the fundamental constant of our system (and it seems that this is the current dogma) we have lost our soul as humankind.
Complain about this comment
I'm not familiar with EU or British law but it seems to me that the theory of law that would allow anti terrorist legislation to apply is far fetched. In American law, even anti-racketeering legislation would be difficult to apply. Unless the prosecutors can prove criminal intent by employees in the bank, then it his hard to see how even the individuals who ran the bank or actually mismanaged the money could be prosecuted. Under civil law the banks might be liable for damages both real and punitive but it isn't likely they have the resources to make good on more than a small fraction of the deposits. Unless the Icelandic government guaranteed the deposits then it seems to me Europeans have no case. If Europeans invested their money in banks without understanding the limits of liability of the banks for losses or the remedies available under whatever law prevailed, Iceland's most likely and possibly the UK's and Holland's if they had branches chartered in those countries, then it was a case of cavaet emptor, buyer beware. Greed overtook caution. Just one more bad investment.
With no legal case, the demand for repayment of money citizens of Iceland are not responsible for with threats against them if they don't pay anyway is not bullying, it is nothing less than blackmail. One more reason to support Argentina in its claim on the Malvinas. Just whom do these Brits and Dutch think they are? This isn't the eighteenth century anymore, Britannia doesn't rule the waves, the sun set on its empire for the last time. The Dutch East India Company is ancient history. Last time as I recall, Britain sent an aircraft carrier to the Malvinas to fight Argentina. It took about six months for it to sail from the UK to get there. Must be the only aircraift carrier in the world that has sails and works exclusively on wind power. It also has a ramp on the flight deck to help planes get into the air. That points the planes in the right direction in case the pilot is distracted. The Brits plan for everything, even taking off from an aircraft carrier at tea time. Scones anyone?
Complain about this comment
v;
"seems to me that we have learnt nothing after 2 WWs."
How perceptive. You get an A plus for learning the lesson of history that people don't learn the lessons of history.
"The most important trait of the human condition in my opinion is to help and aid the weak and vulnerable, the people that are in need"
Too bad, your grade just dropped to F minus. The most important and universal human traits are greed and corruption. The most successful strategy, the one used by the United States is to outlaw and ruthlessly punish corruption (at least in theory it is) and to channel greed to productive use without allowing the accumulation of wealth to reach a point of overwhelming power such as having a monopoly or owning the government (that does't seem to be working right now in the US either.) It is only once wealth has been accumulated beyond all anticipated need of those who own it is genuine thought given to voluntarily sharing or giving some of it to others who don't have it but need the benefit of it. Bill Gates is an obvious example. Otherwise it is just taken from them, stolen in the form of taxes or expropriation by government on the theory that one person should not be allowed to accumulate more wealth than another. In societies that are governed by that theory, they usually end up where an elite clique owns almost everything and runs the government while the majority live in dire poverty while they are fed a diet of perpetual lies about how well off they are compared to other people. Examples are North Korea, Cuba, and the EU. Not true? Ask a French farmer.
Complain about this comment
Gentlemen,
We are not at the negotiation table, so we don’t know the details, and you have noticed Mr. Hewitt wrote nothing about it.
A Danish paper reported the 19th February 2010 this about the offer to Iceland: The money should be paid back within 15 years, starting in 2009 (?) and with a variable interest rate. Later the offer included an interest rate of zero per cent the two first years, which would in fact be a 20% reduction of the demands UK and Holland have made.
However, Danish papers wrote the 3rd March that the agreement has been presented to the Icelanders in a misleading way including worst-case interpretations, and also that the agreement has become part of the struggle for power in the parliament of Iceland.
We will know the result of the referendum tomorrow, I assume.
Complain about this comment
@ Bromley86
Don't know if I can go with you on Iceland not acknowledging their obligation. The president yesterday on the BBC again acknowledged the 20000 Euro per person obligation, and Iceland's willingness to accept CO-responsibility. When I say pay their dues, I mean pay fairly under the law, while also using every bit of leverage within inadequately structured regulatory systems, and vaguely defined laws to negotiate. The UK would do no differently. If there were mistakes made by the UK FSA (there were) and there were decisions taken by the British government (there were with Singer Friedlander) that exacerbated the problems, the full sum should be covered by those responsible. Is the UK faultless? In this case, I see problems on both ends.
Tell me, why is the UK not aggressively going after the USA for withrawing many hundreds of millions of USD days before the collapse of Lehman? The can't. They are lower on the power ladder. Why are they going after little, tiny Iceland AND trying to profit on their "best and final offers"? Because they can (might even throw in a little payback for the cod wars). The UK's history of using a position of power to bully is long and not very flattering. While they certainly have every right in this case to demand Iceland accept responsibility for their banks´ actions (they are ready to accept responsibility - the question is how much), they should look in the mirror a bit and see if they have a hand in this. They do.
Complain about this comment
@MarcusAureliusII
The second phrase you isolated was meant to be a wish than a statement of fact. I am not a cynic but an idealist and I accept that I am a rare breed in this world.
'channel greed to productive use'
I know, I know... perhaps this idea has reached or is to reach its historical end soon in a sense it has to be balanced much more efficiently by regulation and political control. I make a prediction, obviously I might be wrong.
However, the fact that we have not learnt after 2 WWs is really scary.
Anyway, on the US vs EU:
I do not forget that I was in a visit in US and was working at 2 am. My line manager gets in the office and tells me: great well done you work hard, work even harder! In Europe the usual reaction would have been (in the extremely remote chance that the boss would be around at that time): are you crazy, go home!
Complain about this comment
I think lots of people feel this crash in the financial markets was manufactured by the ruling elite to get even more cash from the average person,and if they have their way they will do it again in the near future.
Complain about this comment
Mickalus
Re #170
Oh well, if you feel that badly then good thing you've signed-off!
Meanwhile, those of us who still feel we have a right to express opinions - - seldom as outlandishly nonsensical as you pretend to have been implied by contributos whether 'anti' or 'pro' EU - - will continue to make Comments and use that Right 6 Responsibility you disparage called Freedom of Speech.
CBW - contiuing to sign-in.
Complain about this comment
MAII
Re #168
Well, at least this time you managed to almost be factually accurate about the 'Talent' show: Last time you attributed it to the BBC - - this time you attribute it to being the epitome of how the British are as a nation.
It's about as accurate as my suggesting the killers at Columbine are the stereotypical Americans!
MAII, must you always shoot yourself in the foot even when trying to make some perfectly valid points!?
Previously you wrote, 'stupid is as stupid does': Well, you would know if you bothered to read your own contributions!
Complain about this comment
Democracythreat, your post #160 is very good, indeed!!
Complain about this comment
Vassilis,
I'm familiar with you Greeks. I live with one and I get an overload of "The Greek point of view". Fact is that you have lived beyond your means and your politicians have been scared of the unions as well as preferred to miscredit the opposition instead of looking for constructive dialogue.
Now look at Germany and their last government. Do you think that can happen in Greece? Forget it.
Its time for all us mediterraneans to wake up and smell the beef. Either we become competitive, invest in education, slash taxes and bureaucracy and create incentives for women to have more children or we face bancruptcy. like you.
Complain about this comment
160. democracythreat
'...It is a disgrace that Europe is still ruled by people who tart themselves up with bizarre titles like "Lord" and "Baron" and "Count" and "Prince"...'
I agree and find it especially odd to find Labour politicians; the likes of Mandelson, Ashton and Kinnock (the pair of them) lording it over us, never to be deposed.
Complain about this comment
160. democracythreat
'... Europe, a united europe, is very probably the best objective for thinking people....'
I'm fine by this, provided thinking people are allowed to decide for themselves.
Complain about this comment
Can anybody tell me which assets the British government seized? Did it merely seize the assets of the dodgy bank(s?) or did it also seize the assets of Icelanders who have nothing to do with those banks?
Complain about this comment
oh and I forgot that we need to reform pensions.
Complain about this comment
@Alex
>Don't know if I can go with you on Iceland not acknowledging their obligation.
Fair enough, but it really is their position. As I linked, you can see that they dispute the existence of a legal obligation (fair enough as it's not certain). So their position is packaged as acknowledging a moral obligation, but at the extreme that's worthless if their position is that they will not borrow except if it's free.
>Tell me, why is the UK not aggressively going after the USA for withrawing many hundreds of millions of USD days before the collapse of Lehman? The can't. They are lower on the power ladder.
I don't know much about the Lehman's situation, but there are two issues as I see it. One, the transfer of assets, was where the UK was caught out - once the transfer has happened, it's legal. Hence the freezing order on Landsbanki. The second is that there was no deposit guarantee from the US (and, anyway, these weren't deposits), so no basis to chase a guaranteed amount.
Complain about this comment
@Gheryando
I have said before that there are two issues.
One issue with Greece and its particular problems (I am the last person in the world to defend corruption which exists etc. I don't even want to generalise it to other south europeans). We have to raise our game within the existing system. We owe it to ourselves and we have no excuse, we have to see the present crisis as opportunity etc.
However, there is another generic issue with the current system (casino capitalism, greedy speculators who produce nothing, neoliberal elit which protects the bankers and not the people) which I am entitled to criticise and want to see it changed not for Greece's benefit but for the humankind in general. Because of my views on the second issue you were too hasty to categorise me in a particular way which I found ridiculous to say the least.
Complain about this comment
183. At 7:10pm on 06 Mar 2010, rg wrote:
"160. democracythreat
'... Europe, a united europe, is very probably the best objective for thinking people....'
I'm fine by this, provided thinking people are allowed to decide for themselves."
EUpris: This reminds me of an editorial in a German newspaper in the seventies: "All thinking Englishmen are in favour of the EEC" or something like that. In other words, if you don't agree, you don't think and we can't have people who don't think having a meaningful vote, can we?!?!?!
Complain about this comment
@ Vassilis
point taken.
Complain about this comment
@Nik (158)
Exactly.
No-one who agrees with the action sought by UK and Netherlands can ever make it logical.
It's Stockholm syndrome. The UK have accepted they do deserve to be punished for the bank's crimes (by not standing up to it) and now they are insisting the icelanders are similarly punished too.
If they vote no then it will make us look like fools for taking the punishment.
Complain about this comment
rg
Re #182
I agree entirely that so-called Labour politicians taking titles is an incredible betrayal of their once loudly voiced 'socialist' principles.
Nevertheless, for a Labour Government to function in Office it does have to be effectively represented in the HofL, though granted no one from the Cabinet need be from the upper House, but in practise any Party with a relatively small majority in the Commons that NuLab now has usually looks to the Lords for some of its Ministers of State.
However, the actual remedy is to do away with the 2nd Westminster chamber, the House of Lords.
PM Blair began the process and then it seemed to lose momentum.
UK now has one of those classic mix-n-match political creations that appears to suit no one except MPs and those business, public servants & the odd entertainer etc. glitterati who still hanker after ennoblement!
My serious question is: Will the UK/England be better off without its Peers of the Realm as a second debating-legislative-amending chamber?
There is evidence going back to Thatcher (the late Michael Foot's non-opposition Labour rump) & more recently with Blair (the equally non-opposition Hague Conservatives rump) when both enjoyed 100+ Majorities in the Commons that the only genuine Her Majesty's 'loyal' Opposition to some more absurd/extreme measures proposed by each No.10 occupant was to be found in the House of Lords!?
So, which of these is your preference:
1) Status quo - - stick to the present mixture of Party appointees and self-appointed Peers - - nobody seems content with it, but they cannot agree on what is the improved version?
2) Do away with a 2nd chamber altogether - - would free up room in the Palace of Westminster for MPs to sit quietly & check their Expense Claim forms?
3) An elected 2nd Chamber - - in which case: Elected by the Nation on what sort of Constituency & time-scale? Or, elected by various institutions, e.g. NHS, Trade Unions, City Bankers, County Councils etc.?
If by the Citizens then it has Public support & could become a challenge to the historic authority of the Commons?
4) None of the above - - you have alternative/s?
Complain about this comment
Your Most Catholic Majesty MarcusAureliusII, Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire etc etc etc., LOL. You are a Gaullist just like Dr Wolfram Kaiser of the University of Port(s)MOUTH / the College of European Indoctrination in Bruges. Oliver Bange is another leading Gaullist of EU repute. Wouldn't surprise me if you were either of these Eurotrolls.
Now then let's see, what is Gaullism? It's the doctrine espoused in France and Germany that these two countries - who lost most in terms of power and influence as a result of Two World Wars - should seek to regain same by pretending to espouse the cause of European integration - but under French and German leadership ONLY of course.
Having failed to dominate Europe by military force in two centuries, both France and Germany could finally agree that the best way to dominate it would be through European integration under the Franco-German partnership - under the terms of a Franco-German international treaty which is in fact legally binding on both partners. That's why Germany doesn't want to bail out Greece when it comes to the crunch. For the same reasons that the Brits don't want to bail out Icelandic banks.
So what is the standard, practised methodology of said Gaullists? It is indeed to attack the Brits as dressed up as Santa Clause in order that France and Germany can pose as the standard bearers of peace, democracy and liberty throughout the European Commission and Parliament hahaha. Yes, those two actually totally toothless European "tigers" bwahahahahah - that run the errands of the Franco-German partnership and the Eurozone.
So run along being France' favourite Dachshund, Rottweiler or Alsatian - like yer Gaullist hero Adenauer - who had his tongue out drooling for the President/General of the "Free French" lol... Fetch the stick, Fido :o)- and pay for Greece! Freedom to Greece! We are ALL Greeks!
"Gaullist Troll" !
Complain about this comment
@57 cool_brush_work
I wonder how you would qualify the British decision to freeze the assets of Landsbanki thus activating (along with the higher interest rate) another kind of economic pressure on the Icelandic government. Are the Icelanders so corrupt (as the Greeks seem to be according to your post) that official London should take all precautionary measures at hand against that humble, honest and hard working Scandinavian nation?
If I was an Icelander, I would have felt much offended by your quite unkind wording “Time to bite the bullet”…
@96 WA
“Yes! if population is to "own" their local banks' losses - the same population owns the profits”.
Alice, you certainly think that any humble Icelander has got his share in Icesave. Regards /Is the Neva still frezed?/
Complain about this comment
@191 cool_brush_work
Sorry to interfere. If I was a Brit, I would prefer the 3rd option. As a mainlander I would recommend the 2nd one.
Regards, Sofia, March 6th 2010
Complain about this comment
MA :o)))) what a wicked plan, and I thought that year or two when you were touring France you were focused on checking the size of French cousine portions :o))), on the plates :o))) and checking up :o)))) things this and that other, while it appears in fact you were busy plotting undercover :o))))
How revolutionary; democracythreat would like that :o))))
Anyway I've remembered this, in your post 55
"It seems entirely fitting to me that the UK will have to bail out Iceland just as Germany will have to bail out Greece. Now who will France have to bail out? Perhaps they could start by bailing out themselves...or is that too big a task? Would Germany bail out France? That would be a tall order especially after it bails out Portugal, Ireland, Italy, and Spain. France has a lot of friends in Russia. Perhaps they could help. [China wouldn't help France any more than Russia would help the UK."
Well, between pposts 55 and 190 I thought we might help the UK, bt now I spotted this
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8547082.stm
fssh! surely not anymore!
:o)))))))
How, how, BBC-ish, the choice of the picture, to illustrate our Olympics!
First I thought, OK, we are a loser, granted. 15 weavy chunks, no place nowhere and ice-skating disaster and all.
Then I thought; wait a sec, who is expanding on the theme? How many those chunks has the UK got in Vancouver, that feels a free hand to pin-point Russian disasters?
:o)))))))
Nevermind, the revenge will be awful. I heard we are going to have a Canadian contractor build a sleigh slide for Sochi :o))))) of all people.
And that the Russian sleigh team insist it "is not slower" :o)))) than Vancouver's.
We might skip that Turn No 13 (I think I hope) after all, will make a short cut - from No 12 - to No 14 at once.
Complain about this comment
The UK had no right whatever to use terrorism legislation against the UK, it will entirely unsurprising if the Icelanders refuse to pay Britain for the privilege of being bullied and mistreated.
Complain about this comment
The Icelanders love the Britons, many study in your schools and we always look to you as one of the leaders of democratic tradition in the world. What happened in Iceland is more or less what happens in so many other countries like The UK but with a little difference. One Icelandic lady said yesterday, when asked why she was going to vote NO today: "It is no meaning being buried alive."
The people of Iceland have the choice to say no to a political solution that steals money from the taxpayers to pay for mistakes of private banks. It is rather sad that only Icelandic people have that choice. I feel sorry for all the Britons that now have debts to pay generations to come. Mr. Gordon Brown not only damaged Icelandic economy by using terrorist laws declaring Icelandic Government, Central Bank and others for Talibans and AlQueda. In a second all import export stopped to and from Iceland. The situation is still that many importers have to pay goods in advance and wait to see if the products will arrive or not. Only 11% of companies in Iceland are solvent today. This damage will Icelanders repair without any compensation.
But still there is - counted in money - much bigger damage the UK Government has caused to Britons by nationalizing losses of your banks with taxpayers money.
Is it not time now for the taxpaayers of the EU and USA to join forces and draw a cross border defence line to stop this economipolitical madness? I say: Stop the banksters and the politicians that harbour them.
Complain about this comment
Vassilis re your post #123 here, Menedemus re your post #118 here
Thank you.
Regards, viewcode
Complain about this comment
@154 MA & @160 DT
another interesting data point to illustrate that England is a pure class society (read:undemocratic) is that more than 85% of all the land in the UK still today is owned by the noblesse
Complain about this comment
#96, WebAliceinwonderland,
Great the Germans get Greek islands (and some ouzo supply I guess) and we get wooly jumpers and socks :))
Complain about this comment
WebaliceinWonderland, Europeans are great admirers of your democracy in Russia: we also appreciate your heroic victory over MA at Stalingrad :O))) Russians know a good conspiracy when they see one. Why doesn't Russia join the EU, like it did with Comecon? Russia could get 5 Commissioners, stop the conspiracy and completely dominate the organisation - like it used to dominate the Olympics along with Eastern Europe in the good old days. Then you can bail it all out with the oil and gas pipeline money from the Mafia and nuke the Ukrainian and journalistic opposition ! :O)))
Complain about this comment
@ignace
I say my opinion/impression cautiously (I am not a historian or sociologist). I think there has never been a popular uprising, a revolution of the countrymen in England and that's why there has never been a redistribution of land and there are still titles such as Lords and aristocracy etc. Also I think that UK has a very backward looking and largely uneducated working class. Unfortunately, the secondary education system in UK does nothing to improve the situation (if you do not have moneys to afford a good neighborhood or good public school you go to a bad state school and the problem perpetuates). I am very much surprised that New Labour abandoned the working class completely. In essence in the UK there are still different classes, living separately parallel lives. Broken Brittain? In general this is very different to the continent where it is more difficult to distinguish working class from (at least lower) middle class and the children go largely to the same state schools (apart from the super rich who live differently everywhere). It is up to the people in UK if they decide to change at some point their ways in these issues (if I am right).
Complain about this comment
@201
If your scenario comes true, we shall nickname you GermanyPaysForRussia!
Regards
Complain about this comment
ChrisArta, @200
I wouldn't give up on the islands so easily, as you do.
2,000 islands! just think about it.
With a proper approach to the matter, one can arrange such a Kensington labyrinth ....
:o)))))
____________
GermanypaysforGreecethree ha ha, @ 201
I am very pleased. I will cut out somehow, that upper line, :o))) of your post - because something tells me I won't see it again :o)))) ever :o)))) like I never had before :o)))
- even in this format :o)))) and frame it, onto the wall, and all. That's a one off clearly.
Complain about this comment
Sure we can. Just someone got too lazy! :o(, easy money, you know, no need for straining brains!
Complain about this comment
199. At 10:00pm on 06 Mar 2010, ignace wrote:
"@154 MA & @160 DT
another interesting data point to illustrate that England is a pure class society (read:undemocratic) is that more than 85% of all the land in the UK still today is owned by the noblesse "
EUpris: There certainly does seem to be a very uneven distribution of wealth here in the UK. It also seems to me that some rich people are able to get away with paying very little tax. I own a small business. I could be fiddling my taxes but do not. That is why I suggest that part of the solution to the economic crisis here and elsewhere is to move to more property taxes and reduce other taxes. Gheryando has told me in the past that I need to read some economics textbooks. A few years ago I saw a professor of economics on the telly espousing views like mine. The news presenter changed the subject, if I remember correctly.
Complain about this comment
Vassilis re your post #123 here You wrote "The EU has stopped representing the will of the people long time ago. It has to be redesigned in very different principles putting the will of the individual nations first."
Although I am aware of the modern use of the word "nation" to mean "a group of people with a common identity", I'll assume you meant "countries" or "states" in your second sentence. The EU is not designed to serve its peoples: it should be, but it isn't. It's designed to serve its governments. Arguably, the EU was made more popularly democratic when the European Parliament was changed from being appointed by the governments to elected by the people back in the 70's. But the EU institutional posts are not popularly elected and, as other posters have stated, this leads to a popular democratic deficit.
The quandary here is how to change it, and the problem is crystallised in your statement "The EU has stopped representing the will of the people...It has to be redesigned...putting the will of the individualnationsfirst."
