Due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software, some users were "banned" when they tried to change their passwords at the end of February. This does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you were affected by this, please us viua the Contact us link in the footer.
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.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.
It will improve Iceland's economyFive 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?
Pity the opposition have not made some move on that
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.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.
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.
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.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.
There's no comparison. Iceland went out of their way to build an unsustainable financial problem, luring is money from all over the World, money which by the way still hasn't been returned.Idea for what we could do with bertie and the boys ?
RTÉ News: Fmr Iceland PM could be tried over bank crisis
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.