Icelandic Prime Minister Resigns After Panama Data Leak (bloomberg.com)

Omar Valdimarsson, reporting for Bloomberg: The Panama secrecy leak claimed its first scalp after Icelandic Prime Minister Sigmundur David Gunnlaugsson resigned following revelations about his personal finances. The decision was announced in parliament after the legislature had been the focus of street protests that attracted thousands of Icelanders angered by the alleged tax evasion of their leader. Gunnlaugsson, who will step down a year before his term was due to end, gave in to mounting pressure from the opposition and even from corners of his own party. The Panama documents leak, printed in newspapers around the world, showed that the 41-year-old premier and his wife had investments placed in the British Virgin Islands, which included debt in Iceland's three failed banks. An article on The Guardian sheds more light on this: The leaked documents from the Mossack Fonseca law firm show Gunnlaugsson and his wife, Anna Sigurlaug Palsdottir, bought a British Virgin Islands-based offshore company, Wintris Inc, in December 2007 to invest her share of the proceeds of the sale of her father's business, Iceland's only Toyota importer. Gunnlaugsson sold his 50% stake to his wife for a symbolic $1 at the end of 2009, eight months after he was elected to parliament as an MP for the centre-right Progressive party. He failed, however, to declare an interest in the company either then or when he became prime minister in 2013. His office has said his shareholding was an error due simply to the couple having a joint bank account and that it had "always been clear to both of them that the prime minister's wife owned the assets." The transfer of ownership was made as soon as this was pointed out, a spokesman said. The prime minister denies he was required to declare an interest.

Comments

wow, they have a real accountable democracy

[liquid_schwartz]

Kinda cold for me and I'm not a huge pickled fish eater but otherwise they always sound great.

Re:wow, they have a real accountable democracy

[Archangel Michael]

The difference between a "joint checking" and separated accounts is merely a formality and not one of any real significance. Pretending it is enough separation is functionally idiotic.

Re:wow, they have a real accountable democracy

[quintessencesluglord]

Keep in mind this is the same country that allowed banks to fail and threw the bankers responsible in jail during the 2008 crisis. Everyone predicted their economy would implode, but actually recovered more quickly than several other European countries.

I imagine the sting from that has made them more wary of even a hint of corruption, which is oddly starting to reverberate through the US after TARP, TPP, and now no real recovery in sight.

Re:wow, they have a real accountable democracy

[Rei]

That is not in the slightest the issue.

First off, this government's popularity has gone totally down the drain because of their continued efforts to enrich themselves and their friends at the expense of the nation (selling off bank assets in no-bid auctions at a tiny fraction of their value to family members of government officials, fighting to get Iceland expanded fishing quotas and then just handing them off to the fishing barons, etc), their continuous attempts to stifle press freedom, and countless other things. The prime minister's, before this incident, was in polls the choice of only 12% of the electorate. This is just the latest outrage in a long string of them.

Now, for the actual issue. Simmi and his wealthy wife, back before the financial crash, set up an offshore shell company to secretly buy shares in the three large Icelandic banks that turned out, one year later, to go catastrophically belly-up. Now the two of them (50-50 owners in the company) were creditors, scrambling with the other creditors over the right to the remains of the banks. They were what we refer to as "vultures". But this was in secret.

Then Simmi ran for office as the head of Framsóknarflokkurinn (Progress Party), a right-populist party (some might call it the "Idiot Party", as they run every year on some variant of "We're going to give you TONS OF MONEY, and nobody's going to have to pay for it, not EVERS!"). His big thing was that he was part of a group fighting against the wicked vultures trying to pick Iceland dry. When in actuality, of course, he was a vulture.

We haven't gotten to the problem part yet.

Because then he was elected. And the regulations (beyond general conflict of interest) are that if you own more than a 25% stake in an investment company, you have to disclose it. He was prime minister for months before he did anything. And that "doing something" was not to disclose his secret holdings, but to sell them to his wife for $1 (which still didn't remove the conflict of interest).

Still not to the problem part.

Because as the head of the government, he then pursued policies to get 2B euro of money that otherwise would have gone to the state to instead go to the creditors. "The creditors" including his wife and other secret accounts owned by other members of the governing coalition.

Basically, he robbed the country to make up for his investment losses.

Furthermore, people, stop the whoop-di-doo about his resignation. Because he's just stepping back to running the party behind the scenes while one of his ministers is taking over. The governing coalition isn't leaving. Actually Simmi reportedly tried to break the coalition, but the president wouldn't let him. Now he says that the president is lying about that, that he never planned to break it.

Re:wow, they have a real accountable democracy

[Lumpy]

It's because the people predicting that were rich assholes that did not want their fake investments to fizzle. All banks should have been allowed to collapse or better yet, given the corporate death penalty around the world.

But then I also thought that propping up GM was stupid.

Re:wow, they have a real accountable democracy

[MightyMartian]

Describing an off shore account in a tax shelter as a "checking account" is like describing an industrial electromagnet as a "fridge magnet".

Re:wow, they have a real accountable democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

It's becoming clear now that by the end of the year Trump will have become President-Elect Trump, and early next year he will be President Trump.

Although he has been extensively vilified by the media and the political establishment, he is the one who the people of America have chosen.

The part that really scares the political elite is how he has managed to cross existing political boundaries.

He appeals to those on the right. He appeals to centrists. He even appeals to many of those on the left.

His stance on immigration actually wins him a lot of support within the legal immigrant communities, because they're the ones who are wronged and punished the most when illegal aliens are given amnesty, despite having avoided the legal immigration process.

His stance on the economy is also correct, as the free trade experiments of the past quarter century have been a disaster, and the American public knows this all too well.

Out of all of the political candidates that we've seen not only in this election, but in every election going back decades, Trump is the first one to be a real leader with truly progressive ideas.

Trump is exactly the leader that America needs, at exactly the right time to restore America to greatness.

Re:wow, they have a real accountable democracy

[Rei]

Pickled fish isn't widely eaten here. A commonly eaten thing you're not used to is harðfiskur, which is basically fish jerky. But most food here is pretty standard western fare...probably the most commonly eaten food here is pizza.

Now, if you want weird stuff, we've got no shortage of options! Want rotten ammonia-reeking poisonous shark? You can have it with some fermented whale and sheep head if you'd like....

Re:wow, they have a real accountable democracy

[ScentCone]

He's the one that got rid of the assets in question as he entered office. His wife took over those accounts. I'm not the one pointing out that the dangling legal connection between him and those assets are a joint checking account, it's the article you didn't bother to read that explains that.

Re:wow, they have a real accountable democracy

[ScentCone]

That's exactly why straightforward democracy is almost always a bad idea

Yeah, sucks to have Trump as your figurehead, eh?

What are you talking about? We're not even through the primary process yet, and he doesn't have (and quite possibly will not get) enough of his party's votes to assure him that he will be the party's nominee. How a private organization like a political party runs its own affairs - with regard to putting forward a candidate in an actual general election - has nothing whatsoever to do with the charter of the country or one's position on pure democracy vs. constitutional republicanism etc. It's a private association! It's no different than the local Chevy Vega Fan Club deciding how they'll name and elect someone to be at the head of their own club. That's why the process that Hillary Clinton is banking on looks so different ... because the private association she's associated herself with (the Democrat party) has a different set of internal rules when it comes to putting their collective weight behind a candidate. Just like the Greens have their own way of doing it.

How is it you're so poorly informed about this? Please don't do anything dangerous to the rest of us, like voting in the general election.

Re:wow, they have a real accountable democracy

[MightyMartian]

He sold the asset in question to his wife for one dollar, and the mere fact that his wife still held that asset as he was assuring that funds intended to shore up Icelandic banks was instead redirected to creditors pretty much makes this a case of out and out corruption. You can't just get rid of a conflict of interest by selling your assets to your spouse, particularly when the actual sale was for such a nominal fee that it raises the question as to whether it was even a legitimate transfer.

Re:wow, they have a real accountable democracy

[Bob the Super Hamste]

Want rotten ammonia-reeking poisonous shark? You can have it with some fermented whale and sheep head if you'd like....

Proof that people in Iceland are descendants of vikings. Seriously what is wrong with my ancestors where they thought that would taste good. I still remember the smell every Christmas at my grandparent's house when my grandfather made that.

Re:wow, they have a real accountable democracy

[MightyMartian]

Trump won't get the nod. Even if they have to bring in Romney as an attempted at a controlled landing (as opposed to a complete crash), they won't let Trump on the ballot.

The GOP knows it won't win the White House in November. That ship has sailed with Cruz and Trump as the leading contenders. Now it's about preserving the party against the inevitable Trump/anti-Trump wars that will follow Trump's departure.

For fuck's sake, even Sanders would beat Trump.

Re:wow, they have a real accountable democracy

[MightyMartian]

Exactly. I can't think of any jurisdiction, at least in the West, where selling your holdings to your spouse for a dollar somehow means the conflict of interest goes away. This is the kind of idiotic scam someone about to go bankrupt would try, and with the same result. Handing it over to your spouse doesn't make the conflict go away.

