Isn't it fabulous to see democracy in action

Ban Ki Moon

Voters in Iceland rejected a second plan to repay debts to Britain and the Netherlands from a bank crash, partial referendum results showed, and the prime minister said economic and political chaos could follow.

'The worst option was chosen. The vote has split the nation in two,' Prime Minister Johanna Sigurdardottir told state television, saying it was fairly clear the 'no' side had won.

With around 169,000 votes in the referendum counted, state television said almost 60% had rejected the agreement, based on results from five out of six voting districts.

Iceland has 230,000 voters but the turnout was not immediately available.

The prime minister, who had predicted a no vote would cause economic uncertainty for at least a year or two, did not say whether the government planned to resign.

'We must do all we can to prevent political and economic chaos as a result of this outcome,'she said.

The debt was incurred when Britain and the Netherlands compensated their nationals who lost savings in online 'Icesave' accounts owned by Landsbanki, one of three Icelandic banks that collapsed in late 2008.

Icelandic lawmakers in February backed the repayment plan agreed with creditors in December but the president refused to sign the bill, triggering the vote.

Iceland rejected an earlier Icesave repayment blueprint in a referendum last year.

Many Icelanders say taxpayers should not have to bail out irresponsible banks.

CommuterIE

Hmmm, I really don't think the Icelandic electorate quite understand the implications of such a move (possible sanctions, economic isolation etc)

And if they do, they have some balls!

partyatmygaff

Cue the inevitable "Let's default" posts...

ejmaztec

The Dutch and the British will invade and steal all their stuff.

reprazant

You seem to have left out the rest of the article for some reason OP

Dispute may go to European Court
The dispute over repayment has soured relations between the small North Atlantic island nation and the two other countries.

It may now be solved in a European court rather than in bilateral talks - a solution that may take several years and that some economists say would be much costlier.

'It is clear that we have reached the end of the negotiation road,' Finance Minister Steingrimur Sigfusson said.

Ms Sigurdardottir said Iceland would now defend its case before the court of the European trade body overseeing Iceland's cooperation with the EU, the EFTA Surveillance Authority (ESA).

Economic Affairs Minister Arni Arnasson said he would be in touch next week with ESA, which said last year, in a first stage in legal proceedings that Iceland should pay compensation to Icesave depositors.

Policymakers and economists have said solving the Icesave issue would help Iceland, whose economy fell into deep recession after its banks failed, get back into foreign credit markets to fund itself.

That is a condition for it to remove controls on capital flows it imposed in 2008 to stabilise a tumbling currency.

The controls have left an estimated equivalent to a quarter of Iceland's gross domestic product in the hands of foreign investors, many of whom are expected to want to pull out when controls are lifted.

Ratings agencies follow the vote closely. Moody's has said it may lower its credit rating on Iceland in case of a 'no'.

Disappointment over referendum result

Britain's Chief Secretary to the Treasury Danny Alexander said he was disappointed that Icelanders had again rejected the debt deal, adding that the issue would now probably go to the courts.

'It is obviously disappointing that it seems that the people of Iceland have rejected what was a negotiated settlement,' Mr Alexander told BBC television.

'Of course we respect the will of the Icelandic people in this matter and we are going to have to now go and talk to the international partners with whom we work, not least the government of the Netherlands. It now looks like this process will end up in the courts,' he said.

Dutch Finance Minister Jan Kees de Jager said he was very disappointed that Icelanders had rejected the deal.

'I am very disappointed that the Icesave agreement did not get through. This is not good for Iceland, nor for the Netherlands. The time for negotiations is over. Iceland remains obliged to repay. The issue is now for the courts to decide,' Mr de Jager said in a statement.

He added that the Netherlands will consult with Britain about taking further steps.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0410/iceland.html

dlofnep

Iceland should be renamed to Ballsland. I salute them.

Biggins

They votes twice now on the same issue - now there is talk of the people being possibly made to vote again!
(BBC mentioned this alone)
Seems someone is not happy till they get an alternative vote. Sound familiar?

Democracy in action fairly - that is until someone/some organisation wants ye to vote different - then they will keep having you to vote till they get their way!

