Iceland to have referendum on Bank Bail out.

Agent J

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8441312.stm

Well this is interesting. It doenst have snowballs chance of passing in a popular vote.

The president seems to be kicking this one to touch.

Politically Iceland may loose a lot of international friends over this if it doesn't.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Can't blame them. Read somewhere it works out 12K per citizen if they bail out the 5bil.

Would you pay 12K for international friends?

BlaasForRafa

Agent J wrote: »

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8441312.stm

Well this is interesting. It doenst have snowballs chance of passing in a popular vote.

The president seems to be kicking this one to touch.

Politically Iceland may loose a lot of international friends over this if it doesn't.

Its pretty disgraceful that he's after passing this to the people.

It may be unpopular and political suicide but this was a payment solution that they signed up to. I assume that they have tried to renogiate the terms of the payments and that failed but not paying will make them something of a pariah for the next few years and make it even harder for them to borrow money.

digme

Agent J wrote: »

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8441312.stm

Well this is interesting. It doenst have snowballs chance of passing in a popular vote.

The president seems to be kicking this one to touch.

Politically Iceland may loose a lot of international friends over this if it doesn't.

It is 40% of their gdp.

Fratton Fred

So the people of Iceland get to decide on whether or not to screw the people of the UK and the Netherlands?

Nice way for a minister to shirk his responsibilities. I wonder if the Dutch would have welcomed them into the Euro if they knew this was going to happen.

digme

I don't think you get it what he is doing.
It went to a vote and it lost 30-33, so now the president, who obviously doesn't want 40% of his countries gdp payed out to some foreign countries, has put it to the HIS OWN people,as that's the only way he can save his dam country.

sceptre

digme wrote: »

I don't think you get it what he is doing.
It went to a vote and it lost 30-33

You've got it the wrong way around. It went to vote and it passed 33-30.

After all, Olafur Grimsson vetoing it wouldn't make sense it if it lost:)

digme

It depends what side your looking at, I thought it failed myself. His only option is to put it to his own people and i think he is doing the right thing.
If they join Europe they're screwed.

sceptre

digme wrote: »

It depends what side your looking at, I thought it failed myself.

Dude, the first half of that sentence scares the reality of existence. It passed. 33-30. Have a second link and a third to verify that it passed through the Althing that so that all of us (including your good self) can move on and discuss whether it's a good thing or not without needing to consider again whether the parliament passed it.

digme

It passed.

Agent J

I'm not really sure what my view on it is.

It is a nightmare situation for the country to be in and i wouldnt want to touch it with a barge pole myself.

However i'm not the president of Iceland.

Sand

Given the scale of the payment and the injustice of billing the ordinary taxpayer for the failings of the banks it is only right that the ordinary taxpayer is consulted for his permission to do this.

That everyone considers it a given that the plan will be rejected by the people only shows there is no confidence that there is any compelling argument for the plan or that those who drew it up had any mandate or support to do so. As such, its a good day. Its only a shame that our own political system was too craven to exercise a similar clause in our constitution that would have allowed a referendum on NAMA and the bank bail outs.

The British and Dutch depositors involved may lose some or even the majority of their deposits ( I imagine their respective governments will get involved) but no one held a gun to their heads: they liked the return they were getting (6%+ interest rates), now theyve gotten burnt. Its sad, but its better they accept responsibility for their own decisions to invest in the Icelandic banks than the average joe in Iceland be forced to fork over astronomical amounts to bail them out.

And I truly doubt the seas will rise up and swallow Iceland should the banks debts be defaulted.

johnnyskeleton

sceptre wrote: »

Althing

Oldest parliament still in existence. Although it's come a long way from the days when taking a bribe to advocate something was punished by an instant death sentence/banishment.

Hellm0

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Oldest parliament still in existence. Although it's come a long way from the days when taking a bribe to advocate something was punished by an instant death sentence/banishment.

*sigh* If only....

I heard there were some shady doins' with the banks in question, specifically to do with dodgy loans given out to English/Dutch investors. I also heard that Iceland had suggested a repayment scheme which was based off of % of GDP rather than a fixed payment cycle. I heard these things on wikileaks.com, which seems to be in dire need of donations. I'll be making one shortly, hopefully that will bring forth some answers.

brianthebard

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Its pretty disgraceful that he's after passing this to the people.

.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

So the people of Iceland get to decide on whether or not to screw the people of the UK and the Netherlands?

Nice way for a minister to shirk his responsibilities.

