Quote :
From Icelandic point of view I say the British government wasn't very helpful in solving the situation. When the terrorist laws were invoked just one bank had been taken over by the Icelandic government but the terrorists law saw to that the biggest bank and the biggest company in Iceland went down-under. The amounts we are talking about here are huge for a country with population of 314.000 but rather small compared to when Northern Rock went under.
I would say that this act by Gordon Brown and Darling was not neccessery. Of course something had to been done to protect the interest of common people, both in Iceland and other countries were the banks had branches. But one Nato country should not use this kind of legislation to another Nato member. In fact it could be interpreted as an economic attack and would therefore trigger article five of the Nato convention.
Don't forget that the people that are worst off are living in Iceland. Older people that had there savings in trust funds lost lots of it.
unquote
This is just a smokescreen (see above). The law was used because the Icelandic government was going to nick British investors' money to (illegally) preferentially pay off Icelandic investors. The Icelandic Prime Minister was found out trying to mislead the British over the amount of money available to pay-off British investors !
As has been stated other countries also froze these illegal Icelandic activities. It is only the Icelandic authorities trying desparately to avoid their own responsibilities by trying to cast mud around instead of facing up to the stupidities of their own banks.
The British government "wasn't very helpful in solving the situation" in as much as it stopped an illegal act by the Icelandic government - that solved a worse situation from occurring (the British government having to pay out for Icelandic debts). The Icelandic banks shouldn't have to steal investors' money just to survive. The fact that the Icelandic banks overextended themselves is down to them (and the Icelandic regulators) not the British (or any other) government.
You SEEm to have a strange idea that somehow this illegal stopping of the transfer of British (and other nationalities) investors' money to Iceland actually caused the banks' failure - WHY ?
The banks had basically already failed - all the banks were doing was trying to get as much money back to Iceland to illegally preferentially pay-off Icelandic investors. They did not have anywhere near-enough money to stand-by their commitments. Just in the UK the British Government had to not only pay-out the difference between the money left and the £35,000 bank guarantee (which the Icelandic banks SHOULD have covered) but also covered the rest of private depositors debts.
I do not know where the idea comes from that the Icelandic banks were anywhere near solvent it is WRONG. Likewise, I do not know where the idea comes from that there was anything legal in trying to take British (and other investors') money to preferentially pay-off Icelandic investors. Indeed, I am somewhat confused as to where all these misleading "facts" are coming from - I suggest you ask a few questions of your Icelandic contacts and ask them why they think they deserve other investors money preferentially and why it isn't the Icelandic banks and regulators' responsibility. As ever "responsibility" seems not to be a term understood.
PLEASE get your basic facts right before wasting peoples' time by posting misleading ideas.
.