Lloyds Banking Share Discussion Threads

[excell1] 21/6/2019 18:13

Just stop messing around,we are sick of waiting.We voted out of the EU. Get on with it.

[xxxxxy] 21/6/2019 18:08

EEA and EFTA explained. Not for UK



LEAVE and WTO

[grahamite2] 21/6/2019 18:03

Waldron, please do not fill this thread with irrelevant garbage.

There, that's a polite request, isn't it?

I refer you to this thread created and maintained by pals of yours:

[waldron] 21/6/2019 17:44

CHUCKLE



Subscribe NowLog In

Senate Votes to Block Trump’s Arms Sales to Gulf Nations in Bipartisan Rebuke
“While I understand that Saudi Arabia is a strategic ally, the behavior of Mohammed bin Salman cannot be ignored,” said Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, who voted to block the arms sale.CreditGabriella Demczuk for The New York Times
Image“While I understand that Saudi Arabia is a strategic ally, the behavior of Mohammed bin Salman cannot be ignored,” said Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, who voted to block the arms sale.
“While I understand that Saudi Arabia is a strategic ally, the behavior of Mohammed bin Salman cannot be ignored,” said Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, who voted to block the arms sale.CreditCreditGabriella Demczuk for The New York Times

By Catie Edmondson

June 20, 2019

WASHINGTON — The Senate voted to block the sale of billions of dollars of munitions to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates on Thursday, in a sharp and bipartisan rebuke of the Trump administration’;s attempt to circumvent Congress to allow the exports by declaring an emergency over Iran.

In three back-to-back votes, Republicans joined Democrats to register their growing anger with the administration’;s use of emergency power to cut lawmakers out of national security decisions, as well as the White House’s unflagging support for the Saudis despite congressional pressure to punish Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman after the killing in October of the journalist Jamal Khashoggi.

A United Nations report released Wednesday made the most authoritative case to date that responsibility for the killing and its cover-up lies at the highest levels of the Saudi royal court.

No other foreign policy issue has created as large a rift between President Trump and Congress, and the vote to block the arms sales deepens the divide. It is the second time in just a few months that members of Mr. Trump’s party have publicly opposed his foreign policy, with both the House and Senate approving bipartisan legislation this spring to cut off military assistance to Saudi Arabia’s war in Yemen using the 1973 War Powers Act, only to see it vetoed.
People inspected the damage after a neighborhood in Sana’a, Yemen, was hit by a Saudi-led airstrike last month.CreditYahya Arhab/EPA, via Shutterstock
ImagePeople inspected the damage after a neighborhood in Sana’a, Yemen, was hit by a Saudi-led airstrike last month.
People inspected the damage after a neighborhood in Sana’a, Yemen, was hit by a Saudi-led airstrike last month.CreditYahya Arhab/EPA, via Shutterstock

While the Democrat-controlled House is also expected to block the sales, Mr. Trump has pledged to veto the legislation, and it is unlikely that either chamber could muster enough support to override the president’s veto. Seven Republicans — not nearly enough to override a veto — broke from their party to disapprove of the sales to Saudi Arabia: Senator Susan Collins of Maine, Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Senator Mike Lee of Utah, Senator Jerry Moran of Kansas, Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky and Senator Todd Young of Indiana.

You have 2 free articles remaining.

Subscribe to The Times

“This vote is a vote for the powers of this institution to be able to continue to have a say on one of the most critical elements of U.S. foreign policy and national security,” said Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey, the top Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee and lead sponsor of the resolutions of disapproval. “To not let that be undermined by some false emergency and to preserve that institutional right, regardless of who sits in the White House.”

The White House announced the sales late last month, and invoked an emergency provision in the Arms Export Control Act to allow American companies to sell $8.1 billion worth of munitions in 22 pending transfers to the three Arab nations. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are waging an air war in Yemen that has come under sharp criticism from Congress and human rights organizations.

Members of Congress from both parties have been holding up arms sales from American companies to Persian Gulf nations and trying to end American military support for the Saudi-led coalition that is fighting Houthi rebels in Yemen, which has resulted in what the United Nations calls the world’s worst man-made humanitarian disaster.

By declaring an emergency over Iran, the administration was able to override those holds.

“If we let this emergency declaration go without protest, without a vote, I don’t know that we’re ever getting the power to oversee arms sales back as a body,” said Senator Christopher S. Murphy, Democrat of Connecticut, and one of the authors of the resolution.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo had pushed hard for the emergency designation, over the objections of career Foreign Service officers and legislators, arguing that the sales would support allies like Saudi Arabia to counter Iran and its partner Arab militias — though some of the munitions would take years to produce and deliver. In the weeks after the declaration was announced, lawmakers have scrutinized the role that a former Raytheon lobbyist played in the decision.
Video
10:45Why U.S. Weapons Sold to the Saudis Are Hitting Hospitals in Yemen
In our video, a former State Department official sent to advise the Saudi-led coalition says he saw firsthand how it failed to avoid civilian casualties in Yemen — and how the U.S. chose to look the other way.

Some Senate Republicans endorsed the administration’;s position on Thursday, arguing that rejecting the arms sales would be overly blunt with unintended consequences as tensions with Iran escalate.

The question the Senate will consider, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader, said, “is whether we’ll lash out at an imperfect partner and undercut our own efforts to build cooperation, check Iran and achieve other important goals, or whether we’ll keep our imperfect partners close and use our influence.”

But the administration’;s argument ultimately fell flat even for some of the president’s closest allies, like Mr. Graham, who co-sponsored the legislation with Mr. Menendez.

“The reason I’m voting with Senator Paul and others today is to send a signal to Saudi Arabia that if you act the way you’re acting, there is no space for a strategic relationship,” he said. “There is no amount of oil you can produce that will get me and others to give you a pass on chopping somebody up in a consulate.”

The original legislation Mr. Menendez and Mr. Graham introduced would have forced senators to vote on 22 separate resolutions of disapproval, one vote for each arms sale. But a deal struck with Mr. McConnell grouped the resolutions into three votes — and also ensured that the Foreign Relations Committee will take up a bill sponsored by Mr. Menendez that would curtail the ability of the president to use emergency authority to sell arms.

The vote came the same day that Britain announced it would temporarily suspend approval of any new licenses to sell arms to Saudi Arabia, after an unexpected court ruling that ministers had acted unlawfully in allowing the sale of weapons when there was a clear possibility they might be used in violation of international humanitarian law in Yemen.
A version of this article appears in print on June 21, 2019, on Page A5 of the New York edition with the headline: Senate Rebukes Trump Bid to Bypass Congress on Arms Sales. Order Reprints | Today’s Paper | Subscribe

[hernando2] 21/6/2019 17:44

Everybody on the left says Trump is a warmonger, indeed they are rabid about that "FACT" , clearly they are incorrect in this instance

I wonder what they will say in his defence?

[xxxxxy] 21/6/2019 17:25

Ian Murray 21 Jun 2019 4:49PM
@Simon Conran



You haven't noticed the collapse of the £?


Simon Conran 21 Jun 2019 5:08PM
I've noticed it's slightly lower, but with unemployment lower than since 1974, it doesn't seem to have had a bad effect.

ian canyoubelieveit 21 Jun 2019 5:20PM

@Ian Murray @Simon Conran the euro has 'collapsed' just as much as the pound vs key currencies, but you probably didnt notice that it might not fit with the one sided agenda you are pushing

[mr.elbee] 21/6/2019 17:14

spot on analysis graham.

but the tories ,it seems ,cant looks round corners.. Very large female hookers,or props, to be employed at every tory bash....would save an awful lot of anguish.. but that is commonsense and the tories do not do that..Oh no!!

[grahamite2] 21/6/2019 16:44

It was an automatic event in March.

Very true. So why didn't it happen? Because the UK government took steps to stop it happening and the EU agreed to their request.

For Parliament to "not allow" it to happen in October, they will have to force the government to make a similar application as last time, and they could only do this by legislation. How could such legislation be worded? If it just said the government "must do a deal" it would be meaningless. And what penalties would be prescribed for non-performance? Against what individuals?

The whole idea's a complete non-starter. And that's before even considering the fact the EU must agree, and Parliament can't force them to do anything whatever.

[minerve 2] 21/6/2019 16:43

More expert than you armchair wet noodles.

[grahamite2] 21/6/2019 16:33

Experts are of the belief

Yeah right.

[careful] 21/6/2019 16:32

I was an automatic event in March.
There is no such thing as an automatic event.
Stop clutching desperately at straws.

Automatic is just one vote away from being cancelled.
It is called democracy.

Democracy;
The only vote that matters is the most recent one.
It is a legal principal.
Try to understand it.

If it helps you to try think of a Will.
Which Will is the one that matters?
The one written 3 years ago, or the most recent one.

[minerve 2] 21/6/2019 16:15

Suck on that over the weekend. 🦸‍a94;️

[minerve 2] 21/6/2019 16:14

Experts are of the belief Remain is still more likely than No Deal.

[alphorn] 21/6/2019 16:09

Parliament will not allow no deal.
Renegotiation seems unlikely.

………;……a one way bet, as I doubt No Deal is off the table, BUT be very nimble to get out when (likely) it turns.
(€ into 1.11s this afternoon).

[xxxxxy] 21/6/2019 16:07

Lets

Get OUT of the EUSSR

LEAVE and WTO

[gotnorolex] 21/6/2019 16:06

Back in again @ 58.15 ;~)

[xxxxxy] 21/6/2019 16:05

The EUSSR is not worth spitting on.

LEAVE and WTO

And save 39billion for the British people.

LEAVE and LEAVE and LEAVE

[xxxxxy] 21/6/2019 16:03

Boris for PM

LEAVE and WTO

[xxxxxy] 21/6/2019 16:02

John Redwood
@johnredwood
·
6h
The media & Remain MPs are stuck in their own rhetorical canyon, ignoring the wider public & trying to prevent intelligent debate about the opportunities once liberated from the EU. I've never once heard the BBC ask a Remain MP why they want to give away £39bn we don't owe.

[grahamite2] 21/6/2019 16:01

Parliament will not allow no deal.

Remainers are clinging to this like a drunk clinging to a lamppost.

But it's ridiculous. It's like saying Parliament will not allow the sun to rise tomorrow.

What are they going to do about it? It's an automatic event.

[careful] 21/6/2019 15:47

The EU. will be thinking this lot out also.
There are two players in this game.

The EU. know that the Lib Dems and greens are high in the polls.
The SNP are pro EU.
The Tories are split.
Labour is drifting towards a second vote.

The EU. do not want the UK to leave.
Things become clearer if you try to work out what you would do in their position.

All to play for, this game is not over yet.