When the news of the Government’s plans for ‘no one to trust’, and the threat of an election, was first reported by the BBC, it had a devastating effect on the UK.
As the UK is the only OECD member that does not have a ‘no confidence’ law in place, this news could have the effect of making it difficult for businesses to operate, especially for small and medium-sized enterprises.
It would also have a negative impact on the quality of medical care in the UK, and on public health.
However, since then, many have argued that the ‘no trust’ proposal is not in the best interests of the UK’s economy, and would only lead to further economic damage.
What is the ‘No Trust’ proposal?
‘No trust’ is an EU law that aims to prevent financial institutions from engaging in transactions with individuals, institutions or organisations that would result in a negative outcome for the institution.
‘No’, ‘no’, ‘trust’, ‘trusted’, ‘suspect’ are some of the common terms used to describe the proposed legislation.
The ‘No Trusted’ law would effectively create a blanket ‘trust’ policy, meaning that financial institutions would be required to notify the UK government if any financial transaction they perform could result in an adverse outcome for any person or organisation, regardless of whether or not the financial transaction was authorised.
In practice, this would result with the loss of confidence from all of the financial institutions.
In order to ensure that the UK can maintain its status as a ‘trustworthy’ economy, the UK Government would need to make it clear that it would be taking this policy seriously.
‘Trust’ is a word that has been around for a long time, but the word ‘no’ has only been used in the context of a ‘Trust us, we’ll do our best’ approach to financial transactions.
This is the view of most in the financial sector, which sees no need for ‘trust’.
As a result, the ‘Trust Us, We’ll Do Our Best’ approach has been a powerful political tool in recent years, and is used by a number of political parties in the United Kingdom.
‘Trusted’ is another word that is often used to refer to the government’s decision to refuse to back a proposal that would have caused financial institutions to take more risk.
However if you look at the Government proposal itself, you’ll see that it contains very specific terms that are meant to prevent the financial system from becoming ‘unsafe’.
The Government proposes that ‘No one should be able to take advantage of a trustless system’.
‘No person should be allowed to make a financial transaction that could result with a negative financial outcome for another person or institution’.
‘The government should not allow people to take the risk that their transactions could result a negative result for another party or organisation’.
This is one of the key concepts that the Government has been pushing for, and it is part of a larger package of measures to address the financial crisis that has resulted from the ‘Brexit’ decision.
But ‘Trust’, ‘No, No’ and ‘Trusting’ are not synonymous terms.
In fact, they are not used interchangeably.
For example, the government has stated that ‘Tracking your finances is a fundamental responsibility of every member state of the EU’.
However, it has also stated that this is a ‘core function’ of the European Union.
If the Government is to make this clear, the words ‘Trust and No’, ‘Trust, No and No’ should be used together.
How would it work?
The ‘Trust in government’ proposal would require financial institutions and financial companies to report their ‘risk exposure to each other’.
It would then be up to the UK to decide if that risk exposure could be ‘traded’ in the markets.
The UK would then have the option of requiring financial institutions, or financial companies, to report ‘risk exposures’ to the ‘Trading Standards Authority’ (TSA), which would then make decisions about whether or no that risk was appropriate to trade.
Under ‘Traded Risk’ legislation, ‘Tracked Risk’ would also be included.
However under ‘Traced Risk’, the government would not be able ‘trading’ risk, and so it would not have the ability to ‘trade’ risk on the market.
If ‘Traders’ and Financial Services are both included, it is clear that this would allow the government to trade ‘tracked risk’ on the stock market.
‘Trade risk’ is defined as the risk of financial transactions that could lead to an adverse financial outcome.
It is a term that was not used in this bill, and this is in direct contrast to the previous proposals.
The government would be able, for example, trade risk on a share price.
However trading risk is not a tradeable product, so it is unlikely that this measure