Royal Bank Of Scotland Share Discussion Threads

[leedskier] 07/11/2016 06:15

twitter ...



Current Status:

Likely Service Disruption

[gcom2] 06/11/2016 23:06

Fridays walkdown looks rather silly now. Embarrasing.
Rigged markets.

[tradejunkie2] 06/11/2016 23:02

Hello all.

Wall Street
18097.1
18100.9

+206.5

FTSE 100
6740.4
6744.4

+45.5

Good night and wet dreams.

[tradejunkie2] 06/11/2016 21:40

I'm going to blow my load over a picture of Hilary Clinton if she wins.

[polar fox] 06/11/2016 21:09

SKY NEWS tweet, a few minutes ago:

FBI Director says new emails have "not changed our conclusions" that Hillary Clinton should not be charged over use of private email server

Unquote

Well well, that may benefit Hillary.

[polar fox] 06/11/2016 20:55

Here's an update on TMZ's 'election' vote:

This morning - HC 60%.....DT 40%.....on about 53,000 votes

Latest - HC 58%......DT 42%.....on about 77,000 votes

Thank heavens it's almost over!

[maxk] 06/11/2016 12:10

PETER HITCHENS: Forget the EU vote - all Britain really needs is patriotic leaders

By Peter Hitchens for The Mail on Sunday

Published: 00:24, 6 November 2016 | Updated: 01:42, 6 November 2016


This is what happens when you call in the cowboys to do an important job. It goes wrong and you can't afford to fix it. You thought you could trust the Tory Party. You thought you could ignore our rather good constitution and bypass it with a referendum. I did warn you.

In May 2013, I pointed out the dangers of a referendum, asking: 'Has Parliament been abolished? Has a constitution been quietly introduced, which demands that such issues are decided by plebiscite, and makes the result of such plebiscites binding on Parliament?


More:

[csmwssk12hu] 06/11/2016 11:52

The treatment of the three judges by the press is disgusting, they have a job to do and they did it, to have there pictures printed with the titles that went with them is inciting violence in my opinion and the editors should be charged as such

[careful] 06/11/2016 11:38

The above post is a good read and informative.
What a legal mess this is all going to be.
It will take years to resolve.
Why hurry?

it seems that the atricle 50 ruling was an obvious result, not a very difficult case.
the supreme court will almost certainly uphold it, unless they chicken out.

These Brexiteers and the press are a noisy aggressive, angry bunch.
Remainers tend to be quieter.

[leedskier] 06/11/2016 11:24

I have spent a little time this morning thinking about the constitutional issue.

This is an argument for those who believe that the Government is able to trigger Art. 50 without an Act of Parliament:

1. When the incumbent Prime Minister resigns whether following electoral defeat or for other reasons, the Monarch temporarily 'assumes power' which the Monarch uses to invite the leader of the Parliamentary Party which either alone or with other parties, commands a majority in Parliament.

2. At any point thereafter the Prime Minister can be 'unseated' by a vote of no confidence. Such a vote could be called for by the opposition party/ies. If the vote succeeds by convention a general election is called.

3. Parliament has not challenged the Prime Minister's authority to form and lead a government.

4. Given the outcome of the referendum, the Government has formed the view that it has sufficient mandate to invoke Art. 50. So far as I am aware this is the first time a referendum calling for constitutional change has been won by those wishing for change. It is therefore a novel point without precedent. Accordingly new law may need to be created to resolve it.

5. Parliament has not used its powers to challenge the Art. 50 issue. It could do so at any time by tabling some kind of motion which involves a confidence vote. In the absence of such a challenge the Government may reasonably consider that it is able to act on the outcome of the referendum.

6. Whilst an individual may be able to challenge the Government in the Courts, no individual outside Parliament is entitled to challenge in the Courts the acts or omissions of Parliament. Parliament is supreme.

---

However I think that the Government's legal team actually conceded that the Court was competent to decide whether the Government was lawfully able to invoke Art. 50 without express Parliamentary approval.

What the Government's legal team could have argued is that the Court was not competent to decide a point which Parliament itself has not questioned.

That argument may not have succeeded before the Divisional Court, but at least it could have been re-argued before the Supreme Court.

Given the concession that the Court was competent, that argument may no longer be available on appeal.

There is another twist to all of this which would play straight into the hands of those pushing for hell, fire and damnation of all things European.

The Supreme Court may decide that the appeal raises an issue of law which the European Court of Justice has to rule upon.

I could think of nothing more likely to lead to open rebellion in the UK than the ECJ being invited to decide in what circumstances a member state could trigger Art. 50.

[careful] 06/11/2016 11:01

Leeds, that article.
Typical of Gerald Warner, who was a dedicated Cameron hater.
Referenda are subordinate to a democratic parliament, even if parliament instigate them.
He must be drunk when he suggests that the referendum temporarily surrendered its authority to the electorate of june 24th.
wow...i bet no one knew that when they were voting.