Re:wow, they have a real accountable democracy

[ScentCone]

NOW what are you talking about? Which specific facts (about the structure of the government, and about the nature of political parties as private groups) am I in any way spinning? Be specific. People who don't understand how that all works really shouldn't vote, because they probably also misunderstand a lot of other very important things.

Re:wow, they have a real accountable democracy

[GodelEscherBlecch]

Yeah, the mention of a minor clerical mistake was enough to give him instant flop sweats and run out of an interview, as opposed to casually explaining it as the simple matter that it was. Do you see how silly that sounds?

Re:wow, they have a real accountable democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't just get rid of a conflict of interest by selling your assets to your spouse, particularly when the actual sale was for such a nominal fee that it raises the question as to whether it was even a legitimate transfer.

There are lots of company sales for nominal fees since there is a balance of expected winnings and losses after change of ownership. Of course, such sales are also done in order to change the balance of expected winnings and losses, like when pension rights go out the window in such a sale. Which is dirty pool but possibly legal.

However, in this case, the expected balance was positive, and positive due to his political position. The "sale" serves no function other than obfuscation here. That may still make it legitimate.

If we take a look at the total of sums manipulated in this manner to the detriment of diverse populaces, it's pretty clear that this warrants legislation outruling such misbehavior. The legislation will be drawn up by those people who need to get reined in the most, so particularly in situations where the main law makers are lobbyists (like the European Commission), don't expect anything useful in reasonable amounts of time.

Re:wow, they have a real accountable democracy

[MightyMartian]

I can't speak for Iceland, but in many common law jurisdictions you cannot claim that you have divested yourself of an asset if you sell it to a spouse or other close family member, and even transactions between more distantly related people, or people not related by blood at all, can be called into question where the transfer involved a transaction whose amount was only a fraction of the possible value of the asset.

Even beyond that, however, is a critical notion in dealing with conflicts of interest, and that is degree of separation. In many jurisdictions, politicians are required to put any assets that would create a conflict into a blind trust, but I cannot imagine any circumstance under which selling your assets to your wife for a nominal fee would create the necessary degree of separation to be considered a blind trust. The PM was clearly still a beneficiary of any funds handed to creditors of the banks in question, and the whole "sale of assets" looks like nothing more than a self-serving attempt to hide the fact that he still had significant financial interests at stake, even as he was in a position to create policies and make agreements that would materially alter his financial situation.

In other words, this was a conflict of interest, and so far as I can see, considering he was in a position to enlarge his wife's (and really, his) financial holdings, nothing more than a series of corrupt acts. If all that happens out of this is his departure from power, he's probably lucky, because I imagine in many jurisdictions a case could be made for criminal charges.

Re:wow, they have a real accountable democracy

[Rei]

Lóan er komin?

Re:wow, they have a real accountable democracy

[phantomfive]

Metaphorically, or in real life? lol

Re:wow, they have a real accountable democracy

[MightyMartian]

Tax shelters have probably been around forever. They are more sophisticated these days simply because financial systems are more complex, and reporting requirements far greater than they were in the past. Like any scam, tax dodges have to invoke more and more misdirection as investigators gain better powers.

There is a case to be made, however, that these tax shelters are a symptom of the rule makers working in their own self-interest, and creating taxation rules that benefit them. And that's why leaks like this are so important, because in the case of systemic fraud, about the only way you close the holes is by generating a lot of outrage.

Look at Switzerland, whose banking industry was notorious for decades for helping everyone from despots to drug cartels hide cash. For chrissake, even the Nzis were stowing gold they'd stolen from the Jews they were marching off to the gas chambers in Swiss banks. It was only after sustained pressure from international agencies and governments like the US that Switzerland finally began to close the loopholes. And it wouldn't surprise if that's why these tax shelters have become more popular. As the older means of hiding your cash from the taxman (or in some cases, the police) dried up, more sophisticated rackets were formulated.

For me, as bad as it is that rich and powerful people are doing this, the real target here should be the bankers, lawyers and accountants of dozens of countries who set up these schemes. While it will doubtless please the mob that a few politicians and international types fall over this, I'd like to see murky investment scheme organizations like Mossack Fonseca & Co. torn wide open. Otherwise, the people that create these dodges and shelters will just regroup and build some new schemes.

Re:wow, they have a real accountable democracy

[tnk1]

As much as I would like to believe he won't get the nod, the reality is that they will run Trump if he gets enough votes. He's got too many votes to ignore him. The only chance they have is if every single other delegate and important member of the party gets behind one already serious candidate (realistically, only Cruz meets the criteria) and try to upset the convention.

A candidate that comes out of the convention needs to be one of the three who are running. Otherwise, the candidate will have no legitimacy at all. This isn't the 19th Century where you can push out a candidate who was worked out in a back room deal. We all know who got most of the votes, sadly.

I agree that they might try and put forth someone like Cruz instead of Trump to maintain control of the party for the future, but either way, I think their only real chance of a general election win is Kaisch, but he only won one state in the primary. Putting him out at the nominee would guarantee that Trump would go independent and break the Republican base.

So, I for one welcome our new Democratic overlord, Queen Clinton II.

Re:wow, they have a real accountable democracy

[erapert]

Second Amendment in Iceland? No?

Then why did the peons even bother protesting? They can't do squat if push comes to shove.

Re:wow, they have a real accountable democracy

[tnk1]

Yes, it's not clear why he didn't set up a blind trust to hold his investments while he was in office, or simply to declare his holdings.

Something is rotten in the former dependency of Denmark.

Re:wow, they have a real accountable democracy

[erapert]

It's not the 1990s, Slashdot; fix your unicode support. It's ridiculous that I can't type a thorn here.

harðfiskur

But you did type a thorn... right? Isn't that what "ð" is?

Re:wow, they have a real accountable democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Keep in mind this is the same country that allowed banks to fail and threw the bankers responsible in jail during the 2008 crisis.

Iceland threw a handful of bankers in jail for unrelated corruption issues (see the link with this story?) around the same time as the 2008 crisis. The crisis itself, they dealt with by bailing out the at-risk deposits of their own citizens, while writing off the deposits of foreigners at the same banks: in effect, they stole from other countries to keep their own economy afloat.b

Re:wow, they have a real accountable democracy

[Rei]

Heh, Bernie is actually pretty popular here. (Yes, we do follow US politics :) ).

Re:wow, they have a real accountable democracy

[Rei]

No, that's an eth.

Re:wow, they have a real accountable democracy

[serviscope_minor]

harÃfiskur

How the heck did you get an eth in there? Did you threated whiplash with a large axe? When I qouted you I get junk.

Re:wow, they have a real accountable democracy

[tburkhol]

Framsoknarflokkurinn (Progress Party)

I don't know anything about Iceland or its politics, but I love the language. I don't even know how many syllables are in that word and I'm dead certain my tongue would need a week of physical therapy if I tried to pronounce it. I'm pretty sure it has a sound like "ich"/"ish"/"ig" in it, although I'm not sure which letters would make it. They have "Framsoknarflokkurinn," which just the word looks like a band of vikings sharing a flagon of mead and a haunch of smoked meat. We have the "TEA party." Iceland rocks.

Re:wow, they have a real accountable democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

You're doing it wrong. You can't just post 2/10 without at least explaining in a few sentences how you came to that conclusion.

I'm going to give GP 4/5. (I always rate out of five, no fractional ratings, just personal preference and helps me think about why I'm giving a particular score. Nothing inherently wrong with fractional ratings or a scale of 10.)

GP's piece carries a glistening vision of prosperity. GP attempts to paint America with President Trump an having a very Norman Rockwell-like quality, recalling specifically the Four Freedoms series. In Trump's America, there's a turkey on every Thanksgiving table; the working man's voice is heard; church is in session every Wednesday and Sunday; and the people live completely free from fear.

There. That wasn't so hard, was it?

Re:wow, they have a real accountable democracy

[angel'o'sphere]

He likely uses the alt-ddd digit option in windows. That for reasons that I can't grasp work with /. while every "non latin" letter I enter on my Mac gets garbled.

And no: even the german umlauts don't work on a PC unless entered via alt-ddd. No idea what the difference is.

Re:wow, they have a real accountable democracy

[MightyMartian]

The Republican base is already broken, and in reality has been broken since 2008. Trump may be the instrument of GOP Armageddon, but the Horsemen of the Apocalypse have been wreaking havoc for eight years now. Whether Trump wins the nomination or not, the party is in bad shape. If he loses the nomination and walks away with his supporters, the meltdown happens before the election. If Trump manages to get the nomination, then the party melts down after the election. Either way, there's a Democrat in the White House and the Republicans are in disarray.

Re:wow, they have a real accountable democracy

[angel'o'sphere]

Trump won't get the nod. Even if they have to bring in Romney as an attempted at a controlled landing (as opposed to a complete crash), they won't let Trump on the ballot.
This is what everyone on /. says.
And probably some (most?) americans believe.

