Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by manchild007)
    No its not; Iceland whittled the UK down to an interest rate of 3% ex LIBOR payments on the debt thus far, whereas the original rate of 5% +LIBOR should have been the minimum charged (given LIBOR would have included the overnight swap rates we/the UK undertook when making its payment to moneyholders).

    Agreed on the fact that this won't end well for Iceland, as its pretty clear cut on who owes who what, but to say the UK is a influential player is a tad overstatement to say the least.
    Not really. UN security council seat a top 10 economic and military power. Sure the UK hardly runs the world but it is a influential player
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Well, my Mum's not going to Iceland anymore!

    :mmm:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    Not really. UN security council seat a top 10 economic and military power. Sure the UK hardly runs the world but it is a influential player
    Well its funny how none of this has helped it in its negotiations with Iceland - particularly considering Iceland wishes to enter the EU and judging by your post, the UK should be a very influential player within Europe (let alone the world), so Iceland shouldn't really 'piss/irk the UK off' for lack of a better phrase. Though within Europe, behind the likes of Germany and France, I would myself place the UK I would have thought.

    I just find it baffling, or perhaps its just a political gaffe on our part, that we gave Iceland a proposal which was correct, they countered with 3% ex LIBOR, and we basically said, "Yes, OK".
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NGC773)
    Thats not the point im trying to get at.
    Well what is you point?

    It was our Government who decided to reimburse the victims of the collapse, so why don't you get angry at Labour, or the people who decided to put their money in the hands of foreign banks?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Well they're paying for it whether they like it or not so?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aack)
    Well what is you point?

    It was our Government who decided to reimburse the victims of the collapse, so why don't you get angry at Labour, or the people who decided to put their money in the hands of foreign banks?
    Governments all around the worlds bailed out their banks and secured depositors money. Labour did the right thing by paying out to people who lost money to icelandic banks (If Iceland actually paied out they would have needed too), but rightly it should have been the Icelandic government who secured the money of ALL depositors of their banks.

    Banking is a world wide business. Icelandic banks were allowed to operate in the UK just has Santander and HSBC is allowed too.

    Its not the depositors fault that Icelandic banks were severly under-regulated and allowed to get in such a mess. Its the governments fault, the government bailed them out and should have secured money of ALL depositors.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by manchild007)
    Well its funny how none of this has helped it in its negotiations with Iceland - particularly considering Iceland wishes to enter the EU and judging by your post, the UK should be a very influential player within Europe (let alone the world), so Iceland shouldn't really 'piss/irk the UK off' for lack of a better phrase. Though within Europe, behind the likes of Germany and France, I would myself place the UK I would have thought.

    I just find it baffling, or perhaps its just a political gaffe on our part, that we gave Iceland a proposal which was correct, they countered with 3% ex LIBOR, and we basically said, "Yes, OK".
    Well this will hurt Icelands EU pledge as we were going to back it ( I think). Any way are Eu influence will for obvious reasons be a lot less than France and Germany.

    Influence in the EU does not equal or translate in anyway to influence in the world.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    Influence in the EU does not equal or translate in anyway to influence in the world.
    Yes but the reason ay Germany has influence in the EU is b/c it has influence around the world - which itself is largely based on it being the economic powerhouse in Europe, and one of the worlds top exporters.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GwrxVurfer)
    And simply because you have concluded that they do owe money, doesn't mean that they owe any money to anyone.
    I do not simply conclude that, where as they do. It is fact. If I give you money in trust and you lose it for what ever reason you owe me the money, that's simply how it works.

    (Original post by GwrxVurfer)
    But you have got this idea into your head that Icelanders somehow owe you money, because YOU chose to put your money into a Iceland based private bank that failed. Grow up - The people of Iceland don't owe you anything. If anyone owes you money, it is the people who ran the bank - i.e the private banking investors.
    You really don't get it do you? ^^ :facepalm:


    (Original post by GwrxVurfer)
    Yeah pop-tart - Good luck with that, let me know how your referendum gets on :rolleyes:
    You misquoted me. These are not my words!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by adamrules247)
    Let's invade :ahee:
    More like TRIDENT. This is pretty much the perfect situation to use it in.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GwrxVurfer)
    Fine. I do not "simply conclude" that Iceland don't owe money, where as they don't.



    Let's get this straight. You deposited Icelandic ISK to a private banking corporation which was based in Iceland. Theirc Government then stepped in and began regulating that bank. After this, all the banks customers obtained a guarantee from the Icelandic Government that they would "insure" your money in the event of a collapse. The bank went under, but the Government didn't keep the guarantee?

    Ok, that seems fair enough. If all those conditions were met, then the Icelandic Government would be responsible in my view. If they didn't issue a guarantee, then obviously you would agree that your money isn't covered. But if you have such a guarantee from the Icelandic Government, then you have done things "by the book" IMO.



    Correct, they are not your words. They are AJ12's.
    You seem to be confused, the issue is not that people had there money in icelandic banks and then the banks collapsed and lost the money, the issue is britain GAVE 4 billion euros to iceland to make sure the banks didnt collapse completely. We now want our money back and Iceland has said no...

    Unless I have misunderstood the article completely.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GwrxVurfer)
    Fine. I do not "simply conclude" that Iceland don't owe money, where as they don't.



    Let's get this straight. You deposited Icelandic ISK to a private banking corporation which was based in Iceland. Theirc Government then stepped in and began regulating that bank. After this, all the banks customers obtained a guarantee from the Icelandic Government that they would "insure" your money in the event of a collapse. The bank went under, but the Government didn't keep the guarantee?

    Ok, that seems fair enough. If all those conditions were met, then the Icelandic Government would be responsible in my view. If they didn't issue a guarantee, then obviously you would agree that your money isn't covered. But if you have such a guarantee from the Icelandic Government, then you have done things "by the book" IMO.



    Correct, they are not your words. They are AJ12's.

    In 2008 Iceland said they would gurentee all desposits in Icelandic banks. Said banks went under, gov bailed them out but only saved icelandic citizen deposits. This left the UK/Netherland governments to foot the bill.

    If Iceland delivered on its promises we wouldnt be having this discussion
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fwed1)
    You seem to be confused, the issue is not that people had there money in icelandic banks and then the banks collapsed and lost the money, the issue is britain GAVE 4 billion euros to iceland to make sure the banks didnt collapse completely. We now want our money back and Iceland has said no...

    Unless I have misunderstood the article completely.
    You have misunderstood the article completely. Britain gave money to Britons who had money in Icesave, and now they want Iceland to pay it back. Let's also not forget that the Labour government used anti-terrorism laws against Iceland to secure Icesave's assets in the UK, in effect claiming them to be terrorists. I certainly understand being reluctant to pay anything to a supposedly "allied" country that makes such allegations and initially attempted to force Iceland into covering this "debt" on even more unreasonable terms.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fwed1)
    You seem to be confused, the issue is not that people had there money in icelandic banks and then the banks collapsed and lost the money, the issue is britain GAVE 4 billion euros to iceland to make sure the banks didnt collapse completely. We now want our money back and Iceland has said no...

    Unless I have misunderstood the article completely.
    You actually have no idea what you are talking about so probably best for you to sit in the corner and keep quiet.

    Icesave was a subsidiary of Landsbanki, one of the main banks in Iceland. Under the EEA they were allowed to operate under a 'passport' licence in the UK. When the crash hit in 2008, the Icelandic government guaranteed the deposits of Icelandic savers but not those of Icesave. Therefore the British government stepped in to save the deposit holders in the UK.

    Britain, the Netherlands and the EFTA Surveillance Authority believe that Iceland is in breach of European Union directive 94/19/EC. This has not been established yet and the wording of this directive is extremely vague. Further to this the FSA despite knowing that the Icelandic state (population 320,000) could never fully be expected to guarantee over 400,000 depositors in the UK. Such a small tax base is simply incapable of this. Yet despite the FSA's sheer incompetence in realising this, they still granted an operating licence to Icesave.

