15 ms·

Icelandic Prime Minister Resigns After Panama Data Leak

451 points by antr 11y ago

Overtonwindow 11y ago
Perhaps not politically correct, but I absolutely love it when politicians loudly declare they will NOT resign, only to resign the follow day or two.
- DannyBee 11y ago
  How is this any different than most people's defensive reaction to people asking them to do something they don't want? Lots of people won't admit when they screwed up until days later (ask anyone in enough relationships :P), not sure why this is any different?
  - munificent 11y ago
    People often don't admit they screwed up until they have to. When someone like a prime minister does it, it's a nice example to show that even their power has limits. I wish we saw this more often in the US, but these days it seems like between a giant government and giant corporations, the people at the heads of them answer to almost no one.
    - a3n 11y ago
      In the US you pretty much have to have an FBI investigation and pending or filed charges, and foil-wrapped bundles of hundred dollar bills in the freezer, before anyone has to resign. Brazen in politics is a feature.
    - newjersey 11y ago
      > I wish we saw this more often in the US, but these days it seems like between a giant government and giant corporations, the people at the heads of them answer to almost no one. The biggest reason why I want privacy and security for all is I don't want my future heads of government and policy makers to be beholden to anyone who might have dirt on them. If someone was able to get to those documents and leak them, who's to say someone else was not able to get to them before the leak? What if someone were to get a hold of all the private conversations between future POTUS X and their boyfriends/girlfriends? I am more concerned that my elected representatives might have to reply "how high" when some clandestine operator says "jump". Yes, I am aware about campaign financing as well (saw the John Oliver video) and there's something we need to do about that as well.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- flexie 11y ago
  Earlier today the prime minister actually first tried to get the president to dissolve the parliament (as some kind of retaliation?), but apparently the president refused. As I understand it, this is the first time in Icelandic history that the president refuses to dissolve the parliament when asked to by the prime minister. Maybe someone here from Iceland knows...
  - halviti 11y ago
    Yes, he was trying to retaliate against his own party for not supporting him. The president wasn't ready to approve the request without at least first talking to the leader of the other coalition party to see if they were in agreement. http://www.visir.is/forseti-neitar-sigmundi-um-heimild-til-thingrofs/article/2016160409336 http://www.visir.is/forseti-neitar-sigmundi-um-heimild-til-t... And now it seems the former PM is accusing the president of lying.. http://www.visir.is/sigmundur-david-segir-forsetann-hafa-sagt-osatt/article/2016160409279 http://www.visir.is/sigmundur-david-segir-forsetann-hafa-sag... I'm pretty sure what happened is that he wanted the approval to dissolve the parliament, and then would then wave this authorization in the face of the other coalition party as a way to blackmail them for support.
    - levemi 11y ago
      It sounds like that Icelandic PM is a complete jerk who deserves everything that has happened to him. Obviously not putting the country first.
  - Beltiras 11y ago
    Yes, this is unprecedented but allowed for by the constitution. What you need to understand about the Icelandic Constitution is that it's mostly a translation from the Danish one from 1944 with patchwork reforms here and there, substituting Monarch for President. The Danish Monarchy is a figurehead not intended for much besides being a symbol of national unity. Much of the powers that the Constitution seems to grant has been interpreted to be in a similar vein to the Danish arrangements, in name only. Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson has been an activist president, interpreting his role more participatory than his predecessors.
- a3n 11y ago
  I'm always curious who plays the role, or the messenger for that role, who tells someone in this kind of situation that "no, you actually will resign. Today."
  - toomuchtodo 11y ago
    After watching House Of Cards, I always imagine the Frank Underwood character coming in to deliver the bad news.
    - newjersey 11y ago
      For me, I hope the someone who is supposed to resign is smart enough to already see the writing on the wall and one of the closer advisors or aides quietly says "it is time".
      - toomuchtodo 11y ago
        From experience, I find this to never be the case, whether in government or the private sector.
        scott_s 11y ago
        For these kind of executive positions, I don't see how it could not be the case. For example, Nixon. There is no one who could have told Nixon "You will resign today". On the other hand, I imagine he did have advisers telling him, "It's time." I figure it's the same for the Icelandic Prime Minister.
        a3n 11y ago
        I've always thought that Nixon was old fashioned enough to believe, despite his flaws, that it was the proprietary thing to do, and that it would have been shameful to have to go through a certain trial in the Senate.
        11y ago
- afandian 11y ago
  I have no idea what the details of the case are (it's all still coming out) but the timeframe was extremely short. I would challenge anyone to make such a momentous decision inside a day or so.
  - msbarnett 11y ago
    When close to 8% of the country is protesting outside your office door, there honestly isn't much choice in the matter.
    - keithpeter 11y ago
      Iceland has a population that is less than half - nearer a third - of the city I live in. On that smallish scale, direct action by a significant number of people carries a lot of weight I imagine!
    - SyneRyder 11y ago
      It's a tiny country. I've been to rock concerts that had bigger crowds than that protest. (Estimates are 22,000 for the Iceland protests. Both Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders have drawn bigger numbers just to their rallies.)
- sanatgersappa 11y ago
  that's just like acquired startup guys saying nothing will change.
  - odinduty 11y ago
    Well, often they really think nothing will change because they were promised nothing will change.
    - mkhpalm 11y ago
      Isn't that a clear indication for lack of experience? I've been through my fair share of acquisitions and I've never been told things won't change.
- jug 11y ago
  Seems like he didn't expect the extent of the protests at all. I think this is a case where we are aided by social networks. It is easier than ever to not only rally large groups, but also inspire others.
- kitcar 11y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schadenfreude https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schadenfreude
- mtgx 11y ago
  > Gunnlaugsson becomes the second Icelandic premier to resign amid street protests, after Geir Haarde was forced out during the 2009 financial collapse. This is beautiful. THIS is how you do a protest.
  - sickbeard 11y ago
    What were the protesting about though? Did he do something wrong?
    - kzrdude 11y ago
      He was found guilty of only the least charge: “But he was found guilty of not holding cabinet meetings when things turned critical. The lesser charge carried no prison sentence or fine. ” http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-17256626 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-17256626 My opinion: He was complicit in his government’s regulatory capture.
- cubano 11y ago
  A primary qualification of being an 10x politician is to be able to look citizen voters in the eye and sincerely lie right to their faces without any compunction.