It can be viewed in that way, but since Iceland is a republic it should not be surprising that its citizens get a say from time to time, and something as massive as this bail out should involve the general population imo.

digme

http://notsylvia.wordpress.com/2010/01/05/icelandic-president-listens-to-the-voice-of-the-people/

Read this Icelandic man's blog, he explains how things are quite well.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Fratton Fred wrote: »

So the people of Iceland get to decide on whether or not to screw the people of the UK and the Netherlands?

Nice way for a minister to shirk his responsibilities. I wonder if the Dutch would have welcomed them into the Euro if they knew this was going to happen.

The icelandic people didn't/aren't screwing the Dutch and the British, the privately owned Icelandic bank did. Why should they have to pay 12k each for something they played no part in?

Look at it from the minister's point of view, if he allowed it to go through the country would descend into anarchy. Their public service would in all likelihood stop working, potentially police included. Don't think they have much of an army neither. What would you have done in this situation?

oppenheimer1

Agent J wrote: »

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8441312.stm

Well this is interesting. It doenst have snowballs chance of passing in a popular vote.

The president seems to be kicking this one to touch.

Politically Iceland may loose a lot of international friends over this if it doesn't.

They might find themselves in difficulty when they go to the IMF for more loans, that is the major issue, as well as a possible economic boycott. They could find themselves out in the cold for a long time if they don't pass the bill, and no it isn't fair either. However the Icelanic government are responsible for the mess they are in mainly due to their non-existant regulation and by allowing the banks to take on risk 5 times the size of their economy. That said it is likely they would have been able to painfully refinance their way out of the mess but for the collapse of Lehman and the greed of some in the City of London.

I've a feeling Iceland will have to sell the family silver in order to get out of this (their natural resources). If I were Icelandic I would be very angry at the system and its inherent unfairness. I feel sorry for the ordinary guy.

Agent J

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

I've a feeling Iceland will have to sell the family silver in order to get out of this (their natural resources). If I were Icelandic I would be very angry at the system and its inherent unfairness. I feel sorry for the ordinary guy.

Seconded. They are damned if they do, damned if they dont.

Im just looking at it as a mirror to our own situation. Imagine if NAMA had to go to referendum?

Zambia

I re-read the entire wiki article on the crisis just to timeline everything and refresh my memory.

At the time all these assurances where very welcome. By this I mean the UK goverment stepping in to assure UK investors. Everything was in freefall for the first time in my life I remember worrying about my sums in the bank? I looked into the fine print of who was guaranteeing my money. Something a lot of us never did because we never knew this sort of thing could happen.

Basically the Icelandic banks could not survive a run on the bank because they had grown to such an extent that their own central bank could not rescue them. So you could say the Icelandic central bank was dozing at the wheel to let this happen.

The UK and the Netherlands where aware of the risks but said nothing as even discussing the problem could cause the problem if you get me. Had they both stepped in with warnings earlier this could have been avoided but that would be micro managing IMO.

I'm torn on what I would vote if I was an Icelandic citizen because I probably never saw the huge difference in my personnal wealth. During the time of soaring National GDP unless I was in Banking.

So in the end I would say no to it and face the consequences simply on the principle its better to die on your feet than live on your knees.

Mahatma coat

ask yerself, would you bail them out if you'd have been given the choice.

Good on em, tell the 'International Financiers' to get stuffed

Fratton Fred

Mahatma coat wrote: »

ask yerself, would you bail them out if you'd have been given the choice.

Good on em, tell the 'International Financiers' to get stuffed

And what about the people who lose their life savings? Stuff them as well?

The British government got a lot of stick for using anti terror laws to prevent the Icelandic bank from moving their money back to Iceland, it looks like it was a very good move. If the little countries want to enter the markets of the big countries and enjoy the benefits of doing so, they need to play by the rules of the big boys or face the consequences, which Iceland may now have to do.

Sand

None of the little people have lost their savings, they were compensated by their governments already ( British/Dutch). Now the UK and the Dutch governments want their compensation from the Icelanders. Given the Icelanders ( vast majority of whom are little people too) had nothing to do with these Icesave accounts with enticed British/Dutch savers with higher rates I dont think theres much justice in the claims against the Iceland taxpayer.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Fratton Fred wrote: »

And what about the people who lose their life savings? Stuff them as well?

The British government got a lot of stick for using anti terror laws to prevent the Icelandic bank from moving their money back to Iceland, it looks like it was a very good move. If the little countries want to enter the markets of the big countries and enjoy the benefits of doing so, they need to play by the rules of the big boys or face the consequences, which Iceland may now have to do.

