the financial backlash is fierce for banks & the stock market, the effects will be visible on everyday life in the UK in a few months. the secretary of finance has already warned the citizens on the radio a recession is ahead
the financial backlash is fierce for banks & the stock market, the effects will be visible on everyday life in the UK in a few months. the secretary of finance has already warned the citizens on the radio a recession is ahead
Retired.
All the fuss and bother about Brexit largely ignores its non-binding status - parliament, not voters deciding if Britain stays or leaves the EU, the latter extremely unlikely.
Writing in the Financial Times, British lawyer David Allen Green explained Brexit voting is "advisory," not "mandatory." Parliament has final say.
MPs can legally disregard the public's will either way, they alone empowered to decide the path Britain chooses.
What happens ahead is "a matter of politics not law. It will come down to what is politically expedient and practicable," said Green.
Various options exist, including supporting Thursday's outcome, ignoring it, or "re-negotiating another deal and put(ting) that to another referendum" - repeating the process "until voters eventually vote the 'right' way," what's best for monied interests, not them.
Invoking Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty is another matter entirely, legally binding, unlike Thursday's vote. It states as follows:
"1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.
2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union.
That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.
3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.
4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.
A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49."
Green highlighted key points. Member states can choose how to vote on withdrawal - by referendum, parliament or other means.
The withdrawal process begins with formal notification. Once "given, the member state and the EU are stuck with it."
Member states wishing to withdraw have up to two years maximum to complete the process "unless this period is extended by unanimous agreement."
Once withdrawal intentions are announced and initiated, there's no going back. At the same time, what's "created by international agreement can be undone" the same way.
Brussels could "come up with some muddling fudge which holds off the two year deadline," or a new treaty amendment could be adopted.
Politics alone will drive what happens ahead, not the will of the people. Britain is no more democratic than America - nor are any other EU countries.
Special interests decide things. Whatever they want they get. However voting turns out, government policy "is to remain in the EU," said Green.
Leaving would require Prime Minister David Cameron invoking Article 50, unlikely given his vocal opposition to Brexit.
https://next.ft.com/content/5b82031e...e-4e91774e27f1
£ is going up by the day.Originally Posted by soul controller
Ftse 100 has just broke 6300.
Ftse 250 is increasing by about 2.5% a day.
noice, its all manipulated anyway...
algorithms that effect numbers on a computer screen/
I only quoted it to you because I thought you played with stocks. Thought I remmebered you saying you were retired from playing with the stocks.noice, its all manipulated anyway...
algorithms that effect numbers on a computer screen/
It's been a very easy week to make money from all that chaos.
i used to yes, the ones i have now just give me dividends every few months.. sorry for my lameness.. lol
the only stocks i ever bought where bskyb, british gas and consignia.
i only played with stocks when i had the cash(from working and properties)
i wouldnt really call it playin with stocks tho,
i got a satelite dish in 89/90, i could tell it was going to be a big thing ( i was up on tech back then and for a few years later) when sky offered us 3000, shares each.. it was too good to turn down,
with british gas i got the shares after working there for 2 years, then i worked as part of a team with them and advantage west midlands (govt agency), i managed to keep the shares rolling on, worked on the job 2 years, then went back to britsh gas,, the shares only became real after years accumulated at british gas... 5 years was enough for me..
and consignia.. aunties / uncles owned 2 post offices in walsall... i knew once the govt sold it off, that it would be shit hot for a lil while, then suffer.. so that was an easy one..
but im not into that anymore.. lol
after that i tried to be helpful more.. and worked for the official of national statistics..
worked on the census (data collation) yayy lockhead martin lol
sorry ill stop rambling.
Last edited by soul controller; 06-29-2016 at 12:27 PM.
It is way too early to say this.
De mijne is 4x duurder!
Brits are not to be underestimated.
UK >> France and Germany
^there's a lot of truth to that. The idea that a country that administered 1/3 of the world will fail without the EU while Canada succeeds without the EU is ridiculous. the UK alone has more power, influence and direct control of the global economy than the combine total of the EU.
Lord have mercy....
I don't understand why so many people are against this? Like its some sort of nativist anti immigrant move that will undoubtedly bankrupt the country.
I'm the US if you attend an out of state university you get charged extra.
Is that what this is really about? The inability for students to move freely and wanderers to go from country to country without passpOrt?
Or have I just been getting one side of the arguement from a select group of people/peers?
Anyway, maybe the Brite prefer to strengthen relations elsewhere?
Do we have any Brits in here that were pro Brexit? What are your reasonings?
Also, what is wrong with a country having complete autonomy and ridding itself of an allegiance they feel doesn't even benefit them?
Soros: Brexit Has "Unleashed" A Financial Crisis Similar to 2008
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-0...s-similar-2008As Bloomberg notes, Soros also told Parliament that Britain's decision to leave the EU has "unleashed" a crisis in financial markets similar to the global financial crisis of 2007 and 2008. "This has been unfolding in slow motion, but Brexit will accelerate it. It is likely to reinforce the deflationary trends that were already prevalent" Soros said.
democracy
Blairite PR firm tied to Labour coup knew of “mass resignation pact” six months ago
http://www.thecanary.co/2016/06/29/b...ix-months-ago/
]A powerful British public relations firm with close ties to former Prime Minister Tony Blair and key Labour officials behind the coup to oust Jeremy Corbyn knew of “mass resignation” plans half a year ago. In a rolling series of investigations, The Canary has exposed the alarming web of connections between PR agency Portland Communications, and a network of Blairites in and out of government that “choreographed” the mass resignations leading to the vote of no confidence against Corbyn on Tuesday. “Portland Communications is a political consultancy and public relations agency set up in 2001 by Tim Allan, a former adviser to Tony Blair and director of communications at BSkyB,” reported The Canary’s Steve Topple, who also noted the PR agency’s wide-ranging connections to British media, including Sky News, ITN and the BBC: To spell it out in layman’s terms, Portland Communications is a company organised, fronted and controlled by a plethora of apparatchiks of Tony Blair and the centre-right of Labour. Topple also revealed that numerous employees, partners and associates of Portland Communications have ties to the London-based Labour think-tank, the Fabian Society.
i haven't took part in voting for over ten years, but i would be tempted to vote if corbyn was running for pm. the dude has integrity.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks