There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Russia-Ukraine War
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
There is also an article in FT from late last year (unfortunately behind paywall)
It lays out who has seized what and how much and what form
The main argument against is not legal but that it scare other authoritarian regimes from keeping funds in Europe, but if that was the case they would have left the moment Russian assets were seized, they didn’t
And do we really want to set a message to likes of China, Saudis and corrupt regimes in Africa etc that “it’s ok, invade whom you want, and don’t worry we keep your euros safe regardless” 🤨
“
What are the financial consequences?
Opponents worry that such a move would damage the international rules-based order and undermine the trust that countries show when they place reserves with other nations.The latter argument carries considerable sway with some EU member states and the European Central Bank. Confiscating Russian assets would, for some, cross a line by suggesting to countries such as China or Saudi Arabia that sovereign assets stowed in euros or dollars might not always be safe.”
There is no laws will be broken argument made at all, if anything that’s the east part”
She told the FT the idea was “unwise”, adding: “Many countries have been damaged by many things that violated international law with no suggestion that we seize foreign currency reserves. These are the most sacrosanct kinds of assets in the global financial system.”The move would also likely require domestic legislation in many of the countries seeking to implement it, she added, although this may prove a less formidable barrier.
”Which is a lot of bull and reminiscent of how during euro crisis a lot of thing were sacrosanct until suddenly they weren’t but not before damaging half a dozen European countries for a decade
The two main arguments opponents of handing over Russian state assets made boil down to- it set precedent (oh noez)
- it require small changes to law (double noez)
Both are very weak arguments which podcasts and article above directly counter
The same article hints at the real reason too, there seem to be some European companies still doing business in Russia and there’s fear more of them be hurt, which is bullcrap
”
Russia’s options to counter with litigation are limited. “However, Russia will find other ways to reciprocate . . . that would mean inflicting more harm on businesses in Russia and potential other damages,” said Armin Steinbach, professor of law and economics at HEC Paris.Steinbach also points out that sovereign immunity cuts both ways. “Germany is still in some countries the target of war damages . . . [going back to] the second world war,” he noted.
“
The above I suspect the real reason for EU feet dragging, everything else is weak spin that’s easily countered and exposed as nonsense
2 -
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
