Daily Telegraph Spanish Planning Scandal campaign

LoadingFavourite

This topic contains 38 replies, has 9 voices, and was last updated by Profile photo of Anonymous Anonymous 5 years, 7 months ago.

  • Author
    Posts
  • #56196
    Profile photo of Anonymous
    Anonymous
    Participant

    Taken from this new section of the Telegraph online. Not very good news for Spain.

    Telegraph Expat is launching a campaign in support of the hundreds of thousands of British and other expats who have fallen victim to urban corruption and the confused state of property law in Spain. If you have beeen affected by the problem, please add a pin documenting your story to our Expat Directory (telegraph.co.uk/expatdirectory) under the pin category ‘Illegal Spanish Property’. Over time, this will generate an interactive map which will document and expose the full extent of the problem.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/expat/campaigns/spanishplanningscandal/

  • #104223
    Profile photo of Anonymous
    Anonymous
    Participant

    If, we can place an embargo on Icelandic assets and bring legal proceedings agaionst them under terrorism, Yes you read it correctly. Why cant we to the same to Spain. I for one cannot beleive that Britain in this instance cannot do anything. Its a typical foreign office response by incompetant & over paid lot.

  • #104035
    Profile photo of Anonymous
    Anonymous
    Participant

    If, we can place an embargo on Icelandic assets and bring legal proceedings agaionst them under terrorism, Yes you read it correctly. Why cant we to the same to Spain. I for one cannot beleive that Britain in this instance cannot do anything. Its a typical foreign office response by incompetant & over paid lot.

  • #104233
    Profile photo of Anonymous
    Anonymous
    Participant

    Excellent work by the Telegraph.

    They have published some good articles on the Spanish Property situation and are very supportive of the various problems being experienced by many purchasers due to the negligence and corruption in the Spanish Property Sector.

  • #104040
    Profile photo of Anonymous
    Anonymous
    Participant

    Excellent work by the Telegraph.

    They have published some good articles on the Spanish Property situation and are very supportive of the various problems being experienced by many purchasers due to the negligence and corruption in the Spanish Property Sector.

  • #104251
    Profile photo of peterhun
    peterhun
    Participant

    @shakeel wrote:

    If, we can place an embargo on Icelandic assets and bring legal proceedings agaionst them under terrorism, Yes you read it correctly. Why cant we to the same to Spain. I for one cannot beleive that Britain in this instance cannot do anything. Its a typical foreign office response by incompetant & over paid lot.

    Hold on, although I agree with you in the principle, the law used against Iceland was a security law, to be used against organised crime and money laundering. It wasn’t just an anti-terrorist law. Iceland is a Mafia controlled state, its not a terrorist one and the UK did NOT use anti-terror laws against it.

  • #104051
    Profile photo of peterhun
    peterhun
    Participant

    @shakeel wrote:

    If, we can place an embargo on Icelandic assets and bring legal proceedings agaionst them under terrorism, Yes you read it correctly. Why cant we to the same to Spain. I for one cannot beleive that Britain in this instance cannot do anything. Its a typical foreign office response by incompetant & over paid lot.

    Hold on, although I agree with you in the principle, the law used against Iceland was a security law, to be used against organised crime and money laundering. It wasn’t just an anti-terrorist law. Iceland is a Mafia controlled state, its not a terrorist one and the UK did NOT use anti-terror laws against it.

  • #104254
    Profile photo of Anonymous
    Anonymous
    Participant

    quote= Iceland is a Mafia controlled state, its not a terrorist one and the UK did NOT use anti-terror laws against it.[/quote]

    What an insulting statement!

    The Icelandic population, in a free vote, decided rightly or wrongly, that they don’t want to pay for the mistakes & behaviour of a private business.

    The people who should be paying for that fiasco are the people running our councils & charities who through GREED decided that the returns on offer were believable.

    I’m not a customer of The Royal Bank of Scotland but I’m paying (like every-one in the UK) for the criminal way that bank was run, & the people responsible for that are sitting very happily on their massive pensions & pay offs.

