Al Jazeera English: Iceland rejects bank payback deal

[SealLion]

There is both good and bad about Iceland refusing to repay the UK and The Netherlands for having bailed out the people that had savings in Iceland's major bank called Landisbanki and the online element for Landisbanki called, IceSave.

LEt's check out the latest news for Iceland which apparantly is also seeking membership in the EU.

Icelanders have rejected a deal to pay Britain and the Netherlands billions for their losses in the collapse of the Icesave bank, the government said after partial referendum results.

Some 93.1 per cent of voters cast ballots opposing the deal, ......

The voters had good reason to object to this deal that was imposed upon them by the UK. I recall having made a post here from Wikleaks.org on which the UK even imposed anti-terror laws against the online element Landsbanki, IceSave.
Preposterous, isn't it??

One of the reasons that Icelanders voted against this deal is because this deal was ......

....."obtained through coercion, with threats from both the British and the Dutch".....

you see, there were UK and Dutch investors involved in IceSave.
So when all the world's banks collapsed in 2008, including in Iceland, those savings of approximately 300,000 British and Dutch customers were lost.

So then what happened is that Britain and the Netherlands both compensated their savers and they now want Iceland to reimburse them.

OK, fine. It's not so much much whether Iceland will pay, but it's about how much and on what terms.


You see, what we have here folks is the classic demand from foreign governments demanding control of repayment terms. IMO, this is unacceptable and inappropriate.

And why is that, you ask??
Here's why. Iceland is a small country. We all know this.

You see, if Iceland was to repay based solely on foreign terms, those repayment demands believe it or not are 1/3 of Iceland's GDP.

That is a lot of coin people!!!
If your not aware of what Icelands GDP is, then let's go and find out.

GDP 2009 estimate
- Total $11.899 billion
- Per capita $37,242

Those are estimates from the International Monetary Fund.
The link for that is Here: [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iceland"]WikiPedia LInk[/ame]
Look on the right hand side bar of the web-page and you'll see it.

Now, I think that the amount that is given above is the Icelandic Krona.
So let's take 1/3 of almost 12 billion Krona and we have about 4 billion Icelandic Krona that is demanded from by the UK and Dutch governments.

Do you see where I'm getting at this in all of this now??
For a country that has only about 300,000 people (according to 2009 estimates), that is a lot of money.

Those terms, IMO, are unacceptable and completely inappropriate.
And it's not just me who thinks so, it's also people in Iceland who also thinks so too when polled.
'
Have a look at the interest rate too for a country of it's population size and GDP growth.

.....5.5-per cent interest rate was particularly unacceptable.
In depth

Here's a short video from YT from AJE talking about this.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RX7y6MzqaDs"]YouTube- Iceland's debt debate[/ame]

Observers said an Icelandic refusal to repay the money could block the remaining half of a $2.1bn International Monetary Fund (IMF) rescue package, as well as its EU and euro currency membership talks

A country is being held hostage as I see it.
Now from what I understand, Iceland of course would like to join into the EU.
I wonder if it is even a good idea for Iceland to join into the EU.

The main reason is because of Iceland's fishing industry. Fishing as you know, is quite important for any island country.
The same could be applied to even island provinces in Canada such as Newfoundland and Labrador or even other island states such as Greenland.
Even for country's such as Madagascar or even island states in the Pacific ocean, fishing is an important mainstay of an economy.

Now if Iceland were to join into the EU, IMO, this would be fatal:

One of the major obstacles for Iceland joining the EU has to do with the fishing industry. Basically, Iceland wants control of its fishing resources, which it would not get if it became part of the EU because it would then have to take up the Commons Fisheries Policy

that Commons Fisheries Policy falls under the auspicies of the EU, I believe.

you see, if Iceland was to join in, those fishing rights would be gone. This quote explains it a little bit more:

All decisions would be taken out of the country. ........Iceland is giving away its sovereign rights over the fishing grounds and moving the decision making to Brussels.

exactly.
Now do you feel that a country's sovereignty should be handed over to elsewhere??
Lot's of the Euro states have reneged their sovereignty over to their Union.

