Uma visão inglesa da situação na Islândia (II)

Iceland says ‘Can’t pay, won’t pay’ — and it is right, no Times (provavelmente um jornal mais "de referência" do que o City A.M.):

Iceland is right. Britain (and the Netherlands) should give way on the demand that it should pay them back in full for losses in the collapsed Icesave online bank. They will probably have to do so — but before they give way their stubbornness may drive Iceland, now within sight of joining the European Union, to the level of international basket case.

President Grímsson’s decision to block a Bill that would repay Britain and the Netherlands the £3.6 billion their savers lost has triggered a storm of abuse. But the tiny nation of 320,000 people has a good case for saying it won’t pay back all the debt on the dates set out. It has an even better case for saying it can’t.

When Landsbankii, the parent of Icesave, collapsed in 2008, Iceland questioned whether it was obliged to compensate foreign savers. To cool the panic and demonstrate leadership, the British and Dutch governments decided to pay the savers right away, and try to get the money back from Iceland.

Under EU law it’s very debatable whether Iceland is obliged to pay them. It signed up to “passporting” rules that allow banks to operate across national borders if they take part in their home country’s system of guaranteeing deposits. But crucially, these guarantees vary between countries, in their level, and in who runs them. In Britain, the guarantee comes from the Government, and shortly before Landsbankii collapsed, was raised to £50,000. In Iceland, insurance was offered through the Depositors’ and Investors’ Guarantee Fund, set up by private banks, and in value equal to only 1 per cent of deposits. That was within EU rules, which did not foresee the simultaneous collapse of the country’s entire banking system.

In asserting that Iceland must repay in full, Britain is making two contestable assertions. The first is that if Iceland’s private fund can’t pay, the responsibility passes to the Government and taxpayers. EU rules do not say this, if only because they fail to provide for such dramatic circumstances. The second is that Iceland must pay not the amount set by its own guarantee rules nor even the British £50,000, but the full amount of British savers’ losses, even though the Government chose to pay out more than UK rules obliged.

It is hypocritical of Britain, with the Netherlands, to insist on the full £3.6 billion. Britain describes this as a loan to Iceland, but the “deal” in June that purported to set out the terms has never been agreed by Iceland’s parliament and President — hence this week’s drama.

Britain claims that responsibility for foreign activities of a bank falls on the taxpayers of a country in which its headquarters happen to sit. But while Britain has courted foreign banks assiduously, it is unthinkable that if it faced paying £720 billion to foreign savers (as, scaled up for the UK population, a comparable bill would be) it would pay without murmur. UK regulators also approved Icesave, and bear responsibility too.

(...).

Iceland is hardly blameless. Its bankers and politicians are entirely at fault for the greed, ignorance, vanity and cronyism which led to the implosion. National fury at Gordon Brown’s misappropriation of anti-terror laws to freeze Landsbankii’s UK activities was understandable, but has become a self-indulgent evasion. It is very hard to get Icelanders to look beyond this insult to acknowledge the real injury to British savers. (...)

After all the legal rows, Iceland’s best card is that it can’t pay. A fall in the currency would make debt insupportable; a fall in population (and many graduates are now leaving) would make full payment impossible.

Comentário no Icenews (um dos poucos sites noticiosos islandeses numa língua legível):

The only inaccurate thing about The Times’ in-depth Icesave analysis is the headline.

One of Britain’s most respected newspapers, The Times this weekend published a column by Bronwen Maddox explaining the underlying arguments behind the Icesave issue and why Iceland may have a strong case for its reluctance to reimburse the UK and Dutch governments for their Icesave bailouts; although the article is careful not to absolve the Icelandic government and bankers of blame.

The headline, “Iceland says ‘Can’t pay won’t pay’ – and it is right”, is the only major factual inaccuracy, as the country has in fact said neither