  • #104054
    Profile photo of Anonymous
    Anonymous
    Participant

    quote= Iceland is a Mafia controlled state, its not a terrorist one and the UK did NOT use anti-terror laws against it.[/quote]

    What an insulting statement!

    The Icelandic population, in a free vote, decided rightly or wrongly, that they don’t want to pay for the mistakes & behaviour of a private business.

    The people who should be paying for that fiasco are the people running our councils & charities who through GREED decided that the returns on offer were believable.

    I’m not a customer of The Royal Bank of Scotland but I’m paying (like every-one in the UK) for the criminal way that bank was run, & the people responsible for that are sitting very happily on their massive pensions & pay offs.

  • #104255
    Profile photo of logan
    logan
    Participant

    Sorry for going off topic. But:
    ‘Mafia controlled state’ is just plain wrong Peter. I understand your point about the legislation the UK used, however what happened in Iceland also happened in Ireland, Spain and UK.
    Deregulation of their financial systems allowed risk taking to run out of control. The banks leveraged themselves on world markets to gamble. They lost.
    The mess left behind in Iceland will take generations to clean up. Their government has acted in and open democratic manner.
    I don’t agree with the vote not to repay the money they owe. However they will have no choice eventually.
    Mafia State? No.

  • #104055
    Profile photo of logan
    logan
    Participant

    Sorry for going off topic. But:
    ‘Mafia controlled state’ is just plain wrong Peter. I understand your point about the legislation the UK used, however what happened in Iceland also happened in Ireland, Spain and UK.
    Deregulation of their financial systems allowed risk taking to run out of control. The banks leveraged themselves on world markets to gamble. They lost.
    The mess left behind in Iceland will take generations to clean up. Their government has acted in and open democratic manner.
    I don’t agree with the vote not to repay the money they owe. However they will have no choice eventually.
    Mafia State? No.

  • #104256
    Profile photo of Anonymous
    Anonymous
    Participant

    Peterhun. I sugguest you check it out. Britian did bring a charge under terrorism Law. Iceland as a state is no more or less involved in it as another State, including Britian. Further if Iceland is a Mafia controlled Country. Who do you think Spain is run by ????.

  • #104056
    Profile photo of Anonymous
    Anonymous
    Participant

    Peterhun. I sugguest you check it out. Britian did bring a charge under terrorism Law. Iceland as a state is no more or less involved in it as another State, including Britian. Further if Iceland is a Mafia controlled Country. Who do you think Spain is run by ????.

  • #104265
    Profile photo of kgpoc
    kgpoc
    Participant

    Peterhun – you are dead right. That was a mafia move!

    A bank takes 10 Euros from a local, then 10 Euros from a foreigner when it hits choppy water, the government steps in and say we will only guarantee 10 Euros to pay back, lets ask the locals to vote on who we pay back! Now in the poor Priors scenario, seeing what the Spanish government did, how different do you think the outcome would be if they took it too a referendum vote? The outcome would be the same and even more British/foreigner would loose houses. And from what I can tell, many people on here would be fine as long as it was taken to a vote.

    ‘Democratic societies’, do not get to vote on illegal moves (don’t say right or wrong, it’s illegal). What occurred was a majority rule, there is a big difference. Examples are numerous but an easy one that comes to mind; you cannot vote on anything gay, you know that the majority vote would say (I mean nothing by this nor bear ill will, it is just an example). In democratic societies there are high courts/judges that determine if what you did was illegal, and seeing as no one stepped in to give Iceland a rule check – I would classify that as no better than a mafioso scenario.

  • #104065
    Profile photo of kgpoc
    kgpoc
    Participant

    Peterhun – you are dead right. That was a mafia move!

    A bank takes 10 Euros from a local, then 10 Euros from a foreigner when it hits choppy water, the government steps in and say we will only guarantee 10 Euros to pay back, lets ask the locals to vote on who we pay back! Now in the poor Priors scenario, seeing what the Spanish government did, how different do you think the outcome would be if they took it too a referendum vote? The outcome would be the same and even more British/foreigner would loose houses. And from what I can tell, many people on here would be fine as long as it was taken to a vote.

