On Jan 08 09:48, Raoul Plommer ([log in to unmask]) wrote:

> Why we suggested Estonia, was because it is actually very flexible
> to *change signatories to ppl who live almost anywhere in the world*
> and they wouldn't have to come to Estonia to do so.

Yes. Other than that, there's little difference between Estonia
and, say, Canada or Finland. But that difference is rather big.

Even though everybody would find it easiest to operate in their own
country, having the Chair open up a bank account in their own country
simply because it's easiest at that moment is ... let's say OK as a
stopgap solution, but not really good in the long term.

And forming an international association in Estonia is not all that
complicated. Indeed, Estonia all but bends over backwards to make it
easy.

If you task the FC (or whoever) to compare countries in this respect
without considering which countries our officers now happen to be
from, or rather explicitly thinking how it'll work if someday we have
nobody from that country, I doubt you'll find a better choice.

But of course sometimes better is the enemy of the good, and
perhaps the EC will conclude a temporary solution dependent
on current Chair and her compatriots is better at this point.
I'm happy to leave the decision in their capable hands.

> We could probably even use a Finnish bank that has branches in
> Estonia, like Handelsbank or Nordea. The latter is the biggest bank
> in the Nordic countries and I think at least that one is just as
> reliable as a big Canadian bank.

Yes, except that Handelsbanken in actually Swedish, but it operates in
all Nordic and Baltic countries as well as in Britain and the
Netherlands. Either of those would be easily big and reliable enough
by any reasonable standard, but I would not rule out some Estonian
bank either.

-- 
Tapani Tarvainen