Killer Pigeon

Then Greece, then Ireland, then Portugal and possibly Spain - although I doubt they'll vote on whether to default or not, they'll be forced.

rossie1977

CommuterIE wrote: »

Hmmm, I really don't think the Icelandic electorate quite understand the implications of such a move (possible sanctions, economic isolation etc)

And if they do, they have some balls!

economic isolation lmfao, you really think that, when someone declares bankruptcy are they then economically isolated for the rest of their lives...........

iceland have stood up and said no and fair f**ks to them, the ordinary people will not pay for mistakes they had no part of

Dinner

Biggins wrote: »

They votes twice now on the same issue - now there is talk of the people being possibly made to vote again!
(BBC mentioned this alone)
Seems someone is not happy till they get an alternative vote. Sound familiar?

Democracy in action fairly - that is until someone/some organisation wants ye to vote different - then they will keep having you to vote till they get their way!

It was a renegotiated deal...
Does that not matter at all to you? Or did you just want to have a dig about Lisbon?

Also can you link to where you read about a third vote?
The BBC article says that the Finance Minister seems to have ruled out a third vote.

Finance Minister Steingrimur Sigfusson appeared to rule out a third attempt to persuade voters to accept a repayment deal.

"I think we're getting a very clear sign from this referendum, that further negotiations are ruled out. No use in trying that again."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13022524

...

Wolfe Tone

Fcuk sake let us vote too.

Biggins

Dinner wrote: »

It was a renegotiated deal...
Does that not matter at all to you? Or did you just want to have a dig about Lisbon?...

Well clearly you missed my point ENTIRELY - the point being that no matter who or what ever org' gets the vote they want - others will try to make them/us/whomever vote again till they too get what they want.
In other words, democracy like others political systems, is open to abuse as and when others see fit according to their own agenda.

...But you missed all that so you could just rant on about Lisbon.
Still got a chip on the shoulder there about it? You missed the point completely.

As for the possible third vote - it was mentioned a few days ago by a BBC site - I can't find the link at present but BBC's posting as shown above that went on to further answer that possibility mentioned by stating in retort to the earlier one "...Finance Minister Steingrimur Sigfusson appeared to rule out a third attempt to persuade voters to accept a repayment deal...."
It was a discussion between politicians at the time and Sigfusson came out and stated his case in answer to it.

starbelgrade

It'd be nice for us to get a chance to do the same thing - ie., vote on the matter.

But there's fuck all democracy in this country. We've replaced one bunch of morons with another bunch of morons who will do nothing for the next 5 years except offer up the country's arse to be raped by those we supposedly owe money to.

Dinner

Biggins wrote: »

Well clearly you missed my point ENTIRELY - the point being that no matter who or what ever org' gets the vote they want - others will try to make them/us/whomever vote again till they too get what they want.
In other words, democracy like others political systems, is open to abuse as and when others see fit according to their own agenda.

Are you honestly saying that even a renegotiation of the terms of the repayment is not grounds for having another vote?

The deal that was rejected first time round was a 5.5% interest rate with repayments made over 8 years, this rejected deal was 3.3 and 3% rate paid back over 30 years. As far as I am concerned that is grounds enough for another vote. That is of course unless the question put to them was "Do you ever want to repay the money ever, regardless of circumstances and terms?". But It's unlikely that that was the wording.

Biggins wrote: »

...But you missed all that so you could just rant on about Lisbon.
Still got a chip on the shoulder there about it? You missed the point completely.

Oh please... "Sound familiar?" accompanied by an over simplification of the situation was clearly a dig at the second Lisbon vote.

CommuterIE

rossie1977 wrote: »

economic isolation lmfao, you really think that, when someone declares bankruptcy are they then economically isolated for the rest of their lives...........

iceland have stood up and said no and fair f**ks to them, the ordinary people will not pay for mistakes they had no part of

They are only digging themselves a bigger hole by doing this... and yes, unfortunately either way the 'ordinary' people are going to pay the price... this will just add to that

Biggins

Dinner wrote: »

Are you honestly saying that even a renegotiation of the terms of the repayment is not grounds for having another vote?

The deal that was rejected first time round was a 5.5% interest rate with repayments made over 8 years, this rejected deal was 3.3 and 3% rate paid back over 30 years. As far as I am concerned that is grounds enough for another vote. That is of course unless the question put to them was "Do you ever want to repay the money ever, regardless of circumstances and terms?". But It's unlikely that that was the wording.

..........Oh please... "Sound familiar?" accompanied by an over simplification of the situation was clearly a dig at the second Lisbon vote.

Jeeze, you still don't get it. :rolleyes:

I mentioned ""Sound familiar?" etc as an example as to how others - NOW GET THIS BIT - REGARDLESS OF WHATEVER AGENDA, ORGS OR WHATEVER THE FCUK YOU HAVE A CHIP ON THE SHOULDER ABOUT - that such others can abuse any system in order to get their way.
That no matter what ever form of voting system is used in order to pursue an agenda, there is no fully fair method as of yet that has proved fully 100% adequate.

Now will you please shut the hell up about Lisbon for your CLEARLY missing the point yet again!

I'm addressing the principle point of democracy being considered 'fair".
Your just off on a god knows what about Lisbon!

Oranage2

The banking monetary system is the real problem, money is printed out of thin air and then interest is aided so the world owes trillions of trillions or €$£¥ and if we handed in all the money we still would have to pay the interest with money that doesnt exist!

RichieC

CommuterIE wrote: »

Hmmm, I really don't think the Icelandic electorate quite understand the implications of such a move (possible sanctions, economic isolation etc)

:rolleyes:

yea it's a secret..

Dinner

Biggins wrote: »

Jeeze, you still don't get it. :rolleyes:

I mentioned ""Sound familiar?" etc as an example as to how others - NOW GET THIS BIT - REGARDLESS OF WHATEVER AGENDA, ORGS OR WHATEVER THE FCUK YOU HAVE A CHIP ON THE SHOULDER ABOUT - that such others can abuse any system in order to get their way.
That no matter what ever form of voting system is used in order to pursue an agenda, there is no fully fair method as of yet that has proved adequate.

Now will you please shut the hell up about Lisbon for your CLEARLY missing the point yet again!

Oh shit! a roll-eyes smiley, and caps lock and bold!! You really mean business. Ok, lets leave Lisbon out of it, since you weren't referring to it in any way.

Now my question, if you would be ever so kind, is a renegotiated deal not valid grounds for another referendum?

How can it be counted as abusing the system, when there is a massive difference between the two deals. You're right, the politicians do want to get their own way. That's what politicians do. So when they were rejected they went and changed it to see if the renegotiated deal would be more appealing to the public. That, to me, is how democracy is supposed to work:

Politicians draw up deal -> people reject -> politicians renegotiate deal -> people reject

And surely the rejection of this vote does show that the current method is adequate. The Icelandics didn't like this deal either. So they voted no. Happy days, lets rejoice in the sunlight of democracy!


And please try avoid the use of roll eyes and caps lock. You're making yourself seem hysterical :pac:

SuperInfinity

Democracy is just something the US government made up so they can go to war with any one of the poor countries who don't have the resources nor will to create formal country-wide elections. And if they do the US would just say it was all corrupt... even though the US themselves have been accused of clear fraud in the Gore-Bush election of 2000.

The people you vote for are controlled. What if like in that Simpsons episode you only have two alien candidates to choose from? What if the whole system is corrupt from the outside in like Ireland? On the other hand there are many examples (especially throughout history) of nations that are very happy with their leadership without what the US has in modern times called democracy.

Maybe democracy has its merits, but most sensible people realize it's not the absurd "holy grail" of happy nations the US make it out to be.

Biggins

Dinner wrote: »

Oh shit! a roll-eyes smiley, and caps lock and bold!! You really mean business. Ok, lets leave Lisbon out of it, since you weren't referring to it in any way.

Now my question, if you would be ever so kind, is a renegotiated deal not valid grounds for another referendum?

How can it be counted as abusing the system, when there is a massive difference between the two deals. You're right, the politicians do want to get their own way. That's what politicians do. So when they were rejected they went and changed it to see if the renegotiated deal would be more appealing to the public. That, to me, is how democracy is supposed to work:

Politicians draw up deal -> people reject -> politicians renegotiate deal -> people reject

And surely the rejection of this vote does show that the current method is adequate. The Icelandics didn't like this deal either. So they voted no. Happy days, lets rejoice in the sunlight of democracy!


And please try avoid the use of roll eyes and caps lock. You're making yourself seem hysterical :pac:

I'm conversing with someone that wants to go off with their own agenda and a chip on their shoulder to boot.
I'm sticking to the basic contention of the op and his main point about democracy being 'fair'. If you want to discuss the in's and out's of the deal as per other previous posts - try other sections such as the economic principle based ones.

I'm not dragging this thread off point so you can go off on a self-indulgent rant. Bye.

K-9

Think its only the Brits they owe money too so it's okay.

Rabies

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Fcuk sake let us vote too.

Why vote on something you already have got?
Too late.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Fcuk sake let us vote too.

Hmm... I think I'll sit back and wait and see what happens to Iceland before I go along with this.

steddyeddy

I love the icelandic people, great place and very welcoming people. They have a massive sense of community and im glad that they have a democracy. Very few people were responsible for the losses in Iceland and the people have decided that very few people should have to pay for them.

AskMyChocolate

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Cue the inevitable "Let's default" posts...

They are not defaulting. They are repudiating debts for which they have absolutely no responsibility. Unlike us, they are not prepared to thank rapists and then offer to pay to clean the curtains they wiped their dicks on before they left.

hatz7

Iceland will be able to buy some valuable time in the courts.
A case of this magnitude is going to be one delicate operation.
They will have to pay the money back,
But it is the right course of action,

Will they have to start giving out the names of the bondholders? somebody has to sign for them, somebody has to own them.

Some cool court case,

I bet ya the solicitors from the tribunals here will be sending out the cv's to the British and Dutch banks, another gravy train fot the legal profession if ever there was one

phasers

this is probably a stupid question, but i've always wondered... What would happen if all this international debt was just written off? This money doesn't actually exist a lot of the time anyway, which is why i've away struggled to understand the whole bailout thing...

dabestman1

Iceland voted twice on the same issue, deja vu nice treaty.
Ballsy move, we'll never get a referendum.

Absurdum

they should spark up that volcano Ejajakafukkyouall thing again to piss off the rest of Europe again, then flaunt their ultra-beautiful women at the rest of us to rub it in

sock puppet

Biggins wrote: »

They votes twice now on the same issue - now there is talk of the people being possibly made to vote again!
(BBC mentioned this alone)
Seems someone is not happy till they get an alternative vote. Sound familiar?

Democracy in action fairly - that is until someone/some organisation wants ye to vote different - then they will keep having you to vote till they get their way!

You're absolutely right. Lets ban divorce immediately. The people spoke after all.

K-9

phasers wrote: »

this is probably a stupid question, but i've always wondered... What would happen if all this international debt was just written off? This money doesn't actually exist a lot of the time anyway, which is why i've away struggled to understand the whole bailout thing...

A lot of pension funds and various other investment funds would be wiped out.

jackiebaron

CommuterIE wrote: »

Hmmm, I really don't think the Icelandic electorate quite understand the implications of such a move (possible sanctions, economic isolation etc)

And if they do, they have some balls!

What are the implications? They said FOAD....end of story! What are you gonna do about it? Cry foul? Bitch? Moan? Complain?
You set someone up in a game and then they refuse to pony up to the gamble, and now you cry? Haha!
Fair balls Iceland! They let their banks collapse....the way it should be. Cool heads, IMO.

You guys shouldn't argue with Biggins. I'm fairly sure that he is the Government.

phasers

K-9 wrote: »

A lot of pension funds and various other investment funds would be wiped out.

So that's why old people keep their life savings in their mattress!

muckwarrior

Biggins wrote: »

I'm conversing with someone that wants to go off with their own agenda and a chip on their shoulder to boot.

Seemed to me that he was making a valid and pertinent point.

Biggins wrote: »

I'm not dragging this thread off point so you can go off on a self-indulgent rant. Bye.

Cop out.

Biggins

muckwarrior wrote: »

...Cop out.

Sorry, I'm not biting - but happy Easter anyway.

K-9

phasers wrote: »

So that's why old people keep their life savings in their mattress!

Softens the springs I suppose!

The whole thing is a ponzi scheme to me but people in their 30's and 40's have money stowed in pension funds too, on a computer somewhere in London or the IFSC I think.

giggsy664

Hang on a second. Isn't that just artificial debt that shouldn't exist in the first place? Since the UK and the Netherlands decided to "bail out" Landsbanki/Icesave, doesn't that mean they should foot the bill?


Also, fair play to the Icelandics.

Guy:Incognito

Why is a vote that is nothing to do with and EU/IMF bailout or renegotion or default of same being dressed up as one by people with a certain agenda?

pragmatic1

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Cue the inevitable "Let's default" posts...

Lets default. Seriously though. Bankers all around the world are trading money speculating when, not if.

pragmatic1

I think the only way we'd ever get the government to listen to us would be a national strike and as many people as possible downing tools and marching to Dublin. They would have no choice then. I'd love it to happen.

deise go deo

Something I wanted to know when I was hearing about this on the news. What Courts would a case like this be heard in? And what legal system would cover it?

Biggins

deise go deo wrote: »

Something I wanted to know when I was hearing about this on the news. What Courts would a case like this be heard in? And what legal system would cover it?

...The issue will now be referred to an international court, the European Free Trade Association Surveillance Authority.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13029210

AskMyChocolate

phasers wrote: »

this is probably a stupid question, but i've always wondered... What would happen if all this international debt was just written off? This money doesn't actually exist a lot of the time anyway, which is why i've away struggled to understand the whole bailout thing...

There used to be money. It represented,the work that your parents and your grandparents did. They used to save a little bit each week. This money could then be loaned to you.It would enable you to have a house, while looking after their investments (you), while also you would be paid a living wage. This would enable you to look after the next generation and save a little bit each week.
Unfortunately, the people who understood this were squeezed out.
Niall Fitzgerald was replaced with Dermot Gleeson.
Greed took over.
Men and women who knew how to play the long game were derided.
Short term profits were lauded above the long term welfare of a company.

Justice went to hell. Peter Sutherland was fawned upon by RTE.

The interests of Goldman Sachs became more important than the interests of the people. And it became vital to convince the people that the interests of Goldman Sachs were vital to the future of the people if they were to have any future.

Then World War Two happened. And we started all over again, just like we have done since the time of Spartacus and before.

We'll never change. Although you have to love Einstein.

"I have no idea what weapons WW3 will be fought with, but WW4 will be fought with sticks and stones"

"If you can't explain it simply then you don't understand it well enough".

The man was a fooking legend.

Edit: Oh yeah, Phasers. Don't ever posit reasonable questions towards people who are "far better educated" than you. At best, they'll sneer at you, and convince the masses that you're a foolish child. At worst, they'll sneer at you and fail to convince the masses that you're a foolish child. Then it's sedition, and you're in Michael Collins territory. And then you're in real trouble.

steddyeddy

AskMyChocolate wrote: »

There used to be money. It represented,the work that your parents and your grandparents did. They used to save a little bit each week. This money could then be loaned to you.It would enable you to have a house, while looking after their investments (you), while also you would be paid a living wage. This would enable you to look after the next generation and save a little bit each week.
Unfortunately, the people who understood this were squeezed out.
Niall Fitzgerald was replaced with Dermot Gleeson.
Greed took over.
Men and women who knew how to play the long game were derided.
Short term profits were lauded above the long term welfare of a company.

Justice went to hell. Peter Sutherland was fawned upon by RTE.

The interests of Goldman Sachs became more important than the interests of the people. And it became vital to convince the people that the interests of Goldman Sachs were vital to the future of the people if they were to have any future.

