Press release from the Icelandic Prime Minister’s office:
Ms. Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir, Prime Minister of Iceland met today with Mr. José Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission and Mr Olli Rehn, Commissioner for Enlargement and Commissioner Designate for Economic and Monetary Affairs.
At the meeting the Prime Minister gave a detailed account of the state of affairs in Iceland. Discussion centred in particular around the Icesave issue and relations between Iceland and the IMF. The PM underlined potential unfortunate and damaging effects of any link made by Member States between the Icesave issue and the second review of Iceland’s economic programme with the IMF. She explained that many Icelanders believed that they were the victims of imperfect EU legislation and that many believed the burden to be unfairly distributed between the three countries involved. The Prime Minister also emphasised that the IMF loans and related loans from the Nordic countries and others were an important basis for the rebuilding of Iceland’s economy. The state of play in the accession process with the EU was also discussed and the PM emphasised that the issue should be processed in line with normal procedures.
“It was a very good meeting in which we discussed frankly the Icesave issue and the situation in Iceland. It is extremely important to explain to key players in the EU the situation in which Icelanders find themselves and to explore all possible avenues for solutions and of course everything was on the table,” said the Icelandic PM.
The Prime Minister also had meetings with the heads of EFTA and the EFTA Surveillance Authority in Brussel.
For some reason UK and NL will absolutely not under any circumstances take this argument to court, I wonder why that is ?
Without dismissing the possibility of another motive, it makes perfect sense to me.
Now that we’ve established (via Bjarni) that the assets of Landsbanki are enough to cover 100% of the 20,887 euro guarantee, the only thing left is the finance costs.
If it goes to court, then there’s a chance that the UK/NL will win and a chance that Iceland will win.
If the latter, then the UK/NL have to finance the period while we wait for Landsbanki to sell its assets.
If the former, then we’re back where we are now – Iceland cannot pay, so must secure financing. No one will lend to them, so the UK/NL must.
So, from the UK/NL point of view, why not save the court costs and avoid the risk of losing? There’s no incentive for them to go to court.
“The only other possibility is that Iceland’s negotiators were aware of someing REALLY bad that Iceland did during the crash and so would agree to anything rather than let that come out. I wonder what that is?”
For some reason UK and NL will absolutely not under any circumstances take this argument to court, I wonder why that is ?
If some horrible “truth” comes to light (most likely courtesy of David Oddson) then, if it has a leg to stand on, it will increase the likelyhood of this matter being taken to court,
i am expecting somekind of vomit from David though, it will be interesting to see what happens.
“It is nice to hear that the PM Johanna has opened all her options. This is a way of maximizing all options for a common good and looking forward to positive results with due considerations for the home front.”
Johanna’s socialist party is the only party in iceland trying to join the EU, in the next elections this party will be extermianted, mostly because the government has done nothing usefull since it took over and the fact that 70% of icelanders are not about to join the EU, Johanna knows this but has no respect for the will of the people,
Johanna has had plenty of time to show us what she can do, and failed miserably,
she is on holiday now somwhere in Europe, the location and how long this vacation is of course a secret, no one trusts Johanna any more,
no one cares if she is in Iceland or not, and thats the Gods honest truth.
It is nice to hear that the PM Johanna has opened all her options. This is a way of maximizing all options for a common good and looking forward to positive results with due considerations for the home front.
Well, I read the slides on the “Ragnar Hall” issue and they seem pretty convincing. And I’m starting to change my mind on that point. Holy crap, this just demonstrates even more that Iceland’s negotiators were seriously incompetent.
The only other possibility is that Iceland’s negotiators were aware of someing REALLY bad that Iceland did during the crash and so would agree to anything rather than let that come out. I wonder what that is?
Actually I entirely agree that the interests rates and terms are far too onerous.
But do remember that there was supposed to be an insurance scheme in place in Iceland to protect the first few thousand euros deposited. This turned out to be inadequately funded. Responsibilty for that must lie with the Icelandic regulators. That is what the Icesave “loan” was supposed to cover- not the entire value of the deposit.
I would be quite happy if the princpal value of the loan
was returned.
And to you also, Andrew..
If UK and Holland decide to give * all * money back to depositor that is their decision, it seems obvious moral hazard be damned, but it was done to protect they banking systems.
This depositor would get they money back from Landsbanki because the law on priorities in bancrupcy was changed in the Icelandic emergency law 2008+ to give them priority over bond holders.
So no, what the current IceSave ” deal ” from December says is not fair at all. And UK and Dutch govenrments do know it.
+Emergency Act No 125/2008 as discussed in posts of this epic thread on subject :
https://www.icenews.is/index.php/2009/07/29/more-members-of-parliament-against-the-icesave-deal/#comment-88054
https://www.icenews.is/index.php/2009/07/29/more-members-of-parliament-against-the-icesave-deal/#comment-88064
So Jim, that is what is meant.
It was the UK and Holland unliateral decision on their own to guarantee they own citizens more. Primarily in UK’s case because if they did not then the UK banking system would have collapsed+. And that had nothing to do with Icelanders.
That was their decision and Icelanders were not asked or given the time that EU laws did give for us to pay back.
http://www.slideshare.net/hjalli/the-icesave-dispute-priorities-and-division-of-claims
UK and Holland ” trying it on ” to gain EUR 0.8 – EUR 1.2 billions * more * than is the intention of the IceSave deal as it was negotiated.
+http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=470349&in_page_id=1 On October 10th 2008 Britain was ‘three hours from going bust’
Jim, as I am sure that Bjarni would post facts about this ( as he does it better than me ) but what Jóhanna talking about with ” the burden to be unfairly distributed between the three countries involved “..
She is talking about current December law ” deal ” that UK and Holland do want.. and which she and Steingrímur J did just roll over like jelly fish and push through Icelandic parliament.
And the ” burden to be unfairly distributed between the three countries involved ” is what is known in short hand as the ” Ragnar Hall ” issue after lawyer that raised it to public attention.
It is explain visually here ( for many reading here it will be first time they actually under stand what it is about — and to you I dont think any one can blame you ! ):
http://www.slideshare.net/hjalli/the-icesave-dispute-priorities-and-division-of-claims
It is result of UK and Holland ” trying it on ” to gain EUR 0.8 – EUR 1.2 billions * more * than is the intention of the IceSave deal as it was negotiated.
They did manage to get it past the idiots sitting in our government chairs and they so called ” negotiating team “.
Thanks to Ragnar Hall and parlieament as a whole this issue was corrected in our August law on IceSave that was passed by our parliament and signed into law.
But UK and Holland would not accept it and so it was nullify by they counter offerings and that is what was passed in Dec IceSave law by Red Green government in December — but that President of Iceland Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson did not sign.
The British have covered 80% of the losses incurred by British savers when an Icelandic bank, operating out of Iceland, collapsed. Is this an “unfair distribution”? What would be a ” fair” distribution?
“many believed the burden to be unfairly distributed between the three countries involved”
Is that why Landsbanki illegally swept liquid funds from foreign retail customer accounts into domestic retail accounts? Iceland’s Central Bank must have thought it was unfair for liquid funds to distributed amongst the citizens of the three countries involved. Yes, much fairer for any remaining liquid funds to be moved to Icelanders accounts instead. Does Johanna think we’re stupid?!