This is why the European Union isn't really all that much of a good thing. And that includes the current, yet unspoken discussion, of a North American Union.

And it's not just fishing, there is also agri-business in Iceland that would be affected by it joining the Euro Union.

Agriculture is another area of concern.......The Commons Agricultural Policy ( from the Euro Union)does not suit Icelandic agriculture, which is narrow and practiced under difficult conditions. Iceland produces 50 percent of its food needs today and for a nation that lives on an island far north in the ocean, food security must not falter,'

I totally agree with that.
You see, under this policy, Iceland's employment rate would be substantially affected.
Read this quote below:

'Production must not be reduced so that we are in a bad position in regard to fresh produce if something goes wrong with transportation, for instance. Agriculture and processing are also the backbone of industry in rural areas — in some areas this accounts for 25-30 percent of employment. Most appraisals of independent parties on the effect on agriculture say that the reduction would be substantial on joining the EU.'

See what I mean??
For a country that small in population to have it's employment rate affected is indeed quite large.

Here's what Icelanders think on EU membership:

.....when Icelanders were asked how they would vote if a referendum was held on EU membership, 61.5 percent said they would vote against while 38.5 percent said they would vote for it.

So it seems to me like it's a 2/3 to 1/3 preference so far on staying out of EU membership.

Links to the above quotes: Global Issues Link

Let's continue with the news article, shall we...

But he also noted that Iceland had some "legitimate grievances", including that the UK and the Netherlands chose to repay all of their citizen's lost savings, even above the standard compensation limits.

maybe expected of Iceland as well??

Iceland's leaders have said they will resume talks to negotiate better terms with London and The Hague....

I hope so too as this deal imposed upon Iceland is preposterous.

Icelanders are also angry at this:

In the aftermath of the Icesave collapse, the UK invoked so-called anti-terror laws to take control of Landisbanki assets held in Britain....

In other words, Britain began crying baby-like. As such, it (the government specifically) behaved quite immaturely over this issue.
Since when does a foreign government impose anti-terror laws just so it can get money??

That's not called imposing anti-terror laws, that's called imposing injustice.

HEre's the link to the AJE article:

Al Jazeera English - Europe - Iceland rejects bank payback deal

[slikrapid]

this incident is yet another one that shows what can happen if banks become too greedy going over the amounts they can cover in case of a bad investment

we saw previous examples with all those bailouts (not related only/exclusively to the banks)

but, thats the nature of financial business, dealing with risks & its assessment - and apparently many government experts haven't realized (intentionally or not) that this risk area has already been exploited by the biggest players in various business areas (for a good example take the usa and its 1930's depression, caused by usa banks) as they are the ones with the most reliable information and also those with the ability to fix/influence the market (in general, not just a particular one) so they would gain from the future events (as the next steps investors take are the expected ones and therefore predictable & exploitable) - which is why every country should make sure they won't fall prey to various sweet-talking deals (yet with inherent high risks or set-up from the start) with creating limits to which their banks can take risks, as it seems that nowadays risk-taking is, on the contrary, actually encouraged - a situation obviously only waiting for the wrong move or a global instability, like the current worldwide situation

btw, i'm pretty sure almost none of the leading international banks have experienced (or will experience) significant real (not alleged or faked) losses through the entire duration of this artificially constructed crisis - so its rather obvious who should be standing/operating under a magnifying glass, but as their influence is deeply rooted within the government, industry, society etc. the prospect of future limits to their financial moves is probably a distant one, if not altogether illusory

Now do you feel that a country's sovereignty should be handed over to elsewhere??
Lot's of the Euro states have reneged their sovereignty over to their Union.

