Royal Bank Of Scotland Share Discussion Threads

[avatar333] 14/10/2016 10:46

I told you Mr Carney had 'saved' us after the Referendum vote:



'He told a public round table with charities and other third sector organisations in Nottingham that 400,000 to 500,000 jobs could have been at risk if the Bank hadn't taken action after the referendum.'

[avatar333] 14/10/2016 10:05

Morning.

;

[leedskier] 14/10/2016 09:26

Cannot help on that one ;

[maxk] 14/10/2016 07:30

Breaking free of a black hole can be difficult.

[anony mous] 14/10/2016 07:25

Is that the light from France ?

[leedskier] 14/10/2016 07:24

It is now thought that there could be as many as two trillion galaxies in the Universe. Some are thought to be so far away that light emitted from them will never reach our galaxy.

Which is kind of like the prospect of a soft brexit. The possibility is so far removed it will never reach the UK.

[leedskier] 14/10/2016 06:36

IG Index European opening calls:

$FTSE 7004 +0.38%
$DAX 10456 +0.40%
$CAC 4424 +0.43%
$IBEX 8645 +0.42%
$MIB 16339 +0.43%

[leedskier] 14/10/2016 06:30

More from the same source

Cable $1.2214, €/$1.1038, $/¥104.09 - Gold $1258.29 - Nymex $50.73, Brent $52.08

[leedskier] 14/10/2016 06:27

David Buik tweets

A modest Friday bounce a likely possibility at today's European opening - FTSE +24, DAX +52, CAC +20 courtesy of IG at 5.44am

[bonda67] 13/10/2016 18:17

Leedskier
thanks for that explanation, it's definitely not boring or tosh

[maxk] 13/10/2016 18:07

Whenever I see solicitors doing pro bono, I think cui bono?

[leedskier] 13/10/2016 16:38

As I understand it the solicitors are acting pro bono.

[maxk] 13/10/2016 15:21

A lot of mp's by the sounds of it.

[leedskier] 13/10/2016 15:14

I apologise for boring everyone with this tosh.

Just thought I would offer an explanation of what the outcome may he,

The end game is simple.

If Parliament does not follow the will of the people,a general election will have to be held. Given the public mood, who would risk that?

[maxk] 13/10/2016 15:12

So, basically, it was all for nothing.

No action can be taken without mp's agreeing, and mp's do not agree.

[leedskier] 13/10/2016 15:09

I was once involved in a electoral disqualification case. It succeeded. The will of the people was set aside because the rules had not been followed.

[maxk] 13/10/2016 15:06

I can see your argument/explanation leeds.


But I think your first line tells us plebs all we need to know.



edit: refers to #144204

[avatar333] 13/10/2016 15:05

beep beep whirr

;

[leedskier] 13/10/2016 15:05

The critical questions raised by this powerful Court were simple and focused on the key issues.

If the Minister issued an Article 50 Notice, would that Notice inevitably lead to the UK leaving the EU or could the Notice be recinded?

David Pannick replied that once the trigger was pulled, the bullet would hit its target.

The second question raised by the Court was concerned with enshrined EU rights of UK citizens enshrined in Acts of Parliament. Could these rights he protected by further Action of Parliament?. Pannick said some could, but some could not be.

How can the Prime Minister under some fiction of prerogative powers remove rights of UK citizens enshrined in an Act of parliament?

[leedskier] 13/10/2016 14:50

maxk this is not about the will of the people.

This is about the legal mechanism for implementing the will of the people.
Every law student of my generation learnt that the death penalty was never formally abolished but merely suspended by a vote of parliament..

The reason was that it was thought it would be necessary to hold a referendum on the issue and the public may give the wrong answer.

But let it be supposed that a referendum had been held and the vote was for the continuance of death by hanging for certain offences.

Could the Prime Minister using imagined prerogative powers simply reinstate it without reference to Parliament?

We live in a Parliamentary democracy, not a country governed by Royal Prerogative, exercised by the Monarch's principal minister.

[leedskier] 13/10/2016 14:50

maxk this is not about the will of the people.

This is aboutthe legal mechanism for implementing the will of the people.
Every law student of my generation learnt that the death penalty was never formally abolished but merely suspended by a vote of parliament..

The reason was that it was thought it would be necessary to hold a referendum on the issue and the public may give the wrong answer.

But let it be supposed that a referendum had been held and the vote was for the continuance if death by hanging for certain offences.

Could the Prime Minister using imagined prerogative powers simply reinstate it without reference to Parliament?

We live in a Parliamentary democracy, not a country governed by Royal Prerogative, exercised by the Monarch's principal minister.