Then World War Two happened. And we started all over again, just like we have done since the time of Spartacus and before.

We'll never change. Although you have to love Einstein.

"I have no idea what weapons WW3 will be fought with, but WW4 will be fought with sticks and stones"

"If you can't explain it simply then you don't understand it well enough".

The man was a fooking legend.

Edit: Oh yeah, Phasers. Don't ever posit reasonable questions towards people who are "far better educated" than you. At best, they'll sneer at you, and convince the masses that you're a foolish child. At worst, they'll sneer at you and fail to convince the masses that you're a foolish child. Then it's sedition, and you're in Michael Collins territory. And then you're in real trouble.

Great post. I worked hard since I was young I took pride in my work and was happy with the few bob I got from my job and no way do I feel obligated to pay debts that I didnt benifit from, 10% of anglos profits were accumilated from fraud, do I feel I have to pay? Not a chance, fair play to these icelanders.

Fratton Fred

giggsy664 wrote: »

Hang on a second. Isn't that just artificial debt that shouldn't exist in the first place? Since the UK and the Netherlands decided to "bail out" Landsbanki/Icesave, doesn't that mean they should foot the bill?


Also, fair play to the Icelandics.

It's not artificial debt, it is real money owed to real people. It wasn't the banks that were bailed out, it was the average person who had their money in savings accounts.

The only exceptions are local authorities who placed money in icesave deposit accounts as a "safe bet".

sbsquarepants

hatz7 wrote: »

Iceland will be able to buy some valuable time in the courts.
A case of this magnitude is going to be one delicate operation.
They will have to pay the money back,
But it is the right course of action,

Will they have to start giving out the names of the bondholders? somebody has to sign for them, somebody has to own them.

Some cool court case,

I bet ya the solicitors from the tribunals here will be sending out the cv's to the British and Dutch banks, another gravy train fot the legal profession if ever there was one

I don't see why?
The icelandic government, unlike our own shower of gobshítes didn't guarantee every cent their crooked friends owed out. The english and the dutch took this action of their own accord, they should view it as a costly lesson and only allow banks who's deposits are 100% guaranteed and insured to operate in their jurasdiction in future.
There is no reason why the people of iceland should pay for this and fair fúcks to them for standing up for themselves. It's a pity we don't have the backbone for it.

steddyeddy

Fratton Fred wrote: »

It's not artificial debt, it is real money owed to real people. It wasn't the banks that were bailed out, it was the average person who had their money in savings accounts.

The only exceptions are local authorities who placed money in icesave deposit accounts as a "safe bet".

There are allegations of dodgy dealings in the icelandic banks fred and the people dont feel like they have to pay it back, I get that the dutch and the british are angry though.

Fratton Fred

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I don't see why?
The icelandic government, unlike our own shower of gobshítes didn't guarantee every cent their crooked friends owed out. The english and the dutch took this action of their own accord, they should view it as a costly lesson and only allow banks who's deposits are 100% guaranteed and insured to operate in their jurasdiction in future.
There is no reason why the people of iceland should pay for this and fair fúcks to them for standing up for themselves. It's a pity we don't have the backbone for it.

Icesave owes hundreds of thousands of people money. Strangely enough they want it back.

Landsbanki has assets that will cover 90% of the money owed. What right do the people of Iceland have to prevent that money being given back?

K-9

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I don't see why?
The icelandic government, unlike our own shower of gobshítes didn't guarantee every cent their crooked friends owed out. The english and the dutch took this action of their own accord, they should view it as a costly lesson and only allow banks who's deposits are 100% guaranteed and insured to operate in their jurasdiction in future.
There is no reason why the people of iceland should pay for this and fair fúcks to them for standing up for themselves. It's a pity we don't have the backbone for it.

A guarantee like ours was never an option for Iceland as their banking problems was far worse than ours, hard to imagine, but it was a few times worse. They simply couldn't even attempt to guarantee it on any credible level as the markets just wouldn't buy it. They had no option from day one.

It seems they don't want to pay anything at all to the British, or well, have rejected 2 deals.