Former Iceland PM could be tried over bank crisis



Old Irish

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 30, 2008
Messages
1,501
Would you go on out of that....there is no way anyone responsible for our economic prediciment gets any punishment for their wrong doings legal or not. We are a nation of 'It'll all blow over' I hate that about us :cry:
 

Panopticon

Well-known member
Joined
May 27, 2009
Messages
5,575
Five out of nine lawmakers, being from the two far-left-descended parties that currently rule Iceland, vote to accuse a former PM of crimes outside of due process and the rule of law. Basically, it's a partisan decision to make it look like they are doing something, instead of actually improving Iceland's economy. Why are we surprised?
 

Xiogenes

Active member
Joined
Jul 16, 2010
Messages
140
.... vote to accuse a former PM of crimes outside of due process ....
Due Process, well as he was in Government at the time, what you mean is he should have immunity from prosecution as he was in control ?

I disagree with you there.
 

the_rebubblican

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 24, 2010
Messages
344
No doubt there'll have to be some process to clean out the smell of cronyism in government and its operations. The Icelanders obviously value the nature and quality of their democracy more than we do. The story first appeared on Bloomberg here yesterday.
 

Panopticon

Well-known member
Joined
May 27, 2009
Messages
5,575
Due Process, well as he was in Government at the time, what you mean is he should have immunity from prosecution as he was in control ?

I disagree with you there.
I mean that five left-wing members of parliament should not have the imprimatur of the whole parliament to seek public prosecutions. And the parliament itself should not have the power to initiate them, except for situations like impeachment of serving officials. This comprises legislative interference with the judiciary. That is what due process means, look it up.
 

An Gilladaker

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
4,295
Five out of nine lawmakers, being from the two far-left-descended parties that currently rule Iceland, vote to accuse a former PM of crimes outside of due process and the rule of law. Basically, it's a partisan decision to make it look like they are doing something, instead of actually improving Iceland's economy. Why are we surprised?
It will improve Iceland's economy
 

LongShanks

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
644
Would Gilmore/Inda do something similar here?
 

karldaly

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 26, 2009
Messages
465
@ LongShanks

"Would Gilmore/Inda do something similar here?"
.
Why don't you ask them?
People who voted for the Greens at the last election would have dearly liked to have asked their party leadership "would you go into government with Fianna Fail," but they discovered this when it was far too late.

So those of you who worry about what Eamonn and Enda might do after the next GE, now is the time to find out and not when its too late.
 

MPB

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 27, 2009
Messages
4,455
I mean that five left-wing members of parliament should not have the imprimatur of the whole parliament to seek public prosecutions. And the parliament itself should not have the power to initiate them, except for situations like impeachment of serving officials. This comprises legislative interference with the judiciary. That is what due process means, look it up.
No, much better to have an investigation run by vested interests, behind closed doors, which prevents investigation of politicians and their role in decisions and does not allow investigation of the most significant date in the whole crisis, as well as the days and months following this faithful night.

We do indeed do the cover up and ass saving better than every other country in the world.

Shame on the Icelanders for trying to punish those responsible. Don,t they realise it was a systemic failure and the tooth fairy was responsible for the system.
 

Q-Tours

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 11, 2010
Messages
2,454
Actually, I think that you could make a case for negligence against Cowen, Ahern and the ministers in their governments, Neary, Fitzpatrick and the board of Anglo, Fingleton and the board of INBS.

Negligence
Breach_of_duty_in_English_law
Not a f*rt's chance in a hurricane that a prosecution would succeed. The courts have an entirely 'hands-off' attitude towards political questions. If you read judgments where people have tried to get a court remedy for some govt action or another, the approach is entirely that it is no business of the courts to interfere unless the govt breaches some express provision of the law or the constitution.

Sadly, the constitution doesn't require the govt to be competent or even particularly honest. There goes Breach of Duty as a cause of action.

As for Negligence, the general pattern is that you have to show a class of people who might be affected, a class of damage that could result, and an extent of damage that could result, all three of which must be "reasonably foreseeable" by the govt. You could probably catch the govt on all those, no matter how they wiggle and squirm (File under Lehmann). But then the courts reserve a right to scrub out the duty of care if there are good policy reasons for doing so. And in this kind of case, it would, rightly, be pointed out that the sovereign people of this country bought the crapology that FF were selling (and the others panting after them were so desperately trying to imitate) hook, line and sinker.

And that, friends, is democracy in all its ugly glory, and in my view gives a damn good policy reason why you shouldn't be able to sue them feckers for their negligence: because we put them there and encouraged the whole thing.

Remember that the next time you vote.
 

Sync

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
29,707
There's a lot of similarities between what happened in Iceland and Ireland, although I'd argue the Iceland situation was more serious as our lot were simply oblivious to problems and Iceland's leaders knowingly lied to international markets. That said, I'd question the wisdom of pushing for this now while their problems are very much ongoing. It's a little akin to pulling a doctor away from a critical patient due to perceived malpractice, but then pulling 3 other doctors into a room to judge that malpractice. While the patient is still on the table.

Any time devoted to this by Iceland's leaders would be better spent trying to sort out a deal with the UK and Netherlands.

As Q-Tours mentioned above, simply being incompetent doesn't equate with negligence. FF gave the voters exactly what they were promised and deserved.
 

MPB

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 27, 2009
Messages
4,455
There's a lot of similarities between what happened in Iceland and Ireland, although I'd argue the Iceland situation was more serious as our lot were simply oblivious to problems and Iceland's leaders knowingly lied to international markets. That said, I'd question the wisdom of pushing for this now while their problems are very much ongoing. It's a little akin to pulling a doctor away from a critical patient due to perceived malpractice, but then pulling 3 other doctors into a room to judge that malpractice. While the patient is still on the table.

Any time devoted to this by Iceland's leaders would be better spent trying to sort out a deal with the UK and Netherlands.

As Q-Tours mentioned above, simply being incompetent doesn't equate with negligence. FF gave the voters exactly what they were promised and deserved.
The Icelanders were lucky, their corrupt Govt fell almost immediately. This enabled the opposition to be the ones making the important decisions with the feel of the hot breath of an angry electorate on their necks.

Hence they did not guarantee Banks nor did they nationalise them. They let them fail. They let their creditors take over and 90% of deposits were retrieved.

They set up a clean Bank with the good stuff of the 3 failed Banks and they received 10 billion from the IMF. 10 billion they have not had to use. It is invested in foreign Banks and serves to backstop the Icelandic economy.

The fact that they had their own currency also served them well, despite the hysterical screeches from Euro sympathisers here and abroad. Of course these hysterics were used to scare gullible Irish voters into reversing their original vote on the Lisbon Treaty.

The devaluation of their currency has meant that they have regained the competitiveness lost in their Tiger years.

The Icelandic people have not had a sovereign default because they realised very early on that the debts of private Banks were not sovereign.

We on the other hand have been involved in an expensive cover up from day one. A cover up that has exploded in our faces and will end in tears.
 

PrinceMax

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 18, 2009
Messages
1,801
No problem with trying someone if it's suspected they've done something illegal, but in this country, people seem to want to try people who made bad decisions. There's a difference.
 

Keith-M

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 24, 2007
Messages
15,668
Website
www.allkindsofeverything.ie
No problem with trying someone if it's suspected they've done something illegal, but in this country, people seem to want to try people who made bad decisions. There's a difference.

Indeed and in a democracy we all get a chance to pass a verdict on politicians who screw up.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top