    ‘Democratic societies’, do not get to vote on illegal moves (don’t say right or wrong, it’s illegal). What occurred was a majority rule, there is a big difference. Examples are numerous but an easy one that comes to mind; you cannot vote on anything gay, you know that the majority vote would say (I mean nothing by this nor bear ill will, it is just an example). In democratic societies there are high courts/judges that determine if what you did was illegal, and seeing as no one stepped in to give Iceland a rule check – I would classify that as no better than a mafioso scenario.

  • #104268
    Profile photo of logan
    logan
    Participant

    The Icelandic parliament voted to approve a plan to make repayments over time to UK and Holland.
    The deal was reached in December after long negotiations and approved by Iceland’s parliament in January but vetoed by President Olafur Ragnar Grisson amid strong public opposition.
    When there is opposition in such strength among the population a referendum in Iceland is a usual method to seek confirmation of the parliaments decisions.
    How can that not be anything but democratic? Mafioso, I don’t think so.
    In any case the President has said the money must be repaid if they ever want to be part of the EU which they do.

  • #104068
    Profile photo of logan
    logan
    Participant

    The Icelandic parliament voted to approve a plan to make repayments over time to UK and Holland.
    The deal was reached in December after long negotiations and approved by Iceland’s parliament in January but vetoed by President Olafur Ragnar Grisson amid strong public opposition.
    When there is opposition in such strength among the population a referendum in Iceland is a usual method to seek confirmation of the parliaments decisions.
    How can that not be anything but democratic? Mafioso, I don’t think so.
    In any case the President has said the money must be repaid if they ever want to be part of the EU which they do.

  • #104269
    Profile photo of kgpoc
    kgpoc
    Participant

    Come on people 🙂 majority rule is not democracy, don’t confuse them.

    If I managed to get a referendum, that for which every person who has a mortgage can take away the terms of a mortgage and just give the bank a verbal promise that at some point in the future I will give them back the principle – how do you think people would vote? With the resounding YES vote, somehow I do not think I would be hailed as a great democratic leader. I would be a cheat!

    I am with most of you on many of these topics but what you are agreeing to is so dangerous! Especially seeing as we live in Spain with strange land laws. If you give Spanish people the vote to get their best lands back from foreign investors for free (or free lease to be returned back to you when it suits them), you know which way the vote will go. Heaven help us!

  • #104069
    Profile photo of kgpoc
    kgpoc
    Participant

    Come on people 🙂 majority rule is not democracy, don’t confuse them.

    If I managed to get a referendum, that for which every person who has a mortgage can take away the terms of a mortgage and just give the bank a verbal promise that at some point in the future I will give them back the principle – how do you think people would vote? With the resounding YES vote, somehow I do not think I would be hailed as a great democratic leader. I would be a cheat!

    I am with most of you on many of these topics but what you are agreeing to is so dangerous! Especially seeing as we live in Spain with strange land laws. If you give Spanish people the vote to get their best lands back from foreign investors for free (or free lease to be returned back to you when it suits them), you know which way the vote will go. Heaven help us!

  • #104270
    Profile photo of logan
    logan
    Participant

    Iceland is a sovereign nation with it’s own set of laws and political system. The laws of the UK and Holland do not apply.
    http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2010/04/28/icelandic-president-to-lose-referendum-power/
    You will see from that link that the President of Iceland has the power to over rule Parliament. He is the final political arbiter not the law. In the UK and most other countries the law rules parliament and it’s decisions.
    So from that point of view I agree the Presidents power could be considered undemocratic.
    However in Europe a choice by the people by referendum vote is considered a superior form of democracy and as such carries more weight than law providing the referendum was a legal one.
    Switzerland for example use them all the time.
    Your example of voting against homosexuals for could never be considered legal, likewise the land deals you also mention. It would be blocked by legal injunction.
    In this instance the people of Iceland exercised their democratic choice within the countries own procedures and rule of law.
    I regret I just don’t understand your point when you say this particular referendum is undemocratic or the state of Iceland being Mafioso. 🙁