However the international press assumes a clear victory for Trump.

Re:wow, they have a real accountable democracy

[Rei]

Fram: Forward ("frahm")
Sókn: Attack ("soak")
Framsókn: Progress ("FRAHM-soak")
Framsóknar: Of progress ("FRAHM-soak-nar")
Flokkur: Political party (also group, class, category, etc) ("FLOCK-er")
Flokkurinn: The political party ("FLOCK-er-in")
Framsóknarflokkurinn: The political party of progress, AKA the Progress Party ("FRAHM-soak-nar-Flock-er-in") :)

which just the word looks like a band of vikings sharing a flagon of mead and a haunch of smoked meat.

Maybe a bottle of brennivín and some hangikjöt being consumed by HafTHór Júlíus? ;)

Re:wow, they have a real accountable democracy

[Rei]

Dunno, I just typed it. Still can't type a thorn, though.

Re:wow, they have a real accountable democracy

[angel'o'sphere]

If you want to use american phrases like "Second Amendment", you should have in parentheses (what it means).

No one in Europe except law experts and history hobbyists knows what the second refinement of your constitution was about.

Re:wow, they have a real accountable democracy

[Captain Splendid]

I never said you were 'spinning' anything. What I am saying is that you're delusional. The difference, while slight, is important.

Also, if you're going to get on your high horse, you might want to look at the gross asssumptions in your own posts, comrade. Clean hands and all that.

Re:wow, they have a real accountable democracy

[blind biker]

That is not in the slightest the issue.

First off, this government's popularity has gone totally down the drain because of their continued efforts to enrich themselves and their friends at the expense of the nation (selling off bank assets in no-bid auctions at a tiny fraction of their value to family members of government officials, fighting to get Iceland expanded fishing quotas and then just handing them off to the fishing barons, etc), their continuous attempts to stifle press freedom, and countless other things. The prime minister's, before this incident, was in polls the choice of only 12% of the electorate. This is just the latest outrage in a long string of them.

Now, for the actual issue. Simmi and his wealthy wife, back before the financial crash, set up an offshore shell company to secretly buy shares in the three large Icelandic banks that turned out, one year later, to go catastrophically belly-up. Now the two of them (50-50 owners in the company) were creditors, scrambling with the other creditors over the right to the remains of the banks. They were what we refer to as "vultures". But this was in secret.

Then Simmi ran for office as the head of Framsóknarflokkurinn (Progress Party), a right-populist party (some might call it the "Idiot Party", as they run every year on some variant of "We're going to give you TONS OF MONEY, and nobody's going to have to pay for it, not EVERS!"). His big thing was that he was part of a group fighting against the wicked vultures trying to pick Iceland dry. When in actuality, of course, he was a vulture.

We haven't gotten to the problem part yet.

Because then he was elected. And the regulations (beyond general conflict of interest) are that if you own more than a 25% stake in an investment company, you have to disclose it. He was prime minister for months before he did anything. And that "doing something" was not to disclose his secret holdings, but to sell them to his wife for $1 (which still didn't remove the conflict of interest).

Still not to the problem part.

Because as the head of the government, he then pursued policies to get 2B euro of money that otherwise would have gone to the state to instead go to the creditors. "The creditors" including his wife and other secret accounts owned by other members of the governing coalition.

Basically, he robbed the country to make up for his investment losses.

Furthermore, people, stop the whoop-di-doo about his resignation. Because he's just stepping back to running the party behind the scenes while one of his ministers is taking over. The governing coalition isn't leaving. Actually Simmi reportedly tried to break the coalition, but the president wouldn't let him. Now he says that the president is lying about that, that he never planned to break it.

In other words, psychopaths attain power, and manage to keep it, even in Iceland. And that's terribly sad.

Re:wow, they have a real accountable democracy

[serviscope_minor]

Dunno, I just typed it. Still can't type a thorn, though.

iiinteresting. I'm guessing it's a charset thing. All claims to be UTF8, but I suspect it lies. Surely there isn't a charset out there that has eth but not thorn.

Re:wow, they have a real accountable democracy

[Aighearach]

They did the transfer the day before a new law that would have required disclosure; the transfer didn't do anything to the conflict of interest, but it did prevent him from being required to disclose it, and kept it secret until this leak.

Nobody ever claimed the purpose was to remove the conflict of interest.

Re:wow, they have a real accountable democracy

[Aighearach]

"Mob rule?" No. In the morning, he attempted to dissolve parliament and force early elections. The President asked him if he had support in Parliament from the governing coalition for that, and he didn't have any evidence of support. So the President said no, which is one of the functions of the President in their system. The Prime Minister resigned shortly thereafter, as Parliament was likely going to be really upset, and still had all their power.

Very, very far from "mob rule."

Re:wow, they have a real accountable democracy

[quantaman]

As much as I would like to believe he won't get the nod, the reality is that they will run Trump if he gets enough votes. He's got too many votes to ignore him. The only chance they have is if every single other delegate and important member of the party gets behind one already serious candidate (realistically, only Cruz meets the criteria) and try to upset the convention.

Delegates are only bound on the first ballot, if Trump doesn't achieve a majority they're free to abandon him for another candidate.

Some will stick around but some are anything but Trump supporters who are bound by party rules to vote Trump on the first ballot.

If they're smart they could even manage the narrative because of how much Trump benefited from the split field.

If it comes down to Trump vs Alternative and there's very good evidence that Alternative would have won 60% of the votes in a 2 person race is it really undemocratic to nominate Alternative?

Re:wow, they have a real accountable democracy

[Aighearach]

I don't know what either of you are talking about, but in my State we elect professional legislators, but also use Direct Democracy. We've trained the legislature not to decide anything too controversial themselves; instead of voting on a controversial law, they vote on what language to refer to the People for direct vote. If the people don't like the language, which happens often, they can (and do) write their own version and get it on the ballot. It is not uncommon that we vote on two proposals at the same time, on the same issue: one from the Legislature, and one from some opposing activist group.

People can wave their hands about "mob rule," but that is what the Independent Judiciary protects us from. Those protections don't come from a legislature protecting the people from themselves; legislatures and parliaments commit the same abuses that voters do.

Re:wow, they have a real accountable democracy

[MightyMartian]

I'd say deliberately trying to obscure a conflict of interest at the very least underscores the fact that they were well aware that there was a conflict.

Re:wow, they have a real accountable democracy

[Qzukk]

I think you can use certain html entities like ð = ð

Re:wow, they have a real accountable democracy

[andymadigan]

Before taking office, he held a 50% interest in a firm that was a creditor to the Icelandic state. He sold that interest to his wife for $1 to avoid disclosing that interest. The holding was hidden in a Panamanian shell company.

This wasn't a "join checking account". I have no idea why you would think it was.

Re:wow, they have a real accountable democracy

[Aighearach]

He's the one that got rid of the assets in question as he entered office. His wife took over those accounts.

False.

He transferred the account to his wife the day before a new law took effect that would have required disclosure.

And "selling" for $1 implies that there was no loss of interest, that they have a combined interest and were just being deceptive. This isn't like a donation that is done as a sale for $1, this is just obfuscation with no movement of the personal financial interest.

Re:wow, they have a real accountable democracy

[tnk1]

At least some of the delegates feel bound to vote for who their populations voted for, which is the candidate who sent them there. A brokered convention is certainly a distinct possibility, but I don't know how far they can go and retain credibility. Generally, despite the possibility of back door stuff, most political types know that they need to at least give lip service to their constituencies. I doubt that many of them are relishing the opportunity to vote against Trump on a later ballot.

As I said, they would need everyone else in agreement to not nominate Trump. I've pointed out in the past that the votes are there to keep Trump out, but I really think they needed to move before the convention to prevent complete havoc. Now it's going to be WWIII to keep Trump from being the nominee.

Re:wow, they have a real accountable democracy

[Aighearach]

The funny part is him trying to dissolve Parliament preemptively before they could even take up his scandal, and the President's blocking of that action. That's the real reason he had to resign suddenly; his ass-covering maneuver failed spectacularly, and Parliament was going to be really, really pissed.

The cover-up attempt bit a lot quicker than the scandal.

Re:wow, they have a real accountable democracy

[phantomfive]

I don't even know how many syllables are in that word and I'm dead certain my tongue would need a week of physical therapy if I tried to pronounce it.

If you go through this, you'll learn the pronunciation pretty quick.

Re:wow, they have a real accountable democracy

[phantomfive]

Expecting the RNC to oppose Trump is wishful thinking, I agree.
But current polls are showing he can't beat Clinton. There's a lot of campaigning left to do, though.

