Iceland's citizens to stiffen government's spine and stand up to bullies

[hmmm]

Did Iceland guarantee all savings were safe? Doubt it. These were public companies - Limited liability - limited to shareholders capital.

Try and do some research, this isn't about a 100% guarantee. This is about an Icelandic goverment guarantee for €20,000 on every depositors account. When the Icelandic banks collapsed, the British & Dutch governments agreed to loan Iceland the 5 billion or so needed to cover this guarantee. Now the Icelanders want to renege on this loan.

[kerdasi amaq]

Try and do some research, this isn't about a 100% guarantee. This is about an Icelandic government guarantee for €20,000 on every depositors account. When the Icelandic banks collapsed, the British & Dutch governments agreed to loan Iceland the 5 billion or so needed to cover this guarantee. Now the Icelanders want to renege on this loan.

No, they didn't. They unilaterally paid off their depositors(in violation of EU rules BTW) and now they're trying to coerce Iceland into repaying that money with interest.

[hmmm]

No, they didn't. They unilaterally paid off their depositors(in violation of EU rules BTW) and now they're trying to coerce Iceland into repaying that money with interest.

EU rules (transposed into EEA rules) required Iceland to establish a deposit protection scheme to cover the first €20,000 of deposits, the same as every other country in the EU. The Icelandics established Tryggingarsjóður* (their equivalent of Ireland's deposit guarantee) but woefully under-resourced it with funds of less than 1% of deposits insured. As Iceland was unable to repay when their banks collapsed, the UK & Holland stepped in to pay this amount for them. Iceland's parliament passed a bill in December 2008 to repay the amounts that the UK & Holland had spent to clear Iceland's obligations.

The Icelanders are now trying to wriggle out of their obligations.

* (taken from Wikipedia)
The Depositors' and Investors' Guarantee Fund (Icelandic: Tryggingarsjóður innstæðueigenda og fjárfesta) is the statutory deposit insurance scheme in Iceland. It is established under Act No. 98/1999 on Deposit Guarantees and Investor-Compensation Scheme,[1] which transposes European Union directives 94/19/EC[2] and 97/9/EC[3] into Icelandic law, in accordance with the decisions of the European Economic Area.[4]

[maxthedog]

Try and do some research, this isn't about a 100% guarantee. This is about an Icelandic goverment guarantee for €20,000 on every depositors account. When the Icelandic banks collapsed, the British & Dutch governments agreed to loan Iceland the 5 billion or so needed to cover this guarantee. Now the Icelanders want to renege on this loan.

Britain spent 2.3 billion pounds ($3.69 billion) last year to cover the losses that British savers incurred when Icelandic banks collapsed.

This had nothing to do with deposit guarantees, but was a bailout by Brits for Brits,

[BrendanGalway]

How do you expect to be able to put a question on complex technical matters to a plebescite? In reality it will be impossible, without resorting to dumbing it down to a level which is akin to voting on You're a Star. Not only will we see political gridlock, decisions will be based on who shouts loudest or who can instil the most fear into a population.

Some good points.

Ive read a few papers on DD over the last couple of years and all have made reference to one thing : in countries where DD is practiced, there was a resistance to it from the powers that be (Naturally). Their chief "concern" that the decisions that needed to be made would be beyond the understanding of most of the electorate. So far Switzerland has yet to devolve into Somalia.

Its a two-way street of course. A system like this will only work if the population are engaged and interested.
Were a system like this to be proposed to that nation, it would have to be made clear that its hard work and will require attention. But people can surprise you. One thing that has struck me from conversations on Politics over the years is that the Primary cause of apathy in people is an overwhelming sense that they cant achieve anything and that the system does not serve them. Perhaps its the reality of the situation. Change that and watch peoples attitude change along with it.

The Irish people are not stupid. Nor is the idea of attempting to understand political and economic processes beyond us. Certainly we need to teach this stuff in schools and do so from an early age. But I would argue that we are more than capable of researching and understanding issues that directly affect us IF we thought the final decision rests with us. And not with a gang of headless chickens that we cannot touch for 5 years at a time.

It's our own fault we elect politicians who we entrust with making these decisions and who do so in an incompetent fashion. This organised cohort of interests are voted in by our own democratic choice.

I would say its *some* peoples fault. Did the majority of the nation give a #1 to FF? You are correct when you say that Democracy works when people punish bad governments at the ballot box but History, and not just in Ireland but all over the Western world, has shown that it rarely comes to that. Campaigns get fierce in the run up to an election in a bid to make the Electorate forget the last few years and see "A Brighter Future". In spite of a record of failure, very often the ruling party will concentrate on one issue,such as the Economy or Security and use Fear of change to make people believe things could get a lot worse if they dont allow them to continue. Forget our mistakes and corruption, keep us in or Terrorism/Unemployment will eat your children. This is the way of Western Democracies now and its a clever way to get absolution from people for years of bad decision making.

I propose that since its the ordinary men and women who almost always bear the brunt of these decisions, we should have a bigger say in them.

[He3]

Closing time.

President Grimsson rejected suggestions the vote was meaningless, telling the BBC that a strong "No" would strengthen his country's hand.

"It's not a pointless exercise because the referendum, according to our constitution, is on whether the deal which the British and the Dutch insisted on at the end of last year, should remain in force as a law in this country," he said.

"It is encouraging that in the last few weeks the British and the Dutch have acknowledged that that deal, on which the referendum takes place, is an unfair deal and that is by itself a tremendous achievement by the referendum. So, after the vote today, which I believe will be a clear 'No' vote, we will be able to continue the negotiations."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8552971.stm

[He3]

No.

[BrendanGalway]

Backbone is a beautiful thing.

Well done citizens of Iceland. How I wish we had the same opportunity to voice our opinions.

[ibis]

Absolutely. When people complained about the fact that Lisbon was too complicated a document for ordinary people to understand, ibis was one of many who laid out sprawling arguments why direct democracy was inappropriate for such complex matters, but now that it has all gone wrong, those same citizens who in his estimation should not be concerned with government workings were "asleep at the wheel"? No more than ourselves, people in Iceland should have had been more aware of the dangers they faced, but representative democracy is a very blunt instrument and provides it's people with very little control of economic management, beyond tax levels and work incentives.

I think ibis just hates the little people.

Can't abide them - ruddy ankle-biters.

Still, I'm enormously surprised by the charge that I was opposed to the referendum on Lisbon. I supported the referendum itself throughout, and would be appalled by any attempt to remove referendums from the process of ratification. I was also extremely opposed to the kite that was floated in favour of a Dáil ratification. My view throughout was that a referendum was my preferred method of ratification, and you can check the record for that.

What you may be remembering is the argument that if other countries chose not to use referendums as their ratification method, that was their choice, and entirely valid.

Either way, your memory is entirely incorrect here, and your charge is complete traducement of my actual position. This being p.ie, I expect blustering rather than a retraction, but anyone can check the record if they can be bothered.

[Supermanpolitician]

Backbone is a beautiful thing.

Well done citizens of Iceland. How I wish we had the same opportunity to voice our opinions.

Nobody will loan Iceland money for another ten years. They have shot themselves in the foot.

Whatever about giving money to someone who reneges, would you give to someone whom you knew would try to argue that they shouldn't pay?