  • #104070
    Profile photo of logan
    logan
    Participant

    Iceland is a sovereign nation with it’s own set of laws and political system. The laws of the UK and Holland do not apply.
    http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2010/04/28/icelandic-president-to-lose-referendum-power/
    You will see from that link that the President of Iceland has the power to over rule Parliament. He is the final political arbiter not the law. In the UK and most other countries the law rules parliament and it’s decisions.
    So from that point of view I agree the Presidents power could be considered undemocratic.
    However in Europe a choice by the people by referendum vote is considered a superior form of democracy and as such carries more weight than law providing the referendum was a legal one.
    Switzerland for example use them all the time.
    Your example of voting against homosexuals for could never be considered legal, likewise the land deals you also mention. It would be blocked by legal injunction.
    In this instance the people of Iceland exercised their democratic choice within the countries own procedures and rule of law.
    I regret I just don’t understand your point when you say this particular referendum is undemocratic or the state of Iceland being Mafioso. 🙁

  • #104272
    Profile photo of Anonymous
    Anonymous
    Participant

    No system is perfect. The system is designed to suit the inhabitants of the Country y punto.

  • #104072
    Profile photo of Anonymous
    Anonymous
    Participant

    No system is perfect. The system is designed to suit the inhabitants of the Country y punto.

  • #104276
    Profile photo of peterhun
    peterhun
    Participant

    @rob6578 wrote:

    What an insulting statement!

    The UK used part 2 of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, its not an anti-terror law only, that was specifically debated when the law was amended. It can be used against organisations as well as governments, that are acting against the UK’s interests. The UK officially classified the Icelandic banks as quasi-governmental institutions as the were so interrelated.

    Have you read the Icelandic banking report into the crisis? Its a shocking report on systemic, organised criminal activity. The Banks were ‘privatised’ by the government by the act of being giving to friends of the Party. One loyal Party member was give a multi billion loan by the bank he was buying, to buy the bank. He never paid anything, interest or repayment of capital, and he received several billions in dividends. Last time I heard, he’s demanding this loan be written down as the bank is bankrupt. All the banks gave loans (cancelled) to their cronies, employees and Party members to buy share in each others banks to ramp the share price (SFA in London is dealing with this). They even gave hugh loans to children. The Icelandic government was also shafted very blatantly, a 500million load to shore up one bank was stolen by one of the bank owners off shore account.

    Virtually all of the Icelandic government were in the pay of the banks, from the Icelandic President (Publicity spokesman) to the lower levels of MP’s. The biggest ‘loan’ to the speaker of the house was ten million euro’s working down to a million euro’s to lower MP’s. The media owners were give massive loans as were academics who may have spoken out. Anybody and everybody was give a share of the loot if it would keep them quiet and happy. 60% of Icelandic GDP was in some way related to the financial services industry pre-Krappa. The Icelandic state conspire to lie to foreign bank regulators over the capitalisation and actions of its banks. In Holland the Icelandic regulator, after demanding and threatening for access to NL savers, lied to the Dutch authorities about the amount of savers funds they would steal (they doubled the amount) and failed to act on a promise to ensure the depositor protection scheme was fully funded.

    When the Icelandic government launched Icesave , they came to London and met City analysts. They told the the head of the CBI (central Bank of Iceland) to his face that Icesave would not save the banks (which were insolvent from about 2006) as deposits were not assets but a liability – they HAD to be repaid on demand. The Icelandic Finance Minister then public stated that Icesave was a safe place for English depositors becuase it was guaranteed by Iceland and then the Nordic states. When such a high level minister states that the deposits are GUARANTEED you can take that as a commitment by Iceland. However, Iceland decided to redefine the word to exclude anyone who wasn’t Icelandic.

    @rob6578 wrote:

    The Icelandic population, in a free vote, decided rightly or wrongly, that they don’t want to pay for the mistakes & behaviour of a private business.

    They voted against paying for foreigners debts. Icelandic depositors accounts were protected. Iceland has bailed out several small banks and financial companies, with public money since they Landisbanki crashed. There has been no a murmur of complaint from Icelanders. Iceland is in the EEA, and as such has to treat all EU citizens equally, the is why the EFTA SA is bringing a prosecution against Iceland, becuase they protected Icelanders over and above other nationalities. Another issue will be the retrospective changing of laws to change the treatment of depositors in the banks to give preference to Icelandic interests over foreign bond holders.

  • #104076
    Profile photo of peterhun
    peterhun
    Participant

    @rob6578 wrote:

    What an insulting statement!

    The UK used part 2 of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, its not an anti-terror law only, that was specifically debated when the law was amended. It can be used against organisations as well as governments, that are acting against the UK’s interests. The UK officially classified the Icelandic banks as quasi-governmental institutions as the were so interrelated.

    Have you read the Icelandic banking report into the crisis? Its a shocking report on systemic, organised criminal activity. The Banks were ‘privatised’ by the government by the act of being giving to friends of the Party. One loyal Party member was give a multi billion loan by the bank he was buying, to buy the bank. He never paid anything, interest or repayment of capital, and he received several billions in dividends. Last time I heard, he’s demanding this loan be written down as the bank is bankrupt. All the banks gave loans (cancelled) to their cronies, employees and Party members to buy share in each others banks to ramp the share price (SFA in London is dealing with this). They even gave hugh loans to children. The Icelandic government was also shafted very blatantly, a 500million load to shore up one bank was stolen by one of the bank owners off shore account.

    Virtually all of the Icelandic government were in the pay of the banks, from the Icelandic President (Publicity spokesman) to the lower levels of MP’s. The biggest ‘loan’ to the speaker of the house was ten million euro’s working down to a million euro’s to lower MP’s. The media owners were give massive loans as were academics who may have spoken out. Anybody and everybody was give a share of the loot if it would keep them quiet and happy. 60% of Icelandic GDP was in some way related to the financial services industry pre-Krappa. The Icelandic state conspire to lie to foreign bank regulators over the capitalisation and actions of its banks. In Holland the Icelandic regulator, after demanding and threatening for access to NL savers, lied to the Dutch authorities about the amount of savers funds they would steal (they doubled the amount) and failed to act on a promise to ensure the depositor protection scheme was fully funded.

    When the Icelandic government launched Icesave , they came to London and met City analysts. They told the the head of the CBI (central Bank of Iceland) to his face that Icesave would not save the banks (which were insolvent from about 2006) as deposits were not assets but a liability – they HAD to be repaid on demand. The Icelandic Finance Minister then public stated that Icesave was a safe place for English depositors becuase it was guaranteed by Iceland and then the Nordic states. When such a high level minister states that the deposits are GUARANTEED you can take that as a commitment by Iceland. However, Iceland decided to redefine the word to exclude anyone who wasn’t Icelandic.

    @rob6578 wrote:

    The Icelandic population, in a free vote, decided rightly or wrongly, that they don’t want to pay for the mistakes & behaviour of a private business.

    They voted against paying for foreigners debts. Icelandic depositors accounts were protected. Iceland has bailed out several small banks and financial companies, with public money since they Landisbanki crashed. There has been no a murmur of complaint from Icelanders. Iceland is in the EEA, and as such has to treat all EU citizens equally, the is why the EFTA SA is bringing a prosecution against Iceland, becuase they protected Icelanders over and above other nationalities. Another issue will be the retrospective changing of laws to change the treatment of depositors in the banks to give preference to Icelandic interests over foreign bond holders.

  • #104277
    Profile photo of peterhun
    peterhun
    Participant

    @logan wrote:

    Iceland is a sovereign nation with it’s own set of laws and political system. The laws of the UK and Holland do not apply.

    Laws of Iceland apply within Iceland. However, the Laws of the EEA are enforced by the European Free Trade Association Surveillance Authority (EFTA SA). Iceland, as a state signed up to the EEA and in doing so accepted all EU laws (with certain exceptions, such as agriculture) in their entirety.

