Iceland tells the UK & Dutch to swivel - Again.......

Generali

Degenerate wrote: »

Because the government they previously elected chose on their behalf to enter into international treaties for cross-border banking with government guarantees.

Governments can't bind future Governments to any policy or law. That's a risk of doing business with a Government. The people of Iceland are free to vote for a change to the status quo. You might not like it but that's democracy.

Degenerate

Masomnia wrote: »

Up to the compensation limit I think Iceland should cough up, as they're legally obliged to, as far as I can tell anyway, through that passport system. Something like that, where the FSA guaranteed a certain amaount and the Icelandic government the rest.

Beyond the compensation limit there's no reason they should pay, and if I was Icelandic I'd be livid at the mere suggestion!

They're also legally obliged to treat all EEA depositors equally, which means guaranteeing the foreign deposits to the same extent to which they guaranteed their own.

StevieJ

Generali wrote: »

Governments can't bind future Governments to any policy or law. That's a risk of doing business with a Government. The people of Iceland are free to vote for a change to the status quo. You might not like it but that's democracy.

I always thought govts were the elected representatives of the population in a democracy, so when making committments they were doing so on the behalf of the electorate.

Degenerate

Generali wrote: »

Governments can't bind future Governments to any policy or law. That's a risk of doing business with a Government. The people of Iceland are free to vote for a change to the status quo. You might not like it but that's democracy.

Erm, excuse me? When it comes to international treaty obligations, Governments most certainly do enter into binding agreements that tie the hands of future administrations. I suppose you can argue that they are actually free to repudiate them, but they must then face the consequences of making themselves a pariah state. If that's the way Iceland wants to play it, let them see where it gets them. They need international trade more than other countries need them - they are far from being self-sufficient.

poppingjay

withabix wrote: »

Because most of the money being lost was local authority deposits - ie OUR MONEY.

Personally I don't think we should be bailing out Greece, Ireland or Portugal (or Spain next). We kept out of the Euro for good reason.

We didn't keep out of the EUSSR though.

Generali

StevieJ wrote: »

I always thought govts were the elected representatives of the population in a democracy, so when making committments they were doing so on the behalf of the electorate.

That is my understanding too. However, if you vote for a new lot of representatives they can decide to represent you in a different way, including repudiating things agreed previously by other representatives.

Of course if you keep refusing to keep past promises then in the end people will either stop doing business with you or demand a premium for doing so.

Generali

Degenerate wrote: »

Erm, excuse me? When it comes to international treaty obligations, Governments most certainly do enter into binding agreements that tie the hands of future administrations. I suppose you can argue that they are actually free to repudiate them, but they must then face the consequences of making themselves a pariah state. If that's the way Iceland wants to play it, let them see where it gets them. They need international trade more than other countries need them - they are far from being self-sufficient.

As you say, Governments are free to repudiate agreements made by previous Governments. Iceland's is choosing to do so.

That is unlikely to be consequence free. Taking on a debt of many times annual GDP is also unlikely to be consequence free. So you take your chances on one or other option.

poppingjay

Degenerate wrote: »

Erm, excuse me? When it comes to international treaty obligations, Governments most certainly do enter into binding agreements that tie the hands of future administrations. I suppose you can argue that they are actually free to repudiate them, but they must then face the consequences of making themselves a pariah state. If that's the way Iceland wants to play it, let them see where it gets them. They need international trade more than other countries need them - they are far from being self-sufficient.

Why should the common people of a nation be tied into this hideous game of global monopoly? All politicians should be held personally accountable for anything they sign because if our Government is anything to go by they make it up as they go along with no real mandate. Government are an extension of the will of the people, which is something most politicians seem to be forgetting whilst busily feathering their own nests. So at the end of the day if the people say no, what can anyone do about it? send in the UN to raid their piggy banks?

ILW

What are interest rates in Iceland at the moment?

B_Blank

We should invade iceland and take what we are owed in my opinion.