Theresa May

@dj

Most of them lose money at some stage and if they keep losing they get sacked.

The futures markets help to keep prices stable, but the traders themselves are taking great risks. Without them, the price of commodities would seesaw. By buying futures, companies can buy at guaranteed prices.

Sorry, daphne, I've never understood futures. It's like backing winners in a race but worse. It's gambling on people's livelihoods.
How can someone make money out of betting on what the price of coffee or oil will be in the future.
Sorry, it seems immoral to me.
They do not lose their own money; they lose other people's money.
George Soros made money on the future of the money markets in 2008. He's doing it again. He doesn't do it for the good of others.

We have a Parliamentary system of government; a referendum can only be advisory. The real problem is ... what did we advise, only to leave the EU not how or what or when; that will be for government to determine.

I can only think that either the government will loose as the political option will not please enough people or the economy will loose as the political option will.

The referendum was not 'advisory'. At no point in the passing of the Referendum Bill in the Commons was it evry declared to be merely an advisory vote.

Litigation to try and insist the result be debaated in parliament is doomed to failure.

Where's the legal precedent for that, Ana?

Was there anything in the Bill to commit Parliament to acting on the result of the referendum?

Haven't gone that far into it, but can you imagine the hoo-haa if they tried to overrule the result of the vote and not go for Brexit?

They don't need to 'declare' it as advisory Ana; it can only be advisory. (Just put 'What is the legal standing of the EU referendum' into Google). That doesn't mean it wouldn't be silly of the government to disregard it but they are not legally bound to do as it says. You can go on denying this because it makes you feel better but that will not make it the truth.

Invoking Article 50 would be a legal step taken by the government and it will be interesting and controversial, to see if the government will allow a vote by Parliament on when and whether to invoke it. Parliament is supreme and it is the decision to invoke Article 50 that will change things. The referendum was just a referendum even though it may eventually change the course of this country because of what it 'advised'.

That's not the point. Legally, the Act made no provision for the result to be binding on the government and did not mention any specific consequences.

From a political point of view, any government is going to find it very difficult not to act, but that depends on the basis for negotiations. At the moment, everybody (including the public) seems to be finding it difficult to agree on a starting point. Different groups of people were voting for different things.

It doesn't make me feel any better, Gracesgran, I have no need to feel better! Brexit is going to go ahead whatever anyone on here says.

But what is Brexit Ana?

You know that already, I'm not playing.

Do you have a crystal ball, Ana? You cannot guarantee that BREXIT will go ahead - and certainly not on terms that you will like.

So what is BREXIT to you?

Perhaps you ought to tell the government what it is, Ana, because they do not know!

This is what Paul Mason thinks.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/aug/29/europe-brexit-britain-theresa-may-single-market

daphnedill there are no particular 'terms that I will like' as you put it. I'm not a rabid Brexiter, I just think that Remainers are grasping at straws if they think that the whole thing will be halted because of some technicality.

What's the point of having referendum in the first place if parliament can reject the will of the people because it doesn't like the result?!! Complete waste of time, effort, and most of all money! Not to mention the family upsets it's almost certainly going to cause for what would appear to be no reason. Why not be honest and just say, that only one result will do and you Joe Soap public will just have to put up with it! What's the point in finding out what people think if you just ignore it?!

Ana, they're not grasping at straws. The result of the referendum is not legally binding. That's not just the opinion of a few people on GN, but the judgment of thousands of constitutional lawyers and academics.

This issue should have been raised when the Referendum Bill went through Parliament at the end of 2015.

You should address those questions to Cameron. My guess is that he wanted to get people off his back and thought he'd win. It wouldn't be the first time he ignored what people think.

We'll just have to wait and see, won't we?

It will not be long to wait. The government is having a big meeting about it on Wednesday.

Yes, we will have to wait and see. I have no more idea what will happen than you do, Ana. I certainly have no idea what the terms of BREXIT will be - nor, it seems, does anybody else.

I understand that the meeting on Wednesday is to gather thoughts from cabinet ministers about how they perceive BREXIT will affect them and what their ideal outcome would be. It could very well be that there is conflict between them and nobody is any nearer reaching any kind of consensus about the terms of negotiations.

I agree, daphnedill, I don't think Wednesday's meeting will do much more than muddy the waters a bit more!

If I'd realised it was only advisory, neither DH or I would have bothered to vote! Obviously no point!

The people make their feelings known through the referendum. Parliament then debate the result and decide what action to take. This is called democracy. Blindly following the biggest vote is descending into mob rule.

Good job the government doesn't take the same attitude to GE results - there'd never be any change!

(Yes, I know it's different, but 'mob rule'...really?)