  - noonespecial 11y ago
    I don't think is like that at all. The primary qualification is to be able to look citizen voters in the eye and know exactly what they want to hear said, and then say it sincerely without ever pausing to consider "the truth" at all. They don't "lie", that would entail thinking about the truth and then speaking differently. What might be true or false never crosses their minds.
    - toyg 11y ago
      You and parent poster are both wrong. A politician rarely ever lies. Incredibly, most career politicians sincerely believe what they say. They just change their beliefs more often than most people, even several times a day. Whenever some specific belief is challenged by external conditions (poor polling, disagreement with wealthy donors, etc), they just go through long doublethink processes multiple times with their advisors, until they're persuaded that changing their position is the best thing to do. Once they believe what they say, they simply sell it like only Real Believers could.
      - cubano 11y ago
        >You and parent poster are both wrong. A politician rarely ever lies. Incredibly, most career politicians sincerely believe what they say. They just change their beliefs more often than most people, even several times a day. I'm sorry, but I truly believe that not only is this view utterly naive but apologist as well, and I simply think it tries to blot the sun with its thumb.
      - noonespecial 11y ago
        Isn't it just a limit then? The best politician simply changes his beliefs for every person he talks to until "belief" is so fluid it becomes completely unmoored and meaningless. Hence no consideration of truth or falsehood and being able to sincerely tell everyone what they want to hear.
- anexprogrammer 11y ago
  The declaration that they're NOT going to resign has become a reliable indicator for impending resignation. cf I have every confidence in my Minister for Thing. I have no plans to run for the Presidency/Leader of Party.
- tremon 11y ago
  Every time you openly consider the political correctness of your statements, god kills a kitten.
orn 11y ago
He thought he could hold on, with all the protests and the mass of people coming out, didn't work out that way.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
drzaiusapelord 11y ago
Meh, its a country of 330,000 people with some pretty oddball politics as its norm. This PM is 41 years old and has only been in government 7 years. Its not like he represents the old guard, the banking industry, CEOs, the wealthy, or somesuch. He's kinda a nobody, even by Icelandic standards. He didn't have the political capital to cushion his fall so he took the easy way out. I'll be impressed when there's some reform or change in a powerful country or against a powerful and corrupt leader like Russia's Putin, who is clearly fleecing the Russian people to enrich himself and his friends. So far the only good news of note is that the US and the IRS will be cracking down harder on these characters now that they have all this ammo against them. Sadly, this will get a lot of people thinking "our side won" when this is pretty much the lowest prize we could have. Where's the real reform? Where's the big leaders being taken down? Iceland is pretty much a suburban Danish city on an island. Its not a world power. My city's dog catcher got more votes than this guy. Lets demand more than trivial wins. That said, bravo to the Icelandic people. Their example of a more direct form of democracy is pretty inspiring.
- hugi 11y ago
  Meh? This affects those of us that live in this country quite a lot. What is it that you find so odd or different about our politics from the rest of the world?
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - gr3yh47 11y ago
    not agreeing with the comment you replied to, but what i find different between us and Iceland is: Their people mobilized aggressively against corruption twice now. Our people have not, not for the banks, not for the NSA leaks, and we probably will not for this
    - adventured 11y ago
      Occupy Wall Street in fact drew the attention of millions of Americans. It also had practical results by shining the spotlight on the US banking system, as did the broad public anger at Wall Street. The largest US banks have been semi-neutered, nearly nationalized by the Fed when it comes to control, and are heavily tamped down when it comes to risk. The result of all of that, is that America's banks are now arguably the strongest - and among the safest - in the world (compare Wells Fargo and JP Morgan right now to Europe's banks for example, or see: Deutsche Bank and Credit Suisse).
markwaldron 11y ago
I wonder if the law will be as harsh on him as it was on the bankers they jailed.
- halviti 11y ago
  Technically he hasn't been publicly accused of doing anything illegal. Someone would have to make the case that his holdings in this offshore company actually did influence the decisions made regarding the banks during the crisis, and nobody is doing that just yet.
  - mortehu 11y ago
    He is accused of not disclosing his 50% stake in Wintris when he is elected to parliament in April 2009, in violation of a law requiring all members of parliament to report companies of which they own more than 25%. (I can't find the law in question.)
    - halviti 11y ago
      Sort of. He signed his 50% share over to his wife the day before that law went into effect, so 'technically' he didn't violate it. Luckily the public doesn't care much for these sort of technicalities as everyone can see the obvious conflict of interest that was trying to be hidden.
      - makomk 11y ago
        I'm not sure he even violated the spirit of that law. The offshore company in question was set up by his independently wealthy wife in order to invest her family fortune, and if the authors of that law didn't think politicians' partners' investments needed disclosing, well...
- retube 11y ago
  Has he actually done anything illegal? Avoidance is legal. Evasion is not.
adultSwim 11y ago
Leaks take their first scalp. Curious to see if/when they go after more sensitive/powerful Western interests. Seems like so far the articles have gone after fairly easy targets.
- xlm1717 11y ago
  My thoughts exactly. Really hope they don't take too long in leaking more powerful targets.
- losteric 11y ago
  > Seems like so far the articles have gone after fairly easy targets. They're being careful. There are legitimate reasons for running these shell corps and (accidental) libel will throw all their accusations in to question. > When asked about the lack of Americans in the original release, the German newspaper’s editor responded mysteriously: "Just wait for what is coming next." I am patiently waiting with a bucket of popcorn.
  - pdabbadabba 11y ago
    > When asked about the lack of Americans in the original release, the German newspaper’s editor responded mysteriously: "Just wait for what is coming next." We may see something eventually. But it has also been pointed out that U.S. laws give wealthy individuals fewer reasons to form companies in Panama. It is possible to form entities with secret owners under U.S. law, with a little effort. So the primary reason for Americans to go offshore may be tax-related, for which Panama would not normally be the jurisdiction of choice. See: http://fusion.net/story/287671/americans-panama-papers-trove/ http://fusion.net/story/287671/americans-panama-papers-trove...
    - rconti 11y ago
      There's a whole series of NPR Planet Money podcasts about setting up offshore (and onshore!) shell companies. http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2012/07/27/157499893/episode-390-we-set-up-an-offshore-company-in-a-tax-haven http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2012/07/27/157499893/episo...
Pyxl101 11y ago
Did he break the law or do something unethical? What did he do?
- halviti 11y ago