You seem to be ignoring the the point that Icelandic people played not part in this. Expecting them to pay for the meltdown of an Icelandic bank is guilt by association.

Comparing the population sizes this would be like asking the UK population to fund a GBP£592 billion debt of a private British company. How do you think Britons would react to that?

Hellm0

What I find funny about all this is the blatant double standard when it comes to big business. Laissez Faire capitalists would have it so that the government is completely uninvolved in the running of businesses yet the Icelandic government is now being held to task for the folly of it's banking industry.

Is it just me or does the international banking industry seem to resemble an organized crime syndicate. Be it the financial crisis of the US or the banking situation in Ireland, when these scumbags lose money we pick up the tab. When they make money we see a fraction of a cent of it in tax income while the higher ups still get their massive bonuses(though they get those regardless it seems).

Sand

Those are not capitalists, they are opportunists. When theyre making profit, they want to keep it, when theyre making losses they want to pass them on to the state. The phrase "patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel" has never been more true.

Interesting, Fianna Fail and Brian Lenihan in particular have attempted to portray their recent efforts as a great patriotic war against Lehman Brothers unprovoked attack on our happy land, that all proud and true citizens should rally to. Anyone who advocates the shocking idea of forcing the banks to face their losses is deounced as a dangerous lunatic. So, people who swing to statist solutions are deounced for double standards, otherwise theyre denounced as maniacs who would destroy all civillised society. What to do?

Iceland is not being bullied by international bankers though, it is being bullied by the UK and Dutch governments. The UK/Dutch have taken the line that no bank stakeholders should be allowed to fail, and that they will bear any burden in propping up their banking systems. The Icelanders have taken a different line from the very start. The UK/Dutch are attempting to force the Icelanders to back their banks in the same way they have backed their own.

The UK/Dutch case is dubious (EEA law only requires a deposit insurance scheme which there is, but it is wholly insufficient versus the losses), but they believe they have an edge in that they can veto EU membership ( Iceland is not deeply supportive of this anyway) and the IMF have said they will not assist further without sign off from the Dutch/UK, but in practise this wont be sustainable. Hopefully the Icelanders will be brave enough to do the right thing and avoid entangling themselves with the losses of stakeholders in a private bank.

That said, someone over on Irisheconomy.ie made an interesting point - apparently the British dont take this sort of thing lying down: They attacked Istanbul in 19th century after a Turkish default, and took over Egypt under similar provocation. Id imagine the Icelanders might start investing in their defences?

johnnyskeleton

Fratton Fred wrote: »

And what about the people who lose their life savings? Stuff them as well?

What about the people who lost their savings in bank shares? Or property deals? Or gambling? Should the people of Iceland compensate them too?

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The British government got a lot of stick for using anti terror laws to prevent the Icelandic bank from moving their money back to Iceland, it looks like it was a very good move. If the little countries want to enter the markets of the big countries and enjoy the benefits of doing so, they need to play by the rules of the big boys or face the consequences, which Iceland may now have to do.

Well they did play by the rules of the big boys. In fact, the rules of most free market capitalist countries is that if an unsuccessful business collapses, unsecured creditors get what little is left after the tax man, employees, secured creditors etc takes their share. So the rules of the UK allow the bank to be wound up, as do the rules of Denmark.

The problem here is that Icelandic government appears to have offered the UK?Danish governments a guarantee that it couldn't follow through on.

Overheal

I wish US Healthcare would be a Referendum

AARRRGH

It's a no win situation, so the president has decided it's better to side with his own people than with a bunch of foreigners.

This is what you'd expect a president to do, but bizarrely rarely happens.

If only our own government had the people's interests at heart.

+1 to Iceland.

Zambia

Fratton Fred wrote: »

And what about the people who lose their life savings? Stuff them as well?

I would have to sympathise with them but in essence they took a risk they did not check to see how secure there money was. Granted like I said before at the time no one did but when someone is giving you such a good rate you have to ask questions. There is also the adage of all your eggs in one basket. They could have placed it in shares and if the shares went belly up no one would care.

Fratton Fred

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

What about the people who lost their savings in bank shares? Or property deals? Or gambling? Should the people of Iceland compensate them too?




Well they did play by the rules of the big boys. In fact, the rules of most free market capitalist countries is that if an unsuccessful business collapses, unsecured creditors get what little is left after the tax man, employees, secured creditors etc takes their share. So the rules of the UK allow the bank to be wound up, as do the rules of Denmark.