The EU already superbly serves the will of the nations: specifically, those nations' heads of governments. That is why it does not immediately collapse. But it does not serve the will of the peoples. It tries to do this by taking Eurobarometer surveys, but what people say to pollsters and do in the ballot box is different.
If it were up to me, I'd get the EU institutional posts elected directly: specifically, the President of the European Commission (Barroso). One-man-one-vote, FPTP, the guy with the most votes wins, no messing. But that means taking power away from the heads of government, and I have no mechanism to make them do this.
Any ideas on how to make this happen, now is a good time to say...:-(
Regards, viewcode.
Complain about this comment
cool_brush_work: re your post #191 here
Constitutional reform: oh, you have unleashed a monster: I can bore for Britain on this...:-) Here we go...
Of your proposed reforms, I would prefer 2 (abolish 2nd chamber) or 3 (elected second chamber).
For option 2, a bicameral legislature is desirable in certain cases (where the 1st chamber does not act as a sufficient brake on the executive, or - in the case of federal bodies like the United States - the states need separate representation qua states) but not strictly necessary: you can get along with an unicameral legislature. However, I'd never get that past an electorate, so strike that.
As for the electoral procedure for option 3, one is already in place: the PR system and regions already in place for European Parliament elections. A first chamber elected by FPTP would have a majority and could initiate legislation, and a second chamber elected by PR would be inherently more split and so could be given the power to stop legislation: any legislation capable of uniting a inherently disunited second chamber probably should be stopped. Checks and balances - wayhey!
Regards, viewcode.
Complain about this comment
Perhaps the Icelandic Government should have told the Icelandic voters the truth of the situation they are in, and the effect of a No vote. If they are so stupid as to not see the effect, then they are welcome to vote no, and welcome to the problems and greater pain that such a decision will cause.
Complain about this comment
154 MarcusAureliusII wrote:
" Horton (the elephant) hatches the egg.
Westminster has robbed the Monarch and the Lords of any power at all
Oh that is so quintessentially European. Robbed the monarch and the Lords of power. Like they are entitled to any.
What about the people's right to power Mr. Horton? "
So you think the people have a 'right' to power?!
Genuinely funny!
In your eagerness to wave your hammer and sickle, you have missed the point rather spectacularly. The analogy I was drawing, is that of having an effective second line of scrutiny against what we currently have in Britain. Whether it is inherited, or democratically elected is important but surely the key issue is that it can effect scrutiny and practical intervention for the interests of the people. By choice, I would certainly see the upper house composed entirely of elected members only.
Sting drawn? Red flag rolled back up?
Good.
The point that I am making is that I liked the Icelandic ability to have a president that can force the Government to revisit the big issues.
The point isn't about whether it is a president or a Monarch or another elected house. The point being is that currently, no-one can force our PM to do any such thing. Otherwise we would be out of a certain war and voting in a certain referendum.
The curse of representational democracy that inflicts us means that we can do nothing to stop our government until an election is called. I would certainly prefer to see more popular suffrage, including referendum, and any mechanism that provides this, be it elected or inherited; I am in favour of.
But returning to the Icelandic situation. I would vote No if I were Icelandic. But I'm not. And my elected government is owed money from Iceland. Given the choice between Icelanders facing hardship or England facing hardship, there is only one reluctant answer.
So if you voted No, then come up with a deal that we can all agree with.
Complain about this comment
cool_brush_work: re your post #162 here
You wrote "...the evolution of English Common Law is far different from that on the continent..."
True, and I am often struck by the part slugs and snails play in it (Donoghue v Stevenson and, if memory serves, the postal rule). But that's not the point. The existence of parliamentary supremacy, the ability of the UK head of government with a majority to act in any way s/he sees fit, and the resultant fact that any rights we may have are only provisional (remember double jeopardy? We used to have that. Now we don't), means that our situation is unsatisfactory.
In his radio address following Japan's WW2 surrender, Emperor Hirohito said "...the war situation has developed not necessarily to Japan’s advantage..."
I would humbly submit that the UK constitutional situation is not necessarily to our advantage either.
Regards, viewcode.
Complain about this comment
WA;
"I thought that year or two when you were touring France you were focused on checking the size of French cousine portions :o))), on the plates :o))) and checking up :o)))) things this and that other, while it appears in fact you were busy plotting undercover :o))))"
Yes on the size of.....other things....this, that, and the other...busy plotting undercover. Alas for some of us, the best laid plans. And then we find even when we win....we actually lose. We have a saying in my country; "be careful what you wish for, you never know when your wish my come true."
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
See what I mean? Now you can enjoy all The Twilight Zone episodes...commercials included at no extra charge
Germany pays for Greece's grease;
"You are a Gaullist"
"what is Gaullism? It's the doctrine espoused in France and Germany that these two countries - who lost most in terms of power and influence as a result of Two World Wars - should seek to regain same by pretending to espouse the cause of European integration - but under French and German leadership ONLY of course."
I think if you read some of my other postings you will change your opinion rather "markedly." The only reason I find for allowing France and Germany to live is that it will be crueler that way :-)
Complain about this comment
viewcode,
you're basically describing the US legislative.
Complain about this comment
thank you very much Generalissimo :o), mysterious as it is we seem to live within own budget.
more or less.
Complain about this comment
If you want sufficient background on what the whole Icesave bank issue is about, you'll have to do research on your own, BBC's background is insufficient to explain it even in its broadest terms. The New York Times however would have explained it in excruciating detail if it mattered to Americans. Here's Wikipedia's explanation;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icesave_dispute
It appears the UK government in general and its Treasury and BOE in particuolar is not capable of handling money responsibly. We recall how George Soros took them for one billion dollars in one night over the ERM. We see how the UK pays out billions to the EU with nothing of value in return that couldn't have been had for free through negotiations and teaties. And now it appears the UK may have no real case against Iceland as the laws would not seem to favor Britain's position. It will probably be sorted out in the courts but here's a demonstration of Chancellor of the Exchecquer Darling's utter confusion in a conversation with his Icelandic counterpart AFTER the debacle;
Darling: Do I understand that you guarantee the deposits of Icelandic depositors?
Mathiesen: Yes, we guarantee the deposits in the banks and branches here in Iceland.
Darling: But not the branches outside Iceland?
Mathiesen: No, not outside of what was already in the letter that we sent.
Darling: But is that not in breach of the EEA Treaty?
Mathiesen: No, we don’t think so and think this is actually in line with what other countries have been doing over recent days.
The legal issues seem to be;
"that the Icelandic government is obliged to guarantee at least the first €20,000 in Icesave accounts;
that Iceland's actions surrounding the collapse of Landsbanki are discriminatory against non-Icelandic creditors.
The Icelandic government disputes these positions."
"As pointed out by the European Court of Justice in the Peter Paul and Others case, "Directive 94/19 seeks to introduce cover for depositors, wherever deposits are located in the Community, in the event of the unavailability of deposits made with a credit institution which is a member of a deposit guarantee-scheme".[63] The directive does not specify how the Member States have to provide the cover, although most operate some sort of fund to which credit institutions contribute, as in Iceland. In principle, if the fund cannot meet depositors' claims in the event of a default by a member of the scheme, it is for the remaining credit institutions to make up the difference. Such a move was impossible in the case of the Tryggingarsjoour as the remaining Icelandic credit institutions were far too small in relation to the claims of Icesave depositors, and a fortiori because Icelandic law states that "Member Companies shall not be liable for any commitments entered into by the Fund beyond their statutory contributions to the Fund."[61]
The Icelandic government has claimed that the directive was never intended to cover the case of a systemic failure, and does not impose a sovereign guarantee on deposit insurance schemes. In a speech on March 3, 2009 the Dutch Finance Minister Wouter Bos said: "First and foremost, European countries need to take a close look at how the deposit guarantee scheme is organised. It was not designed to deal with a systemic crisis but with the collapse of a single bank.“"
So through no treaty or other means, the UK failed to insure the security of British depositors in foreign banks by negotiating an ironclad treaty holding the government the bank is chartered in ultimately liable for the defaults of the bank. Iceland escapes skating free and once again the BOE and British taxpayers get left holding the bag. And hardly a wimper of protest by the public, in fact they may re-elect the very same crowd on whose watch this happened. And why not, the alternative offered by the competition may be even worse.
Complain about this comment
MA, that's no good. Now "hammer and sickle".
Things began going real fast. You began from "this and that, :o))))))) then, you know, come those undercover stages and hop ! here you find yourself, - with the hammer and sickle!
? How do you do that ? :o)))))))))))))))) Now, I don't know
Complain about this comment
The point is moot, regardless of how you word the argument for and against, Iceland will still have to pay what it owes lest it wishes to be isolated financially from the World, whether the UK is a bully or not, this point is irrelevant like every state since the beginning of time, 'British' interests take priority over that of any other state regardless of its situation or status.
As per MarcusAurelius I find your blind ignorance and the inadequacies, it would seem of your limited education rather disturbing. Your arguments seem to be hinged on the fact you have a hatred for that which created you, that which, every principle of your state is designed and that which precedes you by about eight hundred years...I'm sure if all Americans were living under the same McCarthy generated Xenophobia, they would agree, but unfortunately for you, you are very much a minority.
I will of course remind you our colonisation of the Falklands (as they are known to rest of the World, par you and the petty Argentine Government) pre-date the creation of both your own Country and that of the free Argentine state, therefore under International Law, as it holds no retro-activity cannot now or ever be claimed by the Argentines and fortunately excludes you from having any real opinion on the matter. Just as an added bonus for you, UK law is sovereign over any international agreement until actively incorporated into the system, therefore in the case of Argentina, it is more comparable to a Gentleman's agreement, and basically means we can do whatever we want with regards to it.
Complain about this comment
The whole situation is obscene and so are a lot of the opinions of a lot of 'educated' people who seem to get their views from a resounding script like mantra which is produced on a conveyer belt somewhere at the top of a pyramid.
Let's get a few things straight!
1. Borrowers are to blame for the financial situation today in the world (not the lenders) - NO!
Any blame of borrowers for the situation is offset by interest rates.
The whole idea of which is supposed to be to cover the risk of poor borrowers - that's what interest rates are for.
Banks, lenders and capitalists should not be bailed out, allowed to or supported in being forcibly repaid unless they cut or abandon interest rates.
Anything less proves what most of us already know - they are greedy people hiding behind the shields of law and national government - something else they half control and half built for themselves.
2. The 'financial' culture is to blame for the financial situation today in the world (not the lenders) - NO!
Who gives the money to hiphop radio stations, factories that make shell suits in china and film companies that glamourise gangsters, thieves and cocaine?
Who gives the money to the advertisers that market every product you see?
Who heralds and supports and champions a world of competition where your kids must have this and must have that? - capitalists, lenders and bankers and their supporters.
It's IMPOSSIBLE to get by, let alone prosper, without entering some form of debt unless born with money. It's just as hard being able to choose who receives the money you pay for products and services.
The financial culture is created BY THE CAPITALISTS AND LENDERS for their own sake!
2(b). The capitalists (product coys), lenders and bankers pay us our wages - NO!
The customers pay us our lousy minimum wage from the residue of whats left of profit from product/ service sales, after the capitalists and their henchmen take their cream.
This wage is one controlled by them which doesn't allow us to own the homes we live in - in the very countries we built for THEM to live in.
The owners of the businesses, the bankers and lenders, are the ones trying to sell us 4x4s and dodgy mortgages - in order to maintain their own greed, their own positions, their own lifestyles.
3. When the lenders are to blame for the financial situation in the world today it is because they have lent to risky borrowers, therefore it is the fault of risky borrowers - NO!
The risky borrowers are the relatively well paid (middle management etc) or the poorly paid who are in work and won't be much longer due to the financial climate created by the lenders and capitalists in the first place.
Try getting a loan for a petrol guzzling 4x4 or a mortgage on benefits or a minimum wage. You can't even get a £200 loan to save someone's life.
Try finding somebody on a minimum wage who has a clean credit history (see 2*).
Every penny somebody on benefits receives goes straight back in to the NATIONAL ECONOMY either over the counter or via payment of bills.
POOR people are not to blame for the state of the ECONOMY!
How much have you got in the bank?
EVER THOUGHT OF DRIVING A VAUXHALL? Going on holiday to Rhyl? Shopping at Fred the butchers?
It's not poor borrowing that's got each country into the mess they are in .. it's poor spending .. poor spending by those with money to spend or lend - people who usually have no sense of national spirit and who deem the poor as being the underclass who are always to blame - because they are easy to blame!
What sort of people disagree with this - I can't wait for their star to fall.
4. The risky borrowers are people who can't afford to pay back- NO!
People who can't afford to pay back can't get loans in the first place!
If they can it is because they can afford to pay back or are committing fraud.
Risky borrowers are those who are fairly well paid and who blow away their money (probably on foreign products) or, who will lose their job due to circumstances unseen to all apart from the capitalists, lenders and bankers who move businesses around the world like chess pieces.
5. People who don't pay taxes ruin the economy or at the very least, don't help get it back on its feet. Therefore these people should be subject to a form of derision and slavery where they are forced to work in order to provide taxes to governments which will bail out banks to spend it all over the world or invest in people who do - NO!
These people, who can't afford mortages, weddings, university fees, foreign holidays, cars (let alone 4x4s) and recieve insult upon insult upon injury are definitely the true victims and probably the true heroes (certainly always the chosen cannon fodder) in all this. When they lend a tenner to a friend they don't demand £12 back either.
Alright Mr Banker, so you're not my friend, it's a professional relationship, but don't come crying to me about broken national values until you know what the cogs of a nation are. They're called people. People will work for the benefit of themselves, their families and their countries but they won't work for your international pyramids, the international nation of the dollar or for a pittance and a mortgage for a home (in their own country) that gets repossessed when you decide to reallocate to cheaper 'human resources' elsewhere - it should actually be against their human rights - Rule Britania and all that.
The chanting mantras can't admit that the financial industry is a filthy fifty story igloo built on the sahara sands. It was meant to keep the pharoh's beer cool, but Iceland is just the tip of the Iceberg, it's the chimney of the igloo which just slid off the whole improper system.
None of you even know you're born, save your blame for those who get paid to take it.
Where does all money come from and does ink cost more than metal?
Complain about this comment
WA;
When I am undercover I do not use a hammer and sickle. There are far more appropriate "tools" for those circumstances.
Sorry about the link to the Twilight Zone. If you want to watch it go to
www.cbs.com
select shows, in the last column called TV Classics, select the next to last selection called "The Twilight Zone"
The episode I selected is called "Time Enough At Last" and was broadcast in season one. You'll have to get to page 12 of "full episodes." On that page it's got an icon on the lower right side.
They all have one thing in common, a surprise ending. Here's a link to a summary of all of them;
http://tzone.the-croc.com/original-twilight-zone-episode-guide.html
It had quite a following when it was first aired. I've got my favorites which stil entertain after nearly 50 years. Buck Houghton who produced many of them also produced many of the Alfred Hitchcock episodes for TV also.
Complain about this comment
You're a pearl Mr. Clam;
"The point is moot, regardless of how you word the argument for and against, Iceland will still have to pay what it owes lest it wishes to be isolated financially from the World"
Speaking about international law, that is where the legal obligation of the government of Iceland to make good on defaults of banks chartered in its territory to extra-terrestrials in the UK and Holland will be settled in a court in all likelihood. I'm not an international lawyer, are you? But I can read English after a fashion and it seems to me that from what I know of it in this Wikipedia article, probably more than most Brits know about the facts of it, it seems that the UK and Holland likely won't win. That being the case, while Iceland may not be the most credit worthy nation in the world today, (who is anymore, Canada?) it should not lose any standing for not paying Britain 6 billion dollars it doesn't owe it. (They'd probably have wasted it on something useless anyway.) They should just consider it more foreign aid. After all they have no trouble giving it away to others freely, why should this bother them? How much did they give Mugabe in Zimbabwe to buy white owned farms with?
We'll also see about the Malvinas. Seems to me a few shepherds living in a hand full of villages hardly constitutes a thriving community. There are probably more sheep there than people. Funny, the UK didn't even offer to share the oil in a joint venture. They want it all for themselves. We'll see how that one works out too. Even if the UK wins, it will lose. It will lose all good will if there is any left from Latin America. I think the EU has lost that already anyway with its punitive economic migrant laws recently passed. If the Argentines are really angry, how will they defend their drilling rigs? I'm sure British ships will not be welcome in Argentine ports or anywhere in Latin America for that matter.
http://www.hotindienews.com/2010/02/23/1019479
Mexico, Chile, Ecuador, Bolivia, Venezuela, Guatamala have all been among those countries in Latin America supporting Argentina.
"In a statement last week, the Falkland Islands government, which represents its 2,500 residents, said it had “every right to develop a hydrocarbons industry within our waters.”"
2500 colonists 8000 miles from Britain living on a rock, a third of the way around the world, secure Britain's right of up to 3.5 billion barrels of oil and possibly a great deal of natural gas off the coast of Argentina? We'll see about that.
Complain about this comment
Gheryando, re your post#213.
Happy accident...:-)
Regards, viewcode
Complain about this comment
The referendum in Iceland is over. Almost all votes were no votes, and the Government will continue its negotiation with the UK and Holland. It will in other words not follow the result of the referendum, and the government will not leave office. Clearly a devaluation of the referendum as institution. I think it is time for the Nordic countries to take a talk with London.
Mr. Hewitt,
A suggestion to you: Have you noticed what is going on through the so-called libel tourism in the UK? The US congress is taking steps against this, and members of the European union are takin steps to bring this to the commission in Brussels, a legal step that is directed against the legislation in the UK that makes libel tourism possible at all. A case for you, I think, and in case you should not have noticed, I can tell you that it involves the Danish caricatures.
Complain about this comment
These island hicks didnt have a problem trying to pass themselves off as big dogs in the world of international finance when their dodgy banks were playing russian roulette with their economy. As it happens they were a cocker spaniel in a game played by Alsatians.
Now the gun went off and blew their financial brains out and they dont want to pay their bill like the rest of the world has been forced to.
Shut off their IMF access and sanction their exports - then they will see how easy it is to live on just fish and hot air.
As for their MP's claiming we used battleships against their fishing fleets in the cod wars - actually they were Frigates a fraction of the size and were frequently rammed by bolshie Icelandic fisherman. Apparently they dont have accurate history records as well as competent financiers.
And lets not forget that the Allies had to occupy Iceland in WW2 to protect the sea lanes because the bulk if the Icelanders sympathized with the Nazis.
Complain about this comment
I remember a time when Icelandic Banks and Businessmen were busy buying up valuable UK Companies and Assets to add to the wealth of their Country. This was financed on Credit of course in the days of easy credit !
As in any loan agreement if you default your assets are lost.
I fully agree with the UK Government freezing these Assets in the event
of non payment as it has turned out to be.
Complain about this comment
@viewcode
I agree that my hastily written phrase in close inspection could contain an unintended contradiction. I used the word nation to signify people not countries/governments and this might not be the proper terminology. I agree with your comments and I also do not see an immediate and easy solution to democratic deficit of EU. The whole EU has to be rethought and redesigned from scratch. I hope that this does not happen after WW3... (starting again at the Balkans?). I hope not!
Complain about this comment
218. @EARTHLING1
Well said. This alternative point of view contains many valid points which are conveniently ignored by the neoliberal elit which governs us all.
Complain about this comment
I don't agree with the idea of a child being smacked for something another kid did.
I didn't agree with the banking deregulation at the time. I feel that everyone 'involved' today should take some responsibility rather than get off scot free. UK in this case the country I am from, got its fingers burned. It happens, making innocent people pay 99 euros for someone elses mistake is part time slavery. 5% is way too high and no loans should of been made on the basis of 5% is what should be recieved.
Complain about this comment
viewcode
Re #211
"..UK constitutional system is not... to our advantage.."
That may be your view but it is not mine nor I dare say of a good many other UK/England Citizens.
If English Common Law and the unwritten Constitution are so bad for the British Citizens then the advantages of rule from Brussels would be beyond dispute.
Fact is the freedoms, rights and responsibilities of the UK Citizen are open to interpretation by whichever administration comes in to No.10.
The Westminster Parliament has gone through positive & negative processes during its evolution and I see no reason for that quite literally open stage to be abandoned: Whether I agree or not with a precedent set by a UK Court or the latest Anti-Terror legislation the fact is I am able to influence that decision-making procedure at local, regional and National level. It is well within my capabilities to involve myself (I have done this; I'm sure many have over the years) in seeking a change to UK Law and seeing that effort and those of others succeed. In the final analysis once every 5 years a UK Citizen can assist in removing a UK/England Government if enough Citizens are like-minded.
No such ability/facility exists within the EU; it is impossible to see how any European Citizen/s could approach Brussels on any issue with any realistic prospect of successfully altering EU Law - - it is almost entirely set-up to be responsive to the paid 'lobbying' organisations and to well-funded campaigns - - and individual MEPs are so cocooned from the 500,000,000 it is almost a sick joke to suggest they have anything in common with their 'constituents'. An EU Citizen is no more than a cipher much as they were in the Soviet Union.
