| The Comments |
It is possible because the referendum vote was none binding. Which means the result was discretionary.
Under the British constitution It's the right of MPs alone to make or break laws, and the peers to block them if they so choose. So there's no force whatsoever in the referendum result. It's entirely for MPs to decide.
Parliament is sovereign which means it is Queen in parliament
I agree there will likely be a full blown consitutional crisis if it's blocked by MP's but the power exists and can be used in this exceptional circumstance. That is the greatest threat to the UK's prosperity since 1939.
.
This message was last edited by Mickyfinn on 17/10/2016.
_______________________
Time is the school in which we learn
Time is the fire in which we burn.
Delmore Schwartz.
1
Like
|
I think I covered all these points in my last post?
In which case a new bill will be required to represent the new act the referendum has created.
It is not possible for the parliament to instruct a referendum and then disregard the outcome, regardless of the articles present in the parliament. This would be against the will of the people majority, voted in a democratic method under current rules and requirements.
I dont envy the role of the MP's but I dont agree with any way they can sidestep the referendum. That would be a kind of anarchy and would lead to a very bitter period in our history, which may include some kind of revolt or revolution.
What is the last point Micky? The greatest threat to our prosperity since 1939? Not sure I understand that one.
As I look at things (and I voted to remain), we went into a union and built up trading agreements which include buying and selling goods. We bought and sold goods before 1972 and will do so after 2016, we managed to do this even when boats leaked and pirates or U Boats were around I think.
So if we are buying and selling to europeans, and someone decides that its going to cost more in future, the market forces of how much we but and sell will become a very high indicator into how urgently we resolve any differences. We will not stop buying or selling because someone says the paperwork isnt in order.
The MP's have to facilitate the trade between nations, the people will determine how much we buy and sell, the bussinesses in the end will decide how much they want to trade with us and influence the tarif their own country can impose before it hurts.
The UK 1939 to 1945 and forward economy was a result of a prolonged second war over two generations. This current situation is the fall out from a referendum which we expect our MP's to be grown up about and make sure we are trading sensibly. I dont see why we should overcomplicate things, parilament has to act in the peoples wishes in these cases.
_______________________
Best wishes, Brian
0
Like
|
|
Membership of the EU facilitates free trade. That free trade with Europe is dependent on free movement of people and capital which the UK is determined not to accept. The alternative is tariff imposed trade unless other agreements are reached.
It may be possible but unlikely given the attitude of Europe’s politicians that tariff free agreements on some goods can be reached. Market forces alone will not guarantee the UK’s prosperity even with a devalued currency. Tariffs will neutralize any advantage. Before the UK joined the EU trade was not exactly booming between Europes states.
It is reckless to suggest that the lost trade with the EU after a hard Brexit will be replaced by trade elsewhere in the world. That has to be established and enabled over many years. Many countries around the world also have free trade agreements with the EU. Canada may be the latest and maybe the USA.
After Brexit the UK will be cast out of these agreements until it negotiates separate deals. The day after a formal hard Brexit is complete where is UK economic growth going to come from? Maybe EU nations will be happy to buy British goods and services at a much higher cost and maybe not. I suspect the latter.
_______________________
Time is the school in which we learn
Time is the fire in which we burn.
Delmore Schwartz.
2
Like
|
Briando1955
I dont agree that parliament has to act in the peoples wishes. Dont get me wrong, its certainly a nice to have. Rather, I'd say that parliament has to act in the nations best interests. If the peoples wishes, and the nations interests are compatible, great.
If its not?
Well, I would suggest that the impersonal and rhetoric free international markets around the world dealing with our currency have provided the answer to that question in the strongest possible way.
Not sure if you guys have seen the latest on the currency versus the US dollar (head over to www.xe.com ) and you'll see that GBP is trading BELOW the LOWEST point of the global financial crisis. Think about that for a moment. The US pretty much caused financial armageddon for the entire world, causing nationalisations of banks, and forcing austerity measures on many european nations, including us here in the UK, seeing even such small things as our local councils affected in the services offered, and the amounts of council tax we pay here.
We have, singlehandedly, managed to outdo and exceed by about 10%, all of that.
1
Like
|
Micky,
Can you name these other countries, because as yet they don't have any with the top 10.
Euro founder Otmar Issing has it's not far from collapse, saying it's a 'house of cards', and who's fault is it? : you've guessed it , the politicians.
This message was last edited by tenerife on 17/10/2016.
1
Like
|
|
EU FTA nations and pending agreements.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_free_trade_agreements
There is an agreement pending with Canada if the Belgium Walloons agree and TITP with the USA.
This message was last edited by Mickyfinn on 17/10/2016.
_______________________
Time is the school in which we learn
Time is the fire in which we burn.
Delmore Schwartz.
0
Like
|
|
Rob.
Briando1955
I dont agree that parliament has to act in the peoples wishes. Dont get me wrong, its certainly a nice to have. Rather, I'd say that parliament has to act in the nations best interests. If the peoples wishes, and the nations interests are compatible, great.
I'm not sure if you just like taking opposite views, it seems you perhaps do.
Parliament represents the people, it is a house without a voice until the people elect members to speak. The votes it receives are from the people and if the votes are democratic and within the rules, it acts in that manner.
Representing the best interests of the nation while ignoring the will of the electorate is a dictatorship
Also the money markets are bouyant because of the speculation of people in the city, who want to make money for doing nothing at the fear of investors such as pension and other traders who have to trade month on month regardless of currency changes. These will settle down and someone will be rich and someone will be poor, hopefully both of these winners and losers will be the parasites that threaten us they are going to leave, and some will have to!!!!
_______________________
Best wishes, Brian
2
Like
|
Briando1955
I'm not sure if you just like taking opposite views, it seems you perhaps do.
If I said to you that government behaves according to the will of the people 99.9% of the time, but takes decisions in the best interests of the nation 0.1% of the time, would you say I was taking an opposite view? Or would you accept I am only telling it like it is?
Representing the best interests of the nation while ignoring the will of the electorate is a dictatorship
Assuming a deviation of 0.1%, I'm not sure I'd agree with that as being a dictatorship.
Comments on money markets
Yes, there are negative aspects to such markets. But equally, they facilitate efficient trade in a globally recognised manner. Under these specific conditions, we couldnt sell 44% of our exports to the EU if there wasn't a facility to exchange money, and equally the EU couldnt sell 9% of its exports to us for the same reason.
If you can come up with an alternative to our current money market trading system, well, I'd like to see it. But until such time, its the best thing we've got.
0
Like
|
Rob.
Sorry you don't persuade me at all with the follow up comments.
I don't understand the percentages your using, they don't seem to be factual or make any sense to me. I stick to the views I have thanks.
_______________________
Best wishes, Brian
0
Like
|
Greater transparency of monitoring and adequate independent regulation of the markets and financial institutions to minimise abuse and ensure greater compliance, with powers to enforce significant fines acting as disincentive to manipulative coordinated malpractice might go some way to improving the "system"......
Plus since markets appear highly susceptible to comments by prominent individuals doesn't this also require regulating to minimise abuse by those with hidden agendas?
0
Like
|
I have no idea what this means. I did read it several times. Sorry
Greater transparency of monitoring and adequate independent regulation of the markets and financial institutions to minimise abuse and ensure greater compliance, with powers to enforce significant fines acting as disincentive to manipulative coordinated malpractice might go some way to improving the "system"......
_______________________
Best wishes, Brian
0
Like
|
Briando1955
OK, more simply. The government does what the people want most of the time, and once in a while does what it thinks is right. Does that make the government a dictatorship?
Are you saying the government has to do what the people want every single time? Even a single disagreement = dictatorship?
In relation to your disapproval of the forex market, come back to me when you have an improved successor.
Ads' point that you also didnt seem to understand, more simply: government will spank people who do bad things once they're caught.
This message was last edited by rob_j1 on 18/10/2016.
This message was last edited by rob_j1 on 18/10/2016.
0
Like
|
Briando55 and rob j1 what I meant in a nutshell is that there appears to be insufficient monitoring and effective regulation in place to deter abuse by those whom Briando55 referred to as "parasites" within the currency markets and financial industry.