Re:wow, they have a real accountable democracy

[irrational_design]

I actually just got back from spending nearly 2 weeks there. I didn't actually see any pickled fish for sale, but I saw lots of delicious hamburgers, pizza, steaks, lobster, lamb stew, pancakes, etc. for sale. Unfortunately all of the food (whether from a bar, grocery store, roadside cafe, restaurant, etc.) costs at least 3x what the equivalent would cost in the part of the USA that I live in. Oh, and while it was bitterly cold on the north side of the island, the south side was very nice and usually only required a light jacket. YMMV

Re:wow, they have a real accountable democracy

[ScentCone]

What's hilarious is that you can't actually point out which part is delusional. Is it that individual party primaries aren't part of the governing process? Are you confused about that? Are you thinking that I'm delusional because it's possible Trump won't get the numbers necessary to win the nomination without debate? No? Or are you just another person who has to resort to lame, juvenile ad hominem in order to distract from the fact that someone is calling you on your nonsense? Be specific, address the topics mentioned and point out where and why they're "delusional," or just admit you're blathering and saying nothing.

Re:wow, they have a real accountable democracy

[MightyMartian]

If the United States and other major economic powers had not intervened by pumping money into the banks and financial markets, the whole international credit system would have ground to a halt. What was a relatively shortlived recession would have turned into a Depression. Yes, it meant bailing out banks that had been party to malfeasance and incompetence in one degree or another, but the alternative was so horrible that no one was willing to sit around at that point trying to determine who was deserving and who wasn't. This was about saving the global economy, and by extension saving the domestic economies of dozens of nations.

Re:wow, they have a real accountable democracy

[MightyMartian]

There is a narrative being spun that the Panama Papers are nothing more than an invasion of privacy, and that it's all part of quest by evil Leftists to damage the poor, long-suffering rich people. For this to work, of course, examples of misconduct have to be rewritten as purely mundane business arrangements. Hence, in the case of the PM of Iceland, what amounts to a scheme to bury the fact that the PM was a direct beneficiary of moneys his own government was going to be funneling has to be transformed into a mere checking account. One can imagine that soon enough Western banks and investment houses helping tyrants and criminal organizations bury their cash, or helping billionaires evade taxes, will merely be very normal business transactions, just some guys writing checks on some British Virgin Islands checking account.

I think we know who is trying to sow these stories. What I can't understand is the useful idiots on forums like Slashdot helping corrupt billionaires spread thick layers of bullshit. Does somebody get paid, or is this just an example of the mindless anti-regulation types trying to bolster their own worthless world view.

Re:wow, they have a real accountable democracy

[Aighearach]

Yeah, you're trying to spin a narrative, while admitting it.

Nobody cares. The stories aren't being "sown," people know about it now and they're actually interested. You try to make it sound like nobody cares, they're being somehow manipulated into reading it.

That's just going to make them more angry, if you manage to spin it in a medium with more readership. Nobody is interested in your false narrative except for the far right.

Oh yeah, "we're just some guys writing checks." That argument is contributing to people's anger. People understand their checking accounts. They also understand that they pay their taxes. "Oh gosh we're just like you" is leading to more people demanding punishment, because that is what happens to regular people with checking accounts if they try to play games with the math to avoid taxes.

Re:wow, they have a real accountable democracy

[currently_awake]

We could have bailed out the people, and let the banks fail. If there is no penalty for stupid mistakes then corporations will just keep getting worse (if you give welfare to the poor you discourage them from working for a living).

Re:wow, they have a real accountable democracy

[Rei]

The north is actually a bit warmer (and a lot less rainy) in the summer :) But spring comes significantly later.

Re:wow, they have a real accountable democracy

[MightyMartian]

My favorite example is an article in the National Post (a conservative Canadian newspaper) yesterday that intentionally confused the issue, talking, for some reason about people who make $200,000 a year. While it is possible that such individuals may use tax avoidance schemes, even tax havens like the British Virgin Islands, the real beneficiaries of these tax schemes have also been the very rich. But the whole article's intent was to try to get as close to making it sound like the leak was an attack on Mr. and Mrs. Average, it tries to minimize what is being revealed, and normalize it.

And yes, it is true that many of the people using these tax avoidance schemes are breaking no laws, but as tax avoidance is becoming a bigger and bigger issue, and one where merely arguing "it's legal" doesn't protect one from the stigma of not paying one's fair share.

But to my mind, the real issue here is that many of the people who are the greatest beneficiaries of tax havens are directly, or via the significant influence their wealth buys, able to game the system by making sure tax avoidance IS legal at all. How is being in a position to pass a law that protects one's own wealth, by assuring that other people have to cover the difference (translation: everyone who isn't wealthy) not ultimately a very insidious form of corruption?

And that's not even bringing up the fact that creating these tax loopholes has allowed criminals and rogue regimes to wash their own cash and get around sanctions and embargoes makes those who pass these laws culpable for those actions as well.

Re:wow, they have a real accountable democracy

[Perky_Goth]

"Under the deal, up to 4% of Iceland's gross domestic product (GDP) will be paid to the UK, in sterling terms, from 2017–2023 while the Netherlands will receive up to 2% of Iceland's GDP, in euro terms, for the same period"
Meanwhile, not going bankrupt and making the money worthless. Seems to have worked out reasonably well for everyone. At least, much better than the ongoing 8 year eurozone recession..

Re:wow, they have a real accountable democracy

[rtb61]

Too big to fail, was not too big too fail, it was knew too much about all the corrupt deals they facilitated as they established accounts in tax havens and the many paid off corrupt officials and politicians. So not propping up the banks so much as paying off extortion demands, either pay up and fill the pockets of the corrupt banksters or have those corrupt bank accounts exposed and where the money came from and why that money was paid.

People seem to forget it was the rich with political influence stealing from with rich with political influence and the rest of us were caught in that crossfire. So why weren't the rich and greedy with political influence able to get their pet politicians to pursue those criminals that stole billions from the rich and greedy not in on the scheme. When you have you finger on the pulse of all those criminal transaction, you can do anything you want to the participators in those criminal transactions, including demanding a percentage or just straight up stealing it, the victims can not complain or seek revenge.

Any corrupt politician that attempts to prosecute corrupt global bankers, can be destroyed over night with the release of tax haven banking details. Basically organised crime has taken over globally banking and is using extortion to entrench their power. Funny thing is, even the most underpaid minions in those schemes are entitled to an equal share, not because of what they bring to those schemes but because they can bring them crashing down. How many underpaid minions are furious at being cheated by the cheaters and are seeking revenge, can't make a billion, meh, have fun by taking away some one else's illicit billions via say 'Anonymous' ;D.

Now in the spy vs spy arena, exposing corruption has become the hot go to for bringing down governments, so secret pays will abound. After the latest debacle with pictures of Putin but no mention of Putin in the papers, I am sure the Russian government will consider it a great investment to pay off insider minions getting paid peanuts, either to extort cooperation or bring down corrupt foreign politicians, flip side of course, those corrupt politicians are now a major threat to the other side for the same reason, either treason or being exposed at a critical time. It kind of looks like the whole corrupt house of cards is coming down, it should be interesting ;).

Re:wow, they have a real accountable democracy

[Mashiki]

But then I also thought that propping up GM was stupid.

Did you think it was also stupid to do the same for chrysler, toyota, mitsubishi, volvo, volkswagon and several other automakers? Never mind that they've all recovered and are making more money now then prior to the collapse and in turn paying more in taxes.

Re:wow, they have a real accountable democracy

[phorm]

"Switzerland finally began to close the loopholes. And it wouldn't surprise if that's why these tax shelters have become more popular"

Except that you pretty much already noted what will happen. As soon as the current scam-builders get broken down, a new set will rise to take their place.

Re:wow, they have a real accountable democracy

[Captain Splendid]

President Trump has a nice ring to it, doncha think? Rolls off the tongue. Sounds...definitive.

Re: wow, they have a real accountable democracy

[th0m4s.4n0nym0us]

Sounds like a poker hand. Like "Royal Flush".

Re:wow, they have a real accountable democracy

[Plus1Entropy]

It's becoming clear now that by the end of the year Trump will have become President-Elect Trump, and early next year he will be President Trump.

You aren't paying attention as closely as you think you are. Trump is incredibly unpopular among the general electorate. His favorability rating (i.e. percentage of people who view him favorably minus those who view him unfavorably) is between -30 and -35, nationally, across all demographics. This is astoundingly low, the lowest of either party in the last 9 Presidential elections. Among women, it's -50 (70% view him unfavorably, and 20% view him favorably).

He isn't even that popular among Republicans, he has only won 37% of the popular vote across all the primaries so far. It's only because of the way the primaries work that he might win the nomination. He's being buoyed by winner-take-all and winner-take-most states, and the fact that the Republican field has taken a long time to narrow.

While he's still the most likely to win the nomination, the chance that he won't even get that far is actually increasing. You should really look into exactly how the party conventions work, because it's not as simple as "he gets the most delegates and then he wins". Most of the delegates haven't even been chosen yet, and since the party has a lot of control over the selection, they're likely to choose people who don't like Trump. Is he going to go into the convention with the most delegates? Probably, but if he doesn't have a majority pledged to him, and he loses the first ballot (i.e. he fails to convince enough unbound delegates to make up the deficit), then a lot of them become unbound, and can vote however they want on the subsequent ballots. In fact, since the delegates get to vote on the convention rules first, they can even decide to unbind themselves on the first ballot. The last scenario is unlikely, but not impossible.

Your chickens haven't hatched yet, keep an eye on those eggs.

Re:wow, they have a real accountable democracy

[Plus1Entropy]

At least some of the delegates feel bound to vote for who their populations voted for, which is the candidate who sent them there.

You say that as if we have any precedent for what a contested convention would look like, but it hasn't happened since the parties adopted the current primary system in the 70s. Most of the delegates haven't even been selected yet, and the state parties have a lot of control over that process. They could easily (and likely will) choose delegates who are opposed to Trump.

If he loses the first ballot, don't be surprised if he loses the nomination altogether. Technically, the delegates could even unbind themselves on the first ballot, since they will first have to decide on the convention rules, although that's highly unlikely and could potentially end the GOP as we know it.

Re:wow, they have a real accountable democracy

[Plus1Entropy]

Delegates are only bound on the first ballot, if Trump doesn't achieve a majority they're free to abandon him for another candidate.

Depends on the rules of the state parties. Most delegates become unbound after the first, but not all of them. Otherwise I completely agree, if he doesn't win the first ballot, he's in trouble.

The problem is, this is all speculation since a contested convention in the current primary system has never happened. Maybe he'll start offering them all Lamborghini's and lifetime supplies of Trump Steaks. There aren't a ton of rules governing how delegates can be courted by potential candidates.

Re:wow, they have a real accountable democracy

[serviscope_minor]

Wow, ðanks! I didn't know that. No thorn though :(

Re:wow, they have a real accountable democracy

[adhdengineer]

It's something about a well regulated militia isnt it?

Re:wow, they have a real accountable democracy

[jabuzz]

And what do you as an ordinary person do while you can't access your money for weeks while the mess of all the failed banks is sorted out? What about the millions of small business? Even if you had plenty of cash to see you through do you think you would have been able to purchase fresh food in the interim?

Re:wow, they have a real accountable democracy

[tehcyder]

No, sounds more like mob rule.

Indeed, they stormed the prime ministerial residence and strung him up and his wife from a lamppost, after capturing and executing all the Icelandic armed forces and police.

Apart from the fact that they didn't.

Re:wow, they have a real accountable democracy

[tehcyder]

I'm trying hard to believe that is satire.

Re:wow, they have a real accountable democracy

[angel'o'sphere]

No idea, could be about slavery is bad, or women may vote.

Re:wow, they have a real accountable democracy

[angel'o'sphere]

I give you thumps up!!!!

Ah, forgot, you say: cross fingers!!!

Anyway, bon chance, good luck!

You know ... this is how it started 1933 in my country ... just a stupid election.

Re:wow, they have a real accountable democracy

[ScentCone]

So in other words, you can't even attempt to back up your earlier mindless insults. If the things you assert are so unsupportable that you can't even bring yourself to stumble through a half-hearted explanation for them, why should anybody even begin to listen to you? Be specific.

Re:wow, they have a real accountable democracy

[Lumpy]

yes. They all should have had to fare it on their own.

Re:wow, they have a real accountable democracy

[phantomfive]

If you're comparing Trump to Hitler, better hope you're wrong because nuclear war would be catastrophic for the world.

Re:wow, they have a real accountable democracy

[rochrist]

Right. 40 percent or so of the 30 percent who are imbeciles.

Re:wow, they have a real accountable democracy

[Captain Splendid]

Wait, you took RINO as an insult? I'd thought there'd be at least a little pride...

Re:wow, they have a real accountable democracy

[david_thornley]

AFAICT, Trump is unlikely to have enough delegates to win on the first ballot. He's leading largely because of a divided Republican field. Now that it's down to Cruz and Kasich against him, he's not going to pick up delegates as fast as he has, and last I looked he'd need to get over half the remaining delegates to win on the first ballot. If he doesn't win on the first ballot, he's very unlikely to win the nomination, since he's got more negatives than anybody else, and other delegates are unlikely to switch to him. If he wins the nomination, a lot of Republicans won't support him. If he loses, his followers are unlikely to vote Republican. I don't see this turning out well for the Republicans.

The Republicans are in the same sort of ideological meltdown that the Democrats were in roughly around 1970, except that it's lasting longer and becoming more entrenched. The Democrats ran only one really weak candidate, McGovern, while the Republicans are showing no signs of allowing a candidate that has a halfway reasonable chance of winning and getting things done.

Re:wow, they have a real accountable democracy

[david_thornley]

We could have bailed out the people to prevent the failure of the banks. The banks were failing because of too many default mortgages, so if the government had taken that money and used it to help people pay their mortgages it would probably have saved the banks.

It's not an ideal solution, and I don't think there was anything like an ideal solution at the time, but it seems to me it might have worked a little better. The current wave of populism wouldn't be nearly as strong, for example.

Re:wow, they have a real accountable democracy

[ScentCone]

Wait, you took RINO as an insult? I'd thought there'd be at least a little pride...

Hey, look! He still can't articulate any actual points surrounding his name-calling urges! At least you're consistent. Still haven't managed to muster up even one substantial remark explaining WHY you think my pointing out the structure of political parties and primary elections is "delusional." What's the matter? Shy? Embarrassed? Realizing you're being a fool and trying the very Trump-like maneuver of doubling down on the no-substance insult in hopes nobody will notice your lack of depth on what is really a very simple subject? Yeah, thought so. There's no shame in ignorance, just in being a coward about it. Which are you? Ignorant and willing to learn, or ignorant and lashing out in order to avoid addressing the problem? Don't answer: your behavior already did.

Re:wow, they have a real accountable democracy

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

The Second is the right to bear arms. Outlawing slavery was the Thirteenth and women getting to vote was the Nineteenth.

Re:wow, they have a real accountable democracy

[Captain Splendid]

Well, you said insults, plural, and I thought, "oh he meant RINO, cuz that was the second one", but you're right, I only insulted you that one time so now I'm curious as to why you said insults plural.

Re:wow, they have a real accountable democracy

[toddestan]

Your ancestors likely did that not because it tasted good, but because it was a way to preserve food from spoiling. Why it's still popular after the invention of refrigeration is another matter.

Re:wow, they have a real accountable democracy

[Trogre]

Perhaps similar to the reasons people still drink beer.

Re:wow, they have a real accountable democracy

[Xest]

The problem with that sort of analysis is that it's impossible to reasonably compare a country of 320,000 people to countries of between 10million and 80million.

Iceland is smaller than many European cities. It's also worth noting that even countries that didn't have to bail anyone out are currently struggling with economic troubles (Canada, Australia, China).

It's not therefore clear that Iceland's actions relating to banking is what really saved it's economy, furthermore, as you note yourself it's going to hand away 6% of GDP every year for 6 years come 2017 - most developed countries are happy to see 2 - 3% GDP growth per year, so Iceland is effectively going to be giving away between 2x and 3x that each year for 6 years. In other words, they've largely just deferred their recession. One might argue that's a sensible thing to do as it's easier to weather recession when the rest of the world is growing, but if China doesn't pick up soon they may find that they've actually deferred it until the worst possible time rather than simply getting it over and done with when everyone else did.

As an aside, the eurozone hasn't had an 8 year recession, a recession requires two subsequent quarters of negative growth and the eurozone was only in that situation back in 2008 and 2009 when every other large western economy was. I think you're confusing recession for low growth, which is the actual problem.

So long story short, it's not really clear that Iceland hasn't done anything other than delay (and potentially prolong) it's pain. What it did was certainly "different", but was it succesful? Who knows because it'll be another 7 years before they're done with it. Deferring a problem doesn't mean it's gone away.

Re:wow, they have a real accountable democracy

[Xest]

And here I was thinking you were a bunch of puffin, pony and whale eating savages!

Joking aside, wife was there earlier this year. She was amused to see you have Taco Bell, though she did tell the guy at the hotel she'd "have a bit of the nice looking beef" only to be told that it was in fact horse. We're obviously more cultured than that because we treat our ponies better, rather than eating them we use them for cruel sports, and send them in to riots and stuff where they have bricks and petrol bombs thrown at them which is obviously a vast improvement for their welfare, or something.

Re:wow, they have a real accountable democracy

[dl_sledding]

Thanks for this explanation (since I didn't RTFM and went straight from the summary to the comments; TLDR). I thought it was silly that just because he and his wife had money and investments that he would have to step down, but with the information that he used his position to create personal wealth, or fix a personal financial setback, it makes sense. I don't really care where on the political spectrum a person is, these kind of maneuvers are ethically wrong and a very good reason for forced retirement...

Unfortunately, this happens much too often in US politics... and nothing is done about it.

