25% of Iceland voters don't want Icesave cash repaid to British savers

dirtydog said:
British banks were already covered under the depositor protection scheme though.

People depositing in a bank outside the EU, not covered by depositor protection, and in a country with the GDP of my local chip shop were very stupid indeed.
Click to expand...
They were covered by EU law though...

It's a statutory requirement to comply with EU banking regulations to offer banking products in the EEA, regardless of where the parent company is based. One of which is that the deposits are protected by an insurance scheme.
 
Jokester said:
Indeed the decision to effectively gaurantee all deposits, regardless of value, was largely forced upon them by other countries doing that. Not doing so would have meant that depositors with more cash than the limit at the time could easily have taken the money out of UK banks (not a good thing, even at the best of times) and deposited it in other countries, Ireland being one of the main examples where this was likely to happen.
Click to expand...
Indeed, so guarantee 100% of deposits in our banks, not other countries. That creates at least an aura of security for British banks, enabling investors to move what they can back into our system.
 
AcidHell2 said:
Aren't they being asked to pay back all of it, not just the first 20k Euros.
Click to expand...
No, they're being asked to pay what is required under EU law, which is the first 20,000 Euros of any individuals account.

They're being asked to pay back £3billion, the actual accounts shortfall was several times more than that.
 
platypus said:
They're being asked to repay £2.3Bn.
Click to expand...

which is how much? the first 20k euros or all of it?

Jokester said:
No, they're being asked to pay what is required under EU law, which is the first 20,000 Euros of any individuals account.

They're being asked to pay back £3billion, the actual accounts shortfall was several times more than that.
Click to expand...

That's fair enough then and what they should do.
 
platypus said:
Indeed, so guarantee 100% of deposits in our banks, not other countries. That creates at least an aura of security for British banks, enabling investors to move what they can back into our system.
Click to expand...
I don't think we're allowed to do that under EU law, discrimination and all that.
 
NathanE said:
Questions must be asked why Iceland was granted an AAA credit rating in the pre-credit crunch years.
Click to expand...

Credit ratings have been shown up for what they are in the last few years, pointless and worthless. AIG and Lehmans also had top credit ratings right up until they went bust!

And I would argue the US and UK don't deserve their AAA ratings either.
 
AcidHell2 said:
which is how much? the first 20k euros or all of it?
Click to expand...

Just the first 20k euros. Which is what the Icesave website explicitly said would be guaranteed.

I remember reading that and thinking "Erm do I really want to put my money in a bank that puts their disaster recovery plans pretty much on their front page? Almost smells like they're planning to fold."

Obviously nowadays banks use this type of information in a far more prominent manner.
 
dirtydog said:
Credit ratings have been shown up for what they are in the last few years, pointless and worthless. AIG and Lehmans also had top credit ratings right up until they went bust!

And I would argue the US and UK don't deserve their AAA ratings either.
Click to expand...

Don't know about the US.

But for sure the UK shouldn't have AAA right now. Not with our huge deficit.
 
platypus said:
Indeed, so guarantee 100% of deposits in our banks, not other countries. That creates at least an aura of security for British banks, enabling investors to move what they can back into our system.
Click to expand...
Although they couldn't policy-wise, at the time the government effectively did so with its takeover of Northern Rock and subsequent guarantees that 'no banks would fail' - IIRC at the time it raised a few eyebrows in terms of EU state-sponsorship policy and suchlike.
 
Jokester said:
I don't know how many times I need to say this, this deal was to cover the first 20000 euros that Iceland were legally responsible to cover under EU law. What our government decided to cover above the minimum legally required has nothing to do with Iceland, or the compensation we're seeking from them.
Click to expand...
I didn't realise - thanks and sorry for not reading what you said earlier
 
platypus said:
Should they? They're not bound by EU law.
Click to expand...
To open a bank in the UK, regardless of where the parent company is based, you MUST comply with EU law. Iceland is even part of the EEA and as such they themselves will need to incorporate EU law onto their own statute book for the parent banks.
 
platypus said:
Hmm ok, but then do it at least to countries within the EU?
Click to expand...
According to the Wiki article, a non-EEA bank must sign up to the UK Protection scheme to operate in the UK.

The ultimate aim is that the depositors themselves aren't being descriminated against, not the banks themselves.
 
Why should Icelandic people pay the money back ? It wasn't their fault, it was the bank's.

And.... the money from the British councils that went in was for spending on public services not saving !
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom