Eureka

[KARL]

Now that using anti-terror laws on an ally works so well, by freezing his assets and listing him on the internet alongside AlQaeda, Somalis and others as being beyond the pale - why not try it as a policy against the biggest fish ?

By these tactics, Iceland (the nation) has been forced to accept to pay to Britain billions of Pounds in order to take over the debt of their failed company (one bank). The USA produced the biggest failure (many companies, different products) and that led to the massive collapse of British institutions and the rest of the economy. Why not use the same tactics against the US as against Iceland and force the US to pay for the bail-out ? What is more, until the money is paid up, Icelanders have to pay 5.5% interest on the outstanding balance - this is far better than any UK saver can get on their money. In fact, if put into general practice this could be a major part of the UK's national income - permanently. But perhaps it is unthinkable against any but the weakest nations (say, 300,000 souls or so), not against the bosom buddies who invite Britain to take part in all these exciting foreign adventures (or are big enough to intimidate).

[TCL-MUMPING]

The legislation used was the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. It was the financial security aspect that was threatened not any terrorism.

[Hymie]

In relation to Iceland being forced to repay money to British investors � what actually happened was that the British government was dumb enough to give Iceland the depositors lost money (on the understanding that they would repay the British investors). Understandably, when Iceland welshed on the deal, the UK government used strong-armed tactics to force them to play ball.

So Iceland never lost anything � the loss was covered by you & me, the good old British tax-payer.

Quite why this has not received more prominence in the British press is beyond me � perhaps it is a conspiracy to make the world think what excellent financial acumen the British government has.

[KARL]

Iceland is to repay the British government what they paid out to depositors. The Icelandic government had never until now accepted/agreed any liability, any more than the British government would guarantee the debts of a defunct British company. Iceland has now lost, not the British tax payer who is being 'reimbursed'. Britain did not give any money to Iceland, there was until now no deal and Iceland did not welsh. It has been said that, when an Icelandic central bank governor said the nation would not accept responsibility, Britain decided to seized Icelandic assets. Strong arm tactics were used to hold a weak party to ransom in order to get the money for depositors who when they deposited it knew their money was not guaranteed. Iceland was for several weeks on the same list as AlQaeda, etc. and, yes, the law is an anti-terror law designed specifically to avoid legal niceties (checks and balances) against particularly hated elements. That there was a pecuniary motive does not change its nature.

The question is, why not use the same tactics against other allies ? We probably know why - too daunting a prospect, not such an easy, soft target.

Agreed, part of the motive and hullabaloo is likely to have been a convenient smokescreen to divert attention from the incompetence coming to light in Britain itself.

[Hymie]

See this link here for more on this story.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8086997.st m

OK, so the British government may have lent Iceland the money � but I don�t think we (the tax payer) have much chance of getting the loan back, given Iceland�s finances.

So your proposed tactic has only been shown to work, if first we loan the money and then ask for it back � far better not to loan the money in the first place.

[KARL]

Britain has forced Iceland to accept a demand as a debt of a type and origin which Britain would not entertain was due. Britain would not, as a nation, take on the foreign liabilities of any UK company if it collapsed. To then have the 'magnanimity' (or other, depending on one's viewpoint) to take the posture of a lender is hardly convincing/impressive. This is how individuals are treated by unscrupulous bullies/crooks in some countries, leading to indefinite bondage of the indebted. Is this something Britain is prepared to apply to, say, the US which caused the whole thing in the first place (piled on top of gluttony/greed/irresponsibility of British financial institutions, granted) ? Certainly not.