    The EFTA SA will present its case to three EEA judges (Norway, Lichtenstein and Iceland) who will rule on the depositor protection law.

    The case presented by the EFTA SA look pretty solid. Icelanders have being trying to persuade themselves that the directive has not been tested in court. Well it has so there is precedent.

    There is also another thing that will come back to bite Iceland. It protected its depositors 100%, if the EEA court judges that equality should apply, Iceland could be liable for the entire 100% protection it gave to its own citizens, thereby doubling the debt to 8billion, plus adding damages. Incidentally, Icesave is represents 5% of the overall cost cost of the Iceland bailing out its banks, its nothing compared to the other liabilities they have accepted.

  • #104077
    Profile photo of peterhun
    peterhun
    Participant

    @logan wrote:

    Iceland is a sovereign nation with it’s own set of laws and political system. The laws of the UK and Holland do not apply.

    Laws of Iceland apply within Iceland. However, the Laws of the EEA are enforced by the European Free Trade Association Surveillance Authority (EFTA SA). Iceland, as a state signed up to the EEA and in doing so accepted all EU laws (with certain exceptions, such as agriculture) in their entirety.

    The EFTA SA will present its case to three EEA judges (Norway, Lichtenstein and Iceland) who will rule on the depositor protection law.

    The case presented by the EFTA SA look pretty solid. Icelanders have being trying to persuade themselves that the directive has not been tested in court. Well it has so there is precedent.

    There is also another thing that will come back to bite Iceland. It protected its depositors 100%, if the EEA court judges that equality should apply, Iceland could be liable for the entire 100% protection it gave to its own citizens, thereby doubling the debt to 8billion, plus adding damages. Incidentally, Icesave is represents 5% of the overall cost cost of the Iceland bailing out its banks, its nothing compared to the other liabilities they have accepted.

  • #104278
    Profile photo of logan
    logan
    Participant

    @peterhun wrote:

    Laws of Iceland apply within Iceland. However, the Laws of the EEA are enforced by the European Free Trade Association Surveillance Authority (EFTA SA). Iceland, as a state signed up to the EEA and in doing so accepted all EU laws (with certain exceptions, such as agriculture) in their entirety.
    .

    I accept that holding the referendum in principal was immoral and Iceland should pay it’s liabilities. The issue I had was one of democracy and public opinion. That should never have any conflict with law. The Icelandic parliament recognised that. The President was completely wrong to override it’s decision.
    The case brought by the EFTA SA will no doubt succeed. However given the current climate Iceland will probably ignore it’s verdict and rulings on the grounds that Icelanders have voted by majority not to pay up.
    I can then see a collision between the country and the EU Commission which may well see Iceland expelled from the EFT costing the country far more.
    That said it will probably then come down to a classic EU compromise of some sort.
    Iceland wants EU membership so it’s plain they will have to pay up in one form or another, sooner or very much later.

  • #104078
    Profile photo of logan
    logan
    Participant

    @peterhun wrote:

    Laws of Iceland apply within Iceland. However, the Laws of the EEA are enforced by the European Free Trade Association Surveillance Authority (EFTA SA). Iceland, as a state signed up to the EEA and in doing so accepted all EU laws (with certain exceptions, such as agriculture) in their entirety.
    .

    I accept that holding the referendum in principal was immoral and Iceland should pay it’s liabilities. The issue I had was one of democracy and public opinion. That should never have any conflict with law. The Icelandic parliament recognised that. The President was completely wrong to override it’s decision.
    The case brought by the EFTA SA will no doubt succeed. However given the current climate Iceland will probably ignore it’s verdict and rulings on the grounds that Icelanders have voted by majority not to pay up.
    I can then see a collision between the country and the EU Commission which may well see Iceland expelled from the EFT costing the country far more.
    That said it will probably then come down to a classic EU compromise of some sort.
    Iceland wants EU membership so it’s plain they will have to pay up in one form or another, sooner or very much later.

  • #104279
    Profile photo of peterhun
    peterhun
    Participant

    “However given the current climate Iceland will probably ignore it’s verdict and rulings on the grounds that Icelanders have voted by majority not to pay up.”