  He held a company with his wife that owned stock in the collapsed banks (making him a creditor to the banks). He then essentialy gave his wife his share of the company so he could hide this from the public and not report it, and was then put in a position of power where this holding becomes a conflict of interest because he is in a position to determine how much these creditors (he and his wife) would get paid for their stock.
  - akhatri_aus 11y ago
    Did he or his wife benefit from this? I thought it would suck to be a creditor to a collapsed bank?
    - halviti 11y ago
      Well, the stock was owned before the banks collapsed, so no matter what it's a loss. The only "benefit" you could get is trying to get back as much of your investment as you can.. in which case this begs the question, would these holdings have influenced decisions in things like deciding whether the failed banks should repay the debt owed to the UK / Netherlands, etc.
    - neffy 11y ago
      It's complicated. The precise chain of events is: 1) 2006 Father of wife sells Toyota dealership at a very favourable price to a consortium of business men who use a bank loan to pay for it. 2) Wife inherits/is given money by father. 3) Wife uses some of the money to invest in Icelandic Banks using an offshore company Wintris. Note, Icelandic Banks are desperately raising capital during this period ... in order to allow them to make more loans. At the same time, Banks are also borrowing heavily from abroad, and re-lending that money to a small circle of businessmen (see 1). 4) Banks go under because during 2008 they are unable to rollover the loans that they have borrowed on the international credit market (see 3), and also are starting to experience massive defaults on the loans they have made to a small circle of Icelandic businessmen (see 1 & 3). 5) Wintris is listed as one of many creditors to the Icelandic Banks, and and consequently stands to benefit (or not) from the resolution talks that are ongoing to this day.
niccaluim 11y ago
Iceland doesn't mess around, man. He's lucky they aren't still resolving disputes via blood feud. :)
- erispoe 11y ago
  Blood feuds were never the preferred method. The Sagas go on and on about people who were good lawyers and on how important it was to know the law (while being able to chop a head off with a single swing of your axe). Iceland's parliament is the oldest in the world in continuous operation.
  - niccaluim 11y ago
    Já ég veit. Það var bara spaug. :)
  - _acme 11y ago
    Iceland's parliament, the Althing, has not been in continuous operation since its founding; it was discontinued in 1799 for 45 years. It was restored in 1844.
- nkurz 11y ago
  Icelanders are not savages! They moved on from blood feuds quite a while ago. Nowadays (if the history I learned in school is still accurate) they resolve their disputes like civilized people with hólmganga: http://www.vikinganswerlady.com/holmgang.shtml http://www.vikinganswerlady.com/holmgang.shtml
qznc 11y ago
If they really have a reelection it is quite likely that the Pirate Party will win. That would be awesome! https://twitter.com/joncstone/status/717337076807639040 https://twitter.com/joncstone/status/717337076807639040
- levemi 11y ago
  It bothers me that the options for office are untrustworthy career politicians who lie and corrupt their position or naive single issue ideologues who understand too little and expect too much. I kind of wish politics was boring. Just vote for the boring candidates who know how to do their job and are happy with an average salary. Bureaucrats, but competent ones.
  - deepnet 11y ago
    In reality the Civil Service runs a country. Politicians are mainly meddling chumps. Like new managers constantly ordering sweeping changes but hardly aware of how things are implemented on the ground. Inventing feel good stats which are juked. The old BBC series Yes, Minister is the most realistic depiction of politics. Blind trust of authority is all too commonplace; the default should be mistrust of those who wield power.
    - testrun 11y ago
      Not quite, those meddling chumps write the laws, which the bureaucrats implements.
      - deepnet 11y ago
        Unfortunately lobbyists write much of the legislation these days. Otherwise legal and permanent secretaries ( civil servants ) draft laws and parliaments ( congress ) debate and amend them. I conceed the executive branch does propose the policy and ideas on which they are based. I am all for legislatures ( parliaments ) and elected representatives but the executive ( govt. ) seems to increasingly be at odds with the citizenry and serve those who fund their election or pad their retirements with directorships. Sure have govt. just much less of it - there are far too many laws and far too many bad laws. Fewer better, well considered laws, informed by public debate. Really watch a couple of episodes of Yes Minister, that shows how it works not how they say it works.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
justsaysmthng 11y ago
I wonder if there will be similar political consequences in other countries. Somehow I feel like the really big fish will just shrug it off by flexing its political muscle a little and get out clean. They will point their fingers at a plot by CIA to destabilize their country and scream that the west is a lot more corrupt than insert name here.
- r3bl 11y ago
  Well joke's on them then because CIA is in Panama Papers too! The CIA findings were published just two hours ago: https://www.occrp.org/en/panamapapers/spies-and-shadowy-allies/ https://www.occrp.org/en/panamapapers/spies-and-shadowy-alli... To be honest, I don't see any other country doing anything remotely similar to Iceland. After all, Iceland is small, western, and very progressive country. 20 thousand people in the protest yesterday represents ~10% of registered voters, which is a huge percentage of people that came to protest.
Hello71 11y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelandic_name#Cultural_ramifications_.E2.80.93_how_to_address_people https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelandic_name#Cultural_ramifi...
swang 11y ago
He still remains head of his party, and his fellow party member took over for him. Seems fishy.
- halviti 11y ago
  His party and also their coalition party are trying to keep the parliament together because if it gets dissolved then it's likely the pirate party will win in an election, so they're trying to avoid that.
  - r3bl 11y ago
    Not really. First of all, if the parliament gets dissolved, the parties have really short time to actually prepare a campaign, which means that bigger parties will probably be more in a bit of an advantage, because they have a lot of experience. Pirate Party is not really big in Iceland neither, but according to the polls, it currently does have huge support (~40%). Second of all, prime minister did try to dissolve the parliament by asking the president to do so before he resigned, but president rejected this proposal. This means that the parliament will probably be functional until the elections (set for autumn), just with a different Prime Minister. This gives the Pirate Party much more time to actually prepare for the elections, and, in my opinion, gives them enough time to actually crush the competition. This is, by far, the best possible outcome for the Pirate Party.
fhaifhruh 11y ago
In the meantime, the Chinese government censors every piece of news about Panama Papers and unelected officials keep corrupting, manipulating and abusing human rights.
- ta_04052016_1 11y ago
  Their anti-graft campaign is nothing more than a political purge. When it comes to real tax emission and corruption, they honestly can't care less. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge
- contingencies 11y ago