This is why the European Union isn't really all that much of a good thing. And that includes the current, yet unspoken discussion, of a North American Union.

so far they probably haven't been confronted with a significant problem that would emphasize the importance of sovereignty - the trouble with these all-encompassing 'unions' is that they remove the decision-making a level farther from the one of a sovereign country, onto a set of basically unelected (concerning the general public voters) representatives, having no responsibility towards a country's parliament and this is the point when they become more susceptible to corruption as they get rounded up (through lobbying and other corruption methods) by EU power-countries that want to secure enough votes for their plans & agendas, since if we want to be realistic, its not the smaller countries that steer the EU, but rather its the power-horses who create & push the EU goals - the smaller countries are there to fill in the gaps, try to find their own profit area and hope the big fishes don't get too greedy

as for the usa, it has already had a taste of such a 'supra-regional' organization/union - the federal government - afaik as opposed to the EU, the fed & usa countries have a shared type of sovereignty, meaning that it depends on the matter at hand as to which one of the two has priority

Here's what Icelanders think on EU membership:

So it seems to me like it's a 2/3 to 1/3 preference so far on staying out of EU membership.

its similar to other countries in that usually at first there is a large opposition towards the EU, then after the propaganda machinery does its work to soften the critique, remove the troublemakers (meaning those who actually have valid points for discussion and debate real issues) to the margins of the political scene and shine the brightest possible light on the EU, with numerous brochures praising the EU,... then we can expect almost a tie situation, which is about the time when referendums start and you may expect their timing is carefully planned (preferably after some positive event that rejoiced the population) to catch that optimistic feeling of the citizens and get the 51% for the pro-EU side

Since when does a foreign government impose anti-terror laws just so it can get money??

my guess is that, since the anti-terror laws are a rather new tool, they needed someone to test them on and as it happened iceland was a qualified candidate for the procedure

[SealLion]

btw, i'm pretty sure almost none of the leading international banks have experienced (or will experience) significant real (not alleged or faked) losses through the entire duration of this artificially constructed crisis

This is correct. The banks, during the made-for-TV crisis last year were hollering loud and clear about all the money that they were losing and going to lose if they weren't financially propped up.
I recall one story down from the States about some of the bank execs giving themselve a nice bonus after they got thier 1st bailout. No doubt, the banking execs there were'nt the only one.

I am sure that bankers in the Euro states must have heard the same thing...cha-ching...cha-ching...(Come and Get it....Free Money!!...Come and get it!!)

I don't think that I quite follow by what you mean here:

as for the usa, it has already had a taste of such a 'supra-regional' organization/union - the federal government - afaik as opposed to the EU, the fed & usa countries have a shared type of sovereignty, meaning that it depends on the matter at hand as to which one of the two has priority

your saying here that the basis of sovereignty is based upon which one of the 2 has priority??
For example, suppose that one of the EU states and the USA become interwined in some trade issue, and that trade issue is based upon EU laws as to what can and cannot enter into the EU market. In this particular example, let's say that it involves a trade commodity and in order to fulfill trade and economic growth between the Euro states involved, the trade dispute is favored for the Euro side and the loser of any trade dispute would be the US even though, let's just suppose here that there was some kind of trade agreement between the 2 sides ( which I'm sure that there is).

So even though there might be some trade agreement and the US makes a dispute claim over what-ever, becuse the EU see's itself as having priority in the context of increasing trade amongst it's own member states, the dispute would favor the EU trade.

Is something like the above what you were suggesting??
Is that correct??

.....then we can expect almost a tie situation, which is about the time when referendums start and you may expect their timing is carefully planned (preferably after some positive event that rejoiced the population) to catch that optimistic feeling of the citizens and get the 51% for the pro-EU side

No doubt, that makes sense. As long as the propaganda machinery rolls along well lubed and oiled, things would most likely go the way that they are favored.
No doubt, as time goes by this will be the case when discussions about a North American Union comes along.
So far, most of the politicians will outright deny any knowledge of said Union. They do this because pple have fear. Fear of the loss of their own country's sovereignty, fear of the unknown; fear based mostly on uncertainty.

