Comments:Nearly 25% of Iceland's voters petition for veto of Icesave bill

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Should the Icelandic president force the government to consult voters via a referendum on the Icesave deal?[edit]

Back to article

Wikinews commentary.svg

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Quick hints for new commentators:

  • Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
  • Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
  • You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading

If the people of Iceland want a referendum they should get one especially when such a burden will be added to future generations


Im dutch and i fully sympathise for the Icelandics. The total amount to be repaid amounts to aproximately 12.000 euros PER PERSON in Iceland, which is ridiculous high. (talk) 17:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's not hard to sympathize with Iceland's general public - one can imagine few of the signatures on that petition supported the actions of the coalition government in the first place. That being said, it's a curse of democracy that the majority must be held accountable for their actions, and in allowing a government of democratic socialists to assume control of the country's financial institutions, a slim majority of voters created a thoroughly unacceptable financial crisis. Before totally sympathizing with Iceland's situation, remember that there are thousands of British citizens and organizations that have lost hundreds of millions of pounds as a result of the Icelandic government's actions - is the UK to place this per-person bill on their citizens, instead? I can't imagine that solution being somehow more fair than the nation of Iceland owning up to its mistakes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Ah, yes. We must pay the rich back what they lost at the Casino of International Finance. Idiot. And, for your apparent ignorance of international affairs, the current left-leaning Icelandic government was elected after the neoconservative lot that deregulated their financial markets were run out of town on a rail. --Brian McNeil / talk 01:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Casino of International Finance"? You might consider the reasons these "rich" (read: Non-profit organizations, small businesses, and other individuals trying to avoid oppressive government banking policies) go abroad for banking. I know where the rich bank, and it sure isn't in Iceland. As for your latter point... what is it? This incident has been caused by regulation, not deregulation. If the government wants to take control of banks, they should also take responsibility for the debts these banks face.
And don't be rude. I've disagreed with your viewpoint on plenty of occasions, but never felt the need to call you an idiot.
  • Last year was the first time ever that Iceland voted in a majority left-wing government – after at least fifteen years of "market liberalisation" (read: deregulation). Would you prefer "Idiot", "Liar" or "Propagandist"? --Brian McNeil / talk 03:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And we've all seen what happens under neoliberalism, it amazes me how so many can still misunderstand and support it. They just have to look at latin america for a stark warning against it. --JulesMattsson (talk) 12:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

South America? That continent that posed the threat of a good example when several of its countries democratically elected socialist leaders? That continent the CIA then de-stabilized by installing dictators and training/funding death squads which still terrorize the streets of some nations down there? I suppose it is a stark warning... of what happens when you oppose the economic & political systems of world superpowers like the U.S. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Precisely, the US backed destabalisation with the intent to force neoliberalism on the people and the economy, and look what happened. Exactly like you say, people were killed and dictators were installed, all with US backing. Believe me, I agree, it's disgusting. --JulesMattsson (talk) 10:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, "rich" means two nations, the UK and Holland, who paid back the "Non-profit organizations, small businesses, and other individuals trying to avoid oppressive government banking policies." Iceland need not be held to ransom by two nations who can afford to absorb it and can consider it something akin to foreign aid. It's money that Iceland scarcely has and probably won't if they give any reason for it to depart. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 12:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Neoliberalisim( read conservatisim with less economic regulation) Is a Good thing for the rich sponsor's who hold the real political power In the world today. People Like the IMF, and the WTO which quite a few first world conutires are a part of, Make absoltly sure that they CANT start regulalating commerce. Biggest tragedy of our age, im sorry to say. (talk) 15:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Were Icealandic banks guaranteed by the government of Iceland?[edit]

If the bank accounts were guaranteed by the government of Iceland, as the FDIC guarantees a certain amount of deposits in US banks, then Iceland has to simply honor their guarantee. If Iceland failed to properly regulate their banks, oops, time to pay up. If however the government was not the guarantor of those deposits, then the Brits and others who invested in those banks (already paid back by their respective governments) should be forced to bear the burden. Banks go under all the time. Some banks - for example, recent failures in the Caribbean - are found out to be nothing but Ponzi schemes. And although there is much gnashing of teeth when this occurs, we all know that if you are earning 12% in a 2% interest rate environment, there must be a catch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • The EEA equivalent of FDIC guarantees, technically, only apply to Icelandic depositors. --Brian McNeil / talk 12:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should the Icelandic president force the government to consult voters via a referendum on the Icesave deal?[edit]

no —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Tough noogies! He did, and good on him! The country has faced anti-terrorism legislation being used against them for now swearing to sell their children into slavery. --Brian McNeil / talk 23:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]