Re:wow, they have a real accountable democracy

[Perky_Goth]

As an aside, the eurozone hasn't had an 8 year recession, a recession requires two subsequent quarters of negative growth and the eurozone was only in that situation back in 2008 and 2009 when every other large western economy was. I think you're confusing recession for low growth, which is the actual problem.

You're right, recession is a meaningless political term, not an economic one. I meant stagnation, probably even secular stagnation.

Pirate Party

[doconnor]

Of interest to Slashdotters is that the Pirate Party of Iceland currently has a generous lead in the polls if an early election is called.

Re:Pirate Party

[Thud457]

Interesting.
Iceland is big enough to successfully invade the Turks & Caicos. But just barely.

Re:Pirate Party

[interkin3tic]

Odd. I feel like pirates would be much more likely to have their booty buried in Panama.

Re:Pirate Party

[MightyMartian]

Fuck that! Turks and Caicos are going to become the eleventh Canadian province! Time for Canada to actually have a nice little domestic tax shelter to counter the six or seven that Britain runs!

Re:Pirate Party

[doconnor]

As a province, full Canadian Federal taxes would apply plus whatever provincial taxes they have, so it wouldn't be any more of tax shelter then Alberta.

Re:Pirate Party

[Rei]

Trivia on the subject. The Icelandic name for the Pirate Party is "Píratapartýið" But that's not Icelandic for "Pirate Party" - pirate is "sjóræningur" and political party is "flokkur". "Pírati" is an Icelandification of "Pirate" as in the international Pirate Party movement (they wanted to differentiate themselves from literal pirates), while "partý" is a loanword for the type of party where you go out and have fun (not the political kind).

Re:Pirate Party

[MightyMartian]

I still think it's a great idea, and I don't know why some Canadian politicians have been so averse to it. I'm sure Britain would love to pass of the Turks and Caicos, considering the problems the dependency has had over the last ten years, and the people of the dependency would become part of Confederation, gaining access to the Canadian economy and a fairly strong political and economic system. Best of all, they wouldn't even have to change the head of state!

Re:Pirate Party

[doconnor]

In Iceland, what to they call copyright infringes?

Re:Pirate Party

[Rei]

"Brot á höfundarrétti"

Re:Pirate Party

[angel'o'sphere]

Sounds like an sacrifice to Odin, hanging at his neck, uttering his final words :D

Upheaval

[lazarus]

Iceland has had its fair share of political upheaval post 2008. Fantastic country though -- I highly recommend a visit.

These are a very stoic people. They live on a volcanic island that is essentially trying every day to kill them off. In Iceland you can actually see the effect that the environment has on a population. They have some of the most dangerous roads I have ever seen in the world and absolutely no guard rails or for that matter not even much in the way of signs. You can hike out to the West cost of the island (which is the Westernmost point of Europe) and look down to the sea -- which is more than half a kilometer straight down. No railing. No signs. Not even a small rope. Just a nice grassy pleasant stroll until you just walk off the edge and plunge to your death. It's completely fantastic there.

They take this same stoic (you fuck up, you pay the price) view of their politicians and their banks.

Re:Upheaval

[postmortem]

Sorry, but westernmost point of Europe is in Portugal, as you can see for yourself here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Upheaval

[vux984]

The map you linked is useless.
Two thirds right.

The point identified on the map is the westernmost mainland point; which is in Portugal. Correct.

However, Iceland is not mainland, it is an island; so we are interested in the westernmost point, including islands.

However, even then its not iceland, and westernmost island point of Europe still happens to be in Portugal, in the Azores islands.

Re:Upheaval

[DNS-and-BIND]

Iceland has zero diversity. It's all white, all the time. They are also 87% Christian, Islamophobia seems popular there. The other Scandinavian countries are having great success with immigration adding value to their countries, Iceland is culturally backwards and stuck in the 20th century.

Re:Upheaval

[Rei]

. No railing. No signs. Not even a small rope. Just a nice grassy pleasant stroll until you just walk off the edge and plunge to your death.

Natural selection.

No, seriously, why should we cordon off everything that could hurt you? We'd be cordoning off the whole country....

That said, if tourists keep dying at Reynisfjara we might have to do something. Apparently the sign at the parking lot warning of rogue waves isn't enough to stop people from... well, getting swept out into rough, cold, shark-infested waters by rogue waves.

Re:Upheaval

[110010001000]

Adding value? What kind of value? I have no idea why someone wouldn't want mass immigration of Muslims though. Do you? Any idea?

Re:Upheaval

[Rei]

Iceland has a higher percentage immigrants than Europe on average - more than all the other Nordics except Sweden. The second to fourth (it varies) most common immigrant nationality in Iceland is filipino. Despite high church registration, Iceland consistently polls as one of the least religious countries in the world, with one recent poll finding that not a single young person in the hundred-something that they polled backed a creationist worldview over that of the Big Bang. Iceland has been far more welcoming to immigrants during the immigrant crisis than mainland Europe.

Re:Upheaval

[willy_me]

Cheap labour. Raising and educating children is not cheap. Imported labour is one way to keep the costs down. This was also done in France some time ago and now they are paying the price. The imported labour has to be integrated into local society and not treated as trash. When treated as trash you end up with ethnic ghettos - a breading ground for rebellious teens with no future who are willing to blow themselves up.

Re:Upheaval

[angel'o'sphere]

Kebab, Falafel, Baklava, oriental wine, Karniyarik, Guellac, Rakki, oriental jewelry, and assuming you are a male idiot and not a girl idiot: the most sexy girls on the planet! But perhaps you are a girl and lesbian and missed that aspect so far ... which would prove the point: you are an complete idiot.

BTW: we are talking about The Icelands here. A Viking country. The Vikings have the longest history of peaceful trade with Arabia and other islamic countries than any other " western nation" of the world. Only Persia and India have longer relations and those where not peaceful continuously.

Idiot!

Trade, always adds value ... not for you obviously, as you are only a poor ideologic misguided sob.

Re:Upheaval

[Major Blud]

Iceland has a higher percentage immigrants than Europe on average

When you say higher percentage, is that the percentage of the population that are immigrants? Can you point me to the source so I can see how they rank?

Re:Upheaval

[adhdengineer]

actually, there are parts of the old French empire that are still technically part of france (and some dutch ones too iirc) so they'd be more westerly than that.
but so long as we all agree that the UK is not part of Europe then it's fine.

Re:Upheaval

[vux984]

No, the extents of Europe refer to physical continental plates; not political extents. A French Island in the Caribbean is not "part of Europe".

Re:Upheaval

[toddestan]

Unfortunately, there is no "Europe" continental plate. There is the Eurasian plate. Which does go right through Iceland, though if you're on the west coast of Iceland by that definition you'd be in North America. Also, the Eastern most part of Europe is apparently now in Japan.

Re:Upheaval

[Xest]

Then the Azores which you previously claimed are the most Western part of Europe are not, because they're not part of the Eurasian continental plate and sit on the mid-Atlantic ridge. Furthermore, as the Eurasian plate is as it's namesake implies, shared with Asia, one would have to bundle much of Asia into Europe too, which obviously doesn't make anymore sense than bundling Europe into Asia.

Which really highlights the problem, "European" is not any one thing, depending on context it can be anything from countries that are part of European nation's sovereign territory, it could mean the EU political union, it could mean Europe the rather arbitrarily defined boundary entity that includes countries but not some of their furthest dependencies, mostly. It could be Europe's share of the Eurasian plate, which is then tricky, or it could simply be the continental shelf. Even the Europe as a set of boundaries thing can change, some argue Scandinavia is not Europe and is in itself a separate entity, whilst others claim it's just part of Europe. The Council of Europe encompasses nations from Iceland to Russia, Georgia, Azerbaijan, and Israel - another completely arbitrary political definition. Even Australia is now in on the Eurovision song contest because it's perceived to be culturally European, but not owned by any European state anymore, nor situated anywhere near it.

Long story short, stop trying to define Europe, you wont win, because it's an argument that's been going on for hundreds of years and you're not about to be the person who suddenly wins that argument. Europe is not defined by continental plates, Eurasia is. Any definition is incredibly arbitrary.

Re:Upheaval

[vux984]

Then the Azores which you previously claimed are the most Western part of Europe are not, because they're not part of the Eurasian continental plate and sit on the mid-Atlantic ridge.

Capelinhos Volcano, Faial Island, Azores Islands, Portugal (28Â 50â 00â W), is the westernmost point of the Eurasian Plate above sea level.

There are Azores further west, not on the plate, but the western most point of the eurasian plate is still in the Azores.

Furthermore, as the Eurasian plate is as it's namesake implies, shared with Asia, one would have to bundle much of Asia into Europe too, which obviously doesn't make anymore sense than bundling Europe into Asia.

Fair enough; you are right, the eastern edge of "Europe" is fairly poorly defined, and you are also right that conflating Europe and the Eurasion plate isn't productive. But even so, the western edge of Europe as the Western extents of Europe isn't really under much dispute.