I am sorry, but that is the actual situation for Citizens: Just like in the former USSR, which had one of the finest ever Constitutions guaranteeing all sorts of fundamental freedoms, the actual practise negated/s any and every Citizen's Right & Responsibility under the Law in order to serve the State - - in this case a supra-National EUropean Union.
Yes, EUropeans can move cross-borders without showing a Passport & 16 Nations can use the same Currency and it is all at the behest of Brussels.
That is a positive in some respects but it also comes with the downside acknowledged by every EUropean Police Force of the massive increase in smuggling of Drugs, Weapons, Counterfeit goods & the horrific Trafficking of untold millions of vulnerable men, women & children.
Well, in the UK 4 Nationalities have for 200+ years moved cross-border without showing Passports, use the same Currency and there is also the 'downside; however, the idea of opening up British Isles' borders even more in order to suit Brussels given its complete failure to control EU 'external borders' is wholly unacceptable. UK border controls are generally managed by Westminster/No.10 - - the key difference being those MPs and Cabinet Ministers from PM down can be subject to Citizens' pressure and must reflect Citizen's views on such key security issues and as a last resport may be voted out of Office (or more likely lose their Ministerial post for mismanagement; just look at the Home Secretary changes, something almost no EU Commissioner faces no matter how useless or corrupt they are shown to be).
The UK system allows for exactly those benefits the EU likes to claim as some sort of miracle inception by Brussels when the reality is it was playing catch-up with the British Isles: Though of course the MEPs & Commissioners are not the subject of and need not give one iota of concern for public pressure on any 'border/security' matter, anymore than they do any other area of Public life!
If there is a similar opportunity for the individual Citizen to approach the Brussels' political machinery with any reasonable expectation of making a difference then I have yet to have that sufficiently explained or demonstrated!? The all-encompassing, one-size-fits-all, overmighty, centralising authority and power of an EU Parliament, Commission, Council etc. is simply NOT suited to 'Democratic' methods - - it is too unwieldy in its labrynthian functions & bodies, its centralised EUrocracy too inflexible/unresponsive. The EU is a creation deliberately aimed at serving 'big-Business/big-Government' aspirations and interests. The ordinary Citizen is plainly not adequately served by such an institution.
If you can point to where Brussels has significantly advanced the cause of individual Citizen's freedoms, rights & responsibilities to a degree markedly different and improved from that prevailing in the UK then please do so. Frankly, the much spouted Fundamental Charter of Human Rights which came in with the Lisbon Treaty and that 'pro-EU' are so fond of lauding is simply a rewritten version of freedoms, rights etc. that have long existed in the UK and most of 'west' Europe.
One only has to read the 'pro-EU' duplicitously mentioning that thanks to Lisbon 1,000,000 signatures on a petition and Brussels will be obliged to act on some issue - - it is a statistical farce - - - even if a petitioner could hold together a movement long enough to enable the petition to get the numbers the Brussels legislative process is so inadequate it would be years before anything were done!
Right or wrong the Westminster MPs are the subject of Popular intervention and will raise matters on the floor of the Commons that are pertinent to the moment - - legislation can be and is enacted quickly when it is thought it is required - - though we may not all agree with the 'new' legislation it is at least a reflection of 'Democracy' in action on behalf of the Citizens of the UK. If it ('new') proves unsatisfactory/unworkable/unpopular then the next Government/Parliament has the authority to revise/strike down that legislation.
In my view the flexibility and responsiveness of the UK Constitution is to be applauded.
It is a simlar situation with the Common Law: Since the early 1960s it has been interpreting such modern issues as Equal Pay, Gender Discrimination, Racial Equality, Divorce Rights etc. and made notably fair and reasoned Judgements which at times have been taken all the way to the International Court of Justice (the recently introduced Supreme Court takes the responsiveness of English Common Law into a new and even more effective era) - - why does the the UK/England also need to adhere to decisions handed down by the EUropean Court of Justice which is set-up entirely to represent the interests of the Brussels-based EU!? Well, of course, as members of the EU the ECJ comes as part of the political-judicial package for the UK, but if the ECJ is to continue to encroach on 2,000 years of English Common Law you will find Your "..slugs and snails.." analogy only too much of a reality as EUrope seeks to dominate the British Isles Judiciary as well as its body-Politic.
I repeat, it is not for the UK/England to justify its continued existence, but for the EUropean Union which wishes to replace the historic-cultural authority & power of Westminster, to deliver evidence of a better system.
Until now I can only also repeat IMO there is scant evidence of the EU doing so.
Complain about this comment
191. cool_brush_work
"...So, which of these is your preference:.."
1) Status quo - No thank you.
2) Do away with a 2nd chamber altogether – This would work so long as we still have a fourth estate to mercilessly savage wrongdoers and regular open elections are held . A right for the electorate to spark recall elections would greatly help, as would a Swiss style referendum system.
3) An elected 2nd Chamber – My second preference [to work as a revising chamber as now]. So what if the 'lorded' authority of the Commons is challenged? They'd still have the luxury of the Parliament Act to push through measures in the governing party's manifesto.
Complain about this comment
RobertAtkinson wrote:
"I don't agree with the idea of a child being smacked for something another kid did."
I think that is the core issue at stake, and it seems to be the issue that is being resolutely ignored by the political class.
I do not understand where the line is drawn between private and public property anymore. Which speculations belong to private individuals and corporations, and which speculations are made with a government guarantee?
Why does the government step in and correct the market in some cases, but not in others? Why are taxpayers expected to bail out some investors, but not others?
If the government does step in to pay money to private investors, under what criteria does it do so?
We have all entered a weird new world, one where governments see themselves as entitled to play god with the market, and to determine who shall be the winners and the losers in the market.
The only difference between this new model of government and socialism is that the socialists were trying to achieve something nobel. The current governments are simply trying to achieve a transfer of wealth to suit a particular demographic.
But in both cases, the market has been interfered with by governments.
It is worth remembering that socialism failed exactly because the governments interfered with markets in order to make them "fair", and thus destroyed confidence in the markets. People no longer wanted to work because someone from government would always come along, make a speech about what is fair, and then take your money and give it to a party member.
In the weird new world, will people continue to work when someone from government always comes along and makes a speech about "too big too fail", and then takes the workers money in order to give it to a member of the investment class?
The core issue is the role of government with regards to the market, and who shall pay for the risks and the losses of others. Which child do we punish, when the rich man's child does wrong?
There are some particularly foolish folks on this thread whose idiotic nationalism is allowing them to blame ordinary icelanders for the sins of the bankers and the investors who took part in the iceland banking farce. That is instructive foolishness, because it shows how quickly people will blame a whole group of people for the sins of a few.
I can see the entire city of London becoming a target for aggression and vicious hatred. People are being punished for things they never did, nor had any hand in doing. And that seems to be the role of government in the weird new world.
So where does that go, in the end?
Complain about this comment
@230. democracythreat
Well said once again.
Complain about this comment
230. democracythreat
"...Why does the government step in and correct the market in some cases, but not in others? Why are taxpayers expected to bail out some investors, but not others?.."
This is a very good question, as we flounder under a £189bn public finance deficit, and our weakening currency means the price of petrol goes up every time we fill up, Brown should spell this out.
People like to forget who pulled the levers that sucked money belonging to all of us into the likes of Northern Rock and the Scottish banks. They prefer instead to point to the 'man who saved the World' tag and remind us what the opposition would have done (in their opinion).
Complain about this comment
... still the question remaines unanswered...
Icesave is a private bank. The people that invested there were private individuals doing a classical speculative investment outwards nations to a small island of 300,000 people in the middle of the ocean. They played, they lost.
Now on what pretext does UK's (and/or other) governments demand the government of Iceland to tax the citizens who (apart the 10-20 responsible employees of the bank in concern) that had nothing to do with the British and other citizens' speculative games?
What is the basis for such a move?
Complain about this comment
Just saw that the same again was being asked in mes230 by Democracythreat... it is exactly like that...
Complain about this comment
233. Nik
"...nothing to do with the British and other citizens' speculative games?...What is the basis for such a move?.."
Did the Icelandic government underwrite the bank by any form of guarantee?
If so this is the basis no?
The Icelandic people elect the Icelandic government and pick up the tab if any deal goes sour.
Complain about this comment
The facts:
Iselanders voted overwhelmingly 'no' in their referendum.
Potential lenders to Iceland will overwhelmingly vote 'no' when the island asks them for desperately needed loans.
Is Iceland really willing to follow Greece's example?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Complain about this comment
"Many believed the recession was caused by greedy bankers and that working people are paying the price."
Very well put, Gavin. "Lets drink to the hard-working people, lets drink to the salt of the earth." (Stones)
There are a few more culprits though: Finance ministers, central banks and financial authorities who failed to regulate (and are still failing us NOW, they have not listened to the advice offered by socially responsible economists) - Gordon Brown and his US and Iceland counterparts - rating agencies that depending on how much you pay them put their thumb up or down (ruining whole countries), estate agents and last but not least all of us, depositors trying to get a high rate of interest or house-buyers speculating on ever higher returns. The greed is US!
I can't say I was free from that greed because - as an expatriate - I trusted Pound Sterling not to turn into a "banana-republic" - currency. But it did and I lost 30% of my retirement savings (I'm 55). Others lost far more.
People with some wisdom questioned where those wonderfully high returns came from and realised that somebody had to pay. Somebody always has to pay! Now the fresh fruit have turned into a dish of maggots.
"Some come come out in the open,
and others operate in the dark,
And you will see those in the open,
but those in the dark you won't"
Bertolt Brecht
Our demands are clear:
Jail bankers, abolish bonuses, private rating agencies and hedge fonds. Put a surcharge on all trading in derivatives (including currency options). Those of us who spent too much time among deluded capitalists know the logic of those demands. I must count myself among them.
Complain about this comment
rg
Re #229
Yes, I'm with you on the choices.
I'm not about defending the power of the Commons just for the sake of it: However, if we do away with the Peers of the Realm we do have to establish a proper 2nd Chamber that cannot rise 'above' the Commons and yet will have sufficient independence to be able to 'amend' a Bill sent to it by MPs and at least to delay its enactment for 1 perhaps 2 years.
Always remembering it is in the Commons resides the authority granted by the UK/England Electorate at a General Election - - IMO this Citizen-based power is and must remain paramount - - which of course leads me to again ponder the 'constituency' of a 2nd chamber & for how long it might serve?
My preference would be that Members of the new House of Advisors are:
a) Drawn from various National institutions, e.g. 6 to 9 NHS experts, 6 to 9 Trade Union experts, 6/9 Police/Security experts, 6/9 Education experts, 6/9 Military experts, 6/9 Religius experts, 6/9 Local Government experts, 6/9 Transport experts... indeed 6 to 9 from all the recognised key branches of socialo-cultural-political groupings - - they would be chosen by election from every adult qualifying as a member within each group (no 2nd /3rd vote rights)
b) It is 7 years between (s)election to it (unaffected by 5yr Parliament)
- - thus the Advisors get to influence incoming & outgoing Government policies (the blatant election Budgets being one such target!)
c) Should be no more than 180 in number - - small in number & less civil service admin. requirement - - with the opportunity of distinct opinion and non-partisan approach to each Advice on Legislation
d) no Advisor to hold their position for more than 3 successive terms (i.e. 21 years max, but can return after a 7 year break)
e) And for heavens sake - - could we please have Advisors sitting in a Chamber that enables Computer access, Electronic (& transparent) Voting, a 5 Day working week (8 hour day/9 with a free lunch), full Media coverage etc.
The above is what I would prefer for a devolved, independent England: I make no claim to have any input to what the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish desire for their respective devolved political scenarios and that goes for their membership of the EU.
Ah well, such is life's little political-constitutional dreams!
Having seen the complete farce of the so-called Expense Reforms (how these MPs can imagine such petty changes constitute 'REFORM' is beyond me!?): I wont be holding my breath in anticipation of anything significant changing this decade.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
222. At 05:41am on 07 Mar 2010, Mathiasen wrote:
"The referendum in Iceland ... . ... Clearly a devaluation of the referendum as institution. ..."
EUpris: I don't agree with that and I DEMAND that we in the UK get the referendum we were promised.
DEMAND!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Complain about this comment
To Mathiasen (222):
I think it is time for the rest of the EU and EEA countries to call UK and Netherlands out, either they put a formal complaint about Iceland not following the rules of the single market to the ECJ/EFTA court or shutup about the matter.
What I'm most frustrated about this situation that nobody follows rules. If there is disagreement on what the rules are, on did the other participant follow rules or not, then the court of law is the only right place to settle that.
Complain about this comment
Individual Icelanders are quite right to reject any proposal that they should personally have their future earning slowly siphoned off to repay this debt. There is as much moral right to demand this as there is of repayment of Third World Debt.
The debt should remain with those people and organisations in the UK daft enough to entrust their money to a sovereign nation that has a population of the same size Cleethorpes on a sunny day, commercial expertise aligned with that of your average High Street wet-fishmonger rather than leading edge banking, and asset-backing with as much substance and permanence as their glaciers in this globally warmed world we live. Likewise, membership of the EU should automatically by granted as soon as their financial maturity gets past adolescence and they are capable of holding their own with the big boys and can afford to get their round in when it’s their shout. In the meantime, one can hardly argue with the argument that the International Monetary Fund should continue to feed them pocket-money in return for keeping their room clean and doing their homework.
Complain about this comment
#239
REFERRED to Moderators!
I used 2 Anglo-Saxon expletives but was careful to eliminate 4 letters from each thus leaving the gist of the meaning - - neither word was used in connection with any other Contributor or other Comment.
Both were used as the accurate reporting of my father's account of how he felt in 1940 on the beach at Dunkirk.
Quite WHY anyone would find this terminology in the least OFFENSIVE is beyind my understanding.
I would suggest the Moderator just assume him/her SELF very, very, very fortunate AND GRATEFUL to be able at this 60 year range to have the TEMERITY to consider such words in such circumstances as anything other than PERFECTLY REASONABLE & REPEATABLE.
A while ago on the Stephanomic´s Blog 1 Contributor wrote 35 times denying the Holocaust!
Not 1 of those Comments was Moderated!
Complain about this comment
re235: RG thanx for the clarification - admitting being not very well informed (and the articles I read did not aid me in that direction) I had already that suspicion of the Icelandic government having something to do with that.
But when did they exactly give the underwriting kind of guarantee? Before or after? And how was that decided by the government? There are many details and at the end, even if "legally" British government having a right to call Icelanders to repay the loss, the ethical question remains: I mean that can be done to practically every little islandic or not nation in the world... nice way to make some money!
Icelanders either having to pay or not should simply put to prison those leaders that decided on such a policy with the Icesave - something we should had done long ago with Greece (not only prison but also death penalty).
Complain about this comment
"15. At 12:19pm on 05 Mar 2010, MarcusAureliusII wrote:
What a laugh. Suddenly when the shoe is on the other foot, agreements matter to Britain. How soon they are to forget. I'm talking about the release of the mass murderer Magrahi and how the British government gave every assurance that if he were convicted by a Scottish court under Scottish law by a Scottish jury the US would give up its claim to prosecute him. And then he was released "on humanitarian grounds" because he had no more than three months to live as though that mattered or had any bearing on the agreement. Six months later I still haven't seen his obituary. He'll probably live a good long life back in Lybia for having murdered nearly 300 people, most of them Americans. Are British doctors under the NHS that incompetent or were they just lying?
BTW, I'm siding with Argentia's claim on the Malvinas. What is the UK doing colonizing the South Atlantic anyway? Last vestiges of the British Empire? Let the UK buy its oil from Lybia instead in return for having freed Megrahi."
Bit rich coming from a yank isn't it - I'm sure that Argentina will take great comfort in the fact that you are backing them, in fact, as there is oil involved, when can we expect the US to discover "WMDs" and invade them too! If you want to discover a sinister Empire, look no further than your own foreign policy
Of course Iceland should repay it's debts - why should our pensioners die from cold while Iceland holds onto OUR money. I say seize their assets in this country and cut diplomatic ties with them. The Icelanders have lived the high life during the good times and now it's payback time - just like we are paying for the American's financial stupidity.
Complain about this comment
"A while ago on the Stephanomic´s Blog 1 Contributor wrote 35 times denying the Holocaust!
Not 1 of those Comments was Moderated!"
coz ur not in Austria/Germany. You live in a "free" country.
Complain about this comment
Jukka-Rohilla
Re #241
"..What I am most frustrated about in this situation is no one is following the rules.."
Welcome to the real World J_R!
It must be hard for you as one who constantly writes how because things are down on paper in black & white that must be how it really is!
Take a good, long, hard look at your EU J_R: There isn't supra-national document whose ink was dry before 1 or more Nations was bending, twisting or just simply ignoring part or all of its content.
By the way, re, "..it is time for the rest of the EU and EEA countries to call UK and Netherlands out.."
Yeah right! Both Nations are quaking in their boots!
Ooooh, what'll we do if France & Germany start to tell us off about not following Economic rules?
Hmm, at a guess, we will both point to France & Germany's collusion for 10 years with Greece and insist the Paris-Berlin axis-of-evil-intent get their nosey, duplicitous, conniving faces out of our legitimate Business with Iceland.
Complain about this comment
Time to pack up the sheep and Hammer Home;
My, my, my you Brits certainly are a touchy lot. All those nice things you said about America and President Bush these last few years and here just a few "inconvenient facts" and you get all hot an bothered.
So you think because 2500 colonists on some barren god forsaken rock a third of the way around the world from Britain have stuck it out herding sheep for the last hundred years, Britain suddenly owns half the South Atlantic Ocean. What next, claims to America's off shore oil and natural gas because of the British Virgin Islands? It will be interesting to see which side President Obama supports, the nation who sent its sons to Afghanistan and Iraq underequipped to fight for what they perceived as threats to their own self interests according to their government despite half their population being outraged over it or the neighbors to the south. Glad I don't have that dilemma. We have a saying in my country; we have no dog in this fight.
"Bit rich coming from a yank isn't it"
Oh I don't know about that. Britain once thought it owned the entire world. Some Brits still have that quaint notion. The logistics of supplying and defending Britain's claimed interests around the Malvinas could become a lot more complicated. Britain could wind up burning more oil sending supplies and warships to defend the islands than it actually gets out of the ground. It could wind up a net loss especially if Argentina decides to "assert" its claimed interests with more than just words. An oil rig is a sitting duck even for something as crude as a French built Exocet missile. If Argentina decides to exploit its own claims to oil, I'd bet that the preferred contractors will be American, not European. Last time I checked, the Monroe Doctrine had not been repealed.
"Of course Iceland should repay it's debts - why should our pensioners die from cold while Iceland holds onto OUR money. I say seize their assets in this country and cut diplomatic ties with them. The Icelanders have lived the high life during the good times and now it's payback time - just like we are paying for the American's financial stupidity."
Actually Hammerhead, the only financial stupidity Britain is paying for...is its own. We'll see who the last man standing is. Where's that stiff upper lip you Brits are supposed to be so famous for? You want big bad Britain to bankrupt tiny little Iceland? Why that money would hardly pay for the cost of clipping MP's dogs toenails and maintaining their swimming pools let alone the bribes BAE has to pay out to Saudi princes to win military contracts instead of competing legally against American firms. Seems that "special relation" with the US isn't really all that special after all. Nations don't have friends, they have interests. Britain's seems to be getting what it wants and needs any way it can. Not all that different from Russia really. Small wonder the two nations collide so frequently.
Complain about this comment
cool_brush_work, re your post#228 here
I'm going to have to split my response into several parts. This is the first part.
Part 1: the desirability of a UK written constitution
Given that you state "...the freedoms, rights and responsibilities of the UK Citizen are open to interpretation by whichever administration comes in to No.10..." as an argument in favour, wheras I would greet the same statement as an argument against, I suspect we're not going to agree here.
You could list cases where the infinite flexibility of the UK governance system acted to the benefit of its citizenry, and so could I. I could list cases where the untrammeled power of the UK governance system acted to the detriment of its citizenry, and so could you. Of course, "infinite flexibility" and "untrammeled power" mean the same thing...:-(
Your judgement, at the end of the day and weighing it up, is that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. My judgement, at the end of the day and weighing it up, is that the disadvantages outweigh the advantages.
But I would have thought the fact that parliamentary-supremacy-plus-untrammeled-executive allowed the Lisbon Treaty to be UK-ratified without referendum would at least have given you pause...:-)
Regards, viewcode
Complain about this comment
cool_brush_work, re your post#228 here
I'm going to have to split my response into several parts. This is the second part.
Part 2: does EU do any good for individual UK people?
You posed the question "...If you can point to where Brussels has significantly advanced the cause of individual Citizen's freedoms, rights & responsibilities to a degree markedly different and improved from that prevailing in the UK then please do so..."
It's a valid point. Most arguments on the EU deal with abstracts ("sovereignity", "governance", etc) and omit individuals. So the question "Did Mrs X go to bed any happier because Brussels made her individual life better?" rarely gets asked. Hmmm, a challenge...:-) Give me a couple of weeks and I'll see if I can dig something up. I'll limit myself to individuals and non-regional groups (so it'll include, say, the Roma and exclude, say, the Basques). If the case involves the ECHR (a non-EU body under the Council of Europe), then I'll point it out, and if the case involves the CJEU (a EU body now encompassing the ECJ following Lisbon) or its predecessors, then I'll point that out as well. If I give up because there are other demands on my time (and I may well do so), I'll point that out as well....:-(
Regards, viewcode.