  The current great helmsman^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hpresident of China, "Uncle Xi", as the locals like to call him, has a very draconian reputation. His family have been implicated in the files. Last night at dinner I floated the idea of spray painting his image with the Chinese word for Panama about town. Everyone choked on their dinner.
- powertower 11y ago
  ON top of that, the originator and/or the media involved, have completely censored out ALL US based individuals from the data leaks (of 11.5 million documents, 215,000 companies). One might suggest that this "leak" is being used to target foreign leaders that the US does not like - while gaining blackmail material against domestic individuals.
pink_dinner 11y ago
All of these leaks show me that illegally hacking data and releasing private data has no consequences as long as the ends justify the means
- ionised 11y ago
  It shouldn't carry any consuquences if the leak is determined to be in the public interest. That's the whole idea behind whistleblowing, and whistleblower protection.
shinglesbell 11y ago
Meanwhile in South Africa the current president is corrupt as can be and refuses to resign despite calls from all corners of society to do so... http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/opposition-parties-unite-against-zuma-in-parliament-20160405 http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/opposition-parties-un...
- supremeanger 11y ago
  >The ANC is corrupt Water is wet. The ANC has been corrupt since TRC
williesleg 11y ago
Well that explains why this is still the same. http://vevo.ly/qqqDbL http://vevo.ly/qqqDbL
simplegeek 11y ago
Can any lawyer kindly shed some light on why tax evasion by politicians is so wrong that they should step down? Just trying to understand.
- cjbprime 11y ago
  As I understand it, it's only especially wrong in Iceland, where the ruling party is (a) running on a platform of hostility towards large banks; (b) currently negotiating with those banks to decide how much public money they should get; and (c) we now find that the primary negotiator is invested in the banks he's negotiating against (through bonds held offshore), which he is supposed to be philosophically opposed to the success of on some basic level. Or something like that.
  - glup 11y ago
    I agree with the above, but I think there's also a more general Scandinavian/Swiss/German ethic that strongly values playing by the rules. Many citizens in these countries have a very different view of government than most do in the US: if collective adherence to rules results in better collective outcomes, and you if you value collective outcomes (perhaps because they are relatively culturally, ethnically, and socioeconomically homogenous populations), then regulation isn't a thing to find a way around for personal benefit. I think the above sentiment gets further reified as it becomes pare of the national identity: corruption scandals are for tropical dictators, not well-off postindustrial democracies. this varies by region in the US, obviously. I suspect that the frequency of Pittsburgh lefts (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittsburgh_left https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittsburgh_left) is a pretty decent proxy for valuing system-optimal outcomes
    - cfallin 11y ago
      It's fascinating to me that you mention Pittsburgh lefts as a sign of altruism / global-outcome-optimization. I currently live in Pittsburgh and... let's just say that I would not hold the average driver up as a model of selflessness. I think it's more that we've reached a local equilibrium: new drivers learn quickly to wait when a light turns green, as a matter of avoiding accidents, and also to take advantage of that pause when turning left, as a matter of not angering everyone behind them. It's difficult to change the equilibrium as long as you interact with others following the current system. (It's entirely possible that one could view this as emergent-behavior-converging-on-altruism without anyone consciously being altruistic. I'm just saying that anecdotally, it doesn't seem to derive directly from conscious altruistic values.)
nickbauman 11y ago
This when the US is the favorite tax haven still. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-27/the-world-s-favorite-new-tax-haven-is-the-united-states http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-27/the-world-...
- spriggan3 11y ago
  > This when the US is the favorite tax haven still. It doesn't matter for US individuals or corporations, they need off shore accounts if they want to evade taxes.
Htsthbjig 11y ago
The problem is when people in power seizes people's banks account like it was done in Iceland because "the country needs sacrifices" and they themselves don't do the sacrifice. Before banning possession of gold, FDR and all his friends and family actually sold their gold: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102 When taxes were 95% in UK or US(during and after the big war) it was better for the big guys that paid very little at the end. In times of emergency measures, just having info means you are not affected by that. But everybody else is.
trhway 11y ago
weak Vikings - crying quit the moment somebody noticed a probably undeclared krona of theirs. Real men with nerves of steel - like Putin - never quit even when billions dollars of stolen money surface in the clear!
peter303 11y ago
In Iceland they bailed out Main Street, not Wall Street. They let their bad banks collapse, not save them. That caused severe sort term pain to bank customers. They also forced all mortgages to be rewritten to cancel any underwater portion. That is easier do when you three banks instead of 8000 and not the securitization of mortgages.
- toyg 11y ago
  Downvoted, because this is totally irrelevant to the topic at hand. Shall we also talk about volcanoes and Icelandic flora?
Hansi 11y ago
As an Icelandic person living abroad I can only say fuck this fucking shit: "Prime Minister has not resigned - sends press release to international media" http://icelandmonitor.mbl.is/news/politics_and_society/2016/04/05/prime_minister_has_not_resigned_sends_press_release/ http://icelandmonitor.mbl.is/news/politics_and_society/2016/...
- civilian 11y ago
  What's the distinction between "resign" and "merely stepped aside for an unspecified amount of time and will continue to serve as the Chairman of the Progressive Party." The last time an executive at my company took a "sabbatical" they never came back. It honestly sounds like your PM is trying to resign without using the word.
- powertower 11y ago
  I've tried to locate the details of his crimes, but can't seem to. There is just some minor things listed from years ago being mentioned. Do you know what exactly he has he done (to have to resign in shame)? It's just odd that there are no details within the articles, nor from the people that are trying to get him to resign.
  - lincolnbryant 11y ago
    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-04-03/unprecedented-leak-exposes-criminal-financial-dealings-some-worlds-wealthiest-people http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-04-03/unprecedented-leak-...
    - powertower 11y ago
      That was my point... He had ownership in a company that lost money and net worth (if I'm reading that correctly). I can't find the illegal or the immoral part.
      - 21echoes 11y ago
        the main one: right before new disclosure, regulation, and taxation laws came into effect, he sold 50% ownership stake in his holdings of the shell corp to his wife for $1, so that he would not be subject to the new laws. in general: one does not have to literally break the law to be asked to resign by your citizens. that is not, and should not be, the standards to which we hold our leaders.
wmil 11y ago
For an interesting contrast, in Canada the CBC (state broadcaster) the names of over 350 Canadians implicated but has decided not to release any of the names. They've turned the list over to the tax agency, but that's it.

451 points by antr 11y ago

Perhaps not politically correct, but I absolutely love it when politicians loudly declare they will NOT resign, only to resign the follow day or two.

DannyBee 11y ago
How is this any different than most people's defensive reaction to people asking them to do something they don't want? Lots of people won't admit when they screwed up until days later (ask anyone in enough relationships :P), not sure why this is any different?
- munificent 11y ago
  People often don't admit they screwed up until they have to. When someone like a prime minister does it, it's a nice example to show that even their power has limits. I wish we saw this more often in the US, but these days it seems like between a giant government and giant corporations, the people at the heads of them answer to almost no one.
  - a3n 11y ago
    In the US you pretty much have to have an FBI investigation and pending or filed charges, and foil-wrapped bundles of hundred dollar bills in the freezer, before anyone has to resign. Brazen in politics is a feature.
  - newjersey 11y ago
    > I wish we saw this more often in the US, but these days it seems like between a giant government and giant corporations, the people at the heads of them answer to almost no one. The biggest reason why I want privacy and security for all is I don't want my future heads of government and policy makers to be beholden to anyone who might have dirt on them. If someone was able to get to those documents and leak them, who's to say someone else was not able to get to them before the leak? What if someone were to get a hold of all the private conversations between future POTUS X and their boyfriends/girlfriends? I am more concerned that my elected representatives might have to reply "how high" when some clandestine operator says "jump". Yes, I am aware about campaign financing as well (saw the John Oliver video) and there's something we need to do about that as well.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
flexie 11y ago
Earlier today the prime minister actually first tried to get the president to dissolve the parliament (as some kind of retaliation?), but apparently the president refused. As I understand it, this is the first time in Icelandic history that the president refuses to dissolve the parliament when asked to by the prime minister. Maybe someone here from Iceland knows...
- halviti 11y ago
  Yes, he was trying to retaliate against his own party for not supporting him. The president wasn't ready to approve the request without at least first talking to the leader of the other coalition party to see if they were in agreement. http://www.visir.is/forseti-neitar-sigmundi-um-heimild-til-thingrofs/article/2016160409336 http://www.visir.is/forseti-neitar-sigmundi-um-heimild-til-t... And now it seems the former PM is accusing the president of lying.. http://www.visir.is/sigmundur-david-segir-forsetann-hafa-sagt-osatt/article/2016160409279 http://www.visir.is/sigmundur-david-segir-forsetann-hafa-sag... I'm pretty sure what happened is that he wanted the approval to dissolve the parliament, and then would then wave this authorization in the face of the other coalition party as a way to blackmail them for support.
  - levemi 11y ago
    It sounds like that Icelandic PM is a complete jerk who deserves everything that has happened to him. Obviously not putting the country first.
- Beltiras 11y ago
  Yes, this is unprecedented but allowed for by the constitution. What you need to understand about the Icelandic Constitution is that it's mostly a translation from the Danish one from 1944 with patchwork reforms here and there, substituting Monarch for President. The Danish Monarchy is a figurehead not intended for much besides being a symbol of national unity. Much of the powers that the Constitution seems to grant has been interpreted to be in a similar vein to the Danish arrangements, in name only. Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson has been an activist president, interpreting his role more participatory than his predecessors.
a3n 11y ago
I'm always curious who plays the role, or the messenger for that role, who tells someone in this kind of situation that "no, you actually will resign. Today."
- toomuchtodo 11y ago
  After watching House Of Cards, I always imagine the Frank Underwood character coming in to deliver the bad news.
  - newjersey 11y ago
    For me, I hope the someone who is supposed to resign is smart enough to already see the writing on the wall and one of the closer advisors or aides quietly says "it is time".
    - toomuchtodo 11y ago
      From experience, I find this to never be the case, whether in government or the private sector.
      - scott_s 11y ago
        For these kind of executive positions, I don't see how it could not be the case. For example, Nixon. There is no one who could have told Nixon "You will resign today". On the other hand, I imagine he did have advisers telling him, "It's time." I figure it's the same for the Icelandic Prime Minister.
        a3n 11y ago
        I've always thought that Nixon was old fashioned enough to believe, despite his flaws, that it was the proprietary thing to do, and that it would have been shameful to have to go through a certain trial in the Senate.
        11y ago
afandian 11y ago
I have no idea what the details of the case are (it's all still coming out) but the timeframe was extremely short. I would challenge anyone to make such a momentous decision inside a day or so.
- msbarnett 11y ago
  When close to 8% of the country is protesting outside your office door, there honestly isn't much choice in the matter.
  - keithpeter 11y ago
    Iceland has a population that is less than half - nearer a third - of the city I live in. On that smallish scale, direct action by a significant number of people carries a lot of weight I imagine!
  - SyneRyder 11y ago
    It's a tiny country. I've been to rock concerts that had bigger crowds than that protest. (Estimates are 22,000 for the Iceland protests. Both Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders have drawn bigger numbers just to their rallies.)
sanatgersappa 11y ago
that's just like acquired startup guys saying nothing will change.
- odinduty 11y ago
  Well, often they really think nothing will change because they were promised nothing will change.
  - mkhpalm 11y ago
    Isn't that a clear indication for lack of experience? I've been through my fair share of acquisitions and I've never been told things won't change.
jug 11y ago
Seems like he didn't expect the extent of the protests at all. I think this is a case where we are aided by social networks. It is easier than ever to not only rally large groups, but also inspire others.
kitcar 11y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schadenfreude https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schadenfreude
mtgx 11y ago
> Gunnlaugsson becomes the second Icelandic premier to resign amid street protests, after Geir Haarde was forced out during the 2009 financial collapse. This is beautiful. THIS is how you do a protest.
- sickbeard 11y ago
  What were the protesting about though? Did he do something wrong?
  - kzrdude 11y ago
    He was found guilty of only the least charge: “But he was found guilty of not holding cabinet meetings when things turned critical. The lesser charge carried no prison sentence or fine. ” http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-17256626 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-17256626 My opinion: He was complicit in his government’s regulatory capture.
cubano 11y ago
A primary qualification of being an 10x politician is to be able to look citizen voters in the eye and sincerely lie right to their faces without any compunction.
- noonespecial 11y ago
  I don't think is like that at all. The primary qualification is to be able to look citizen voters in the eye and know exactly what they want to hear said, and then say it sincerely without ever pausing to consider "the truth" at all. They don't "lie", that would entail thinking about the truth and then speaking differently. What might be true or false never crosses their minds.
  - toyg 11y ago
    You and parent poster are both wrong. A politician rarely ever lies. Incredibly, most career politicians sincerely believe what they say. They just change their beliefs more often than most people, even several times a day. Whenever some specific belief is challenged by external conditions (poor polling, disagreement with wealthy donors, etc), they just go through long doublethink processes multiple times with their advisors, until they're persuaded that changing their position is the best thing to do. Once they believe what they say, they simply sell it like only Real Believers could.
    - cubano 11y ago
      >You and parent poster are both wrong. A politician rarely ever lies. Incredibly, most career politicians sincerely believe what they say. They just change their beliefs more often than most people, even several times a day. I'm sorry, but I truly believe that not only is this view utterly naive but apologist as well, and I simply think it tries to blot the sun with its thumb.
    - noonespecial 11y ago
      Isn't it just a limit then? The best politician simply changes his beliefs for every person he talks to until "belief" is so fluid it becomes completely unmoored and meaningless. Hence no consideration of truth or falsehood and being able to sincerely tell everyone what they want to hear.
anexprogrammer 11y ago
The declaration that they're NOT going to resign has become a reliable indicator for impending resignation. cf I have every confidence in my Minister for Thing. I have no plans to run for the Presidency/Leader of Party.
tremon 11y ago
Every time you openly consider the political correctness of your statements, god kills a kitten.