The problem here is that Icelandic government appears to have offered the UK?Danish governments a guarantee that it couldn't follow through on.

puting your money in a bank is sensible, sticking it on shares is risky, putting it all on 22 black is stupid, so no, I don't think gamblers should be compensated the same way.

yes, you can check the financial stability of your bank, it is worth noting that Lehmann Brothers had a pretty impressive credit rating, as did RBS, right up to the point they went tits up.

The British and Dutch tax payers are now forking out on a bank gaurantee that they should not have to. The governments of both countries bailed it out, with the agreement and gaurantee of the Icelandic government, who are now reneging on that agreement.

The Icelandic PM may have won himself a few votes, but he now has the problem of pissing off two counties who may well play an important part in Iceland's economic future.

i appreciate the problem they are in, but it appears they need to think this one through a bit better and get to a negotiating table PDQ

Sand

The British and Dutch tax payers are now forking out on a bank gaurantee that they should not have to.

I think the Icelanders agree they should not have to fork out on a bank guarantee either. Their political leadership is representing them, however imperfectly.

The Icelandic government is only able to speak on behalf of the people on the basis of of it retaining the confidence and consent of its people. That everyone is absolutely certain the Icelandic voters will reject the deal in a referendum (I dont think this is certain for the record) is perhaps the most telling judgement on how truly the Icelandic government can claim to speak on behalf of their nation in this matter.

Mr.Micro

If the referendum does not go the way the Government wants it, then they can always run it again and again, just like here in Ireland Lisbon the re run. Iceland has lost all credibility at the moment but at least the voters are being allowed a say before the Government sells the family silver, not like here where our family silver has been sold without any referendum.

Overheal

Their political leadership is representing them, however imperfectly.

Lets bring that point back down to basics. I work in retail. We sell flooring products. We have Sales Representatives for each company/brand we work with. Its a lot more personal that going straight to corporate anytime you need something. It gets things done.

But listen, the Representative is a fantastic intermediary for 95% of what we do. Even still, there are times you as the Representative need to Step Back and consult directly with the Person(s) you are representing.

For Iceland this is one of those times. In the US, we need Healthcare to be a referendum for the same reason. We voted them to represent us but somehow, for example, I don't feel they have the Authority to make a life altering decision about my body. Similarly the Icelanders feel the power of representation does not extend to this bailout.

BlaasForRafa

Sand wrote: »

Those are not capitalists, they are opportunists. When theyre making profit, they want to keep it, when theyre making losses they want to pass them on to the state. The phrase "patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel" has never been more true.

Interesting, Fianna Fail and Brian Lenihan in particular have attempted to portray their recent efforts as a great patriotic war against Lehman Brothers unprovoked attack on our happy land, that all proud and true citizens should rally to. Anyone who advocates the shocking idea of forcing the banks to face their losses is deounced as a dangerous lunatic. So, people who swing to statist solutions are deounced for double standards, otherwise theyre denounced as maniacs who would destroy all civillised society. What to do?

Iceland is not being bullied by international bankers though, it is being bullied by the UK and Dutch governments. The UK/Dutch have taken the line that no bank stakeholders should be allowed to fail, and that they will bear any burden in propping up their banking systems. The Icelanders have taken a different line from the very start. The UK/Dutch are attempting to force the Icelanders to back their banks in the same way they have backed their own.

The UK/Dutch case is dubious (EEA law only requires a deposit insurance scheme which there is, but it is wholly insufficient versus the losses), but they believe they have an edge in that they can veto EU membership ( Iceland is not deeply supportive of this anyway) and the IMF have said they will not assist further without sign off from the Dutch/UK, but in practise this wont be sustainable. Hopefully the Icelanders will be brave enough to do the right thing and avoid entangling themselves with the losses of stakeholders in a private bank.

That said, someone over on Irisheconomy.ie made an interesting point - apparently the British dont take this sort of thing lying down: They attacked Istanbul in 19th century after a Turkish default, and took over Egypt under similar provocation. Id imagine the Icelanders might start investing in their defences?

I still think that passing the buck is wrong on the part of the president but equally I wasn't aware yesterday just how much of the Icelandic gdp is necessary to pay this back. Either way whether its paid or not its going to be a miserable decade or so for the Icelandic people.