    We can live with that. Once Iceland is out of the EFTA the EU can slap import duty on its exports – Fish and Aluminium, and revoke the work permits of Icelanders working in the EU. Actually, I doubt that will happen; the thought of being kicked out of the EFTA terrifies even the most anti-EU Icelanders, its would be a disaster.

    “Iceland wants EU membership so it’s plain they will have to pay up in one form or another, sooner or very much later.”
    No, large majority of the population is against it now (they realize Euro membership is a decade away).

  • #104079
    Profile photo of peterhun
    peterhun
    Participant

    “However given the current climate Iceland will probably ignore it’s verdict and rulings on the grounds that Icelanders have voted by majority not to pay up.”

    We can live with that. Once Iceland is out of the EFTA the EU can slap import duty on its exports – Fish and Aluminium, and revoke the work permits of Icelanders working in the EU. Actually, I doubt that will happen; the thought of being kicked out of the EFTA terrifies even the most anti-EU Icelanders, its would be a disaster.

    “Iceland wants EU membership so it’s plain they will have to pay up in one form or another, sooner or very much later.”
    No, large majority of the population is against it now (they realize Euro membership is a decade away).

  • #104284
    Profile photo of adiep
    adiep
    Participant

    @mark wrote:

    Taken from this new section of the Telegraph online. Not very good news for Spain.

    Well… Its good news for Spain if the result of these campaigns clears up the blackholes of corruption and crookedness that we see right now.

  • #104084
    Profile photo of adiep
    adiep
    Participant

    @mark wrote:

    Taken from this new section of the Telegraph online. Not very good news for Spain.

    Well… Its good news for Spain if the result of these campaigns clears up the blackholes of corruption and crookedness that we see right now.

  • #104286
    Profile photo of Anonymous
    Anonymous
    Participant

    I still think it’s wrong that the icelanders should take the blame for what some of their banks did in other countries. Slavery in it’s finest form if you ask me.

  • #104086
    Profile photo of Anonymous
    Anonymous
    Participant

    I still think it’s wrong that the icelanders should take the blame for what some of their banks did in other countries. Slavery in it’s finest form if you ask me.

  • #104287
    Profile photo of peterhun
    peterhun
    Participant

    So you think UL/NL taxpayers should pay for the crimes of Icelandic banks and their government instead?

  • #104087
    Profile photo of peterhun
    peterhun
    Participant

    So you think UL/NL taxpayers should pay for the crimes of Icelandic banks and their government instead?

  • #104291
    Profile photo of Anonymous
    Anonymous
    Participant

    @peterhun wrote:

    So you think UL/NL taxpayers should pay for the crimes of Icelandic banks and their government instead?

    Hard to say. Depends on how the treaties look like and if the icelanders had something to benefit from them.

    Take Argentina for example that basicly just nullified their foreign debt just because the debt in itself had no benefit to the Argentinian people from the start. The loans where just a scheme to steal from the Argentine people from the get go.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentine_debt_restructuring

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJbABYQ_pGY “Must see documentary, can be applied to most of the third world countries also”.

    I my opinion a people can never be held accountable if their “rulers” have signed treaties that never benefited them in the first place. What Argentine did was in my eyes completely ok.

  • #104091
    Profile photo of Anonymous
    Anonymous
    Participant

    @peterhun wrote:

    So you think UL/NL taxpayers should pay for the crimes of Icelandic banks and their government instead?

    Hard to say. Depends on how the treaties look like and if the icelanders had something to benefit from them.

    Take Argentina for example that basicly just nullified their foreign debt just because the debt in itself had no benefit to the Argentinian people from the start. The loans where just a scheme to steal from the Argentine people from the get go.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentine_debt_restructuring

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJbABYQ_pGY “Must see documentary, can be applied to most of the third world countries also”.

    I my opinion a people can never be held accountable if their “rulers” have signed treaties that never benefited them in the first place. What Argentine did was in my eyes completely ok.

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.