orn 11y ago

He thought he could hold on, with all the protests and the mass of people coming out, didn't work out that way.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

drzaiusapelord 11y ago

Meh, its a country of 330,000 people with some pretty oddball politics as its norm. This PM is 41 years old and has only been in government 7 years. Its not like he represents the old guard, the banking industry, CEOs, the wealthy, or somesuch. He's kinda a nobody, even by Icelandic standards. He didn't have the political capital to cushion his fall so he took the easy way out. I'll be impressed when there's some reform or change in a powerful country or against a powerful and corrupt leader like Russia's Putin, who is clearly fleecing the Russian people to enrich himself and his friends. So far the only good news of note is that the US and the IRS will be cracking down harder on these characters now that they have all this ammo against them. Sadly, this will get a lot of people thinking "our side won" when this is pretty much the lowest prize we could have. Where's the real reform? Where's the big leaders being taken down? Iceland is pretty much a suburban Danish city on an island. Its not a world power. My city's dog catcher got more votes than this guy. Lets demand more than trivial wins. That said, bravo to the Icelandic people. Their example of a more direct form of democracy is pretty inspiring.

hugi 11y ago
Meh? This affects those of us that live in this country quite a lot. What is it that you find so odd or different about our politics from the rest of the world?
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- gr3yh47 11y ago
  not agreeing with the comment you replied to, but what i find different between us and Iceland is: Their people mobilized aggressively against corruption twice now. Our people have not, not for the banks, not for the NSA leaks, and we probably will not for this
  - adventured 11y ago
    Occupy Wall Street in fact drew the attention of millions of Americans. It also had practical results by shining the spotlight on the US banking system, as did the broad public anger at Wall Street. The largest US banks have been semi-neutered, nearly nationalized by the Fed when it comes to control, and are heavily tamped down when it comes to risk. The result of all of that, is that America's banks are now arguably the strongest - and among the safest - in the world (compare Wells Fargo and JP Morgan right now to Europe's banks for example, or see: Deutsche Bank and Credit Suisse).

markwaldron 11y ago

I wonder if the law will be as harsh on him as it was on the bankers they jailed.

halviti 11y ago
Technically he hasn't been publicly accused of doing anything illegal. Someone would have to make the case that his holdings in this offshore company actually did influence the decisions made regarding the banks during the crisis, and nobody is doing that just yet.
- mortehu 11y ago
  He is accused of not disclosing his 50% stake in Wintris when he is elected to parliament in April 2009, in violation of a law requiring all members of parliament to report companies of which they own more than 25%. (I can't find the law in question.)
  - halviti 11y ago
    Sort of. He signed his 50% share over to his wife the day before that law went into effect, so 'technically' he didn't violate it. Luckily the public doesn't care much for these sort of technicalities as everyone can see the obvious conflict of interest that was trying to be hidden.
    - makomk 11y ago
      I'm not sure he even violated the spirit of that law. The offshore company in question was set up by his independently wealthy wife in order to invest her family fortune, and if the authors of that law didn't think politicians' partners' investments needed disclosing, well...
retube 11y ago
Has he actually done anything illegal? Avoidance is legal. Evasion is not.

adultSwim 11y ago

Leaks take their first scalp. Curious to see if/when they go after more sensitive/powerful Western interests. Seems like so far the articles have gone after fairly easy targets.

xlm1717 11y ago
My thoughts exactly. Really hope they don't take too long in leaking more powerful targets.
losteric 11y ago
> Seems like so far the articles have gone after fairly easy targets. They're being careful. There are legitimate reasons for running these shell corps and (accidental) libel will throw all their accusations in to question. > When asked about the lack of Americans in the original release, the German newspaper’s editor responded mysteriously: "Just wait for what is coming next." I am patiently waiting with a bucket of popcorn.
- pdabbadabba 11y ago
  > When asked about the lack of Americans in the original release, the German newspaper’s editor responded mysteriously: "Just wait for what is coming next." We may see something eventually. But it has also been pointed out that U.S. laws give wealthy individuals fewer reasons to form companies in Panama. It is possible to form entities with secret owners under U.S. law, with a little effort. So the primary reason for Americans to go offshore may be tax-related, for which Panama would not normally be the jurisdiction of choice. See: http://fusion.net/story/287671/americans-panama-papers-trove/ http://fusion.net/story/287671/americans-panama-papers-trove...
  - rconti 11y ago
    There's a whole series of NPR Planet Money podcasts about setting up offshore (and onshore!) shell companies. http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2012/07/27/157499893/episode-390-we-set-up-an-offshore-company-in-a-tax-haven http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2012/07/27/157499893/episo...