As a non legal person i tried to read and understand the ruling.
it was surprisingly clear and educational.

In law, in this case, it would seem that parliament is supreme and outranks any referendum.
Theresa,the hapless Boris and chums, must trigger article 50 via parliament and it may take time.
They cannot rush it through, they have not got such power.

[gcom2] 06/11/2016 10:55

I don't see why a Trump win would be bad for US equities, I really don't.

[leedskier] 06/11/2016 10:07

UK politics, even when under attack from all quarters, are docile compared to US Presidential elections.


To bring some balance I have found an erudite reasoned argument as to why the Courts should have rejected the invitation to adjudicate on the article 50 issue.

[polar fox] 06/11/2016 08:40

Away from the professional polls, I see that TMZ is running a "Who's gonna win?" question this weekend. It's currently running exactly 60/40 for Villainary on about 53,000 votes.

In broad terms, it would seem that, if Trump does nevertheless squeak it, the majority of folk are going to be surprised and, presumably, somewhat disturbed, with equity markets likely to be roiled much as they were post-Brexit vote. One well-respected US technical analyst is anticipating a bullish breakout to new all-time highs in NY, and that could follow from her winning, one imagines.

[leedskier] 06/11/2016 08:07

This was written on 15 June 2016, that is before the referendum.

If some in Government and the right wing media were "shocked" by last week's decision, clearly they do not read the London Evening Standard.

[leedskier] 05/11/2016 17:25

Ed Faulks QC got this one absolutely right ,...

On 14 July 2016, Truss was appointed as Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor in Theresa May's first ministry. Truss is the first woman to hold either position. The decision to appoint her was criticised by the then Minister of State for Justice Edward Faulks, Baron Faulks who resigned from the government saying "I have nothing against Ms Truss personally, but is she going to have the clout to be able to stand up to the prime minister when necessary, on behalf of the judges? Is she going to be able to stand up, come the moment, to the prime minister, for the rule of law and for the judiciary . . . without fear of damaging her career? It is a big ask."

[leedskier] 05/11/2016 12:45

maxk that number was declared for 2011 or 2012. Barristers usually get paid for civil cases contested in court about 12 to 18 months after the case is done and dusted. This because they are paid by the firm of solicitors which engaged them. Phillips was as an MP in 2010. He would at that date have had a significant sum in outstanding fees due to him.

[maxk] 05/11/2016 10:33

It was in the guardian leeds, so it must be true.

[leedskier] 05/11/2016 09:09

It is disappointing to see that some who post here still suck up what they read in the press without question.


In point of fact when a barrister sits as a judge, he sits as a recorder (or assistant recorder).

Recorders are paid gross (it is taxable) circa 500 a day and sit for 30 days a year.



That is 15000 gross annually.

I do not think it likely that he earned 735K working as a "part time" barrister. More likely it was about the same amount Boris Johnson was paid by the Daily Telegraph for his weekly column.

It is very difficult to take on court cases when Parliament is sitting. Douglas Hogg used to take on criminal defence cases during the summer recess. I recall chatting to him a decade ago when we were involved in one. He probably earned barely enough to have his moat cleaned.

[blusteradjuster] 05/11/2016 07:11

It's a work of genius really.

Encourage the disaffected to vote for change (seems reasonable so far).

However, those who are exploiting that disaffection have an agenda that will actually increase disaffection.


Like I said - genius - an incredible (in that it is working) confidence trick.

[gcom2] 04/11/2016 17:02

David Buick was saying yesterday that with GDP and inflation revised up yesterday uk rate rises are very likely during 2017. Also, one of thre most highly respected fund manager,Mark Connors, Credit Suisse’s global head of risk advisory in New York is sayong "equity long-short managers have been buying neglected companies like banks in anticipation of higher rates, due to relative valuation mispricing."

The above views make me think the days of RBS getting trashed just may be coming to an end, and I'm looking for any bad days between now and xmas to add, as I do consider RBS a neglected bank.

[leedskier] 04/11/2016 16:41

The Daily Telegraph's Ambrose Evans Pritchard tells it how it is, and it is the very point upon which I was prepared to concede that the leave campaign had some glimmer of merit, namely the repatriation of powers from the EU to the UK Parliament (but certainly not to a UKIP Lite Government, pandering to the baying mob of xenophiles).


Supremacy of Parliament is the whole point of Brexit

Let us toast the High Court with Kentish sparkling wines. Its ruling on Article 50 today is a service to the nation.

The elemental purpose of Brexit is and has always been to restore the supremacy of Parliament - and to return legal authority to British courts - not to introduce a lawless dictatorship of plebiscites.

[avatar333] 04/11/2016 15:11

LOL

;