The richest countries in the world

[Iamthecheese]

Somehow the expose' doesn't mention anyone from some of the richest countries in the world, but Iceland, which jailed bankers, is front and center.

Re:The richest countries in the world

[Rei]

You know, you can all stop this Iceland mythologizing any day now. You should realize that people here make fun of people like you.

Would you even bother to check out our electoral history, you would realize that the parties governing Iceland right now are the same ones that ran the country into the ground in 2008. Yep, they got reelected!

Give Islanders credit

[Lucas123]

Iceland's citizenry turned out by the thousands to protest their PM's refusal to resign after the Panama Papers revealed his corruption. The Kremlin on the other hand has already called the Panama Papers a CIA plot, (big surprise there). Hopefully, if the Panama Papers do reveal Putin used a shell to hide his money, Russia's citizens will not stand for it and force his hand. Let's hope other nation's citizens follow suit, including here in the U.S.

Re:Give Islanders credit

[Hognoxious]

Even if it comes out that Putin has a couple of trillion bucks stashed away he just has to say that he's doing it to stick it to the USA & the EU while not wearing a shirt and his popularity will go *up*.

Re:Give Islanders credit

[DarkOx]

if the Panama Papers do reveal Putin used a shell to hide his money, Russia's citizens will not stand for it and force his hand.

I think that greatly depends on the why and how Putin and the media he controls spin it. Russian's are a proud people. That is one of the reasons they continue to support their strong man.

If Putin makes it appear the reason for the shell corps and money laundering was to evade international sanctions for example, a good portion of the population will cheer him for being clever. The only way this is a political problem for him is if claims he did it for tax evasion or something as a primary objective can't be quelled.

Re:Give Islanders credit

[MightyMartian]

Putin seems the brightest of the bunch. His friends and family have zillions of dollars, but somehow Putin, like a great black hole at the center of a galaxy of corruption, can't be seen at all.

But even if someone finds a way to directly implicate him, it will be irrelevant, because much of the Russian press is in Putin's pocket, so most Russians will hear little more than whispers, and what they do hear will be countered with "Evil Yankee pig-dogs trying to make our beloved leader look bad..."

Re:Give Islanders credit

[MightyMartian]

Russians support strong men because, for centuries, it's all they've ever known. Their brief experiments with democracy; the brief periods of government that approached actual democracy, the four months of the Lvov coalition in 1917 and the Yeltsin years after the collapse of the USSR were such incredible failures that I don't think a lot of Russians actually even want anything but nominal democracy.

Re:Give Islanders credit

[Zontar_Thing_From_Ve]

The Kremlin on the other hand has already called the Panama Papers a CIA plot, (big surprise there). Hopefully, if the Panama Papers do reveal Putin used a shell to hide his money, Russia's citizens will not stand for it and force his hand.

Not likely. Here's why. And I speak from personal experience. I speak Russian rather well and I've spent more time in the ex-USSR than most people who aren't from there. One of the problems with Russians in particular is that for centuries they've had this rather quaint idea that the guy at the top is a really great, caring guy and the greatest leader in the world and it's those evil underlings beneath him who are corrupt and not doing his will. There are stories of peasants in the old days of the Tsars who would be abused or even killed by the Tsar's henchmen and the peasants would say "If only the Tsar knew what was happening! He'd save us!" when in fact the henchmen were expressly carrying out his orders on them. Stalin was an extraordinarily evil man. I know in the West it's popular to say that Hitler was the most evil man ever, but I think Stalin may actually have been worse. Well, maybe not if you're Jewish, but still you could make a strong case for Stalin being worse and I think we in the West could agree he was really really bad even if less bad than Hitler. You wouldn't have to walk far at all in Russia to find people telling you what a great guy Stalin was and how they wish he was still around. Khrushchev was easily the greatest leader of the USSR and nobody generally thinks very much of him over there. The USSR peaked under Khrushchev and it was all downhill before him and after him, but Stalin is The Man to many Russians. Putin is thought to be just a fantastic guy who has incompetent, greedy people under him who have hidden their crimes from him (yet somehow the fact that the citizens know what these underlings have done and Putin doesn't know doesn't make them question Putin's fitness to run the show there) and if he, like the peasant oppressing Tsar before him, only knew what was really happening, he would surely fix it. While some report that Putin's popularity is dropping and it may be true, I don't expect any changes. I had a lot of hope for Medvedev and while I think he was a genuinely good president for Russia, I've been pretty disappointed with a lot of things he's said now as PM and I just don't know if he's just saying what Putin wants to hear or if Medvedev really believes what he says now. The alternatives in Russia actually may be worse than Putin with some really nutso nationalists who'd like to provoke a war with the US and/or Europe and maybe even China. I expect most citizens to believe that Putin did nothing wrong and this to die down pretty quickly.

Re:Give Islanders credit

[tlhIngan]

Iceland's citizenry turned out by the thousands to protest their PM's refusal to resign after the Panama Papers revealed his corruption. The Kremlin on the other hand has already called the Panama Papers a CIA plot, (big surprise there). Hopefully, if the Panama Papers do reveal Putin used a shell to hide his money, Russia's citizens will not stand for it and force his hand. Let's hope other nation's citizens follow suit, including here in the U.S.

Well, I'm sure if the Kremlin continues to deny it, then the US can seize the money. After all, if it's not money Putin publicly cares about, it's free for the taking, right?

Ditto any other sum of money revealed that people are disavowing - if no one claims it, then it's free for the taking.

Re:Give Islanders credit

[Hognoxious]

Falkland? Britten-Norman?

Which islanders are you talking about, you dickhead?

Re:Give Islanders credit

[MightyMartian]

What this document dump reveals is that Putin is a lot smarter than the idiot former PM of Iceland. Putin makes sure no money ever touches his hands. It all ends up be a bizarre set of coincidences in which his close friends and family are all billionaires, but so far as anyone can tell, Putin is as poor as a pauper.

The same, by the way, seems to be the case for Chinese President Xi Jinping, who appears to have no money, but who seems oddly surrounded by friends and family who have vast sums.

Re:Give Islanders credit

[MightyMartian]

In sheer number of deaths, Mao is the worst (nobody is certain how many Chinese died in the Great Leap Forward, but it's in the tens of millions). As to whether Stalin or Hitler are worse, I still say Hitler, and not just because of the Holocaust (Stalin's purges, forced relocations and forced famines killed more), but because Hitler's actions not only lead to the Second World War, but so thoroughly altered the world order that in many ways we still live under the shadow the Nazis. Without WWII, it seems likely Stalin's actions would have remained contained to within the borders of the USSR, but the destabilization that occurred during and after WWII created the Cold War and a Soviet regime utterly paranoid of some Western power rising up to invade it, thus creating the series of alliances on both sides of the Cold War.

Re:Give Islanders credit

[phantomfive]

I think that greatly depends on the why and how Putin and the media he controls spin it

Yeah, I think most people already suspected he was doing that. I mean, are you really surprised to hear about it?

Re:Give Islanders credit

[david_thornley]

There's also the question of time. The Soviet Union had lots of time to murder people. Hitler didn't get it into high gear until 1939 or 1940, and was permanently stopped in 1945. Stalin murdered more people, but Hitler murdered much faster, and it's not to his moral credit that most of the rest of the world agreed on shutting him down ASAP. Personally, I'm not real interested in the question of which was more evil.

Or..

[Etherwalk]

It's an accusation of a conflict of interest tied to a banking collapse. Kind of a political hot potato that doesn't necessarily reflect a functioning democracy. If HRC had been tied to mortgage-backed securities or investing in sub-prime loans pre-2008, she would be polling much worse with independents here.

The parliamentary system's no-confidence system allows for political squabbles that come up *between* elections to remove a sitting PM. For us there's a delay... and we're a bit less responsive because we're so much bigger. But they're both highly political systems.

Re:Or..

[MightyMartian]

The notion of confidence is the chief reason Walter Bagehot, 150 years ago, observed the superiority of the Westminster system to the Presidential system. Short of a trial and conviction for impeachment, there's precious little Congress can do about an errant president.

Re:Or..

[Fragnet]

Yes but there are other checks and balances on your errant Presidents, like the Judiciary (Constitution), Congress and the Senate. The separation of powers is a bit vaguer here. Though of course with the President's many "executive orders" you're fast catching up with us.

Re:Wow, that asshole is so Republican

[Opportunist]

How so? He did actually resign over a scandal, not try to shift the blame and stick to his seat like he's got super glue on his ass.

Re:Soros is behind this

[Opportunist]

He was? How? He rose to power way after Iceland told the banks that bailouts ain't gonna happen (which, btw, happened to actually allow them to get back on track by now while we're still struggling with a recession).

Re:Nordic honesty.

[Opportunist]

Well, at least their politicians still have the decency to resign when they get caught with the hand in the cookie jar instead of shrugging and basically saying "And what you're gonna do about it, plebs?"

Re:US government targeting

[Rei]

Right, because the US wants to get rid of the conservatives in Iceland and install the Pirates? Is that what you think is going on? The Pirates who want to give Snowden citizenship?

Re:Soros is behind this

[Rei]

First off, his name is not "Gunnlaugsson". That's not a last name, it's a patronymic. It just means that his father's name is Gunnlaugur. The proper way to refer to him is Sigmundur, Sigmundur Davíð, or if you want to be "familiar", just Simmi.

Secondly, Simmi was absolutely not an "enemy of the bankster elite". That's the whole point of this incident - he actually is a part owner of the failed banks, despite having campaigned on fighting against them.

That's it?

[Rick in China]

He shouldn't have had to resign for this. That's ludicrous. The implications of corruption in government, this seems like.. it will be the smallest collusion amongst any of the implications from any country's gov't officials, and if this is truly the reason he had to resign (neglecting anything about policy or ability to perform in other ways that leads the country to stability and prosperity) that's a shame.

Surely there will be much larger heads to fall, and surely, if this type of leak continues, much more valid heads will fall - how many billions do you think Putin is *really* worth? Come on now. Then again, even if it were revealed, think Russia would have a revolution?

Re:That's it?

[a_n_d_e_r_s]

He did run for election to stop this type of corruption. Iceland was probably the nation that suffered the worst from the bank meltdowns nearly a decade ago. So its a big thing on Iceland. In most other nations it would have been a blip on the radar and nothing would have happened. But on Iceland its an important issue.

Yesterday it was a "small" demonstration where little less then a tenth of all of icelanders was demonstrating. Ok, so it was like 25 000 people, but with a population of only 330 000 its a big deal. The politicians take notice and have to act.

In China any mention of Panama is forbidden and I doubt Russia will change much for this. Belarus is though another place where this might affect the leadership.

Re:That's it?

[spacepimp]

If he did nothing wrong then why the protests marching to the parliament buildings in Iceland? He resigned because he was caught funneling money to protect investors of the failed banks to which he was hiding his involvement with. If he could have not resigned he would not have resigned.

Re:That's it?

[Anonymous Coward]

He shouldn't have had to resign for this. That's ludicrous.

Funneling off $2B of state money in order to benefit "corporate creditors" of banks of which he just happens to be one himself in secret is kind of a big thing in a country with fewer inhabitants than a suburb in the U.S. In particular when you won your election basically on themes fighting corporate greed and corruption.

He probably needed to resign solely in order to be able to leave the country legally as fast as possible.

Re:That's it?

[MightyMartian]

Of course he should resign. He had an undeclared conflict of interest and clearly knew he had such a conflict, which is why he went out of his way to try to hide the conflict; including a transfer of the assets to his wife (which wouldn't in almost any jurisdiction clear him of conflict) and in a timely fashion to avoid ever having to report it. He's the head of the government, a government which negotiated to have payments redirected to creditors, of which he (despite his pretty flimsy attempt to hide it) was one. There's no way to look at this that doesn't arrive at one conclusion; that this was political corruption.

Re:That's it?

[MightyMartian]

I'd like to think that in just about any liberal democracy, having the head of government being caught trying to hide a significant conflict of interest and then rejigging a repayment scheme so that a large amount of money was directed at his or her spouse would at the very least raise an eyebrow.

Re:That's it?

[MightyMartian]

To be more specific, he was funneling money to investors, among which was his wife, part of whose holdings were his, until he sold them to her for a dollar the day before he would have to had to have revealed that he had those holdings.

Re:US government targeting

[MightyMartian]

Stop listening to yourself then. The notion that this is targeted is beyond bizarre, considering one of the targets has ended up being David Cameron, whose old man was hiding cash in a tax shelter.

Besides, many of the American names haven't been released yet, and that's expected to be rather juicy.

Re:shot across the bow

[MightyMartian]

The American part of the list hasn't been released yet.

Re:US government targeting

[spacepimp]

The US will be implicated quite heavily in the 2.6 Tb of data. Not being singled out in the first wave is not a signifier of being free from guilt.

Re:Nordic honesty.

[spacepimp]

Maybe you shouldn't have been simple enough to think that somehow Iceland or the US were above reproach. They just handle the news better.

Re:US government targeting

[Rei]

Also a myth. The three largest banks went into receivership, but they weren't government backed; they were backed by a private fund, with the British and Dutch governments as the secondary insurers (they sued... it went to the EFTA court... the EFTA court affirmed this). But Iceland pumped tons of money into the banking system in general, raising our national debt from about 25% of GDP to around 100%. We got a stake in the banks that were in receivership due to the money we pumped in (akin to the US stakes in the auto industry during their bailout), but we sold them off at firesale prices as soon as possible to avoid any perception that there was intent to run them. The rush to sell them off lost us huge amounts of money, yet apparently people still think we nationalized them.

This whole conflict revolves around our prime minister actually being a bank creditor and giving tons of money to bank creditors, so I'm not sure how you're trying to spin this as an attempt to punish anti-banking people. You do realize that our current governing coalition is the same parties that were governing back 2007-2008, right?

Re:Nordic honesty.

[Rei]

Or in the case of Sigmundur Davíð, his hand on the cake ;) Delicious chocolate cake, with brazed pears and whipped cream.....mmmmmm.........

Re:US government targeting

[MightyMartian]

This largely appears to be a defense being invoked by some of those caught up in this. "Why haven't the Americans been outed?" First of all, I do believe at least a couple of American names have already shown up, but as the release is being staged (much as other major leaks have been staged), the Americans on the list are coming.

Frankly, I'm more interested in any more revelations that show how regimes like North Korea and organized crime rings used tax shelters to hide and launder money, to breach sanctions and export bans and the like. I have a feeling that as bad as a naughty Icelandic Prime Minister may seem, we have yet to see the full extent of the out and out large-scale corruption that these tax shelters have been facilitating.

In the long run I expect that shelters like the British Virgin Islands are going to end up having to adopt many of the measures Switzerland did if they want these financial havens to survive, and in some cases I expect the governments (cough... UK... cough) that have allowed their dependencies to behave in this fashion will probably kill much of what makes these tax shelters shelters at all.

video of absolute guilt

[supernova87a]

Anyone interested in watching a person being confronted with the first bits of evidence of malfeasance and totally being guilty is here: http://www.theguardian.com/new... .
Icelandic PM walks out of interview

Re:Nordic honesty.

[bazorg]

They are at an advantage in Iceland: if they threaten to drop someone in a volcano, they actually might do it.

Re:Nordic honesty.

[DarthVain]

Well 22k citizens of a possible total of 330k showed up to protest... 6.6% of their entire population.

That would be the equivalent of about 22 Million people showing up outside the Whitehouse (or 2.3 Million in Ottawa) ... I'm pretty sure there would be no "And what you're gonna do about it, plebs?". More likely there were be a lot of awkward silence and a hasty departure.

I mean a lot of people made a big deal about the "million man march"... now do that 22 times bigger. Regardless of police or military, that would make a corrupt politician pretty damn nervous....

What is even crazier about the Iceland numbers is that 330k population includes things like babies, and the very elderly etc... Meaning that an even higher percentage of the able population showed up!

Re:Soros is behind this

[angel'o'sphere]

Perhaps you should reread this /. article from top to bottom.

All your questions are answered.

He basically bough shares from an bankrupt islandic bank.

Then after being prime minister he rescued the bank with state money.

Billionaire ... over night.

Yes, I simplified.

Icelandic names

[J'raxis]

The Prime Minister is properly addressed by his first name, Sigmundur, not "Gunnlaugsson," which is not surname like we use in English but a patronymic (his father is named Gunnlaug). Icelandic name.

Re:Icelandic names

[Rei]

I once tried to get my occupation in the phone book listed as "talandi slökkvibíll" ("talking firetruck").

It didn't work :P

This isn't just an Iceland Story.

[Bing Tsher E]

If you have contacts in China, send them an email message with 'Panama Papers' in the title, and see if they receive it. China has a near 100% censorship operation going on the 'Panama Papers' scandal.

The top leadership in China, along with Putin in Russia, all have extensive hidden offshore investments that have been revealed in the documents leak.

Re:This isn't just an Iceland Story.

[WillAffleckUW]

Very true. There are two such account holders in the Seattle area - one in Redmond and one in Bellevue.

Wonder if the IRS is going after them? I'd recommend a 10 year jail term and RICO confiscation of assets.

Re:Nordic honesty.

[phorm]

If 22,000 people got off their ass and surrounded the white house it might get interesting there too.
(not that I can talk much, we're similar inactive in Canada).

UK PM Cameron is next

[WillAffleckUW]

Activate Phase II.

You can run but you can't hide.

Re:Nordic honesty.

[Opportunist]

So would I, but I learned to aim lower. When you're used to politicians getting caught embezzling and taking bribes just shrugging it off as if that's part of the business, seeing someone who at least has the decency... ...to announce his resignation only to resign from resigning the next day ... sigh. Nope. Business as usual.