Pyxl101 11y ago

Did he break the law or do something unethical? What did he do?

halviti 11y ago
He held a company with his wife that owned stock in the collapsed banks (making him a creditor to the banks). He then essentialy gave his wife his share of the company so he could hide this from the public and not report it, and was then put in a position of power where this holding becomes a conflict of interest because he is in a position to determine how much these creditors (he and his wife) would get paid for their stock.
- akhatri_aus 11y ago
  Did he or his wife benefit from this? I thought it would suck to be a creditor to a collapsed bank?
  - halviti 11y ago
    Well, the stock was owned before the banks collapsed, so no matter what it's a loss. The only "benefit" you could get is trying to get back as much of your investment as you can.. in which case this begs the question, would these holdings have influenced decisions in things like deciding whether the failed banks should repay the debt owed to the UK / Netherlands, etc.
  - neffy 11y ago
    It's complicated. The precise chain of events is: 1) 2006 Father of wife sells Toyota dealership at a very favourable price to a consortium of business men who use a bank loan to pay for it. 2) Wife inherits/is given money by father. 3) Wife uses some of the money to invest in Icelandic Banks using an offshore company Wintris. Note, Icelandic Banks are desperately raising capital during this period ... in order to allow them to make more loans. At the same time, Banks are also borrowing heavily from abroad, and re-lending that money to a small circle of businessmen (see 1). 4) Banks go under because during 2008 they are unable to rollover the loans that they have borrowed on the international credit market (see 3), and also are starting to experience massive defaults on the loans they have made to a small circle of Icelandic businessmen (see 1 & 3). 5) Wintris is listed as one of many creditors to the Icelandic Banks, and and consequently stands to benefit (or not) from the resolution talks that are ongoing to this day.

niccaluim 11y ago

Iceland doesn't mess around, man. He's lucky they aren't still resolving disputes via blood feud. :)

erispoe 11y ago
Blood feuds were never the preferred method. The Sagas go on and on about people who were good lawyers and on how important it was to know the law (while being able to chop a head off with a single swing of your axe). Iceland's parliament is the oldest in the world in continuous operation.
- niccaluim 11y ago
  Já ég veit. Það var bara spaug. :)
- _acme 11y ago
  Iceland's parliament, the Althing, has not been in continuous operation since its founding; it was discontinued in 1799 for 45 years. It was restored in 1844.
nkurz 11y ago
Icelanders are not savages! They moved on from blood feuds quite a while ago. Nowadays (if the history I learned in school is still accurate) they resolve their disputes like civilized people with hólmganga: http://www.vikinganswerlady.com/holmgang.shtml http://www.vikinganswerlady.com/holmgang.shtml

qznc 11y ago

If they really have a reelection it is quite likely that the Pirate Party will win. That would be awesome! https://twitter.com/joncstone/status/717337076807639040 https://twitter.com/joncstone/status/717337076807639040

levemi 11y ago
It bothers me that the options for office are untrustworthy career politicians who lie and corrupt their position or naive single issue ideologues who understand too little and expect too much. I kind of wish politics was boring. Just vote for the boring candidates who know how to do their job and are happy with an average salary. Bureaucrats, but competent ones.
- deepnet 11y ago
  In reality the Civil Service runs a country. Politicians are mainly meddling chumps. Like new managers constantly ordering sweeping changes but hardly aware of how things are implemented on the ground. Inventing feel good stats which are juked. The old BBC series Yes, Minister is the most realistic depiction of politics. Blind trust of authority is all too commonplace; the default should be mistrust of those who wield power.
  - testrun 11y ago
    Not quite, those meddling chumps write the laws, which the bureaucrats implements.
    - deepnet 11y ago
      Unfortunately lobbyists write much of the legislation these days. Otherwise legal and permanent secretaries ( civil servants ) draft laws and parliaments ( congress ) debate and amend them. I conceed the executive branch does propose the policy and ideas on which they are based. I am all for legislatures ( parliaments ) and elected representatives but the executive ( govt. ) seems to increasingly be at odds with the citizenry and serve those who fund their election or pad their retirements with directorships. Sure have govt. just much less of it - there are far too many laws and far too many bad laws. Fewer better, well considered laws, informed by public debate. Really watch a couple of episodes of Yes Minister, that shows how it works not how they say it works.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

justsaysmthng 11y ago

I wonder if there will be similar political consequences in other countries. Somehow I feel like the really big fish will just shrug it off by flexing its political muscle a little and get out clean. They will point their fingers at a plot by CIA to destabilize their country and scream that the west is a lot more corrupt than insert name here.

r3bl 11y ago
Well joke's on them then because CIA is in Panama Papers too! The CIA findings were published just two hours ago: https://www.occrp.org/en/panamapapers/spies-and-shadowy-allies/ https://www.occrp.org/en/panamapapers/spies-and-shadowy-alli... To be honest, I don't see any other country doing anything remotely similar to Iceland. After all, Iceland is small, western, and very progressive country. 20 thousand people in the protest yesterday represents ~10% of registered voters, which is a huge percentage of people that came to protest.

Hello71 11y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelandic_name#Cultural_ramifications_.E2.80.93_how_to_address_people https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelandic_name#Cultural_ramifi...

swang 11y ago

He still remains head of his party, and his fellow party member took over for him. Seems fishy.

halviti 11y ago
His party and also their coalition party are trying to keep the parliament together because if it gets dissolved then it's likely the pirate party will win in an election, so they're trying to avoid that.
- r3bl 11y ago
  Not really. First of all, if the parliament gets dissolved, the parties have really short time to actually prepare a campaign, which means that bigger parties will probably be more in a bit of an advantage, because they have a lot of experience. Pirate Party is not really big in Iceland neither, but according to the polls, it currently does have huge support (~40%). Second of all, prime minister did try to dissolve the parliament by asking the president to do so before he resigned, but president rejected this proposal. This means that the parliament will probably be functional until the elections (set for autumn), just with a different Prime Minister. This gives the Pirate Party much more time to actually prepare for the elections, and, in my opinion, gives them enough time to actually crush the competition. This is, by far, the best possible outcome for the Pirate Party.

fhaifhruh 11y ago

In the meantime, the Chinese government censors every piece of news about Panama Papers and unelected officials keep corrupting, manipulating and abusing human rights.

