I agree saint, someone that got interviewed this morning on BBC(can't think who it was)said similar to you in that instead of acting for the party they are solely elected to act for the people who voted for them and should have only the best interests of the electorate when on parliamentary business.
Does that mean acting against their vote in their best interests or represent their vote based on how they voted in their constituency? Labour's ****ed either way...
They get voted for based on the broken promises they make in the run up to the election, then its a daily few duty free drinks at the commons bar and a duty free lunch in the commons restaurant paid for out of the over generous expenses, then an hour in the chamber, shout a few hear hear's, wave the parliamentary paper a few times above your head and then get chauffeur driven to your second paid for by the tax payer. Then repeat on a daily basis until one of the long recesses of parliament and put your feet up for a long deserved rest.
Yes, but we've stopped Muslims driving on the right hand side of the road and we can sell bags of red Leb in ounces rather than grammes. And our hooligans now have the queen's head on their deportation orders.
Why did Henderson walk off shaking his head. WTF is that supposed to mean? **** off. And the players lying on the ground pretending to be upset. Faux grief. **** off.
I am afraid this does not have to be true. It is like a game. The players decide the rules. There does not need to be a rule of majority decides. If the countries decide before the referendum that they will go with all the countries having to say yes then that will be it. Canada and Australia have referenda which involve having a yes from all the states. I also don't buy this business of constitutional crisis if the result of the referendum was not implemented. 1. The U.K. has no written constitution 2. The U.K. is a parliamentary democracy. Laws are not made by referenda. But by MPs and the House of Lords. 3. This particular referendum has no legal status to be implemented. It is only advisory. 4. The U.K. government not implementing Brexit will not cause a constitutional crisis, although I've got the feeling that the Tories will want to definitely trigger article 50. 5. MPs have to agree to the triggering of article 50. Will MPs agree to something In total ignorance of outcome - no idea what sort of agreement is or will be on the table? 6. It is now clear that the triumvirate Germany France and Italy have adopted a hawkish stance to stop others copying Brexit (which I've predicted before). Merkel gives a softer stance but my prediction is that ultimately she won't give us anything. Her insistence that they will not be any talks unless article 50 is triggered and her previous treatment of Greece should not give much hope that she'll be lenient on the uk. 7. Cameron leaving his successor to trigger article 50 was a master stroke. He's left him/her an unenviable task. Triggering that will immediately cause a crash as it will mean a run on the pound and stock market, financial, car making and other industries that do a lot of trade in the EU as uncertainty reigns during the negotiations. That PM will be remembered as the one who caused that disaster. 8. Once this is triggered all the cards will be held by the EU. The only conclusion I come to is that the article 50 cannot be and should not be triggered unless we are prepared to destroy our own economic future. A recession is now inevitable but that itself would be nothing if we have 2 years of uncertainty and industries take flight to Europe. The government and parliament will have to accept that this referendum was a mistake and cannot be implemented unless we decide to commit national economic suicide. Of course some people will be upset about the shambles and the will of the people being thwarted but it is better than destroying the future of whole generations.
I read some eu guy commenting the same. Doesn't think we will ever trigger it. We've pushed hong kong into recession it seems and Japan is pumping more money in as a stimulus to stave off the issues over night. Not too bad actually. Let's see what today brings and if things level out.
things look better today...looks a good market start following on from no more pound loses in asia. thank **** fingers crossed now.
In an interview with ITV's Good Morning Britain, Sir Richard said: "We are heading towards disaster", adding that facts about Brexit were "inaccurate". He also admitted that Virgin Money has lost a third of its value and that referendum outcome has forced them to cancel a deal worth 3,000 jobs. Follow PHILIPPA TOM
Traders breathed a sigh of relief at the opening bell this morning, as markets looked set to claw back some gains following two days of heavy losses. At present: FTSE 100: +2.13% DAX: +2.12% CAC 40: +2.49% IBEX: +2.58%
" Of course this may well be a dead cat bounce, but one imagines given the state they are in the global markets will welcome any respite they can. "Rising just shy of 2%, largely thanks to Barclays, Lloyds and RBS holding off on any more losses, the FTSE climbed near 6100 this Tuesday, meaning it actually lingered below 6000 for longer before the referendum than after the results were announced. Of course the FTSE’s fall has to be framed in the context of sterling’s slide, the decimation of the pound-dollar conversion rate leaving the UK index in a far worse state than that it initially appears."
Goldman slashes UK GDP forecasts by 2% Goldman Sachs has moved to cut its UK GDP forecasts by 2% in 2017 following Britain's vote to withdraw from the EU. The investment bank also lowered its forecast for the euro area by some 30 basis points.
Thats th varying opinions this morning.. lets all hope for the best here.. just get some stability and not have anyone stand up and say something stupid and shock the markets.