Complain about this comment
cool_brush_work, re your post#228 here
I'm going to have to split my response into several parts. This is the third part.
Part 3: utility of international courts for individuals
In your post, whilst discussing access by individuals to courts, you made passing reference to the "International Court of Justice". Did you get your courts mixed up? The International Court of Justice doesn't do individuals, it does countries. Did you mean the European Court of Human Rights, which does do individuals but isn't EU? Or did you mean the Court of First Instance (now General Court), which is EU and (I think) does do individuals? Or did you elide from dealing with access by individuals in the first part of the post, to dealing with access by countries in the second?
Regards, viewcode.
Complain about this comment
democracythreat, re your post#230 here
Amen.
Regards, viewcode.
Complain about this comment
carboncount, re your post#237 here
I made a similar point on a previous board. The devaluation of the pound is horrifying.
Regards, viewcode.
Complain about this comment
Jukka-Rohilla
Re #241
"..What I am most frustrated about in this situation is no one is following the rules.."
Finally Juka Boxa you've made a good point. Except this isn't a sudden disregard for the rules, it has a long history in the EU where expediency outweighs laws and principles every time. Anyone remember the Growth and Stability Pact in Maastrict, who insisted on it, who violated it, how enormous the fines were supposed to be, who "somehow" got it set aside when they were caught and it went before the court, and who just brushed the whole thing aside and let it drop? Well among those who made no noise about it is the very same UK which now insists that financial rules they assert are in effect regarding Iceland but seem to be of very dubious validity be enforced at once. Nice try Britain but you can't have it both ways all the time. The selective enforcement of laws and treaties when it is convenient and ignoring them when it isn't proves that the entire concept is invalid. Try a lawsuit.
How about an objective investigation of BAE's violation of the law and the complicity of the British government in the bribes of the Saudi Princes. The British government is resisting that strongly even in an investigation by its own justice department on grounds of "national security." I think BAE got off lightly with only a $400 million dollar fine in the US courts. I hope at the very least they are blacklisted for ten years from bidding on American military contracts to teach them a lesson. I know one nation that will be happy the Saudi warplanes are being built by BAE and that is Israel. It would be far easier for Israelis to take out European engineered weapons systems using American technology than it would be for them to take out American weapons systems if it ever came to a war between them and Saudi Arabia.
Complain about this comment
This is so imature. I can understand the british goverments feeling that it needs to protect depositors but this is rediculous. In doing so they may have actually helped precipitate the very crisis they were trying to prevent.
What everyone is forgetting is that in this modern age, financial instruments have become nothing more than products. Consumer credit cards, mortgages, bank accounts, Investment certificates... they are all designed with varying degrees of risk and reward. Its up to the institution that created them and government regulators to make sure they are safe or that at least risk is moderated. They are packaged, advertised, bought and sold.
If Toyota made a car that had a mechanical flaw would we hold the japanese people personally responsible. Obviously not, so why are so may financial products and institutions expected to be backstoped by citizens? There needs to be an entire re-think of the financial industry.
They need to be viewed for what they are. individual products. Some fail and some succeed. Instead we take them as some homogenous mass and somehow make sure that individual citizens are responsible for their failings.
Complain about this comment
Hold on a minute, hold on minute you No-minded Icelandic friends! I don't recall you coming out in the street, proudly waving your flags and saying No! to your unsustainable way of life, No! to your inflated pay slips and No! to your above European average standard of living.
Your Government was keen to cream of taxes from those banks you now say you had nothing to do with, and plough it back into your society.
You can't now act as spoiled children and say we enjoyed it whilst it lasted but now we want to pay back on our terms, because oh dear we had nothing to do with them nasty bankers. Yes you all did, so now it is ooops time. It's called collective responsibility.
Complain about this comment
@powermeerkat
If iceland is able to reject the british offer and walk away from that unfortunate debt I would LOVE to put my money in iceland.
Id be in line with bells one. A chance to invest in a modern country when no one else in the world wants too. Make decent rates. Buy assets significantly undervalued. Free of the british banking system.
OMG... opportunities like that don't come up often. Were do I sign.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
MA11
Re #254
It is a tad pot calling kettle black for an American such as you to point out the possible deficiencies of 'private' business transactions involving UK Companies at international level:
Former Vice President Cheney and Halliburton in Iraq?
Former Defence Secretary Rumsfeld and the infamous Blackwater security?
Former President Dubya Bush & any USA Oil, Gas, Nuclear Company with exploration contracts/licenses across continental North America you care to name?
Do tell us all: When exactly did the Pentagon-Weapons Manufacturers last have a Defence Contract that did not involve the most senior Offciers of various USA Armed Forces also holding Executive positions in those private business?
By the way there was no 400 million Dollar Fine of BAE - - think you are getting confused again!?
Complain about this comment
#241, Jukka
I think I will recommend the Icelanders to join the EU too, just as I will recommend them to get an agreement with the UK and Holland, but then it is actually the policy of the Icelandic government.
We can hardly find any better example than the conflict between EU and Microsoft to demonstrate that the need big friends if you, as a small country, are dealing with big opponents. Many of the European countries would not stand a chance against Microsoft, but EU is more than the company can order about.
If you haven’t heard about it, you will sometime in the future. The British legislation on libel has created a kind of export article, which let certain Britons with insight in law earn a tremendous lot of money. It is among other things endangering newspapers, but we have already seen the first British ambassadors actively defending this legislation.
I sincerely doubt that the UK would change its legislation before it faces sanctions from the EU, and I can almost guarantee that this matter will land on the table of the commission.
Complain about this comment
There seems to be an awful lot of whining coming out of Europe in general and Britain in particular lately. The climate's thay are a changin'. Not just the atmospheric climate but the economic and political climates too. The rule about change is, adapt and maybe survive or don't adapt and probably become extinct. Europe refuses to adapt to the new reality, the one it had been trying to pretend wasn't emerging. Well it's upon us all now and it won't do to pretend any longer. Europe cannot afford its ways any longer. The longer it wastes time trying desperately to cling to what is rapidly becoming the irrelevant past and ignores the arriving future by refusing to assess it and find a realistic niche it can occupy, the more severe the eventual consequences.
Even if it was true that Iceland owes Britain 6 or 8 billion dollars it doesn't have it. It's entire GNI is only 8 billion dollars. You can't get blood out of a turnip. Anyway, it's a matter for the courts to decide. Britain's impatience is a sign it knows it has a weak case at best.
When there was an opportunity to anticipate the future, steer the most favorable course for it, and accept that it was coming, Europe and the UK stuck its collective heads in the sand not wanting to hear about it. Anyone remember Margaret Thatcher? She brought coals to Newcastle because it was cheaper to import it than to mine it there. But they threw her out anyway. The US has entirely different problems. The US will also have to make radical adjustments but not the same ones or in the same way as Europe will. America's inherent advantages over all other countries will ultimately reassert itself. Europe is in a state of terminal decline. Now all it can do is make the best of it. If it still refuses, it will just continue to be battered against the rocks. Greece yesterday, Iceland today, Portugal, Spain, Italy, and Ireland tomorrow, labor troubles the day after, ethnic minority troubles the day after that, energy troubles the day after that. Very bleak outlook. And it all falls on the shoulders of an unwilling Germany. How fitting for a nation that once wanted an empire it was willing to die for but couldn't have, to now have one forced on it by its own foolishness. A bankrupt empire to bleed its resources dry. When it's over, it will be right were America found it at the end of WWII only this time nobody will come to its rescue.
Complain about this comment
cbw, you live in a world filled with self delusion. A day of reckoning is coming, the bubble has burst.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2011227669_bae02.html
BAE was lucky, there was no jail time for its executives.
So it seems rather surprising to you that American taxpayer dollars went to American corporations to rebuild Iraq? A lot of nations who opposed the invasion, in fact tried to stand in the way of it were even angrier they couldn't feed at the American taxpayer's trough after it was over too.
Among the worst offenders of our laws regarding industrial safety and safe work practices among large corporations operating in the US is British Petroleum. Many accidents, many deaths, many citations of violations, many fines over an extended period, it's a wonder they are even allowed to continue to operate here at all. This fine against BP this last time was only for 87 million dollars. They got off very lightly. No jail time there either.
http://www.allbusiness.com/legal/environmental-law-air-quality-regulation/13502198-1.html
By American standards, British industry stinks. Yet it among the best Europe has to offer. Small wonder they can't land on Mars. We'll see if they can even land in the Malvinas 47,992,000 miles closer to home.
Complain about this comment
Old Math;
"#241, Jukka
I think I will recommend the Icelanders to join the EU too"
From the article in Wikipedia, they are very lucky they aren't in the EU. If they were, their goverment would have been liable for the losses to British and Dutch depositors it likely isn't liable for. Of course if Iceland were in and had to pay, it would bankrupt them and they'd have to beg Germany for a bailout. Problem there is they'd have to wait in line with the rest of the PIIGS.
"We can hardly find any better example than the conflict between EU and Microsoft to demonstrate that the need big friends if you, as a small country, are dealing with big opponents. Many of the European countries would not stand a chance against Microsoft, but EU is more than the company can order about."
Not true. In the war between the EU and Microsoft, Microsoft won. The EU tried for over 10 years to get it to open its magic black box to reveal to the world the secrets of how Windows works. All it got was a menu for downloading internet browsers other than Microsoft Internet Explorer and selecting one of them as their default browser, something anyone could have done at any time they wanted to anyway. The menu just made it easier for tyros. Meanwhile Europe's alternative to Windows, Linux is a flop. Not only did Microsoft beat the EU, it beat the US DOJ too. Was Microsoft malevolent, it could shut Europe down at any time simply by refusing to do business in Europe any longer and downloading patches to all its other customers around the world making Europe incompatible with all other machines delinking and isolating it. Europe's Windows based systems would suddenly become obsolete, unsupported, and quarrantined. Bankruptcy for the EU would ensue within hours of the first trading day of worldwide stock markets.
"If you haven’t heard about it, you will sometime in the future. The British legislation on libel has created a kind of export article, which let certain Britons with insight in law earn a tremendous lot of money. It is among other things endangering newspapers, but we have already seen the first British ambassadors actively defending this legislation."
British libel laws are far more restrictive than those in the US. The export industry is to publish in the US and then the material is re-exported to the UK. The UK can no more keep embarrassing gossip out of its population's hands than China or Iran can keep out politically damaging views about their governments and societies out of theirs. The best way to pique people's interest in something is to censor it. That makes them want to find out about it all the more, even if they wouldn't have been interested in it if it were allowed. The day of censorship is over, the internet has seen to that.
"I sincerely doubt that the UK would change its legislation before it faces sanctions from the EU, and I can almost guarantee that this matter will land on the table of the commission."
The EU is now irrelevant. Why should EU sanctions matter any more to the UK than repeated serious violations of the Growth and Stability Pact in Maastrict mattered to France and Germany? BTW, where are your opt outs?
Complain about this comment
MAII
Re #262
"..self-delusion.. bubble burst..jail time.."
If 700,000+ deaths and 1,200,00+ injuries in Iraq for non-existent WMD isn't worth a moments jail-time for any 'delusional' & 'bubble-busted' American President or anyone in his equally deluded administration then I don't think the UK need fear too much!
I was one who supported (and still do) the joint US-UK invasion and ousting of Saddam Hussein: That it was eminently successful for 6 weeks and a grossly unpleasant debacle for 6 years afterwards is down entirely to the U.S.A.
'Day of reckoning'! Are you under the misapprehension the USA has any better future than the UK? You had better pray on your knees the UK doesn't fold to the EU - - take a look at these Blogs MAII - - the British (and not so many of them these days) are about the only friends/supporters the USA still has in the World.
Frankly, it is when you take these wild, uncontrolled swings at all things you perceive as un-American that you expose most accurately yours and your Nation's greatest weakness - - Your USA's achievements needed British, Russian, Chinese, European, African, Asian efforts and only You assume it was all down to Americans on their own - - the delusion and illusion is all down to You.
I have used this saying before and do so again as it is most applicable to You in your untramelled, erroneous jottings: 'The clear fool is foolishly clear'.
Complain about this comment
Gavin, the referendum results in Iceland make proof of at least three important things: first: the crushing majority of the Icelanders (93%) do not see any reason of being additionally taxed because of the collapse of Icesafe and the resulting intergovernmental bank agreement with London & Amsterdam; second: the future economic stability of Iceland will depend much on its membership to the EU; three: no country is preserved against the flaws and the abuses of some highly ranked bank officials.
Complain about this comment
@MarcusAureliusII
I wonder (in view of cool_brush_work's post 264), what is your view on the 'special relationship'? how special is it? Does US need UK (a bit if certainly not much, just to say that it has one willing follower at least)? What sd you think that UK gains by siding with US? etc.
Complain about this comment
viewcode
Re #251 and your previous 2 replies.
You are correct that my omission was in not alluding to Citizens in the first part and Nations in the second.
If you find the relevant detail of some EU individual who has had their particular interest/need/concern resolved by the EUropean Parliament then let us publish it to the 4 corners of the earth: Mind you, 1 amongst 500,000,000, doesn't really say much for 760+ MEPs who lay claim to being the voices of the Citizens, now does it!?
In all honesty, can anyone sriously make a case for 500,000,000 being better represented by 760+ than 60,000,000 by 650+ in the UK as well as the devolved various bodies?
It is utterly fantastic and a commentary on how low 'Democracy' is valued by the 'pro-EU' that any of them could conceive of a Brussels Parliament being effective across 27 Nations!
Complain about this comment
238. cool_brush_work
"...such is life's little political-constitutional dreams!.."
I have a dream that one or more of our professionally led political parties will include in their manifesto plans for constitutional reform, even if they only contain a fraction of the detail you propose.
As you say "life's little political-constitutional dreams".
And so we blunder along with a government firmly in the clouds. There are those who dream, and there are those who pay an elite to live a dream life.
Complain about this comment
265. At 5:55pm on 07 Mar 2010, generalissimo wrote:
"Gavin, the referendum results in Iceland make proof of at least three important things: first: ... second: the future economic stability of Iceland will depend much on its membership to the EU ... "
EUpris: And how do you come to that conclusion?
Complain about this comment
257. At 3:59pm on 07 Mar 2010, HDB1313 wrote:
"@powermeerkat
If iceland is able to reject the british offer and walk away from that unfortunate debt I would LOVE to put my money in iceland. "
It is marvellous place. Everything works. The people are friendly and reasonable. I saw no British-style thugs and felt very safe at night. If I come into some money, I might just see you there. If you bump into a handsome, charming Englishman - it isn't me.
Complain about this comment
246. At 2:45pm on 07 Mar 2010, Gheryando wrote:
"A while ago on the Stephanomic´s Blog 1 Contributor wrote 35 times denying the Holocaust!
Not 1 of those Comments was Moderated!"
coz ur not in Austria/Germany. You live in a "free" country.
EUpris: And quite right too. The actions against holocaust deniers in German and Austria merely give those sad people publicity. German and Austria are special cases. The whole world is just waiting for an excuse to link them to the Nazis. I have read that Merkel wants to make holocaust denial illegal in the whole of the "EU". WE don't need the "EU"-Dictatorship bossing us around in our own country.
Complain about this comment
260. At 4:37pm on 07 Mar 2010, Mathiasen wrote:
" ... I think I will recommend the Icelanders to join the EU too ..."
EUpris: Well if you do that, I am sure they will do it straight away!"
Complain about this comment
EUpris
Re #271
I am surprised You seem to be under some sort of illusion that the 'pro-EU' Gheryando believes in the same 'democracy' as you and I!
I do not want the Holocaust denier miderated - - I was pointing out the farce and insult of my Father's verbal description of of his feelings on the beach at Dunkirk WAS referred for Moderation!
So, we have a veteran British 'tommy' being DENID the public airing of his views and a supporter of Fascism being passed without hindrance by the British Broadcasting Corporation.
That is quite an achievement in the "..free country.." my WW2 father fought for to ensure You and I are 'free' to air our views in 2010!
Complain about this comment
v;
"I wonder (in view of cool_brush_work's post 264), what is your view on the 'special relationship'? how special is it? Does US need UK (a bit if certainly not much, just to say that it has one willing follower at least)? What sd you think that UK gains by siding with US? etc."
The "special relation" the UK has with the US is a figment of Britain's imagination. It is pure wishful thinking. The US has never really had any strong liking or affinity for Britain. American history begins as a revolt against the British Crown, something Brits have yet to manage for themselves two and a third centuries later. I see them as fools and slaves. America was invented by its founding fathers as an anti-Europe, an anti-Britain. It retained British common law for awhile but that's about the limit of it. America's population is rapidly diverging from even being mostly of European ancestry. That will not change America one jot. An American is an American is an American. We cannot tell even among ourselves where other Americans' ancestors came from except by their physical appearance, by their names, and sometimes food preferences.
The US needs no one, no other nation. It has in the past and could in the future survive entirely independently from them. The US is a civilization unto itself apart in a very real sense from the rest of the world. It is made up of the descendants of people and of the people themselves who have fled their own civilizations for one reason or another finding it unacceptable for them to fulfill their lives there. For some it was the inability to earn enough money, for some it was for the inability to pursue their interests, exploit their own talents to their fullest potential, and for some it was for fear of losing their very lives that drove them to leave. It takes a great deal of courage to leave one's home, one's familiar surroundings and go to a faraway place where you don't know the laws, are not part of the society, may not even know their language, and may even be unwelcome. A trickle, then a river, then an ocean of such people have fled to America for over 500 years and they continue coming often bringing with them no more than the shirts on their backs. My grandparents came here that way. No turning back, no going home. Unwanted, unneeded, despised simply for who they were, they fled to the only place in the world that would take them in, accept them on their own terms, give them a chance at life, give them hope. I will forever be grateful that they did. Me and the descendants of countless tens, even hundreds of millions of other Americans who made the same choice, took the same risk, and never regretted it for one day.
I am here as an undistored mirror to show Europe what it is, what it has always been, and why its reign of terror over the world is at an end and should be at an end. That Britain or anyone clings to America in some vain hope that America will save it is a desperate and foolish notion. Nothing can save it.
I am what most would call an isolationist. America doesn't need to import anything except the tired, poor, huddled masses and wretched refuse to fulfill its destiny. With the exception of a few rare minerals it has everything it needs to be self sufficient indefinitely. And for those who don't know, between natural gas offshore, coal, uranium, it has enough energy reserves within its own territory for many many hundreds of years to come. There is nothing it can't do, manufacture, or grow for itself. It is time to reject the multinationalism that has hamstrung the American nation for the benefit of a few global corporations that are based here. America should tell them they can either be foreign companies or American companies but not both. GE and its like in particular should be told either bring back manufacturing to the US or face huge import taxes that will allow domestic competitors to emerge and knock you out of the American market. The process that began with Woodrow Wilson should come to an abrupt end.
Complain about this comment
273. At 7:55pm on 07 Mar 2010, cool_brush_work wrote:
"EUpris
Re #271
I am surprised You seem to be under some sort of illusion that the 'pro-EU' Gheryando believes in the same 'democracy' as you and I "
I am under no such illusion. He has shown no embarrassment for the fact that we were denied the referendum we were promised.
To be honest, I had not read your posting. I hope I have not offended you in any way.
Complain about this comment
#263. At 5:34pm on 07 Mar 2010, MarcusAureliusII
Re. the libel tourism
I understand you know nothing about the problem. Taking into account the way you understand the world I will recommend you take a look on the legislation the House of Representatives in the US congress is preparing against that UK legislation that enables libel tourism.
Complain about this comment
Old Math;
Not the House, not the Senate, not the President, not anyone can abrogate the freedom of speech anyone in the US enjoys as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. The first amendment to the Constitution will force the Supreme Court to strike down any inane law that ever gets passed to supress someone's right to speak out in the US probably 9-0. Should prisoners of the UK escape and come to America to speak out against the tyranny of their government, they will find a limitless platform from which to speak. Restrictions in the US are limited and very specific. They do not include embarassing or insulting anyone in Great Britain or anywhere else. Neither misguided American legislation nor British law will keep it out of Britain.
Complain about this comment
EUpris.
No probs. Cheers.
Complain about this comment
Old Math;
While UK law has no weight in the US, it does in the UK. Here's a libel suit in the making, Geldorf vs BBC.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8554048.stm
Do you think he'll sue. The allegations are serious. Geldorf's money going mostly to buy arms for the rebels who were responsible for the humanitarian crisis he collected donations to fight as I understand it. Who is right? How should I know. I'll wait to see what the court has to say.
Complain about this comment
You write: "London and Reykjavik - and the Dutch - have been haggling over the terms for months. "
There should not have been any haggling at all, since the Icelandic nation does not owe one cent to the Netherlands and the UK for Icesave. The Icelandic state and the Icelandic nation have no legal obligation to pay this debt of the privately owned bank of Bjorgolfur Thor Bjorgolfsson of London, England, UK, who was the bank's main owner. Most Iceland citizens did not even know Icesave existed. The Dutch and UK authorities were legally responsible for the bank's operation on British and Dutch soil under the EEA/EU (European Economic Area/European Union)law, specifically Directive 94/19 EC. The bank operated in the Netherlands and in the UK with the permission of the Dutch and UK authorities and under the monitoring of these authorities. This is important since the bank had to get permission from the host states (Netherlands and the UK authorities) by law in order to operate within those 2 countries.