    It is now well documented how corrupt the banks in Iceland were since this was detailed in the comprehensive truth report commissioned by the Icelandic government to find the root causes of the financial crash. Often they (the banks) would offer jobs to the regulators in Iceland paying salaries in command of 5 or 6 times what they would get in the civil service to ensure that no regulation would get in their way. This was an unholy trinity pan-European regulatory oversight, business - government collusion and corruption on an epic scale and was happening all over the world.

    In an ideal world given that there was numerous factors at play in this tragedy, the most sensible solution would be to share the costs of this banking failure between the three countries proportionally to the size of each countries population and GDP, once the assets of Landsbanki have been fully priced and sold (this alone is expected to pay up to 90% of the cost). All three countries involved got fully caught up in the neoliberal financial deregulation experiment of the past decades and are equally culpable.

    As is already being seen across Europe, the astonishing debts that the public in Greece, Portugal and Ireland have taken on for the sake of protecting investors is turning these countries into economic zombies, which will have knock-on effects for the rest of Europe. The Economist seems to have a good grasp of just how dire the situation is for these countries:

    http://www.economist.com/node/18530121

    I think defaulting would have been the less of the two evils for the majority of the populations in these countries.

    As it now turns out, after a lengthy process of valuation of the Landsbanki assets by the EU and Icelandic government it appears that they will cover 90% of the losses so it has one way or another the UK will get a full refund.

    Fundamentally though, Icesave is much much more important than being a diplomatic row between David and Goliath. The ruling of the EFTA Court in what will be a landmark case for EU/EEA law will set a precedent as whether it is acceptable for the people of a nation to be allowed to offer a state guarantee on the overseas operation of a bank. My personal opinion is that it is anti-competitive, creates distortions in the market and is a serious moral hazard by encouraging risky behaviour by banks.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Either they give us the money or we take it by force.

    Nobody would give a damn about Iceland either way.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EsStupido)
    Either they give us the money or we take it by force.

    Nobody would give a damn about Iceland either way.
    That would be a violation of NATO. Since the UK and Iceland are both members this is not a practical solution unless you are thinking Britain should unilaterally withdraw, then invade Iceland. However pursuing this course of action would also mean declaring war against every other NATO member including the USA. The founding principle of NATO is that an attack against one member is an attack against all.

    I wish we had more policy genius's like you working at the highest levels of British government.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Poem boy)
    That would be a violation of NATO. Since the UK and Iceland are both members this is not a practical solution unless you are thinking Britain should unilaterally withdraw, then invade Iceland. However pursuing this course of action would also mean declaring war against every other NATO member including the USA. The founding principle of NATO is that an attack against one member is an attack against all.

    I wish we had more policy genius's like you working at the highest levels of British government.
    I've caught a 200lb white marlin.

    GO MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EsStupido)
    I've caught a 200lb white marlin.

    GO MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
    Grow up.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NGC773)
    I think its ridiculous that Iceland wont own up and pay its debt. Ive heared many icelandic people say "We didnt cause this crisis" "We shouldnt pay" but they voted in the government that nationalised the banks, making it their problem. The government represents the people, its actions will effect the icelandic people.

    Iceland will have to pay sooner or later, dragging it out will make the situation worse and highly damage its chances of fast-traking into the EU and its credit rating.

    Maybe we can take our 1960s aircraft carrier and our one submarine (when they stop killing eachother) and send them up to Iceland??
    Why should the taxpayer be forced to financially support private companies?

    Good on the people of Iceland for not simply submitting on this one. They should serve as an example for the rest of the western world, and as a reminder that we (supposedly) live in a democratic society.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JayTeeKay)
    Why should the taxpayer be forced to financially support private companies?

    Good on the people of Iceland for not simply submitting on this one. They should serve as an example for the rest of the western world, and as a reminder that we (supposedly) live in a democratic society.
    Its not a problem of democracy. The democratically elected Icelandic government voluntarily opted to save its banks from collapse. That decision binds the people of Iceland.

    If they did not want to be bound by it, they should have elected a different government who would have done things differently. But its too late now to change their minds and voting not to pay. Thats just political theatre, its meaningless.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you rather give up salt or pepper?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.