Having a Union in North America is not something that IMO, should be favored at all.

Immigration laws would change.
Change would involve most likely NOT involve any participation of the citizens.

This is because the designs are manufactured by oligarchs in positions of power. Large corporations would also favor such a Union.

Can you imagine the trade tariffs that they would not have to pay anymore??

NAFTA is a precursor to such a union. First it was a trade agreement between 2 countries: Canada and the States. Then it involved Mexico some years later.

As time goes by, you have other factors coming into play such as food inspections being harmonized rather than being independant. It is much, much more important for food inspections to be soveriegn rather than be harmonized. There is only a few gains when harmonizing food inspections.

Those gains are only realized by the food producers. The people eating such foods may or may not necessarily benefit.
The only other benefited would be the transportation companies.

Security would no longer involve security of any one country, but of the entire continent.
As such, as I mentioned briefly above, immigration would be affected.
The immigration priorities of any one of the 3 countries would be severely affected.
While one region of the continent gains in immigration, the northern half, such as Canada, may suffer.

Canada today, is heavily dependent upon immigration to sustain it's population.

Legislation in one region of the continent could have a negative impact upon another region of the continent.
This is why sovereignty of nations is extremely important.
Unionization of North America is not a good thing at all.

Labor laws would also be highly affected. For example, some segments of Mexican labor laws could be integrated into labor laws that affect the entire continental population.
NOT a good thing.

This is why I believe that in some ways, having the Euro states evolve into a union was not necessarily a good thing.

Here's a random video from YT:

Listen in carefully when Lou Dobbs talks about a group of elites. This group, IMO, are the wanna-be oligarchs. Those involve monarchs of some countries, execs of very large multi- national corporations, international banking corporations, and a few others.

This is an older video but has very real significance for all 3 North American countries.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T74VA3xU0EA"]YouTube- NORTH AMERICAN UNION[/ame]

[Blocker]

Well, before anything guys you took many interesting points,and I would like to emphasize the North American Union that SealLion mentioned.

Having a Union in North America is not something that IMO, should be favored at all.

Immigration laws would change.
Change would involve most likely NOT involve any participation of the citizens.

This is because the designs are manufactured by oligarchs in positions of power. Large corporations would also favor such a Union.

Can you imagine the trade tariffs that they would not have to pay anymore??

NAFTA is a precursor to such a union. First it was a trade agreement between 2 countries: Canada and the States. Then it involved Mexico some years later.

As time goes by, you have other factors coming into play such as food inspections being harmonized rather than being independant. It is much, much more important for food inspections to be soveriegn rather than be harmonized. There is only a few gains when harmonizing food inspections.

Those gains are only realized by the food producers. The people eating such foods may or may not necessarily benefit.
The only other benefited would be the transportation companies.

In my opinion this possible Union could affect Mexico due to the fact that NAFTA is an unfair deal.
When the North American Free Trade Agreemen was signed by the three nations Mexico was unprepared and in an economic disadvantage although USA is our first customer in a big percentage of our exportations and we depend each other in many ,social,migration and cultural relations, Mexico is affected by this treat for example our federal minimum wage has not grow or reach Canada or USA wages like NAFTA followers said ,furthermore mexican fields are not as modern as americans and this contributes to increase this unfair relation.Mexico buy cheaper fruits and vegetables and our field workers lose their jobs because NAFTA as a result they become drug farmers or they migrate illigally to US.

NAFTA purpose was increase the competitiveness between the three nation but this never occurred in fact transnational large companies grow their markets and therefore kill familiar or small business.

Nevertheless I am convinced that Unions are not bad most of the time for example EU is a succesful case,countries like Spain has grown faster than without it.

For the above mentioned reasons I think NAFTA is an unfair treatment for Mexico as a consequence US and Canada need to support the country as a result the economic worth will emerge like EU.