Rather than taking the responsibility for the EEA/EU Directive, the EU and the IMF, the Netherlands and the UK, chose to bully and force Iceland against any law and judgment. The EU and the authorities of the Netherlands and the UK are misleading or lying to the world about the liability of the Icelandic nation. They have abused their power within the IMF in order to put unlawful pressure on the Icelandic government and nation to pay the losses endured by Icesave customers in the Netherlands and the UK. If these authorities believed they had a legal claim, they should and would have filed one in a court of law. Yet they have refused to settle this in court. So they chose to use undue pressure. These authorities forced the Icelandic government to sign a contract saying they (the Icelandic government) would NOT follow a court judgment.
This is coercion and extortion, plain, old blackmail. The Icelandic nation has never agreed to be under British and Dutch rule and does not need to follow any unlawful bullying or orders from the EU and the IMF, the Netherlands and the UK. The UK government did not demand damages from the United States´ public when Lehman Brothers went bankrupt, causing a great loss to the UK. No, the Netherlands and the UK would not dare demand unlawful damages from the United States.
Complain about this comment
You wrote: "Now, as the two sides negotiated in London, there were doubts that the referendum would go ahead. Nobody knew 24 hours ago whether it was on or off."
The Iceland government was obligated by our Constitution to hold the referendum, since our President rejected the coercion bill and refused to sign it into law. This was NOT AN OPTION for the Iceland Government. They must hold the referendum. Iceland is a democracy, the will of the people dominates the will of corrupt politicians or any politicians for that matter. The power is with the people and dominates any illegal demands by the Iceland government and any foreign governments. We, the people, have NOT given up our democratic rights to the Government. Icesave is NOT a political issue, Icesave is a legal issue and the law is on our side.
Complain about this comment
Funnily enough MarcusAurellius, I am a lawyer, and considering Treaties outside that of the EU are rarely disputed in a court room due to improper facilities to hold a hearing. Treaties between states who are not common allies tend to be settled by the bigger beating the smaller. There are no real international provisions aside those governing egregious criminal activity that would provide a judicial resolution to the problem. Iceland will have to hold out, until the bailiffs come calling, hopefully it will not come to this though, and Iceland will see sense in the fact that if it doesn't pay it will fail. Which I believe in the face of the short term overheads per person of $16,000 it is quite reasonable to expect they will pay. especially if they seek a real chance to get into the EU, at any rate they have already made unnecessary complications between two Member States, who if the bitterness continues will most certainly Veto any attempt of Iceland's to gain entry.
Of course there is always the risk of Iceland seeking aid from some less favourable states, however a country of 300,000 people is hardly a threat to any Western State in the modern World
Complain about this comment
MAII
"By American standards, British industry stinks. Yet it among the best Europe has to offer"
absolutely wrong. There is no such thing as "British Industry" anymore. The best is German, French & Italian. Swedish are good too but small scale compared.
Complain about this comment
Ericsson,
Thank you for putting the Icelandic case so clearly. It certainly has the ring of truth about it. I hope you appreciate that many Brits are unhappy with the actions of "their" government.
Complain about this comment
Marcus wrote:
"The US needs no one, no other nation. It has in the past and could in the future survive entirely independently from them. The US is a civilization unto itself apart in a very real sense from the rest of the world. "
I'll give you a chance to think about that, and to write something sane in its place. For a start, the US is not a "civilization". It is a debtor state.
Marcus, the US doesn't even have its own language yet. Tesla was Serbian, Einstein was German, and Muddy Waters did not invent electricity.
Does your hubris know no bounds? You are indecent, sir.
Anyways, the swiss voted out the idea of lawyers for animals. So the farmers won. The good lawyers lost. And the animals, of course. They lost too.
I'm told the vote was a vote against more rules, which I simply don't believe. I'd believe the swiss would vote against cheese before I'd believe they would vote against more rules. I think it was a vote against animals having rights without having to be burdened with taxation. It was animal envy, in other words. "Why should they have it so easy?"
Well, my point is that life in a direct democracy is full of disappointments. Especially a Swiss direct democracy.
We are all abused Swiss animals today. Some day, we shall overcome.
Eupris, where do you get your taste for voting on issues?
It is singularly un-british. I thought that with you fellows it was all about crying god for harry, England and St George?
I mean, one can see the british standing like greyhounds in the slips, but is political liberation really the rabbit they intend to chase?
I'd rather thought the British idea of something worth chasing was a cracking yarn where good men and the french die in droves. With milky tea on the side.
But, as CBW will tell you, I'm generally mistaken about that sort of thing. I just don't understand the British.
Complain about this comment
Euprisoner wrote
"I am under no such illusion. He has shown no embarrassment for the fact that we were denied the referendum we were promised.
To be honest, I had not read your posting. I hope I have not offended you in any way."
haha, how cute. mending any possible rift asap. Is cbw your hero? I thought so. (He does have some amount of congruence.) Maybe you could copy his style of "listen & accept/reject". (Thats how a proper discussion is supposed to be, anyways). I might not agree with him but he (almost) always shows a certain logic. All you do is talk about the Lisbon treaty. Endlessly. Can you let it go? I doubt it.
Furthermore, you claim that I have shown no embarassment. Frankly, it is not my country. If I was promised a referendum on something and didn't get it, now that would be a different thing.
But thats a problem with YOUR politicians. Not with the EU. Your politicians are cowards. They are afraid of confronting the UK public. I despise them for it. Whatever the outcome.
Complain about this comment
According to EU directives governments must not guarantee banks:
“The system must be in existence and have been officially recognized when this Directive is adopted," AND "The system must not consist of a guarantee granted to a credit institution by a Member State itself or by any of its local or regional authorities"
Therefore the British are demanding that Icelanders violate the EU directives.
If the British want a compensation for the cost of Icesave they should turn to the owner of Landsbanki. He lives in London and he has properties like private jet, yacht, some companies and houses. I for one do not want to pay for his debts sacrificing the well being of my parents and children.
Complain about this comment
"Of course there is always the risk of Iceland seeking aid from some less favourable states, however a country of 300,000 people is hardly a threat to any Western State in the modern World"
it aint a threat. But its geostrategic position makes it invaluable. (claims to the arctic etc)
Complain about this comment
anicelander
I agree. but its realpolitik. why dont u sue them before the ECJ?
btw, which one is it? A nice Lander? A Nicelander? Anice Lander?
Complain about this comment
Cllam wrote: "Which I believe in the face of the short term overheads per person of $16,000 it is quite reasonable to expect they will pay. especially if they seek a real chance to get into the EU"
Sorry, the vast majority of Icelandic voters have not intention of joining the EU. This is a personal and key issue of Johanna Sigurdardottir and her political party. So no matter how many condemnations we get from the EU and the authorities of the Netherlands and the UK and blocks to Iceland´s joining the EU, or other repercussions, we DO NOT CARE. PERIOD.
Complain about this comment
You say:
Icelanders must decide whether to support or reject a deal to repay Britain and the Netherlands outstanding debts from the failed Icelandic bank Icesave.
Lets look at the facts. Iceland newer borrowed from neither Britain nor the Netherlands. So there is no debt to repay.
The banks were private and the insurance fund is private as well. There has been no investigation into where the Icesave money ended up. Economic data suggests that these funds newer entered the Icelandic economy. It is likely that the funds are at work in Britain, i.e. in the British economy. This also suggests that those who want the Icelanders to repay dept they never entered want to gain on the deal.
The British government has shown determined will to harm the Icelanders by applying the terrorist laws and making demands that could brake the Icelandic culture and destroy the nation. This has very little to do with civilized behavior, justice or love of humanity.
Complain about this comment
Perhaps a reminder is required that, EU directives are applicable to solely to EU Member States, to demand compensation from Iceland would not breach that directive (in which I believe you refer to Directive 94/19/EEC, currently under review, and deals with EU Deposit Guarantee Schemes) which one could stipulate was subsequently ignored upon most of the major economic power houses of the EU id est Germany, the UK and France, shoring up their banks with public funds which prime facie guarantees the banks. Iceland may have signed EEC, and EEA Treaties, however this allows them access to the single market only and does not bring them under the influence of legislation of the EU, such as directives. Therefore, Iceland is outside that authority and is subject to the whim of whatever state sees fit to exact will upon them.
Complain about this comment
Ok, let's put it in simple terms, you don't pay, Iceland gains the credit record of Germany in the depression, aid is restricted and loans from the IMF are denied, as much as it is a matter of principle and admirable that Iceland will stand up for itself, at some point you will see reason, this rash action will come to an end, and reality will hit home.
Complain about this comment
I must add to last comment. I said:
=======================================================================
Cllam wrote: "Which I believe in the face of the short term overheads per person of $16,000 it is quite reasonable to expect they will pay. especially if they seek a real chance to get into the EU"
Sorry, the vast majority of Icelandic voters have not intention of joining the EU. This is a personal and key issue of Johanna Sigurdardottir and her political party. So no matter how many condemnations we get from the EU and the authorities of the Netherlands and the UK and blocks to Iceland´s joining the EU, or other repercussions, we DO NOT CARE. PERIOD.
======================================================================
What you said, Cllam, was offensive and an insult to the Icelandic nation. Understand, that we, the people, will NOT be blackmailed in order to gain entry into the bullying EU. We, the people, value our honour far above and beyond that abusive and overpowering Union.
THANK YOU.
And EUprisoner209456731, you are very welcome and thank you and I understand your calling yourself ´EUprisoner´.
Complain about this comment
"Therefore, Iceland is outside that authority and is subject to the whim of whatever state sees fit to exact will upon them. "
haha
Complain about this comment
Vassillas,
I (an American) like the UK very much...
I love the UK,
AND
THAT is the Important Thing ...
like duh:)
Complain about this comment
dt;
"You are indecent, sir."
That is the best laugh I've had all day. Do you suppose that's what O'hara said to the Rochambeau when he surrenderd on behalf of Cornwallis at Yorktown too? I hope he added how uncivilized it was to continue the attack during tea time :-) Wasn't "cricket."
"Indecent"...coming from someone who earns his money directly or indirectly off the ocean of blood that keeps flowing around the world to maintain Swiss banks solvent.
The only regret is that I can only rise to the level of indecent. How ineffectual of me. I'll have to resolve to try harder in the future.
Complain about this comment
Cllam wrote: "Perhaps a reminder is required that, EU directives are applicable to solely to EU Member States, to demand compensation from Iceland would not breach that directive (in which I believe you refer to Directive 94/19/EEC, currently under review, and deals with EU Deposit Guarantee Schemes) which one could stipulate was subsequently ignored upon most of the major economic power houses of the EU id est Germany, the UK and France, shoring up their banks with public funds which prime facie guarantees the banks. Iceland may have signed EEC, and EEA Treaties, however this allows them access to the single market only and does not bring them under the influence of legislation of the EU, such as directives. Therefore, Iceland is outside that authority and is subject to the whim of whatever state sees fit to exact will upon them."
No, you distort the facts and the law. Who do you write for??? I advise anyone who sees this nonsense to find and read Alain Lipietz´s article called ´Iceland Owes Nothing´ and to read Prof. Michael Hudson´s article called ´The IMF Destroys Iceland And Latvia´. Many lawyers and scholars, from all over the world, have stated the Icelandic State bears no legal responsibility for Icesave at all.
Complain about this comment
Mrcllam
Why should Iceland get a credit record of Germany in depression for not paying a debt it has not entered. Your understanding of the matter is precisely the standpoint of the bully who interprets a problem into the matter that is not there.
If you want to find someone to punish talk to the owners of the bank. Leave the people that knew nothing of this business be.
Complain about this comment
You are not being blackmailed, you as a nation are flagrantly over egging the pudding; There is no grand scheme to destroy Iceland, the EU is not the Evil Empire, and you are not in the midst of a glorious rebellion against repression. You owe money, nothing more, nothing less, and if Iceland is destroyed it will be by your own hand, because of your failure, perhaps not to do what was right, but to do what was expected.
We all have to do things what we don't like, it is a fact of life, a third of the world, probably hated being part of the British Empire, Afghans probably hate the fact we are slowly destroying their country, but like great many things, they had and have no choice, just like you in the end will have no choice. Whether it be that aid is refused, or you find no support from anyone other than the other 299,000 people in your country, it will happen.
Complain about this comment
"If you want to find someone to punish talk to the owners of the bank. Leave the people that knew nothing of this business be. "
this is where the term: "corporation" comes in handy.
Complain about this comment
in the unlikely event someone kept in mind Russia writing "less favourable states" :o)))) I hurry to console all it is someone else of claimers to the Northern Pole. Who could that be must be Canada hardly anyone in Africa? :o)))))
For a./ we have already refused Iceland with money help, the tandemocracy were all for but our fin. minister is famous for being tight-fisted and must be whined too much. And as he managed to keep us more or less in shape throughout the last year his opinion counts.
b./ How dare any one have "ideas" about Russian Northern Pole especially the people who don't even know how to get there! :o)))) For starters.
:o)))) I don't know how about others (well, others simply don't even know how to get to the Northern Pole) but Russia never needed Iceland to reach it, and, how to say, the road is straight only a crazy one will deviate so much aside, I mean? I don't know. Russia can definitely get to the Northern Pole and does without involving Iceland whatsoever.
Complain about this comment
Ericsson
I don't distort the law, it is simple and plain for you to see, and the art of the law is to bend it your will in order to present the best possible outcome that is the art of advocacy, it is simple. A persons interpretation of that law in an academic book amounts a distortion to an extent, however it is irrelevant, I am still a lawyer in the UK and you are still an upset Icelandic Citizen and the UK and Dutch Governments will still hound you for their money.
Complain about this comment
As to the Arctic in general, we've got all the Arctic we ever used between us and the Northern Pole, quite near, simple and straightforward. Iceland is way off away Russian routes in the Arctic.
Thus Iceland is geo-strategic may be for some Southerners :o)))) who don't border Arctic at all, and would need a base and a stop-over, in case of their in-raids. We clearly don't.
Complain about this comment
WA;
You get to the North Pole by heading North. When you can't go any further North, you are there. When you stand on the North Pole or float on it as it may not always have ice anymore, all directions are South. Nations vying for the North pole who have claims include besides Russia, Canada, Norway, Greenland, and the US. Since as I said in a previous posting the US legitimately owns the moon, perhaps we should be generous and share the North Pole with others. Considering that Russia couldn't even develop its own oil and gas within its own territory but had to trick British Petroleum and Shell into doing it for them and then steal the capital investment away from them, how will it be able to get oil from the North Pole? Besides, isn't Russia drowning in oil reserves already?
It seems rather strange to watch the Europeans fight with each other night after night without the US or Russia even being mentioned. It's kind of nice for a change to sit on the sidelines and watch these midgets go at it. They used to have this program on TV I liked, women's mud wrestling. The women would fight it out in a bath of mud on the ground with the kind of things they often do like hair pulling etc. Nobody ever got hurt. Professional wrestling on American TV is an entertaining show all by itself. The characters are sometimes ingenius. They pretend they are actually wrestling but nobody ever gets hurt although I can't figure out how they avoid it. If a 250 pound man actually jumped on another man lying on the ground face up and hit him full force with his knee in the other man's chest, I think he'd kill him. Well one day there was this Russian woman who was supposed to be a colonel. Tight black outfit, short blond hair, real "butch" with dark red lipstick, kinda slim and muscular, someone you wouldn't want to meet in a dark alley. After awhile she got into it with her opponent and they fell out of the ring and onto the arena floor still going at it, knee in the face, grabbing each other by the arm and slamming their opponent into the side of the ring. They worked their way through the seats and she got her head bashed into a building column. You could see the column was made out of styrofoam like a coffee cup as it splintered and pieces of it floated down through the air. Then there was fake blood. All this reminds me of these Europeans going at it. Wonder if any of them will actually ever get hurt. So far all they've really done is call each other names. No action, how boring. The least we could get is an army preparing for an invasion even if it's just make believe :-)
Complain about this comment
Mavrelius, the Moon was split by Vysotsky is 1965 something.
"Left side to us, right side - to them (America)
And, all the rest, :o) - to China.
:o)))))
Clean forgot about Greenland. About Canada I remember, figure-skating Vancouver. and?
:o))))
Is Greenland a country or someone's grabatised island? Does anybody live there?
Cat snorkels, nearly eats nil :o( developed 2 small bumps on the sides of the ill ear, which might be lympth bumps which might be the stuff spread. which might be impossible to operate by now as will only intensify the spread. which may be that's why doesn't sleep and grumbles. and which might be why lost appetite whatsoever but fluid water food 2 tea-spoons , at times. which is why I keep my Olympic games times difference schedule :o( as I am beyond myself living in trance round o'clock for quite a time already. internet search for solutions :o) , things.
Complain about this comment
Anyway, read recently we've got 3.8 mln children in the RF age band 12-17.
That's what I call a strike.
Quiet, without a single word.
A hello, to the government.
Greek "strike" LOL.
Complain about this comment
WA;
If the moon is split in half, there is no left side/right side about it. Russia gets the dark side, America gets the light side. It fits anyway, I always thought Russia might as well be on the dark side of the moon considering how far away it is and always out of communication.
I sympathize with your problem with your cat. One dog had a puncture wound in her thigh. Went to the vet who cleaned it up, no stitch required but antiboitics for 20 days. Don't know how it happened, might have been an animal bite. Couldn't find evidence of any blood in the snow before it all melted. Routine shots for dhlp/parvo and lyme disease and heart worm test, clipped nails, other dog next day routine dhlp/parvo and lyme disease shots, heart worm test and clipped nails. $400. No plan from Obama and the democrats for pet medical insurance.
Greenland was colonized by the Vikings many centuries ago. I think it is under the rule of Denmark. Native tribes called Inuit are the same as other Eskimo tribes in the polar regions like Alaska.
Complain about this comment
When these European government workers go on strike, nobody would know the difference if they weren't out in the street with their placards and posters. Nothing ever gets done there anyway. Take the Italian post office. Every few years they take a few million letters they never bothered to deliver and just throw them in the trash. It hardly matters. Nobody could read them anyway. After all, they are all written in Italian :-)
Complain about this comment
WA,
I'm So Sorry about your cat. Now I will start praying for your cat. If she/he get sicker, I hope you will be OK. Remember..make it as comfortable as possible... and you should maybe get a new kitten or puppy before it maybe gets sicker.
I'm not trying to depress you. Actually I'm trying to make you feel better... during this current time period.
You are searching constantly for a cure,
therefore YOU ARE HEROIC!:)
David
Complain about this comment
#282. At 11:31pm on 07 Mar 2010, MrCllam
You wrote: “Of course there is always the risk of Iceland seeking aid from some less favourable states, however a country of 300,000 people is hardly a threat to any Western State in the modern World.”
You speak like a general from the 19th century. It is very unlikely to happen. Iceland is a member of NATO.
As I have mentioned in other contributions, Iceland it getting support from the Nordic countries, and it is not unlikely, to put is cautiously, that they will ask for more assistance.
Your observation, “Iceland will [see] sense in the fact that if it doesn't pay it will fail.” is correct, but the amount is hardly $16.000 but less. However, one of the problems is that nobody is absolutely sure what the amount actually is.
Complain about this comment
Mathiasen,
I just.. need ...to say
your posts are always dispassionate, informative and kind. If you ever feel unappreciated, remember ..
to "consider the source(s)."
Keep posting:)
Complain about this comment
MA,
There is a good movie that I think you may like.
"Moon" is the title. It has an American cast, but the lead looks British.
Therefore, the lead character may be Russian. I always think British actors are great when playing Russian(s) (Julie Christie?)
I mean, British actors can convincingly look Russian....(in MY mind)
:)
Complain about this comment
Ohh, come on leave the poor Icelanders, Greeks, Latvians, British, etc. alone. (Well, British we are done for already) Only moronic economists & selfinterested bankers can't see that what the governments are doing is day light robbery taking from the poor to give it to the rich (or the incompentant who run the banks). One and a half year after the crisis and it looks like business as usual, i.e. the the super have's going about their business sharing the world amongst theselves, every one else (i.e. 93% of Iceland) thinking on we didn't vanish, we'll survive. No change, no big investors going bust and the same old "free markets" monks having another go through their relegious preaching that markets know best, leave it to the markets, don't think about regulation because regulation disturbs the markets, blah, blah. As if government bankrupting whole nations to pay for the mistakes of the markets, does not disturb markets. Who are they fooling here?
The outcome of the vote in Iceland should be used as an indicator for what it is, 130000 people think the system we have today is unfair, while 1500 people it is fair. saying that Icelanders are lazy, don't want to pay their due (it is not theirs any how) is as accurate as saying the markets know best. What Iceland has said is, Markets are wrong lets change the system and make it fairer for everyone, so they loose some money and some investors loose some money also. Not investors don't loose any money and the people loose everything.
Complain about this comment
Something smells of fish wars.
Complain about this comment
The "special relation" the UK has with the US is a figment of Britain's imagination. It is pure wishful thinking.
