- Use of anti terror laws to freeze icelandic bank assets
I bet the ppl who had savings in it won’t complain! look at both sides of the fence.
He found a clause and helped loads of ppl who invested. Even though really they shouldn’t have received a thing for investing abroad non FSA goverend. They were lucky.
If I had cash Iceland-I’d be happy what Darling did.Posted 8 years ago
Just heard on the news that Alistair Darling used anti terror laws to freeze icelandic banking assets in order to repay the lost deposits of UK citizens. I know people have lost money but does anyone else think the use of terrorism laws for this purpose is discraceful. Its the thin end of the wedge i tell you!!!!!
Goes off to find a Yes Minister episodePosted 8 years agosq225917Member
It’s not that ‘people’ lost money, he couldn’t give a frig about that, but he’s probably quite interested in the fact that a large number of county and metropolitan councils banked with them and had 100’s of millions on deposit with them.
i imagine the coin flip for ‘miss use of terror laws/loosing 100’s of millions’ was quite an easy choice, even if not what they were intended for.Posted 8 years agojohnnersMember
I’m fine with it. If the legislation is framed to allow it to be used, use it. If you don’t want that to happen then the law has to be changed.
And bullying my arse – they keep British money, we keep theirs. An explicit guarantee had been given to attract retail depositors (not investors, note) – and then the Icelandic government said it wasn’t going to honour it.Posted 8 years ago
well done chaps.
Hook, line and sinker.
The assets were frozen under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security* Act 2001
One of it’s provisions was:
Enables the Treasury to make a freezing order if it reasonably believes that an action to the detriment of the United Kingdom’s economy (or part of it) has been or is likely to be taken by a person or persons.
Seems a pretty straightforward application of the law to me.
* National security obviously also incorporates financial security no?Posted 8 years ago
Perhaps they should have frozen all the banks in the UK
in effect they did.
All UK banks have asset guarantee protections for savers. The belief was that consumers were unaware that the Icelandic banks lay outside of this protection and so to ensure that capital was reserved first to savers before other creditors, the government locked down what Icelandic Bank assets lay within the UK borders. It wasnt pretty (and personally Im all for banks going bust) but it was neccessary to avoid creating a substantial financial (and I dont doubt political) shitstorm.
Dont forget the UK did then lend additional funds to Iceland so that they could honor savers credits which is now being repaid. The objective was stability, not a mugging.
And as they say, it’s easier to beg forgiveness than ask permission.Posted 8 years ago
There is both a legal and financial distinction between savings deposits and investments.
When you save money your capital is secure. You are guaranteed to get back the sum you put in*, plus interest. When you invest you have no such guarantee. Your capital is at risk. In return for this you expect to get more back than you put in, plus a little income on the side as well.
* That is where the legal defintion protects savings deposits.
Investment means an increase in the capital stock – Gross fixed capital formation. Savings dont provide that.Posted 8 years agoatlazMember
* National security obviously also incorporates financial security no?
Yes, as it was explained to me at least. National security also incorporates things like making sure the power stays on and the various bodies in the UK can act irrespective of whether it’s terrorism or some other “threat” to the integrity of essential services.Posted 8 years agoBigDummySubscriber
Stoner is correct to note that the provisions used were not in any technical sense “anti-terrorist” legislation. They were however part of that enormous raft of laws giving the police and other executive agencies enormously wide and largely discretionary powers to do all sorts of things, which were brought in on the assurance that they were needed to combat terrorism.
The issue is not the specific use of this legislation against the Icelandic banks, it is the use of terrorism panics to justify the creation of legislation of this sort.Posted 8 years agocoffeekingMember
Yet more complaints about the use of laws, of which few people seem to understand the reality/totality (myself included). As said, the laws are not just there to stop suicide bombers using IEDs at the side of Tesco.
Iceland technically always had to repay the cash under contractual/legal agreements, however IIRC at the time they flatly refused to do so, so the UK instantly forced them to comply using whatever legal frameworks they had in place.Posted 8 years agoTheLittlestHoboMember
There are threads all over the place about BNP and how we should be ashamed that they are being heard etc etc. Is it any wonder they are being considered when for once in blue moon our government does something to protect OUR INTERESTS, regardless of RULES, and it works. You lilly livered liberals come out and start flaming them for bending the rules.
Who gives a toss? They stuck up for US and managed to safeguard and stabilize millions of pounds within our economy. I for one think we toe the line far too often when it comes to sticking up for ourselves.
The BNP are getting votes because they actually sound as if they want to represent our people regardless of what other countries think of us. They may be racist scum but it comes across as them having our interests first before some Guy from Botswana.
For once we have an example of mainstream govenment sticking up for us and we crucify them……Posted 8 years agocoffeekingMember
While cautious of the possible extent to which it could be taken, TLH has a point. We don’t put our feet down very often, we tend to pander to what everyone else wants. When push comes to shove I want a government that, while being mindful of others, does what helps our country survive. At the end of the world I want the UK to be the last one standing rather than someone elses country – thats normal 😀Posted 8 years agoTheLittlestHoboMember
I dont care if they called it the ‘Up Yours Laws’, If it protects the UK i am all for it.
You are just using the Title of the law to delivery another backlash against mainstream politics. When in reality mainstream politicians have acted totally out of character and done something in our best interests.
Iceland were sticking two fingers up at us and we shoved them back down their throats. Do you think they will be so quick to do it again? A lot of you didnt like Maggie, but whatever you say about here, you knew which way she would react in this situation.Posted 8 years agorichcMember
TandemJeremy – Member
An absolute disgrace – both the use of the anti terror law and the bullying of Iceland. Some of the money has now been repaid as it always was going to be.
Some of it yes but not all of it, a LOT of charities lost ALOT of money they had tied up in Icesave, and they still haven’t got it backPosted 8 years ago
The topic ‘Use of anti terror laws to freeze icelandic bank assets’ is closed to new replies.