In Spain for instance there appears to be no effective independent regulation (by the Bank of Spain and/ or ECB) to control and deter bad conduct by the Banks, who continue to follow improper( some would say illegal) activities and manipulative behaviour that so badly compromises innocent citizens.
Likewise the continuing introduction of highly complex financial products and algorithms that are open to opportunistic abuse on such a scale as to negatively impact nations' economies should IMHO be banned so long as there are no inbuilt and swift effective regulatory mechanisms in p!ace to act as adequate deterrents.
Post script: The EU Commission has also been sadly impotent to ensure that the rule of law is adhered to with regard to adequate resourcing of the courts , judicial and administrative systems in Spain, which have so badly impacted innocent citizens' ability to gain timely justice (and significantly delayed Supreme Court rulings which have proved essential to counter the abusive reluctance by the Banks to adhere to existing law).
This message was last edited by ads on 18/10/2016.
This message was last edited by ads on 18/10/2016.
This message was last edited by ads on 18/10/2016.
1
Like
|
ads.
Capitalism requires light touch regulation to function. Regulations such as the aspirations you describe will strangle the life out of enterprise. Without people willing to takes risks, uncluttered regulation and free market capitalism you end up with a centralised bureaucracy replete with blinkered pen pushers who have no knowledge of the outside world.
If you don’t believe there are enough regulations in the EU come to France and try to start a business.
This message was last edited by Mickyfinn on 18/10/2016.
_______________________
Time is the school in which we learn
Time is the fire in which we burn.
Delmore Schwartz.
2
Like
|
Mickeyfinn,
There is a complete difference between taking risks that affect individuals on a small scale and taking risks on a large scale that effect entire nations.
Likewise, with respect, my point re lack of regulation and where there is significant impact on a large scale against citizens, relates to the need for EU commission to action infringement rights against member states that continue to fail to adhere to the rule of law in this regard (deterrents), not those states where they do pay due attention.
1
Like
|
I'm really happy we are moving towards a more understandable language in the postings, i was beginning to lose the will to live with the attempts to become an academic maelstrom (sorry).
My views:
Parliament- we elect a party with a manifesto, we expect the party to follow it closely and discuss matters arising in debate in the commons and in the local surgeries. If we don't like them we try and vote them out or stand against them.
in the case of a referendum we vote in a certain direction for our government, not our party. The discussions on the referendum hustings are the manifesto in effect, I expect these to have been true and expect to achieve the will of the voting public. Anything less is a failure of government and is dishonest. If it proves to have been the idiotic interventions of the UKIP party that tipped the scales and they are not fit to assist to, or govern, then perhaps we look at another referendum and disband them. Is that constitutional though.
Capitalism- This is different now from a hundred years ago. You still hear people say, you can be whoever you want, you can do it if you try etc. Reality, some people can but the huge majority of those who try will fail, be in debt, become burdens on the state etc. Capitalism put simply is greed and it is manifest all over super yacht clubs and big business. I'm a survivor and a prospering individual so 'I'm OK jack'. Still I don't think capitalism is a healthy model, it's just waiting for something better.
Financial markets- Seriously, how can you regulate a product someone handles through electronics, cross borders, lends to people who 'can do it' only to fail and owe the big man the money for the rest of their lives. How do you stop someone putting on a stupid jacket and trading make believe shares with other silly jackets on a make believe shop floor playing with someone else's life savings. What a stupid way of making a living and creating misery!
And I have only just skimmed the surface ha!
This message was last edited by briando55 on 18/10/2016.
_______________________
Best wishes, Brian
0
Like
|
I know exactly what your position is ads. Forgive me but I have read it repeatedly on here. It's also surprising since the usual complaint about the EU is the exact opposite. The EU is dammed if it acts and dammed if it does. Maybe because of that they have the balance about right.
The UK will soon be free to behave in a manner of its own choice after Brexit. Given that the current government of hard right Tories believes in light touch regulation in all things, you may be wishing in a few years the EU was still there to wag a finger of control
_______________________
Time is the school in which we learn
Time is the fire in which we burn.
Delmore Schwartz.
1
Like
|