And I agree, the fact that the banks and bankers seem to have more or less gotten away with it, still no prosecutions in Ireland, bonuses in the UK and there hasn't been any huge improvements in regulation. Something similar will happen in another 10 years because the banks won't bother to learn any lessons from this and governments won't force them to learn because "it might hurt the greater economic good of the country"

Regarding your last point....sure didn't the UK and Iceland get into some skirmishes in the 70's over fishing...the so-called "cod wars"?

Overheal

And I agree, the fact that the banks and bankers seem to have more or less gotten away with it, still no prosecutions in Ireland, bonuses in the UK and there hasn't been any huge improvements in regulation. Something similar will happen in another 10 years because the banks won't bother to learn any lessons from this and governments won't force them to learn because "it might hurt the greater economic good of the country"

In order to have a Free Market [or Freedom] you need the Freedom to Fail. Nobody will learn anything while business and retarded homeowners are getting bailed out.

SkepticOne

Contrast Iceland's approach with Ireland where we're borrowing tens of billions in order that international risk-taking bond holders don't get burnt. Ireland as a country has no obligation to these people.

Iceland will have trouble borrowing in the short term but ultimately it is going to have to trade its way out of its problems not borrow its way out.

Ireland on the other hand seems only concerned with maintaining the ability to get further and further into debt.

BlaasForRafa

SkepticOne wrote: »

Contrast Iceland's approach with Ireland where we're borrowing tens of billions in order that international risk-taking bond holders don't get burnt. Ireland as a country has no obligation to these people.

Iceland will have trouble borrowing in the short term but ultimately it is going to have to trade its way out of its problems not borrow its way out.

Ireland on the other hand seems only concerned with maintaining the ability to get further and further into debt.

I think you underestimate Icelands problems. Ireland wasn't anywhere as close as Iceland was to going broke as a nation, plus the IMF haven't had to get involved and loan Ireland money, thats the real sign that a country has completely lost control of its own economy. Ireland (and yes Nama is a con and isn't fair to ordinary joe public) is seeing at least some light at the end of the tunnel whereas Iceland is still in the murk.

SkepticOne

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

I think you underestimate Icelands problems. Ireland wasn't anywhere as close as Iceland was to going broke as a nation, plus the IMF haven't had to get involved and loan Ireland money, thats the real sign that a country has completely lost control of its own economy. Ireland (and yes Nama is a con and isn't fair to ordinary joe public) is seeing at least some light at the end of the tunnel whereas Iceland is still in the murk.

Yes, I realise that Iceland's banking problem is several times the size of its economy. They are probably also in a better position to trade their way out due to their natural resources and exporting industries. However, studies by economists such as Morgan Kelly suggest that, although smaller, Ireland's banks may also be too big to save. Regardless, we're going to pump money into the banks and yet more when NAMA fails to work.

Zambia

Fred I think this could all be a way of the Icelandic goverment getting a better deal.

"Sorry boys we cant sell that to the people, could you revise your figures?"

Fratton Fred

Zambia232 wrote: »

Fred I think this could all be a way of the Icelandic goverment getting a better deal.

"Sorry boys we cant sell that to the people, could you revise your figures?"

I think you are right. The PM has stated that it is his intention to pay up, I guess it is just a case of where, when and how much.

Red Alert

I would vote against bailing out the international investors if McAleese had done similar. I think, however, she doesn't have the power to refer a bill to referendum, only to the supreme court to test constitutionality - i'll be corrected on that though.

Sand

There is a mechanism in Article 27 though its a bit restrictive, as youd expect from Dev who wanted few or no checks on his power.

1. A majority of the members of Seanad Éireann and not less than one-third of the members of Dáil Éireann may by a joint petition addressed to the President by them under this Article request the President to decline to sign and promulgate as a law any Bill to which this article applies on the ground that the Bill contains a proposal of such national importance that the will of the people thereon ought to be ascertained.

Given everyone, even Lenihan, agreed the NAMA bill and bank bailouts were of immense national importance it is difficult to see why the opposition did not seriously pursue this possibility, other than their opposition was merely showboating and they do not seriously understand why NAMA is a bad idea, only that its a good idea to be seen to oppose it.

They could have got the TDs, and in the Senate they could embarrass any footdraggers by asking them to explain if they believed:

1. NAMA wasnt of national importance, contradicting virtually every other serious commentator.
2. NAMA was of national importance, but they didnt want the people to be given their constitutional right of a voice regarding it.

