Hail to Iceland

SLUSK

The Icelandic people voted no to pay out huge money to foreign investors because of the failed bank Icesave.
http://rt.com/Top_News/2010-03-09/iceland-icesave-bank-referendum.html

This is a big no to private profits and socialized losses. Wish they only had let you Irish guys vote about the bank bailouts in your country.

Mad_Max

lol cant believe they got a referendum on that. Not a population on the planet that would vote in favour of that.

SLUSK

Mad_Max wrote: »

lol cant believe they got a referendum on that. Not a population on the planet that would vote in favour of that.

Finally a place that has not sold itself out to bankers.

Sulmac

Too bad the proposal being voted on was an outdated one - the British and Dutch governments had already offered the Icelandic government more generous terms and were still negotiating them during the referendum.

Anyway, polls show that a majority in Iceland do support paying back the debts, but on more reasonable terms than those on the referendum ballot.

Still, it was nice of them to have a say - even if it was (largely) pointless. If only we could do the same with NAMA.

Dirk Gently

The Icelandic Gov have already said that they see the vote as a No to a very specific deal at the time and that they are still free to make a slightly different deal with the British and Dutch.

dvpower

SLUSK wrote: »

This is a big no to private profits and socialized losses.

No its not. Icelandic taxpayers will still pay back the debt. They just rejected a specific proposal.

Pappy o' daniel

What could the British and Dutch governments actually do if the Icelandic government told them to get stuffed? How would they leverage them to pay?

godtabh

This whole icesave issue is all about greed. Would you put your money into some online offshore internet bank that you had never heard of? These people seen the crazy returns and jumped at it all because of greed.
Its funny reading the various stories on it. The brits are constantly going on about how there citizens have been duped by the icelandic people. Where as I have read 2 editorials on Irish sites that put the whole affair down to the greed of the brits.
If we have to pay back the money because of greedy brits and dutch it will suck big time.

From a friend living in Iceland.

Why should once country pay for the greed of another? There is risks with any investments and they got burned. Hard **** mr england and mr holland.

Exile 1798

British and Dutch governments decide to bailout British and Dutch investors in failed a Icelandic Bank and then those governments demand that the Icelandic tax payers pay them the money they choose to bail out their own investors with?

Sounds pretty silly on the part of the British and Dutch governments.

Is there anything I'm missing here?

DeVore

Would the Icelandic public have seen any of the profits of these investments??


DeV.

Mal-Adjusted

This makes no sense. There is always risk in an investment. When if falls flat, how can you rationalize trying to force the people of whatever country it happens to be to bail you out under the pretense of "they owe you"? The whole thing stinks of greed and bullying...Iceland shouldn't give them a cent!

fontanalis

dvpower wrote: »

No its not. Icelandic taxpayers will still pay back the debt. They just rejected a specific proposal.

But this doesn't sound as good to the Muse fans who think Icelanders are sticking it to "the man"/them.

Scofflaw

Pappy o' daniel wrote: »

What could the British and Dutch governments actually do if the Icelandic government told them to get stuffed? How would they leverage them to pay?

Essentially, Iceland need to be seen to cover the guarantees they promised before they'll be lent money they need:

Iceland needs to solve the Icesave issue so it can get much-needed aid from the IMF and its Nordic neighbours and start to put its economy back on normal footing after a withering recession.

Would the Icelandic public have seen any of the profits of these investments??

In tax receipts, yes.

This makes no sense. There is always risk in an investment. When if falls flat, how can you rationalize trying to force the people of whatever country it happens to be to bail you out under the pretense of "they owe you"? The whole thing stinks of greed and bullying...Iceland shouldn't give them a cent!

People in the UK and Holland (including at least one friend of mine) put their money in Icesave because it was backed by the Icelandic government, which guaranteed their deposits. When Icesave collapsed (due, essentially, to regulatory failures by the Icelandic government) the Icelandic government reneged on that promise, leaving small depositors across the UK and Holland losing all their savings - and we're talking about ordinary people here, same as the Northern Rock failure - but covering the deposits of Icelanders.

The UK and Dutch government covered the Icesave guarantees that the Icelandic government had promised to cover, and hadn't. They now want the Icelandic government to stand by the promise they originally made, and cover those deposits.

To be fair, the Icelanders aren't rejecting the principle, only the specific terms originally proposed, which they regarded as too harsh. The referendum, though, is superfluous, because the UK and Holland have already offered a different deal from the one voted on at the referendum.

Let me put forward a very simple analogy: say you put your savings in a new bank that is guaranteed by the UK government (after all, it's a government - they're hardly going to disappear, right?). That bank then collapses, and you are told that, sorry, the UK government will actually only be bailing out depositors in the UK. The Irish government covers your deposit - and all Irish deposit holders - instead. Does the Irish government then have a case for trying to recover that money from the UK government?

I think it's blindingly obvious that the Irish government would have such a case.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Bottle_of_Smoke

Iceland bailing this out would be much worse than NAMA in fairness. That's not a compliment or support for NAMA - just not really comparing like with like

Mal-Adjusted

Scofflaw wrote: »

People in the UK and Holland (including at least one friend of mine) put their money in Icesave because it was backed by the Icelandic government, which guaranteed their deposits. When Icesave collapsed (due, essentially, to regulatory failures by the Icelandic government) the Icelandic government reneged on that promise, leaving small depositors across the UK and Holland losing all their savings - and we're talking about ordinary people here, same as the Northern Rock failure - but covering the deposits of Icelanders.

The UK and Dutch government covered the Icesave guarantees that the Icelandic government had promised to cover, and hadn't. They now want the Icelandic government to stand by the promise they originally made, and cover those deposits.


ah, I wasn't aware of the bank guarantee, thanks for settin' me straight this is a different kettle of fish altogether then!

Mr. SS

Scofflaw wrote: »

Essentially, Iceland need to be seen to cover the guarantees they promised before they'll be lent money they need:





In tax receipts, yes.



People in the UK and Holland (including at least one friend of mine) put their money in Icesave because it was backed by the Icelandic government, which guaranteed their deposits. When Icesave collapsed (due, essentially, to regulatory failures by the Icelandic government) the Icelandic government reneged on that promise, leaving small depositors across the UK and Holland losing all their savings - and we're talking about ordinary people here, same as the Northern Rock failure - but covering the deposits of Icelanders.

The UK and Dutch government covered the Icesave guarantees that the Icelandic government had promised to cover, and hadn't. They now want the Icelandic government to stand by the promise they originally made, and cover those deposits.

To be fair, the Icelanders aren't rejecting the principle, only the specific terms originally proposed, which they regarded as too harsh. The referendum, though, is superfluous, because the UK and Holland have already offered a different deal from the one voted on at the referendum.

Let me put forward a very simple analogy: say you put your savings in a new bank that is guaranteed by the UK government (after all, it's a government - they're hardly going to disappear, right?). That bank then collapses, and you are told that, sorry, the UK government will actually only be bailing out depositors in the UK. The Irish government covers your deposit - and all Irish deposit holders - instead. Does the Irish government then have a case for trying to recover that money from the UK government?

I think it's blindingly obvious that the Irish government would have such a case.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Very well said.