One of the key factors driving stocks higher in the wake of a trade “accommodation” rather than a peace treaty is momentum – markets want to go higher, anticipating growth. But the market is equally driven by the volume of cash ready to be thrown at it. There is no shortage of ready liquidity - in this sense of too much easy money chasing too few assets, rather than liquidity: “who wants to buy this” conundrum.
As Biden was US Vice President at the time and is currently the leading Democratic candidate for the US presidential nomination, he is clearly guilty of what Trump is accused. Why is only Trump subject to investigation? If an offense that is merely suspected or alleged suffices for impeaching a president, why isn’t a known and admitted and bragged about offense reason to disqualify Biden from being president?
We can be sure that the EU will do everything it can to stop the UK from being able to adopt policies that make us more competitive. This does not mean lower standards, but better standards and regulations designed by UK legislators for UK conditions and not by EU bureaucrats.
Finally, the government and the opposition are aware of the power disparity between them, which brings to mind Thucydides dictum “The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.” However, the ultimate question and determining factor is: will the influentials see to it that a new constitution is drafted and the peace process moves on to the next step?
After more than two years without sitting, Unionist parties triggered the assembly’s recall with a petition to stop the liberalisation of abortion. However, MLAs (members of the Northern Irish Assembly) were told that that no business could be officiated until a speaker was elected with cross-community backing.
America’s democracy and constitution is being trashed by unelected shadowy forces, aided and abetted by prestigious media outlets like the New York Times. These forces presume to know better or have more privilege than their fellow Americans who “voted the wrong way”.
Legal critics of the judgement have pointed out that the Supreme Court has casually dispensed with the fundamentals of the ‘political constitution’ that was established following the ‘Glorious Revolution’ of 1688. In that constitution the Queen in parliament is sovereign.