> Iceland refused to make depositors whole
As I recall it, the 340,000 people of Iceland had no chance in hell of covering the enormous amounts even if they wanted to.
As I recall it, the 340,000 people of Iceland had no chance in hell of covering the enormous amounts even if they wanted to.
Why not? Shouldn't Icelandic law protect Icelandic residents?
So it’s good to protect Icelandic residents. But the law is inefficient if it allows too much capital that it can’t be managed and insured.
> it’s illegal to murder someone regardless of the perpetrator or victim’s nationality
You're mixing up two things: whether the law as it exists was violated (in which case Icesave should of course be punished) and whether the law SHOULD protect foreign depositors. I'm discussing the latter.
> bank insurance applies regardless of nationality
I'm not well-versed in cross-border banking to say the least, but isn't that an opinion? One could just as well argue that Icelandic taxpayers shouldn't have to subsidise the British (as an example) public, by providing free insurance. If Britishers want insurance, it's up to their government to incur the costs, since it's the Britishers who'll be benefiting.
Iceland is in the Schengen Area, and the EEA, but not the EU or Eurozone
but for real, country names would be helpful too
Probably other changes too.
They once applied for membership after the financial crisis but it didn't go through; currently most citizens are opposed to the idea.
Becoming a full EU member would require them to accept the EU's fishing limitations, potentially hurting their economy. There are also other factors involved:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iceland%E2%80%93European_Union...