In international law, odious debt is a legal theory which holds that the national debt incurred by a regime for purposes that do not serve the best interests of the nation, such as wars of aggression, should not be enforceable – en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odious_debt
Labour’s recapitalisation of certain institutions of the British banking sector was never taken in the best interest of the consumer. It was sheer naked politics that drove the decision; Britain was a few years away from a general election and the then Prime Minister certainly did not want an electoral massacre. £250 billion of our money was used to preserve the interest of a few, not the majority. The party interest was deemed, above all, more important than you and I.
We are assets. Our savings underwrite these debts; we are the collateral to these loans. The government has borrowed against us.
And the criminal and economical-suicidal authorisation to release £150 billion of fiat money, out of thin air, into the system was even worse. Quantitative easing is a deadly monetary policy which will inevitably result in high inflation. Worse case, hyperinflation.
It’s our money and we want it back. The debts we do not acknowledge and see no justification to maintain interest repayments. As our national debt exceeds over £1 trillion we should default on all banking related debts. We no longer have any obligation to finance it.