Friday 21st September 2001 - President Bush to both Houses
"America has no truer friend than Great Britain."
In addition, every Harris poll commissioned in the US since 1993 shows that Americans consider Britain to be their closest ally.
"The US has never really had any strong liking or affinity for Britain."
As much as I understand the relationship is more benficial for Britain than America, that statement simply has no basis in fact. From fighting side by side, to sharing technology and intelligence and from our historical, social and cultural links, never mind language and massive investment in each others economies...Britain and US are close friends and allies no matter what you think.
Complain about this comment
@269 EUprisoner
Better read the “PROTOCOL on economic and social cohesion” of the European Union Treaty which has been incorporated into the Lisbon Treaty, now being in force.
I understand that the Lisbon Treaty is limiting the sovereignty of all member states and that the Brits (at least half of them) seem to be dissatisfied by the fact that London does not play the first fiddle of the band. (I understand also that, say, half of the trade income of the UK comes from outside the EU, which is another reason maybe for your big concern).
What I am trying to make clear is that the little players of the EU team have the privilege of taking full advantage of the existing fiscal & trade system, and more precisely of the budget funds' distribution and of the free market of the EU, for the simple reason that their investment & market shares are insignificant, but guaranteed (through the quotas' and other protocols), and that they can better survive than the big players… Bulgaria is an excellent example to the case… I presume that the Reykjavik people, just following the same logic, have abandoned their (isolationist) policy and have already taken the right decision, i.e. to join the EU.
I shall be glad if have the comments of some fellow blogger from Iceland.
Sofia, Marsh 8th 2010
Complain about this comment
@ AliceInWonderLand from St.Petersburg & @ Vassilis from neighbour Greece
May I present you my best wishes for prosperity and happiness on the occasion of the International Woman holyday?
Your fellow blogger from orthodox Bulgaria
Complain about this comment
@WA & Vassilis
I meant the International Women’s Day. Sorry for the mistake.
Complain about this comment
On and and goes Cllam with the nonsense that we, the Icelandic nation, owe the Icesave money and now he has started intimidating us, just like the governments of the EU, the Netherlands and the UK have been doing. He says they will hound us for the money, he implies they will destroy us just like they destroyed Argentina. And can I add, the Swedish Government is destroying Latvia, and the EU lets them get away with it. This is sickening, -have you not soul??? Just leave us alone, go after the owner of Landsbanki, wealthy Bjorgolfur Thor Bjorgolfssonwe of LONDON, ENGLAND, UK. He owes the Icesave-money, so why have the Dutch and UK authorities not hounded him??? The UK is NOT an empire ruling the world, you know, that is what you have to learn to understand. Argentina and Iceland are independent nations, not colonies of the Netherlands and the UK. These governments are committing crimes here and should be dragged in front of an international judge. And the Icelandic Government will never succeed in forcing this slave-bill over the nation. Not for long. You see, both coercion and slavery is against international law. We will NEVER pay Iceslave. LIVE WITH IT.
Complain about this comment
@320 Ericsson
I admire your responsible civic stance.
Have you read my @265 & @317 ?
Complain about this comment
#320
"Argentina and Iceland are independent nations, not colonies of the Netherlands and the UK."
How have you managed to link Iceland to Argentina?
" he implies they will destroy us just like they destroyed Argentina"
err how did Britain destroy Argentina?
Complain about this comment
Ericsson I find you marxist opinions quite disturbing, 'we' is you and you are not Iceland merely a 1 person, put in this way I dare your Government to try and take both the States to Court and see how far that route gets you.
Complain about this comment
offramp;
Despite a piror visit to the US by the British Royal family around 1937, the polls in the US showed sentiment regarding entering WWII was running 80% against before Pearl Harbor even though it was clear to most Americans that unless the US entered, it was virtually certain that Britain would fall to Nazi Germany. Americans by and large were sick of Europe's wars, angry at Wilson's intervention in WWI, had rejected the League of Nations, and just wanted to be left alone. Had the US not entered WWI, there might not have been a WWII. The only reason it did was because of the famous "Zimmerman telegram" the British intercepted and decoded. I'm not even sure of its authenticity but the overwhelming consensus is that Mexico wanted no part of a war with the US, had long given up any desire or expectations of recapturing land loast in the Mexican War of 1855.
President Washington warned all future presidents against what he called "entangling alliances" with European nations. That still sounds like sound advice to me and to many other Americans. While some Brits may look upon Britain's participation in fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq as a "favor" to the US, we regard it as having been in Britain's self interest, at least that is how the UK's government saw it. Other than that I can't think of one benefit America has ever gotten out of an alliance with Britain. What's more, except for France helping Americans win the war of Independence against Britain, I can't think of any benefit America has ever gotten from any alliance with a foreign nation. Less than 25 years after the start of the American Revolution, America nearly went to war with France. America would have been far better off had it remained isolated. Europe's affairs are not America's affairs, Europe's destiny is not America's destiny. We are not the same civilization, we have far less in common than most people believe or want to believe, Europe was a very bad mistake for America. We just don't need them and now less than ever. Europe is just a lead weight around America's neck. The sooner we're rid of it the better.
Complain about this comment
Perhaps Iceland should go to war with Greece to see who the IMF bails out first. How is the UK going to finance a war with Argentina. Will they pull troops out of Afghanistan to do it?
Complain about this comment
It is not unusual for a lawyer to find common sense disturbing.
Complain about this comment
@324 MarcusAureliusII
“We just don't need them and now less than ever. Europe is just a lead weight around America's neck. The sooner we're rid of it the better.”
Imagine you really leave right now (from Iceland via GB & Germany, up to Bulgaria there are many US military bases & camps). /In Bulgaria there are two, so far/. What next? The EU has not yet its EDF. Shall you be glad to see Islamic Turkey occupying Bulgaria and half of Europe as it did in the XIV s.? Or you naively think that the US shall easily avoid whatsoever conflict with an eventual Turkish/Iranian pact and leave Israel alone? You live in another world dear friend.
Generalissimo
Complain about this comment
In 2008 a Danish newspaper published an article about the Icelandic Kaupthing Bank. It was a very critical article, which was also published on the website of the newspaper in English.
Kaupthing Bank was unsatisfied with the article, but realised at the same time that it would lose a case in Denmark. Therefore the bank took the newspaper to court in UK, which is possible because of the British libel legislation.
The Danish newspaper faced either a lost case or an agreement, and chose the latter possibility. It paid Kaupthing Bank £100.000 but the costs was a lot more and thus a couple of British lawyers earned a lot of money.
This procedure is known under the label British Libel Tourism. It is in fact an export article of the UK since people are coming from all over the world to conduct such cases not least in order to shut newspapers up. British legislation has therefore become a threat against critical journalism.
Complain about this comment
MrCllam wrote:
"Ericsson I find you marxist opinions quite disturbing..."
Well I had thought it was you, Mr Clam, who was the marxist.
It is you who wants to see governments intervening in the market and dictating who shall receive money and who shall pay money, despite the outcomes of private investment decisions.
It is you who wants to see people work and surrender their property to the state in order for members of the party to redistribute wealth according to their political agenda.
The only difference between what you see as desirable and what a traditional marxist sees as desirable is that you do not even profess to achieving equality or the emancipation of the proletariat.
You are the new marxist, the kind who wants to have a party controlling the market for the welfare of the banking class.
Complain about this comment
Quite the contrary, I am interested in the return of £3bn, after that what happens with Iceland or its people is irrelevant, and no George Orwells vision of world wide socialism does not appeal to me, absolute power is not a means to an end. I come from a country of free trade, therefore will see free trade exist until the end of time. However, admitedly an economy cannot grow without a bank, the national debt is necessary, and control of the sector itself has become necessary.
To suggest marxism is anything near what you describe is an absolute contradiction, perhaps more a akin to fascism, the needs of the many controlled by an elite few, without promise of freedom or liberation. To a degree prosperity requires control, absolute freedom is simple unattainable and not an option in todays geo-economic structure or society. I do not lobby for interference, yet i am not blidned by sheer principle as to understand that for the short term it is required.
Admitedly my care of the proletariat is limited to their ability to break the law and thus maintian my ability to either prosecute or defend them. Yet this is of course not an issue of social structure, status or situation, but an argument between states, one of which finds itself in a very disabled position.
And as per the issue regarding critical jounralism, Article 10 ECHR deals with this sufficiently, if News Papers find the UK courts decision to be unsatisfactory, then they can by all means defer the problem to the European Court of Human Rights.
Complain about this comment
And on goes Cllam with distortions: "Ericsson I find you marxist opinions quite disturbing, 'we' is you and you are not Iceland merely a 1 person"
No, I am NOT a marxist and have absolutely no marxist opinions and you need to lay off your distortions. Yes, I am 1 person and so are you. THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE ICELANDIC NATION FLAT OUR REFUSES TO PAY FOR THE ICESAVE EXTORTION. You need stop your distortions and lies about what the Icelandic nation needs to do. You are disturbing and intimidating and so are the authorites who are blackmailing the Icelandic nation. Go and pay Icesave yourself.
Complain about this comment
"There was resistance to embracing austerity."
Well blow me, who'd have thought it?
Of course the Icelanders resent being asked to bail out profiteering bankers to the tune of £8000 each.
Britain can well afford to absorb this loss - getting the hell out of Afghanistan would pay the debt in a couple of days.
Complain about this comment
generalissimo - thank you. No, but I will, have not yet had time to go over everything. The intimidating pen for the blackmailers keeps coming back with distiortions and intimidations.
democracythreat - thank you for taking a stand against the distortions of the disturbing intimidator. The intention is obviously to shut me and others up.
Complain about this comment
Correction: THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE ICELANDIC NATION FLAT OUT REFUSES TO PAY FOR THE ICESAVE EXTORTION.
Complain about this comment
Mr Clam wrote:
"However, admitedly an economy cannot grow without a bank, the national debt is necessary, and control of the sector itself has become necessary."
Now this is a highly spurious piece of reasoning. An economy might not be able to grow without A bank, but that does not mean it can't grow without THIS bank, or THAT bank.
If every bank in existence today fell over and died, what is stop others entering the market and taking their places?
This is what is so absurd about the "bailout", and the whole "too big to fail" mantra. It is fundamentally anti-market, and those who profess to be saving the market are ignoring the fundamental facts that make markets work.
By allowing bankers and investors to be reimbursed their wealth after making bad decisions, we not only hurt the people who lose property in order to correct the market in favour of losers. We also keep people who make bad decisions in the market place, to do it again. And again. And again.
The whole point of the market is that those who are best able to serve the consumer are allowed their chance because those who prove themselves unfit are swept aside by the loses they incur in the marketplace.
When you speak of "controlling the sector", Mr Clam, you are talking about ensuring that new and competent people will never have an opportunity to provide banking services to the marketplace. You are advocating killing the very forces that make markets effective.
That is EXACTLY what marxists do, and it is why they are lamentable folks.
We do not shun marxists because they profess to help the poor, or to educate the ignorant. Those are not the reasons we do not want marxists in power. We don't want marxists in power because the "control" various sectors in the marketplace and create economic stagnation, and they allow well connected fools to create mass hardship by retaining power due to party membership, and to escape the judgement of the marketplace.
You seem to think that controlling the marketplace is fine, as long as it is done for the benefit of the right sort of people. You seem to think marxism is lamentable because those folks wear red shirts and dislike bankers.
A marxist may be bad news in power, but a feudal lord is far worse. At least the marxist believe ordinary people are theoretically important, and that human rights law is theoretically important.
At least a marxist offers SOMETHING to the underclass of slaves.
This market control by the bankers is the outright farming of human beings for private profit. It predates marxism, as a political philosophy, by about five hundred years.
People are going to flock to the neo-marxist banner, because of the way the two party system has become the privately owned tool of the banking class. If we are going to be owned and dictated to by self appointed experts and hypocrites, at least we might get free hot water and a stirring national anthem along the way.
At least under soviet communism one could join the party and get ahead through meritocracies such as the KGB. At least under soviet communism one was not born into power or servitude, and owned by other individuals like a piece of furniture or a beast of burden.
The bankers are setting a dreadful, horrifying precedent by employing their pet politicians to use the taxation system to sustain their wealth, in defiance of the market. The precedent they are setting is that the market doesn't matter, and that governments exist to serve the interests of a self appointed elite.
That precedent is a death sentence for the bankers themselves, yet they are too ignorant and greedy to realize it. A free market philosophy is the only thing protecting the bankers from the mindless wrath of the mob, and they've cast it aside in order to get just a little bit more money for themselves in the short term.
Complain about this comment
330. At 1:34pm on 08 Mar 2010, MrCllam
You wrote about libel tourism in the UK: “... as per the issue regarding critical jounralism, Article 10 ECHR deals with this sufficiently, if News Papers find the UK courts decision to be unsatisfactory, then they can by all means defer the problem to the European Court of Human Rights.”
Correct, but I am sorry you cannot see the principal problem for public debate. It is quite problematic if British law decides what it is lawful to write and what it is not lawful to write in the entire EU. Actually, it is unacceptable.
The matter is very likely to be taken to ECHR, but it is also unlikely to get an unsatisfactory result, and as I have mentioned the US congress is also legislating against this phenomenon.
Fortunately, the British government has realised that there is a problem with British legislation, and British ambassador Nich Archer in Denmark has addressed this problem publicly. Jack Straw and the ambassador have said that the British government will take a look at the matter.
I think they can be quite sure that “a look” is not sufficient. The matter is likely to land on the table of the EU commission.
Complain about this comment
#330 MrCllam,
"However, admitedly an economy cannot grow without a bank, the national debt is necessary, and control of the sector itself has become necessary."
That statement is wrong and it could be assumed to be a lie.
Why can't the economy grow without a bank? There can be building societies, there can be credit unions. So, I would say admitedly there is absolutely no need to have a bank for the economy to grow. As for national debt, it is only necessary if it is to be used to increase means of production, however if it is used to ensure that current investors don't face any risk to their reckless investments, then it is very unnecessary.
Complain about this comment
commonsense_expressway - What I said about Argentina, was an answer to the distortions in a comment by Cllam above. You need to look for this yourself.
Complain about this comment
Mathiasen wrote:
" It is quite problematic if British law decides what it is lawful to write and what it is not lawful to write in the entire EU. Actually, it is unacceptable."
Well if the British courts are not fit to decide EU law Mathiasen, then the whole structure of the EU falls into a heap.
After all, the principle of subsidiarity is the cornerstone of EU law. Is it not true that the ECJ expects all the courts of all the member states to be able to determine the law in their own jurisdictions, and to thus enforce ECJ precedent without the necessity of granting standing to citizens of the EU to appeal directly to EU courts?
The whole reason the ECJ gives to deny citizens standing to citizens to challenge their own governments under EU law in EU courts is that the courts of member states are competent to interpret and enforce EU law.
Now you have isolated a part of the law which does not fit this model, but there are numerous other examples that make the point just as clearly. Germany, for example, does not uphold freedom of speech. A person can go to jail in Germany for saying the wrong thing about history, or for wearing the wrong badge. Not so long ago the German government wanted to extradite people from civilized states in the EU in order to silence them and punish them for speaking without the sanction of the state.
And once again, we could look to Latvia and the tens of thousands of people who are denied their fundamental human rights by a government which, theoretically, is upholding the judgements of the ECJ.
Once you start looking hard at the principle of subsidiarity and the claims of the ECJ to be able to promote pan european harmony in law, it becomes blindingly obvious that no such harmony is possible unless certain jurisdictions yield to others.
And not surprisingly, you prefer the laws which favour the corporate powers in this instance, and which limit the remedies available to the individual.
I think if we are going to talk seriously about the ECJ, and this idea of a harmonious European legal framework, we need to have a serious debate about whether people want to live under German law.
Ever since the constitution of germany was thrown out by your supreme court last year, in favour of ECJ law, it has become apparent that the German judiciary see themselves as the rightful inheritors of European law.
First the germans tell everybody how to trade, then they tell everybody how to live. In the first instance the german banks do very well, in the second the german state propagates itself across the continent.
As that fact becomes more apparent to the people of the EU, I submit that the likely hood of the EU becoming acceptable to the mass of European people slides further into the toilet bowl of history. And with good riddance.
Complain about this comment
I believe the Icelandic people are wrong. But I susspect I would have voted the same. Since when do debtors get to dictate terms to there creditors? I wish I could on my mortgage.
As to using the terror laws to freeze funds, this was a PR mistake but it was necessary to ensure leverage. I find it difficult to believe that Iceland (or any other nation) would not have done the same if situations where reversed.
I'm sure the banking collapse was not only caused by the bankers. It was pretty much everyone that took easy credit that they knew would be a stretch to cover. If you can't afford a house don't buy it. Are you sure you need that 72" plasma screen and SUV? Why pay now when you can get 0%APR for six months.
So lets punish the people who saved and didn't take silly risks. The people who "invested" in these bank accounts. Didn't know this would happen, no one did. We should reward people not punish them for saving for that rainy day rather the rely on credit.
These are normal people with normal savings. Usually life long savings.
Complain about this comment
Building societies and credit unions are deceminations of the origninal plan of the bank, therefore regardless as to how you word it, they are still governed the same and subject to the same regulation. The economy cannot grow without a bank, because a bank is central to the initial boom in the first place, you will notice that The Bank of England is central to every economic decision in the UK, just like the US Federal Reserve Bank, you will notice a commonly occuring word in those two names, bank, without them all you see today would not have been possible, paper money for example, the idea of interest and debt, securable loans, and investment,companies that float on a stock market, the list goes on and on. If you have any more trouble with this, then perhaps I should direct you to read some Adam Smith, he may illuminate your misuderstandings.
As per economic stagnation, that would be the same stagnation created by protectionist policies of the US governemnt throughout the 1920's and 1930's. I agree Marxism is bad, I agree Soviet Socialism is contrary to what my country stands and has stood for, however you are failing to see the point the market failed, because certain financial sectors were given the freedom to do as they please, loan money to people they knew were unable to return the funds. It is a short term solution and I would hope the government keeps it that way.
As per Ericsson and his constant referrence to 'distortions' I am sure he would like to provide some proof as to his 'distortions,' and I'm becoming quite amused by what seems to be grandiose, paranoid dillusions about some grand scheme to remove a seemingly insignificant counrty from the World for no apparent reason.
Finally as per the law, I assume a certain degree of competence Mathiasen, and will remind you of the term stare decisis, precedent does not flow upward in a hierachy, UK law is applicable to the UK only, the European Courts set precedent for the UK not vice versa, and also remind you that legislation is written and proposed by the European Commission, therefore, if you are worried about libel laws, then they are the people to talk to. Jack Straw, and reviewing an area of the Tortious Common law, will review the access to outside parties, not the written law itself. Article 10 is still applicable and if a panel of European Judges back the Lords, then so be it, if they do not then the same applies.
Complain about this comment
We are learning a lot about Iceland these days. How determined the citizens are has shown their vote in the referendum. But what about those that are voting with their feet, over three thousand are said to have left in recent times to work elsewhere. Can Iceland cope with that sort of drain?
Complain about this comment
DemocThreat
Re #339
Are you referring to the EUropean Court of Justice (ECJ): The EU's supreme legal body?
An ECJ which is so benign the 'pro-EU' on these Blogs have repeatedly argued it has no jurisdiction over anything like the 'political' initiatives of any individual EU Member State?
You mean that ECJ is possibly going to over-rule the legal framework of the UK/England in order to enforce a pan-EUropean set of 'libel' Laws!
No, no, no it cannot be so - - afterall, I have it on the word of many 'pro-EU' lobbyists the ECJ has no such powers - - and that ECJ could never evolve and develop such authority and power!?
The 'pro-EU' wouldn't have been telling porkies and ducking and diving from the reality of the legal enforcement/implication of "ever closer union", would they?
No, I refuse to believe it!!!
Ho-hum, and so the duplicity proceeds.
Complain about this comment
332. Grovesred
"...Icelanders resent being asked to bail out profiteering bankers to the tune of £8,000 each. Britain can well afford to absorb this loss..."
You are clearly interested in figures, you will be interested to learn that every taxpayer in the UK (31,700,000 of us) is down £44,150 to cover a National Debt of £1.4 trillion.
If the Icelandic Government underwrote the bank accounts gone bad; they should pay up even if it means fleecing their electors.
See also http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/budget/5202037/Britains-national-debt-to-reach-1.4-trillion-under-2009-Budget.html "Britain's national debt to reach £1.4 trillion under 2009 Budget"
Complain about this comment
Generalissimo,
thank you for the Women's Day congratulations, you are attentive as ever.
Here is to you with a return courtesy, we've chosen a Eurovision song or as min our chap last night, and this time I don't believe it neither a show industry mafia nor someone's fiancee nephew, just a street chap, popular in youngsters' quarters. Haven't heard of him until today, but find him properly hilarious :o)))) to represent Russia.
He is singing with a special accent, Russians even thought that he is a foreigner may be, but people say no :o)))), our own, talent :o))))
Though someone wrote Bosnian granddad he used to have once, from Sarajewo.
Dial in you tube Gitar - Peter Nalitch - the crazy chap in the Lada - that'll be it.
Complain about this comment
@MrCllam
Correct me if I am wrong but you have not replied to the main point of democracythreat that bailing out private businesses which have done badly (this is an understatement) is against free market ideas and if the governments are to take such decisions on which private companies have to be bailed out or not, the governments are behaving in the line of a marxist state. I would say as democracythreat says even worse than a marxist state for reasons that he explains clearly.
Complain about this comment
2:58 one
and Montenegroans say he is Montenegro, that granddad
Complain about this comment
MA and David, have a look, cool. Can fix one's low spirits.
Complain about this comment
I don't understand why Icelanders have to pay anything to the British or Dutch governments at all. Though the banks in question came from Iceland, they were operating in Britain and Holland. As such they should have been regulated by the British and Dutch authorities. We've all known since the Great Depression that banks need to be regulated. Ordinary Icelanders shouldn't be held accountable for the mistakes of foreign (for them) regulators. The governments of Britain and Holland should be the ones who should pay. They are the ones who are responsible for protecting British and Dutch depositors, and they are the ones who failed in this duty.
Complain about this comment
332. At 1:50pm on 08 Mar 2010, Grovesred wrote:
" ...
Britain can well afford to absorb this loss - getting the hell out of Afghanistan would pay the debt in a couple of days."
EUpris: Get the hell out of the "EU"!!
All sorts of things would be possible if we were no longer paying for the "U"-Dictatorship and free of its interference.
Complain about this comment
If Iceland joins the EU, the referendum that they have just had could be the last one they ever have.I bet they just can't wait to get some EU "democracy".
Complain about this comment
Dear all in Britain, I would like to say this:
Nobody forced the greedy British, Ducth or German people to deposit their savings into Icesave. Icesave was a high intrest rating savings accounts and was for all to see a high risk. I remember in late 2008 when the Icesave matter first came to my attention, I did a bit of research myself online and saw that there was something very wrong about all this. I would never have fallen for the false high rate intrest promises made by Icesave nor any other bank related instituion, britsh or icelandic.
My believe is that common sense failed, among the rules dominating the EU banking and financial sectors.
Why should Iceland, i.e. its 300 thousand hard working public pay for wrong decisions of few bankers ? The answer is simply No, not wether.. or not. EU politics have fallen short and the small herd of hard working people in Iceland have finally put their foot down and said NO. For clarification to UK and the Dutch-" Iceland will NEVER pay one Euro, One Pound, One Dollar for Icesave".
UK used a very contriversial terrorist acto upon all icelandic fincaial instituions in the uk upon Icesave collapse, causing a domino effect in Iceland, which in terms killed the entire banking system in Iceland. Therefore the general public in Iceland has endured tromedeus trauma and shock. Icelanders will never give a dime to a nation that helped ruin the economic in Iceland.
The Icelandic public will never repay the debt of criminals. The criminals who endured Icesave should be sought by the UK, Dutch and Iceland´s criminal courts. The public in Iceland will not be burdoned by privately owned banks going under, no matter if they were operated in Europe or back in Iceland.
Complain about this comment
You have to question the method and message that Brown put across by applying Terrorism laws. Just like Argentina's claims on the Falklands our politicians and Foreign office are constantly found wanting, being out smarted and manoeuvred.To top it all we now have Miliband trying to justify not following UN rules and hence retrospectively cover-up this government's blatant breaking international law,losing all our morale standing in the world. Like, America it will take years to try and get our international reputation back during which time we will lose out even further. Just so Blair and Brown could puff up their ego of playing someone big on international stage by riding on the back of an over worked under invested military
Complain about this comment
ECJ
There is a fascinating article in this weeks “Die Zeit” . I regret that I am not allowed to include a link.
“How Brussels interferes in the rights of citizens.”
I wish I could translate every word for you. I haven’t got the time and it would, I believe, be copyright theft.
The German constitutional court has declared the “EU”-saving of vast amounts of data to be unconstitutional. The judges applied the decision of 1986 in which they agreed not to examine EU-law as long as it was approximately in conformity with the German constitution.
Small states are already refusing to obey “EU”-law. Ireland, Austria, Sweden, Luxemburg, and Greece have not yet turned the “EU”-directive into national law.
The author gives this as an example of the way in which the Lisbon Treaty isn’t working. even though the directive came out before the Lisbon Treaty was in force.
SWP-researcher Roderick Parkes compares the increasing tensions between the national and international levels in Europe* with a threatening “Supernova Effect”: “Now immediately after the Lisbon Treaty, the star is shining bright(*2) but it can come to an implosion. …”
I find the article even more interesting because it is, I believe, the first time I have read anything critical of the “EU” in “Die Zeit.”
I would be grateful to German speakers if the could check the accuracy of my imperfect translation. I am confident I got the essence of it right.
* I presume he means the “EU”. I do wish they would stop doing that.
*2 I can’t see that!
Complain about this comment
deadlylampshade - you're in good company here..
I bet they will have many more referenda. And I bet the next one will have a similar result - against joining the EU.
poor fools.
Complain about this comment
351. At 8:44pm on 08 Mar 2010, Deadlylampshade wrote:
@If Iceland joins the EU, the referendum that they have just had could be the last one they ever have.I bet they just can't wait to get some EU "democracy". '
EUpris: I read that Sarkozy was would give the French a referendum before allowing Turkey into the "EU". In other words they can have a referendum when he knows it will go the way he (or Carla?) wants. Presumably the point of this would be so that he could claim it wasn't him what blocked Turkey's membership of the "EU".
"It wasn't me Guv! I didn't do nuffin! I wasn't there! And anyway, it just fell apart in me 'ands!."
Complain about this comment
I can see that my postings on the libel tourism have not been particularly carefully read, and also that nobody here knows what the matter really is about.
Danish newspapers have already written editorials about the issue, and the British ambassador to Denmark, Nick Archer, as well as minister of justice Jack Straw has admitted that this is not problem free. Straw’s panel of experts one the matter is expected to publish an evaluation of the problem this month. Archer summed it up in his public statement with the headline “In Ali Baba’s Cave”: How can we avoid that disputing parties from abroad are using British courts in cases of libel which have nothing to do with our country? This is also known as libel tourism.
Let me tell you what we can expect: Danish newspapers will be dragged to a court, a British court that is, by a Saudi Arabian lawyer where they can be sentenced for their Islam critical caricature originally published in Danish Newspapers.
The first steps in this process have already been taken by the Saudi Arabian side.
Before such a case can be processed in the UK, a number of conditions must be met. They were in fact met in the dispute between the Kaupthing Bank (Iceland) and the Danish Newspaper.
We will most likely hear more about this matter.
Complain about this comment
@Vassilis,
His point is sound, there is a great possibility that it is bad, however marxism, to it's logical conclusion, sees the complete control of every sector of life in the hands of the state. However there is the point that nothing can exists without some guidance as to how it should behave, although you could argue that this is solely the position of the law.
If temporary, then there can be no real threat, especially in a 'democratic' society an executive can remove a law far quicker than it can be made. Also there is the argument that no real regulation was introduced in the last great depression so what is the point of it now, however I will point out that there was only one way out of the depression and that was the Second World War. As economies stagnate, war ensues in order to shore the market up, for if you are building arms and requiring soldiers your unemployment is manageable and goes unnoticed, I borrow that logic from George Orwell of course. However the proxy wars of today are not large enough to mitigate this, and either public money is required to be pumped in or regulation is enforced in some cases both. To suggest it is Marxism might also be slightly far fetched, as no country has ever been able to maintain such an ideology and has subsequently reverted to either Socialism in one state, as per Russia, Isolation and totalitarianism as per North Korea, or a rather liberal interpretation of socialist economic theory as in China, seems to me Marxist principles of a utopian society where all are equal is unattainable.
However I ask you this, considering the last time the market nearly failed, and then failed because the Republican Government of Hoover refused to act, would you rather have regulation now, so you can be free later? Or as in most country's where things go drastically wrong, the fall of this precious idea of Democracy? Economic failure breeds extremism, I need only mention a few, Stalin, Pol Pot, Franco, Hitler and Mussolini. All rose out of political and Economic unrest, all plunged their part of the world and then the whole world into its deepest darkest chasm.
Complain about this comment
Generalissimo;
"The EU has not yet its EDF. Shall you be glad to see Islamic Turkey occupying Bulgaria and half of Europe as it did in the XIV s.?"
Why should that matter to me? If the Europeans think they need defending, why should Americans pay for it, fight for it? If Europe things Turkey is a threat and would invade, they should rasie an army and fight Turkey themselves. They far outnumber the Turks and Britain and France have nuclear weapons. Where's the problem? Far too much American blood and treasure has been spent fighting for Europe already. Enough is enough. Fight your own battles Europe. And whether you know it or not, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, al Quaeda, Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan are all your battles too. The terrorist will attack Europe again given a chance.
Complain about this comment
lixxie No one in the US gives a rats derriere what the world thinks about us.
Enough of thread drift. It's time to stop the socialism and welfare for banks and corporations, and capitalism for the people.
You lost money? Tough. Move on. That goes for England too.
Complain about this comment
Euprisoner,
I read the article...I presume you meant the one titled "Urteil zur...."
It is not as dramatic as you make it sound. It almost never even mentions the EU and only one out of two points was taken as valid by the court..
Complain about this comment
Mavrelius is right that's why it's important to keep Sebastopol. As minimum. It can do nothing, just, a reminder :o) that there is an acting fleet there. Sooner a cray-fish will whistle on a mountain top than Ukrainians themselves will move around sharp , in the unlikely event of anything. Way too hedonistic as it happens in milder climes :o)
Though I'd say these days is more in fashion (in Russia) to be afraid of China than of Turkey to say nothing of Germany. For Germany we have 2 , how to say, measures :o)))), pacifying (self-pacifying) parameters, one is being the V-day that we never get tired to mark :o)))), the other - that they are now relatives-in-the-tube. Like some people are "dog relatives" an expression here when you give a pup away to another family and they become your kin. :o)))) on the doggie line. Same thing.
For Turkey there is Sebastopol. as a notion. was worrying with these orange denial of own happiness :o)))) but now seems to be getting better, we don't mind Ukraine joining the EU, they don't pay attention at our fleet stationed there kind of a historical feature in the background :o)))
For China I personally can't think either of a V-day nor of Sebastopol neither of a friendly tube. Ran out of options. :o)))
Moreover all those beautiful places Mavrelius mentioned. The best known remedy has always been a Caucasian wall plus several hundreds of thousands of cossacks settled at the foot of the Caucasus mountain ridge. But Caucasus itself is highly suspicious these lucky days and I don't know. The mountains are still there, though. As to cossacks, Medvedev just took them out of no existence and formalised as again a part of the Russian army that self-controls itself and wears whatever they wish (and does whatever they please) same approach as times Catherine II. Provided they live at the foot of the Caucasus ridge and view it as personal business to protect Russia. So I guess he ran out of options other as well :o))))
And note, Generalissimo, that the current advance in Afghanistan is nothing but preparing the place for withfdrawal, ensuring safe withdraw and comparable peace and quiet for a while after. We recognise the approach :o))) did the same in our time.
Complain about this comment
In the case of Denmark's 'Cartoonist' and the UK 'Libel Laws':
Literally, a classic Red-Herring by the arch 'pro-EU' supporter!
This is all to attract attention away from the Paris-Berlin-Brussels-Athens 'double-accounting' that will temporarily save the Greeks & the EUro from even more painful exposure to Economic-Fiscal reality.
It is also a side-line in 'Scandinavian/Northern States' solidarity: That Iceland's population must somehow be persuaded the EU is still a good bet for them - - backing Iceland against the UK (whilst being much more kind & respectable in tone to the EU founding, Netherlands) - - for it is written and is said thus, 'EU is always good, Anything else is always bad!' Iceland must not be seen as the second (Norway) northern State to publicly refuse the shackles of the EU; such an expression of Citizen Free-will and political turn of events would be unacceptable to Brussels.
No such libel case will be heard in any UK Court: Consideration may be given to whether a 'case' is possible, but the Saudis or whomever, have not the slightest prospect of their libel action going forward.
The Danish Bank case was an altogether different matter qualifying under entirely different areas of UK Libel Laws.
All that said: YES, I entirely agree UK Libel Laws are a disgrace not only for attracting 'libel tourism', but also for their unjust and anti-democratic support of certain UK internationally renowned 'business tycoons', 'sports-persons' & 'celebrities' who use them to prevent exposure of their nefarious activities.
Nevertheless, after all that, I still say Iceland should pay its debts - - i.e. bite the bullet of Economic-Fiscal reality that will do it great credit (literally & philosophically) at an international level - - for it must not choose to be regarded in the same manner as Greece, a nation that is now a bye-word for incompetent & irregular Government policy!
Complain about this comment
#363.
The disbelief that is being articulated in the reactions to my postings on libel tourism is interesting, not least for a person with my background, which is in the field covering history and journalism. On the other hand if we compare with a couple of spectacular examples of disbelief in the history of science there is really nothing new here, but a least I believe it is now clear to the British contributors here that we are speaking of a very real legal problem.
At the moment I have nothing further to add to the case itself, but instead a correction to cool_brush_work. Read the messages: It is not a Danish bank but an Icelandic, and it connects the matter to the blog article by Mr. Hewitt.
There are very serious consequences of the libel tourism, and it might even be of interest to the BBC. In that case it should contact the British ministry of justice or alternatively the British ambassador to Denmark. The name of the Saudi Arabian lawyer is Faisal Yamani.
My fellow contributors I would advise as a historian: Notice the concrete references in my postings on this. You can be absolutely sure that Danish newspaper publishers are arming itself with legal ammunition and are preparing a case in Bruxelles.
Complain about this comment
Mathiasen
Re #364
Apologies, I should have written 'Iceland' bank not Danish, but other than that my warning that you are literally flying a kite full of holes about a spurious Saudi v Dane Cartoonist/Newspaper legal action in the UK remains exactly as I wrote in #363.
It aint going to happen.
Your expertise in History & Journalism is commendable - - your interpration of the ability of the Saudi rulers to bring a civil action against that particular Dane is unfortunately not upto that standard - - there is no way for the Saudi Government to do as you suggest with any expectation of the 'case' ever reaching a UK Court for a hearing.
Fellow Blog contributors: This is a misreading by Mathiasen of the UK Libel Laws and the factual content whilst accurate bears no relation to Mathiasen's proposed Saudi v Dane Newspaper. It may well be the Danish Newspaper is seeking advice via Brussels - - that it is perfectly entitled to do so is the reality - - however, it will have expended monies it need not have done as no libel action will occur.
However, as in my #363, I fully concur that libel tourism is a matter the UK Government really must address (though, I fear, it will not be until after the General Election in May/June '10).
As they say, time will tell: I will readily come on here, apologise and admit my error if this 'Case' comes to Court (other than for it to be dismissed at the first instance as 'not fit for hearing/no case to answer') - - will Mathiasen do the same?
Complain about this comment
Cool brush
You are on your way into endless misinterpretation.
If Jack Straw changes the law in the UK it is a new situation.
If the British judge changes his mind, compared to the case Kaupthing Bank vs Ekstra Bladet (the Danish Newspaper), it is perhaps a new situation. It depends on his reasons.
If British laywers no longer can make a lot of money on theses cases it is a new situation, and the British chairman of British PEN can calm down, etc, etc.
If the UK puts an end to libel tourism I shall bring a toast to Her Majesty the Queen.
Complain about this comment
Why should the Icelanders or any other country be made to pay back money that has been knowingly gambled in an economy that has any form of risk? Unfortunately, many people have trusted their banks to invest their savings, but without really understanding or perhaps not being clearly told that the capital is not guaranteed. That is the only way a higher gain can be made, but when the walls come tumbling down then losses are made and usually by those who can least afford it ie pension schemes etc.
I can STILL not comprehend how banks are still being allowed to gamble people's money on unsafe schemes and how they are spiralling the crisis into further chaos through encouraging insecurities in the market so as to take advantage of countries, such as Greece (where I live at present though I am a UK citizen), in times of need.Due to interest rates being low- after the SHAMEFUL banking crisis began - the only way for these bankers to benefit is to go for high risk bonds, as in Greece, and to keep the momentum of chaos going for as long as possible so as to get higher returns without hopefully pushing it over the brink ( as in the case of Iceland ). Therefore any losses that are made should Greece or any other country have to default will be KNOWINGLY and WILLINGLY made by those entrusted to invest the savings of their clients.It must be so much fun gambling with the savings of others and know that come what may you will be rewarded for the initiative you took even with losses! Hopefully ,nowadays, after all the shenanigans of investment bankers, people will be more attentive to where their money is being invested and under what terms.
I further believe that if governments do not stand up for their citizens against bankers trying to line their own pockets with unearned bonuses, then it is up to the clients and citizens themselves to show their displeasure by demonstration and action that results in these banks loosing the power that they have abused to great excess in the past decade at least.
It is the people who provide the funds and they are the ones now being made to suffer for the ruthless and uncaring actions of those who should know better.They are the ones suffering higher unemployment,higher taxation and so on as a result of the economic crisis. So most definitely I do not believe the country or body which suffered the overall loss should be made to pay back, but those who KNOWINGLY put the money at risk in the first place. There is often no gain without risk and financial loss was quite clearly possible when the money was invested.People must be more involved in their financial dealings and not blindly trust those who invest for them. If you do not want risk then stick to a basic savings account and be happy that it MAY still be there when you need it, if not with a high interest! I say MAYBE as at this rate not even a standard savings account seems safe anymore with the instability of today.
Complain about this comment
As a postscript to my message I am a middle-aged housewife with no particular political leanings, but I am sick to death of the injusticies that I see around me day in-day out and feel that the ordinary man has been put on once too often by those in power no matter the country. Time for change and time for unity of mankind with a better future for those we love and care for!
Complain about this comment
bdsm wrote:
"There is often no gain without risk and financial loss was quite clearly possible when the money was invested.People must be more involved in their financial dealings and not blindly trust those who invest for them."
This world view runs completely against a caste system of social organization. It is worth considering in fine detail, because this is the world which has passed us by, and now fades into history. We now live inside a caste system where some are born to own property and power, and some are born to be taxed and to have their property seized and distributed by those who are born to rule.
The thing is, there is no risk inside a caste system where being from a superior social class allows you to simply grab the property belonging to lower classes. Well, there is the risk of assassination and revolution, but there is no financial risk. None at all.
It should be acknowledged that markets and currency itself, the very concept of mutual exchange between equals, post dates human social organization. Well before we had markets, humans operated tribes under the rule of the fist. The strong simply took what they wanted from the weak, and shamans blessed the strong and told stories to the weak, in order to receive benefits from the strong.
And feudalism was an extension of tribalism and the rule of the fist. Feudal Lords were not scholars. They were warriors. It was the monks, the neo-shamans, who were the scholars. People in feudal times went to war and received land and slaves in return for martial service to the biggest, strongest warrior. That is where the aristocracy of Europe hails from. This is not "ancient" history. Not markets and the consideration of risk, but rather war, and taking property from weaker people by force of arms.
The reason I note this history is because one can look at banks in two extremely different ways. Both of these perspectives has a foundation of truth, they are not mutually exclusive. From one perspective, banks are the driving engine of the market. They allow capital to flow into innovative industrial schemes, creating jobs and wealth and more of the same, in an upward cycle of material prosperity.
So from this perspective, the perspective of the scholar, a bank is a curious mechanism which operates as a service industry within a community. Free people trade and calculate risks, and enjoy their profits and learn from their losses.
However, there is another perspective. That of the warrior prince. One who rules by force of arms, and who has inherited his position by virtue of a bloodline, might see a bank in a very different way.
For a prince of the blood, a bank may be nothing more than a counting house, and a means of extracting taxation from the lower classes. When the prince of the blood wishes to go to war and conquer more territory, he uses the tools in his domain to raise capital for the great adventure. He changes the rules of commerce, and raises taxes everywhere. He simply seizes the property of the lower classes and press gangs them into his service, and sets of to be glorious and to kill a bunch of folks and steal their real estate.
To such a divinely ordained superior human being, a bank is simply a means of control. It is a way of gathering money from the lower orders of society during peacetime.
My point here is that we need to be very, very careful about confusing the historical importance of these two wildly different perspectives regarding the trade of banking.
The first view of banking can only exist where society adheres to the rule of law, and where no caste system operates to make whole classes of people the mere property of superior human beings.
The second view, the society with a caste system, has different sorts of banks, and a completely different "market" culture. This second variety of human organization is much, much more common in the pages of history. Medieval europe, the soviet union, china today: all these societies have a superior caste of human being who take from the lower classes as they see fit, and who thus see banks as nothing more than tools with which to control the population.
Any society with a caste system fits this model.
Any system where some business owners are too big to fail is a caste system. As soon as the government starts taking money from those who are too small to matter, and gifting it to those who are too big to fail, you have the creation of a caste system, and the end of the rule of law.
Now some people will argue that we cannot have abandoned the rule of law, because as everyone knows we do not have a caste system. We have freedom, and free markets.
But do we? Or do political systems evolve over time, do they change and sometimes decay? Are they sometimes perverted away from humanist principles and the rule of law, and do they sometimes descend into horrific barbarity, hijacked by special interest groups seeking ever more power for themselves?
