U.K. Used Anti-Terrorism Law to Seize Icelandic Bank AssetsWatch
Part 2: Freezing Orders
Power to make order
(1)The Treasury may make a freezing order if the following two conditions are satisfied.
(2)The first condition is that the Treasury reasonably believe that—
(a)action to the detriment of the United Kingdom’s economy (or part of it) has been or is likely to be taken by a person or persons, or
(b)action constituting a threat to the life or property of one or more nationals of the United Kingdom or residents of the United Kingdom has been or is likely to be taken by a person or persons.
If your home, your pension, your savings or your job rely upon the money that is in Icelandic banks being forcibly saved, then you're probably not too bothered what legislation is used.
Not to generalise, but if that sort of blind aggression is common in Icelandic thinking - which I suspect it is, considering the unilateral action they've already taken in this financial situation - then I have no qualms with the government using whatever law necessary to protect our interests.
to be fair the 2001 act does have the words crime and security as well as anti-terrorism in the title.
The Act was not drafted merely to create terrorist offences and give the government powers to deal with them, for example part five establishes the crime of religiously aggravated offences. It's hardly a scandal.
That's for the Cod Wars, you arrogant *******s.
Ehm. I didn't know European nations actually did that. I mean, seizing assets of foreign nationals can't do much good for the relations, can it?
When one country holds up to £10bn of a European nation's money, and then says we aint giving it back, A European nation will do everything in its power to get it back. And relations with Iceland have never really been the best, look up the Cod Wars. Nor are relations with Iceland something that is of the utmost important, other than to keep them happy enough to continue to allow us to use their land for military bases.
You have to ask yourself, would the same act have been used against a bigger more influential nations, say france, germany or the US ? I think not. Mayben in that case the UK goverment would have called for better information and talks.
Note also that assets of Kaupthing, a bank still in operation and recently been provided with new capital was seized. This was a UK regulated branch. Like other banks it had its share of problems but had just secured a lone from the goverment to strengthen its capital, just as the UK later did for their banks.
If I had money with Kaupthing I would ask why did my PM effectively put my bank out of business ? Was that it in the best interest of the UK depositors ? At least, send a deligation and get concrete information before pressing the panic button. This was done after the seize and people are now working hand in hand as they have from the start. Kaupthing wasnt given the chance of survival.
This was a huge blow to the Icelandic economy and it had enough on its plate already.