ta_04052016_1 11y ago
Their anti-graft campaign is nothing more than a political purge. When it comes to real tax emission and corruption, they honestly can't care less. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge
contingencies 11y ago
The current great helmsman^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hpresident of China, "Uncle Xi", as the locals like to call him, has a very draconian reputation. His family have been implicated in the files. Last night at dinner I floated the idea of spray painting his image with the Chinese word for Panama about town. Everyone choked on their dinner.
powertower 11y ago
ON top of that, the originator and/or the media involved, have completely censored out ALL US based individuals from the data leaks (of 11.5 million documents, 215,000 companies). One might suggest that this "leak" is being used to target foreign leaders that the US does not like - while gaining blackmail material against domestic individuals.

pink_dinner 11y ago

All of these leaks show me that illegally hacking data and releasing private data has no consequences as long as the ends justify the means

ionised 11y ago
It shouldn't carry any consuquences if the leak is determined to be in the public interest. That's the whole idea behind whistleblowing, and whistleblower protection.

shinglesbell 11y ago

Meanwhile in South Africa the current president is corrupt as can be and refuses to resign despite calls from all corners of society to do so... http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/opposition-parties-unite-against-zuma-in-parliament-20160405 http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/opposition-parties-un...

supremeanger 11y ago
>The ANC is corrupt Water is wet. The ANC has been corrupt since TRC

williesleg 11y ago

Well that explains why this is still the same. http://vevo.ly/qqqDbL http://vevo.ly/qqqDbL

simplegeek 11y ago

Can any lawyer kindly shed some light on why tax evasion by politicians is so wrong that they should step down? Just trying to understand.

cjbprime 11y ago
As I understand it, it's only especially wrong in Iceland, where the ruling party is (a) running on a platform of hostility towards large banks; (b) currently negotiating with those banks to decide how much public money they should get; and (c) we now find that the primary negotiator is invested in the banks he's negotiating against (through bonds held offshore), which he is supposed to be philosophically opposed to the success of on some basic level. Or something like that.
- glup 11y ago
  I agree with the above, but I think there's also a more general Scandinavian/Swiss/German ethic that strongly values playing by the rules. Many citizens in these countries have a very different view of government than most do in the US: if collective adherence to rules results in better collective outcomes, and you if you value collective outcomes (perhaps because they are relatively culturally, ethnically, and socioeconomically homogenous populations), then regulation isn't a thing to find a way around for personal benefit. I think the above sentiment gets further reified as it becomes pare of the national identity: corruption scandals are for tropical dictators, not well-off postindustrial democracies. this varies by region in the US, obviously. I suspect that the frequency of Pittsburgh lefts (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittsburgh_left https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittsburgh_left) is a pretty decent proxy for valuing system-optimal outcomes
  - cfallin 11y ago
    It's fascinating to me that you mention Pittsburgh lefts as a sign of altruism / global-outcome-optimization. I currently live in Pittsburgh and... let's just say that I would not hold the average driver up as a model of selflessness. I think it's more that we've reached a local equilibrium: new drivers learn quickly to wait when a light turns green, as a matter of avoiding accidents, and also to take advantage of that pause when turning left, as a matter of not angering everyone behind them. It's difficult to change the equilibrium as long as you interact with others following the current system. (It's entirely possible that one could view this as emergent-behavior-converging-on-altruism without anyone consciously being altruistic. I'm just saying that anecdotally, it doesn't seem to derive directly from conscious altruistic values.)

nickbauman 11y ago

This when the US is the favorite tax haven still. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-27/the-world-s-favorite-new-tax-haven-is-the-united-states http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-27/the-world-...

spriggan3 11y ago
> This when the US is the favorite tax haven still. It doesn't matter for US individuals or corporations, they need off shore accounts if they want to evade taxes.

Htsthbjig 11y ago

The problem is when people in power seizes people's banks account like it was done in Iceland because "the country needs sacrifices" and they themselves don't do the sacrifice. Before banning possession of gold, FDR and all his friends and family actually sold their gold: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102 When taxes were 95% in UK or US(during and after the big war) it was better for the big guys that paid very little at the end. In times of emergency measures, just having info means you are not affected by that. But everybody else is.

trhway 11y ago

weak Vikings - crying quit the moment somebody noticed a probably undeclared krona of theirs. Real men with nerves of steel - like Putin - never quit even when billions dollars of stolen money surface in the clear!

peter303 11y ago

In Iceland they bailed out Main Street, not Wall Street. They let their bad banks collapse, not save them. That caused severe sort term pain to bank customers. They also forced all mortgages to be rewritten to cancel any underwater portion. That is easier do when you three banks instead of 8000 and not the securitization of mortgages.

toyg 11y ago
Downvoted, because this is totally irrelevant to the topic at hand. Shall we also talk about volcanoes and Icelandic flora?

Hansi 11y ago

As an Icelandic person living abroad I can only say fuck this fucking shit: "Prime Minister has not resigned - sends press release to international media" http://icelandmonitor.mbl.is/news/politics_and_society/2016/04/05/prime_minister_has_not_resigned_sends_press_release/ http://icelandmonitor.mbl.is/news/politics_and_society/2016/...

civilian 11y ago
What's the distinction between "resign" and "merely stepped aside for an unspecified amount of time and will continue to serve as the Chairman of the Progressive Party." The last time an executive at my company took a "sabbatical" they never came back. It honestly sounds like your PM is trying to resign without using the word.
powertower 11y ago
I've tried to locate the details of his crimes, but can't seem to. There is just some minor things listed from years ago being mentioned. Do you know what exactly he has he done (to have to resign in shame)? It's just odd that there are no details within the articles, nor from the people that are trying to get him to resign.
- lincolnbryant 11y ago
  http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-04-03/unprecedented-leak-exposes-criminal-financial-dealings-some-worlds-wealthiest-people http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-04-03/unprecedented-leak-...
  - powertower 11y ago
    That was my point... He had ownership in a company that lost money and net worth (if I'm reading that correctly). I can't find the illegal or the immoral part.
    - 21echoes 11y ago
      the main one: right before new disclosure, regulation, and taxation laws came into effect, he sold 50% ownership stake in his holdings of the shell corp to his wife for $1, so that he would not be subject to the new laws. in general: one does not have to literally break the law to be asked to resign by your citizens. that is not, and should not be, the standards to which we hold our leaders.

wmil 11y ago

For an interesting contrast, in Canada the CBC (state broadcaster) the names of over 350 Canadians implicated but has decided not to release any of the names. They've turned the list over to the tax agency, but that's it.