PS.Sorry for my english

[saebrtooth]

If I am guessing correctly SL and and Slik are not worried the prosperity that takes place but rather the "type" of structure that allows inherent corruption within in the EU and NAU Organisations.

[slikrapid]

as for the usa, it has already had a taste of such a 'supra-regional' organization/union - the federal government - afaik as opposed to the EU, the fed & usa countries have a shared type of sovereignty, meaning that it depends on the matter at hand as to which one of the two has priority

i'm pointing out that usa (compared to the EU) already has a somewhat similar system, that is, their federal government, since afaik usa citizens living in one of the usa countries fall under the jurisdiction of that particular country (lets say texas for example) but also under the federal jurisdiction, that is somewhat above the 'country' level and has priority in some governing matters, whereas the local country 'government' has priority concerning other governing matters, sort of a shared governance over the citizens

the difference with EU is that the EU government has afaik complete priority and supersedes any european country's government/law - this situation officially came into effect with the lisbon treaty

another thing that comes along with such unions as the NAU is the possibility of all kinds of legislative revisions & alterations (as the posted video suggested, the working groups are constantly active, probably 'harmonizing' regulations so that they would better suit the corporate needs)

as food inspections being harmonized rather than being independant...Those gains are only realized by the food producers. The people eating such foods may or may not necessarily benefit.

the thing is, these inspections were never independent in the first place, since their tasks, or more correctly the monitored values/margins/quality have been agreed upon not only by taking expert opinion but also according to industry wishes/lobbies, actually, viewing the usa situation today i'd say the latter has had way too much influence in lowering the bar of what is officially considered the bare minimum of healthy food - one obvious example are the unbelievably nonchalant GM food approvals, even though the scientists who manipulate the genes actually have no idea (thats right, its basically a roulette) what will exactly happen when the process of genetic modification is complete, and that should pass for hard science? i guess anything goes when corporate interests have priority - rest assured, the people (especially those with lower financial abilities) will surely not benefit from such, among others, profit-driven measures

The immigration priorities of any one of the 3 countries would be severely affected.
While one region of the continent gains in immigration, the northern half, such as Canada, may suffer.

Canada today, is heavily dependent upon immigration to sustain it's population.

the immigration is used, among others, to cover-up the 'negative' fertility rates affecting developed countries which are currently leading the majority of population towards a reduction of its numbers (depopulation), and also to increase the number of poorly educated very-low-wage workers (less cost for the industry, less work goes 'to china') and then there are racial/religious conflicts, related to mass immigration, again benefiting the government to divert attention from their own incompetence (or worse), tighten civil liberties and so on

group of elites. This group, IMO, are the wanna-be oligarchs. Those involve monarchs of some countries, execs of very large multi- national corporations, international banking corporations, and a few others.

i'd go further to say they already are oligarchs, maybe wanna-be absolute rulers/owners/power-wielders or something else as this kind of greed is just unimaginable even for a person with at least a small amount of sanity, yet they just keep on going, nothing seems enough

as Blocker mentioned with the NAFTA example, in these unions, the advanced countries will continue to be advanced, as opposed to the less developed - these relationships will not change - as the union needs a combined power & direction towards/against external markets/competition, but nevertheless also on the internal market, where naturally brands from leading countries or multinational companies have priority over others, and one may expect that the worst time surviving this game will have those on the lower end of the union members

f I am guessing correctly SL and and Slik are not worried the prosperity that takes place but rather the "type" of structure that allows inherent corruption within in the EU and NAU Organisations

i'm afraid the same 'type' of structure is constructed & used to provide an illusion of prosperity (which might be applied just to a very small number of individuals/organizations/countries), when in fact people still live in rigid, not really democratic societies, built/maintained by force/corruption/lies, hunger for power, etc. with no real intention (from the leaders/governments) to improve the general situation, instead the preferred option is to continue the charade pretending to make progress, when in reality just proceeding to politically debate ad infinitum in a de facto closed loop of political options/figures