No Solution on Iceland-Britain Banking Dispute

JayTee99_2

meunier wrote: »

Forgive me if this is simplistic, but I do have a question: While realising how vitally important it is for Britain to maintain its arm in terms of an ultimate legal battle with Iceland to force them over the long-term to honour their original committment, might it not be possible (indeed desirable) for HM Treasury and the FSCS to join together and pay out the DIFFERENCE (e.g., those amounts OVER the passport scheme commitment due by Iceland) to UK savers? Surely any court (as I fear this is where this is heading) will see such an action not only as the UK's willingness to honour commitments (much as it appears other countries like Finland have evidenced), but also this would, perhaps, reduce a fraction of the pain and suffering currently being experienced by the same UK savers as evidenced on this board and other similar ones.
Forgive me if this is too simplistic a suggestion.

No, not at all simplistic, sounds reasonable,
but we don't know the detail of the talks between the Treasury and Iceland, so until an announcement is made, everything is more or less guesswork and speculation.

Indeed the Treasury could fund the FSCS, to enable them to begin paying out, i think everyone acknowledges that.

As you rightly imply, not paying out immediately does give the govt a stronger defence. I suspect the Treasury are indeed concerned that if the money is handed out, it may be even more difficult to bring Iceland to the negotiating table.
There could possibly be several billions written off, funded by UK taxpayers.

As i said before, it appears to me that Iceland may be attempting to come through this crisis relatively unscathed with all their assets mainly intact. If so, then Iceland may well attempt to delay any deal.

Reading earlier, it seems Iceland complains of the burden the UK proposal places on the Icelandic peole.
It's far from certain whether they have factored into that claim, the selling off of some of their assets in UK and elsewhere, since their govt now owns the banks and assets.
That's the difficulty that has to be faced up to by Iceland.

But good to see that the IMF are also saying that the dispute with UK has to be settled before any loan is forthcoming.
That must surely help to bring a speedy solution

Very difficult to predict any timescale because we simply don't know the detail, but i would expect there to be an announcement, with an update from our govt soon.

The good news is that Martin is taking an active interest in developments.

.

baby_boomer

JayTee99 wrote: »

The good news is that Martin is taking an active interest in developments.

A most welcome development.

meanmachine_2

A very rational upsum of events, jayTee.

Good to see someone on here who is neither a vein popping firebrand (like me) or a simpering Icelandic apologist (mentioning no names...)

McElais

http://icelandreview.com/icelandreview/daily_news/?cat_id=16539&ew_0_a_id=314205

T'Pau

JayTee99 wrote: »

The good news is that Martin is taking an active interest in developments.

How do you arrive at that conclusion? Serious question.

dougk_2

Iceland has assets which can be used to pay the debt - they have public utilities that could be sold off, they have public transport infrastructure that can be sold off and they have a big asset called land.
These things should be in effect used as collaterial to secure a loan to pay the debts they owe. If this is not done volunatrily it should be done under "administration" of the country as it would with any company (eg assets sold to pay debts).
Why has the icelandic PM not resigned as obviously he can't keep his promises.

CluelessJock

1echidna wrote: »

'Stole' implies a criminal action. Iceland are effectively bankrupt in the same way as an individual may become bankrupt, it is not, necessarily, a criminal action. It just means they badly misjudged their financial position which many individuals and companies have done, not foreseeing the way economic events have unfolded.

NOT THEFT?

To give a Government guarantee and subsequently dismiss it off hand, as has been done, amounts to theft in my book, even if not legally.

Now if folks had invested in Iceland plc, or even Landisbank shares, then there would be no room for accusations of theft.

Hands up all those who would have put savings in Ice Save if the Icelandic Government had made it clear there was no guarantee?

In fact the more I think about it the more convinced I am its fraud, even if not legally.

What say you?

T'Pau

McElais wrote: »

http://icelandreview.com/icelandreview/daily_news/?cat_id=16539&ew_0_a_id=314205

Hello

Who is leaking these stories? UK or Iceland? I still don't see that this shows Iceland in a very good light.

Goodbye.

StevieJ

The govt should initially pay out the amounts they are contracted to i.e. the difference between the Icelandic scheme 15,000? est and GBP scheme 50,000.

McElais

T'Pau wrote: »

Hello

Who is leaking these stories? UK or Iceland? I still don't see that this shows Iceland in a very good light.

Goodbye.

The end of the article suggests it was leaked on Icelandic TV: "The transcript was featured on RÚV TV show Kastlj!s on Thursday night."

I agree that it doesn't show Iceland in a good light. However, unless there was a separate conversation that we don't know about, it also suggests that Darling had exaggerated what was said by his counterpart.