Too late now, the only option left is for Green Fail to wake up and realise NAMA is a disaster in the making and reverse course sharpy ( no chance) or perhaps by the time FG get in power the disaster is already dawning upon them and they are brave enough to default on the NAMA bonds owed to the banks and/or force a reversal of the NAMA terms (next to no chance). So were screwed.

Hopefully the Icelanders will be able to avoid the generational debt shackles the British, the Dutch and their own government are forging for them.

johnnyskeleton

Fratton Fred wrote: »

puting your money in a bank is sensible, sticking it on shares is risky, putting it all on 22 black is stupid, so no, I don't think gamblers should be compensated the same way.

This is a subjective view of what use of money is sensible (and therefore worthy of a bailout) and what is not. That person still lent their money to the bank. I lent 50 quid to an Islandic mate of mine and he never repaid me. Should the government of Iceland pay this 50 quid back to me because he became bankrupt?

brianthebard

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I think you are right. The PM has stated that it is his intention to pay up, I guess it is just a case of where, when and how much.

I know I'm being pedantic but you've referred to the person in question as the PM multiple times when they are in fact the President. You may not think it makes that much of a difference, but it does. Apart from anything else they have different roles and purposes in Icelandic political life. If you don't know who made the decision then I would wonder if you have read the article.

Buffy the bitch

Fratton Fred wrote: »

So the people of Iceland get to decide on whether or not to screw the people of the UK and the Netherlands?

Don't know to much on the issue but from what I know is Billions was lost becuase of the banks going under. It's that the risk they took in the first place? Why would they pay them backl the money?

Rebelheart

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Its pretty disgraceful that he's after passing this to the people.

It may be unpopular and political suicide but this was a payment solution that they signed up to. I assume that they have tried to renogiate the terms of the payments and that failed but not paying will make them something of a pariah for the next few years and make it even harder for them to borrow money.

That's the "fear" alright, a fear encouraged by the powers-that-be who have done the same scaremongering to the Irish public; pay for the sins of "your" banks or you, the Irish people, will become international outcasts. The Irish, under their elected government, just accepted this. The Icelanders, in contrast, are challenging it. So much for the illusion that the Irish people are "rebels".

There's a very good, albeit short, article by 'Cantillon' in yesterday's Irish Times entitled 'More proof if it is needed that Ireland is not Iceland' and praising this courage from the Icelanders and lamenting the cowardice of the Irish who have been browbeaten into socialising the losses of the Irish banks:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2010/0107/1224261823219.html

Rebelheart

SkepticOne wrote: »

Contrast Iceland's approach with Ireland where we're borrowing tens of billions in order that international risk-taking bond holders don't get burnt. Ireland as a country has no obligation to these people.

Iceland will have trouble borrowing in the short term but ultimately it is going to have to trade its way out of its problems not borrow its way out.

Ireland on the other hand seems only concerned with maintaining the ability to get further and further into debt.

Well said.

Rebelheart

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

What about the people who lost their savings in bank shares? Or property deals? Or gambling? Should the people of Iceland compensate them too?

Well said also, It has not been mentioned but the reason British and Dutch people put their money in that Icelandic bank was the higher interest rates. In their greed these people abandoned more mainstream and established banks because they were offering less interest and took the risk.

Tough. This is simply a matter of larger countries bullying a smaller one. There's no way in the world that the Icelandic people should be bailing out these banks. But that basic matter of justice is difficult for the poor Irish people, whipped as they are out of fear into conformity, to get to grips with.


Thick Paddies, after all. We have no sense of outrage.

Fratton Fred

brianthebard wrote: »

I know I'm being pedantic but you've referred to the person in question as the PM multiple times when they are in fact the President. You may not think it makes that much of a difference, but it does. Apart from anything else they have different roles and purposes in Icelandic political life. If you don't know who made the decision then I would wonder if you have read the article.

Yes, I agree, you are being pedantic;-)

Just me being too lazy to write out his title. It makes no difference to my points.

Out of curiosity, all those on here who think bank bail outs are bad, what would you do if the bank you had your mortgage with went bust and the liquidators wanted their asset back, ie your house?

Given the very real possibility you were in negative equity you would be faced with two options.

Lose your home and still be in debt to the bank for the outstanding balance.
Take out another mortgage to pay off your existing one (unlikely given that mortgages over 90% aren't available anymore)

I'm not saying NAMA is perfect, but without the Irish government bailing out AIB and BOI this country would be in a far bigger mess than it is now.

Rebelheart

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I'm not saying NAMA is perfect, but without the Irish government bailing out AIB and BOI this country would be in a far bigger mess than it is now.

Prove it.