The crucial point to note about the Iceland debt issue and the previous bank bailouts is not that bankers have too much power, and that we have become a caste system. The crucial point to note is that government, the two party system of representation, has failed to uphold the rule of law and has utterly failed to protect the majority of the population from outright exploitation by a minority.
In short, the two party system of representation has failed. It has allowed itself to become a tool of power, wielded by one caste against all the rest, for the banal objective of financial power.
This has destroyed the concept of the free market, and it has destroyed the public's ability to have faith in the rule of law. There is no rule of law in a caste system, because lower class human beings are constantly taxed in order that higher class human beings can live in fine robes and speak in cultured tones about the proper order of society.
Complain about this comment
@EU PRISONER
Re "There is a fascinating article in this weeks “Die Zeit” . I regret that I am not allowed to include a link.
“How Brussels interferes in the rights of citizens.”
I wish I could translate every word for you. I haven’t got the time and it would, I believe, be copyright theft.
The German constitutional court has declared the “EU”-saving of vast amounts of data to be unconstitutional. The judges applied the decision of 1986 in which they agreed not to examine EU-law as long as it was approximately in conformity with the German constitution.
Small states are already refusing to obey “EU”-law. Ireland, Austria, Sweden, Luxemburg, and Greece have not yet turned the “EU”-directive into national law.
The author gives this as an example of the way in which the Lisbon Treaty isn’t working. even though the directive came out before the Lisbon Treaty was in force.
SWP-researcher Roderick Parkes compares the increasing tensions between the national and international levels in Europe* with a threatening “Supernova Effect”: “Now immediately after the Lisbon Treaty, the star is shining bright(*2) but it can come to an implosion. …”
I find the article even more interesting because it is, I believe, the first time I have read anything critical of the “EU” in “Die Zeit.”
I would be grateful to German speakers if the could check the accuracy of my imperfect translation. I am confident I got the essence of it right."
How very funny you should bring up this article!
The article also explains how the directive on datastorage came about.
It was the UK government that pushed for this directive after the terrorist attacks in London. A measure concerning Justice and Home Affairs you say? No, because if it would have been a JHA measure, the UK would have needed unanimity in the Council for this measure. Therefore the UK changed it into an Internal Market measure (needing only a QMV).
This is how the UK succeeded in pushing it's very farreaching legislation through.
So what does this tell us?
1.'The EU' that EU Pris is trying to blame in casu comes down to a project of the Uk and Charles Clarke.
2. Suppose the UK would not have been member of the EU, would this have changed anything for UK citizens in casu? No, because the UK was the biggest proponent of this kind of legislation!
Somehow EU PRIS succeeds in picturing this situation as an argument why UK citizens would be much better off in an 'independent' UK.
Perhaps you should call yourself UKprisoner209456731 instead of EUprisoner209456731!
Complain about this comment
#366 The libel tourism is a problem that does need dealing with. I think this has come more to the fore in recent times due to the somewhat questionable ability and judgement of Mr InJustice Eady who has received a suitable tongue lashing from his fellow judges. Private Eye has some interesting articles on how this law may actually start costing lives due to its application in the medical field.
Complain about this comment
Democracythreat, thank you for that interesting comment it seemed to fill in my thoughts- which have had no economic history education, and brought clearer some previously hidden truths. Perhaps age and experience has helped too. My child is studying Greek history at present and we looked at the beginnings of democracy in Athens: the upper levels of Athenian citizens, the "μέτοικοι" οr foreigners who traded and paid taxes for the privilege of living in Athens and the "δούλοι" who were the slaves. I laughed out loud as I read and came to the realisation that this has never changed. The miserly change of a wage has freed no-one and those that have are still manipulating and exploiting, but with the pretense that we are free!I do not believe human nature can have an equal society, but it can be fairer, I do not want revolution, but I do want those that are in power to realise that we are more educated and have greater levels of communication and even the attempts to blind us with other facts through the media do not succeed anymore. We see clearly and are not happy! Just as those who ruled as tyrants in the past were overthrown, perhaps the system of politicians wielding their power has to come to an end, perhaps a more evolved system needs to be established for a much more advanced society.
Complain about this comment
#370 JL
Pointing out that the EU allows national governments impose their individual goosestepping agenda helps your case how?
Complain about this comment
Re "Pointing out that the EU allows national governments impose their individual goosestepping agenda helps your case how?"
What's my case?
As I said on this blog before: Although I am pro-EU I'm not really interested in convincing others of the historic importance in human history of the EU or it's day to day benefits for citizens.
You can be pro or against. But all too often people talk about the EU without any basic knowledge, oversimplifying or spreading plain lies.
So my case on this blog is and has been to refute the nonsense which is being written about the EU.
The way you think about the facts concerning the EU and european integration is a totally different thing (you can be pro or against), but let's start from the facts. (the fact in this case being it doesn't make much sense to blame the EU for policies that would have been imposed regardless of the existence (or UK membership) of the EU).
Complain about this comment
#374 JL
"Although I am pro-EU I'm not really interested in convincing others of the historic importance in human history of the EU or it's day to day benefits for citizens."
Pull the other one...its got bells on.
"So my case on this blog is and has been to refute the nonsense which is being written about the EU."
Just anti 'nonsense' from your previous posts it seems.
I do not blame the EU for New Labour's authoritarian nature and illiberal legislation. I do blame it for giving them a way of getting it to European level where it will be almost impossible to get rid of. At least at a national level when we wake up and give them the electoral kicking they deserve, we can swiftly remove their legislative attacks on freedom.
Complain about this comment
@359 MarcusAureliusII
“And whether you know it or not, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, al Quaeda, Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan are all your battles too. The terrorist will attack Europe again given a chance.”
1) I should agree that they are already OUR common battle fields Marcus, no matter who was to be blamed in the past for their creation.
2) The last legal persecutions in Turkey of resigned highly ranked military commanders for an alleged coup and the open discontent of present highly ranked Turkish officials over the last (fair & principle) condemnation of the Armenian genocide of 1915 the American Senate made last week, are just another proof that the secular society in Turkey is in danger. These two events should ring the bell not only in (Christian) Europe, but also in Washington.
3)Turkey is taking full advantage of the collapse of the Soviet Empire, and, it her attempt to be a leading power in the Eastern Mediterranean she has allowed herself to accuse and to lecture even Tel Aviv (another power in the region) for having killed many Palestinian children during the last hostilities there. Turkey is trying to win the sympathy of the Muslim nations inhabiting the Middle East and she’s doing it at OUR expense. What a pity that you refuse to acknowledge that reality!
This said, I cannot really understand your continuous attempt to convince me of the lack of whatever American interest in the European affairs.
@362 AliceInWonderLand
I would welcome the resurrection of the Cossacks’ traditions, provided everything is done within the secular and democratic Russian society. The Cossack’s standard, on which your riders had fixed the icon of our Lord Jesus /with an inscription made in Cyrillic characters “Za odinovernuyu Bolgariyu” (russ.”For Orthodox Bulgaria”)/ did traverse, along with the regiment flag, all the battle fields of 1877-1878. 200000 Russians perished under this icon. How can we forget it? The omnipresent portrait of the Liberator here is the Cossack’s smiling face. (The standards are still carefully kept in any big museum here).
Generalissimo
Complain about this comment
EUPris
Re your #354 and the 'very funny' #370
You shouldn't laugh, you know!?
Though it was especially enjoyable humour in you plainly having not learned the 'pro-EU' mantra, "EU is good, Anything else is bad".
How on earth could you ever have thought it possible the EU had anything to do with a bad bit of policy on 'data-storage'!?
Do try to keep up!
Honestly, don't you know yet that any bad legislation is always the result of some wicked National personage or organisation?
Have you not grasped any good legislation is always the result of some marvellously astute Brussels' initiative?
You see that particular legislation was all the fault of one man from Britain: Charles Clarke entirely on his own came up with the malicious content, battered and forced it through Commission/Brussels, and ruthlessly made it a supra-National policy which none of the other EU26 agreed with at all!
Apparently in this instance the poor, defenceless EU was tricked by another of those perfidious Englanders!
It is the same story with the Greek Fiscal crisis: They joined the EUro-zone on the same terms following the same procedures as 15 other EU States - - it is all the fault of Greece that those terms and procedures were inadequate for the role - - it simply isn't possible the EU devised terms & conditions that were anything other than perfection.
Now, try to restrain yourself - - cos it really isn't that 'funny' - - you know, making the 'pro-EU' come on here and explain yet again how it was not the EU's fault, it was not the EU that made any sort of error, and it most certainly was not an EU-Brussels that has only the interests of 500,000,000 Citizens in mind allowed such a shocking piece of legislation to slip through unnoticed.
No, of course it wasn't!
Complain about this comment
Re "Honestly, don't you know yet that any bad legislation is always the result of some wicked National personage or organisation?
Have you not grasped any good legislation is always the result of some marvellously astute Brussels' initiative?"
Nobody ever said anything like that.
The problem is you yourself view everything black and white (EU bad, non-EU good). Therefore if someone comes along and says " 'The EU' did not make a difference in this case" you automatically conclude that the person making that statement has said that the EU can never deliver bad policies.
Re "You see that particular legislation was all the fault of one man from Britain: Charles Clarke entirely on his own came up with the malicious content, battered and forced it through Commission/Brussels, and ruthlessly made it a supra-National policy which none of the other EU26 agreed with at all!"
Nothing like this was ever said. But perhaps you should read the article in Die Zeit to which Eupris originally referred (and which I have read sicne this is part of good debating: someone brings on a novel argument and the other debater looks into it). Obviously you have not read it. Obviously you don't really know how EU decision making functions, because saying 'forced it through the Commission' does not make any sense.
Re "Apparently in this instance the poor, defenceless EU was tricked by another of those perfidious Englanders!"
No one ever said anything like this. Again you are trying to depicture pro-Eu people as UK haters, thereby setting a mood discrediting everything linked with the EU. However, this won't work, mr populist!
Re "It is the same story with the Greek Fiscal crisis: They joined the EUro-zone on the same terms following the same procedures as 15 other EU States - - it is all the fault of Greece that those terms and procedures were inadequate for the role - - it simply isn't possible the EU devised terms & conditions that were anything other than perfection.
Now, try to restrain yourself - - cos it really isn't that 'funny' - - you know, making the 'pro-EU' come on here and explain yet again how it was not the EU's fault, it was not the EU that made any sort of error, and it most certainly was not an EU-Brussels that has only the interests of 500,000,000 Citizens in mind allowed such a shocking piece of legislation to slip through unnoticed."
Now try to understand this. 'The EU' doesn't really exist, it's more or less an empty box. And try to understand that if contributors nuance certain statements, this does not mean that they deny those statements (can you grasp this?).
I can give a whole number of EU policies that fail. But then you need to go and look into the internal mechanisms of the EU. What will you see? The main legislator still is the Council (this means the member states), so obviously if an EU policy fails it is often due to conflicts between member states. E.g. a failing fisheries policy because certain fishing countries (notably spain, france, portugal) refuse a more 'green' policy, causing ever deminishing fish stocks. Is this to say that only the MS are at fault? No, because the Commission in it's annual proposal concerning fishing quota's already partly ignores scientific advice. Why? Because the Commission itself doesn't have the political courage? Because it already anticipates the stubborn position of some member states?... etc etc etc
Already it is clear the reality of these policies and their problems are very complex and yet you, CBW, try to explain it all through your narrow oversimplified black and white framework. And when someone is more nuanced you accuse them of glossing over anything the Eu (again the question, 'what is the EU?') does! How sad you are.
Back to EUpris' remark:
Yes it is a pity that the EU is used as some kind of forum to push controversial policies through. A good reason to elect competent MEPs! Even more so since the EP's powers have again increased thanks to Lisbon!
Complain about this comment
#378
Hmm, those little things that lead to so much ducking and diving by the 'pro-EU' caught in a web of their own contribution! It gets funnier by the sentence!
Quote: "..How very funny you (EUPris) should bring up this article."
An article in a German newspaper referring to the EUropean Union policy initiative on 'Data-Storage'.
Quote: "..The article also explains how the Directive on datastorage came about."
An article that explains how the EUropean Union policy on Data-Storage became a 'Directive'.
Quote: ".. It was the UK Government pushed for this Directive after the terrorist attacks in London."
Across the EU27 (despite Madrid etc. & EU NATO members involvement in Afghanistan) apparently only 1 EU Member nation, the UK wanted any anti-terror legislation to include such matters as 'Data-storage'.
Quote: "..A measure concerning Justice & Home Affairs you say? No, because if it would have been a JHA measure, the UK would have needed unanimity in the Council for this measure."
So, the UK & the EU did not see it as a JHA: now that IS 'funny'!
Quote: "..Therefore the UK changed it into an Internal Market measure (needing only QMV)."
So, those duplicitous UK knaves snuck the proposal in under another guise - - it makes the blood boil, doesn't it? The kindly, generous, innocent EU26 all being duped in such an underhand manner by 1 UK!
Quote: "..This is how the UK succeeded in pushing its very far-reaching legislation through."
All is clear - - totally below the EU26's horizon the UK snuck in a piece of legislation that had the EU26 only been aware of it they would have struck it down!
I mean it is obvious now, when I reflect on it, if that QMV hadn't been there why the UK could never have got away with such a connivance - - disregard the fact that Q=Qualified, M=Majority, V=Voting and it is as plain as day the UK did this ALL on its own, didn't it!?
Quote: "..So, what does this tell us?
1) The EU that 'EUPris' (in the German newspaper article) is trying to blame in casus comes down to a project of the UK and Charles Clarke."
Well, of course it does! I see that now & I'm damn sure we all do: If the UK had not presented a policy for consideration it would never, ever have happened. None, especially not the EU Member States who were part of the QMV (that's Qualified MAJORITY Voting) wanted it at all. That UK Home Secretary, Charles Clarke, clearly demonstrating he was a 1st-class bounder took the EU26 for fools & disgracefully misled every other Member Nation with a 'project' they were completely in the dark about.
Grrrr, if only the ECJ had the authority to put the man where he belongs!
And ALL becomes abundantly clear in this Quote from #378:
"..Now try to understand this. The 'EU' doesn't really exist. It's more or less an empty box. And try to understand that if contributors nuance certain statements, this does not mean that they deny these statements (can you grasp this?)."
Honestly, if I had not actually read it with my own eyes I would deny that anyone on these Blogs could ever be capable of such a blatantly, ignorantly, fundamentally conceited misconception of the value of their contributions.
Laugh, I almost...
Complain about this comment
Actually, I think we should be grateful to the German constitutional court in Karlsruhe. It decision against the German law was quite a slap against the German parliament but since this was a rework of a directive from the commission the slap also hits here. However, the member nations have initialised the matter, and the UK was in a central role.
Those, interested in understanding what has happened before this decision should read the article in Die Zeit, which gives an account of the relatively complicated process, and not rely on the debate here. You will find the article on the website of Die Zeit - it is in German. I don’t think it is allowed to write the German headline here, so you will have to translate “citizen rights” to find the article.
If we are lucky, the decision in Karlsruhe can clean up part of the legal mess, we are having now.
Complain about this comment
@CBW
Re "Across the EU27 (despite Madrid etc. & EU NATO members involvement in Afghanistan) apparently only 1 EU Member nation, the UK wanted any anti-terror legislation to include such matters as 'Data-storage'."
I never really said that did I?
Re "So, those duplicitous UK knaves snuck the proposal in under another guise - - it makes the blood boil, doesn't it? The kindly, generous, innocent EU26 all being duped in such an underhand manner by 1 UK!"
No not really. It's just politics you know :)
But the following is something you probably do not know, I myself have only recently found out on my latest visit to the ECJ in Luxemburg:
The UK government has the strictest interpretation and application of all EU member states concerning anti-terrorism acts (remember: there are decisions on EU level, but the member states still have to implement them and they can do so strictly or more lax).
The UK's government hard stance in the fight against terrorism (which necessarily encroaches upon civil liberties) is not uncontested in the UK itself. So much so that the House of Lords (which ultimately has the authority over the UK implementing regulations) seeks assistance from the Court in Luxemburg in several cases and wants a ruling of the ECJ so that it would have a legal reason to strike down the strict UK regulations.
Re "All is clear - - totally below the EU26's horizon the UK snuck in a piece of legislation that had the EU26 only been aware of it they would have struck it down!
I mean it is obvious now, when I reflect on it, if that QMV hadn't been there why the UK could never have got away with such a connivance - - disregard the fact that Q=Qualified, M=Majority, V=Voting and it is as plain as day the UK did this ALL on its own, didn't it!?"
I never said that did I? You are again making a caricature of the situation. Everything is black and white to you. But if you had read the article (which you probably haven't, thus leaving me wondering on basis of what you are arguing here) you'd have read that a decision in JHA would have needed unanimity and that a number of countries were opposed to the directive. So nobody is arguing the UK did it all by itself.
Re "Well, of course it does! I see that now & I'm damn sure we all do: If the UK had not presented a policy for consideration it would never, ever have happened. None, especially not the EU Member States who were part of the QMV (that's Qualified MAJORITY Voting) wanted it at all. That UK Home Secretary, Charles Clarke, clearly demonstrating he was a 1st-class bounder took the EU26 for fools & disgracefully misled every other Member Nation with a 'project' they were completely in the dark about."
Nope. Again you are seeing things black and white. The fact is that the directive would have looked radically different (because of the unanimity requirement) if it would have been a JHA decision.
Complain about this comment
127. At 11:05am on 06 Mar 2010, Walter Russell wrote:
'Will the Dutch and British now have a referendum when Iceland wants to join the EU? Now that seems fair. "What goes around comes around" or "Sow as you will reap" '
EUpris: Very unlikely. If there was such a referendum, I would vote against letting Iceland in because I believe it would be bad for Iceland.
Complain about this comment
Re: 370. At 11:55am on 09 Mar 2010, Jean Luc wrote: etc.
EUpris: I accept that there is a point to be made and that there are many points to be scored about the behaviour of the UK government, assuming that the article is correct. I believe that the article is correct because 1) I have a very low opinion of the present government in the UK and of the governance of the UK and 2) the report is similar to another report I read on the Austrian Radio website some time ago.
So:
1) The behaviour of the British government is very questionable. I wasn't complaining about that, by which I do not mean that it does not merit complaint.
2) Irrespective of how flawed the behaviour of the British government is/was, the behaviour of the other governments mentioned is and was also very flawed.
2.1) The behaviour of these other governments is flawed in that they have refused to obey "EU"-law just months after the Lisbon Treaty came into force. It is not as if there had been changes of government in these countries. The very people who supported the Lisbon Treaty and in some cases rammed it down the throats of their unwilling countrymen and women now refuse to obey "EU"-law.
2.2) We were told by none other than the great Mathiasen that ordinary people did not have the intellectual equipment to make such a decision. I believe that on several occasions he has told us that referenda are wrong. So what do the "clever" people who decided without a referendum do? They agreed to a Lisbon Treaty which has now been shown to be massively flawed and Jo and Joanne Public who thought it was rubbish were right.
The ordinary bloke or blokess is not that stupid.
Complain about this comment
@EUprisoner....
About 70% of the public in Iceland does not want to join EU. I believe that the average Icelander is of the opinion that the governments in Europe disregard the law and resort to bullying in their dealing with smaller nations. Not a very likable bunch to associate with.
Complain about this comment
#384 An icelander
In that case the average Icelander has a point.
However, the behavior of large nations is actually the reason why a number of small nations are member of the EU. Without EU Jean-Claude Juncker, the PM from Luxembourg and recently the secret German candidate as chairman of the council, would not be chairman of the Euro-16. And why do you think Poland is a member?
You can be absolutely sure that we here have an argument by Icelandic advocates of Icelandic membership.
Complain about this comment
Evil axis of France and Germany?
Didn't France take full blame for its dissent over the US occupation of Iraq..an arguably courageous action.
Didn't Germany acknowledge, unlike Japan and China, its past genocide?
And hasn't Germany tried to be a responsible and peaceful member of the EU--a leader to be admired?
Remember Condi Rice's diplomatic ineffectual plan of diplomacy--Reward Russia, Ignore Germany and PUNISH France?
I'd say France came out of that period smelling like a rose--couragous against big odds and arguably succsessful in a conflict with the bullying USA..I always will remember that myself:)
So tell me what is evilll about the French-German partnership? ...
Leaving out the UK from major Decisions? Isn't this, for the UK, exactly what was wanted? No intensive involvement?
Or are they paying too much attention to keeping their special status intact regarding the declining USA? They are now between a rock and hard place...I feel for the UK now:(
Complain about this comment
As the UK is my favorite European country, the above is criticism, not hatred expressed.
Complain about this comment
Where was the UK when Iceland started in a financial mess and couldn't pay its bills? No one made Iceland take any help. Their agreement was with the Brits when Iceland was down economically.
Appears as though Iceland is moving from one mess to another.
What's the matter don't you'all know how to handle your money up there?
Complain about this comment
I do believe Britain is indeed acting like a bully,as it has for the last 500 years.
Let's look at the Falklands,northern Ireland and the Irak war !
Oh ,and how many soldiers are still in Germany ? British taxpayers flip that bill every year.
If you'd save all that money you could buy Iceland,build homes for your Rhine-army...in england... ,properly equip your forces in Afghanistan and create some jobs!
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS