Lloyds Banking Share Discussion Threads

[poikka] 22/6/2019 11:02

As usual, the Remoaners tell us how bad it's all going to be and how wonderful it is within the EU - BUT never back it up with anything of substance.

Whereas, the Leavers tell it as it is, time and time again.


The above is a fact, which we all know; so I'm off now.

Tara.

[sarkasm] 22/6/2019 10:57

xxxxxy
22 Jun '19 - 10:53 - 262245 of 262245
0 1 0
John Redwood
‏
@johnredwood
Follow Follow @johnredwood
More


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.


ONE DOTH HONOUR ONES CONTRACTUAL COMMITTMENTS

its in the contract signed in tripicate

39 billion underlined


but one must read the small print on rebates and discounts as regarding the honouring of payment dates

[xxxxxy] 22/6/2019 10:53

John Redwood
‏
@johnredwood
Follow Follow @johnredwood
More


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.

[xxxxxy] 22/6/2019 10:52

Let's

LEAVE the EUSSR

LEAVE and WTO

[rogerrail] 22/6/2019 10:51

A no deal Brexit is like exploding a nuclear bomb on london, sure it will cause harm to the EU but not as much as to the UK. The EU do not believe a UK PM would be so stupid as to press the button on no deal so it does not help a jot in negotiations.

[xxxxxy] 22/6/2019 10:51

The top 40 horrors lurking in the small print of Theresa May’s (STEWART) Brexit deal

The top 40 horrors: [here I am showing the second 20]
21. Articles 40-49 practically mandate the UK’s ongoing membership of the Customs Union in all but name.
22. The UK will be charged to receive the data/information we need in order to comply with EU law. (Article 50)
23. The EU will continue to set rules for UK intellectual property law (Article 54 to 61)
24. The UK will effectively be bound by a non-disclosure agreement swearing us to secrecy regarding any EU developments we have paid to be part. This is not mutual. The EU is not bound by such measures. (Article 74)
25. The UK is bound by EU rules on procurement rules – which effectively forbids us from seeking better deals elsewhere. (Articles 75 to 78)
26. We give up all rights to any data the EU made with our money (Art. 103)
27. The EU decide capital projects (too broadly defined) the UK is liable for. (Art. 144)
28. The UK is bound by EU state aid laws until future agreement ̵1; even in the event of an agreement, this must wait four years to be valid. (Article 93)
29. Similar advantages and immunities are extended to all former MEPs and to former EU official more generally. (Articles 106-116)
30. The UK is forbidden from revealing anything the EU told us or tells us about the finer points of deal and its operation. (Article 105).
31. Any powers the UK parliament might have had to mitigate EU law are officially removed. (Article 128)
32. The UK shall be liable for any “outstanding commitments” after 2022 (Article 142(2) expressly mentions pensions, which gives us an idea as to who probably negotiated this). The amount owed will be calculated by the EU. (Articles 140-142)
33. The UK will be liable for future EU lending. As anyone familiar with the EU’s financials knows, this is not good. (Article143)
34. The UK will remain liable for capital projects approved by the European Investment Bank. (Article 150).
35. The UK will remain a ‘party’ (i.e. cough up money) for the European Development Fund. (Articles 152-154)
36. And the EU continues to calculate how much money the UK should pay it. So thank goodness Brussels does not have any accountancy issues.
37. The UK will remain bound (i.e coughing up money) to the European Union Emergency Trust Fund – which deals with irregular migration (i.e. refugees) and displaced persons heading to Europe. (Article 155)
38. The agreement will be policed by ‘the Authority’ – a new UK-based body with ‘powers equivalent to those of the European Commission’. (Article 159)
39. The EU admits, in Art. 184, that it is in breach of  Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty which oblige it to “conclude an agreement” of the terms of UK leaving the EU. We must now, it seems, “negotiate expeditiously the agreements governing their future relationship.” And if the EU does not? We settle down to this Agreement.
40. And, of course, the UK will agree to pay £40bn to receive all of these ‘privileges217;. (Article 138)

[xxxxxy] 22/6/2019 10:47

The EUSSR is the Berlin Wall now.

LEAVE and WTO of Many Deals


LEAVE LEAVE LEAVE

[xxxxxy] 22/6/2019 10:46

Peter Lilley:

Fears about leaving the Customs Union are a mix of imaginary and exaggerated

Lord Lilley is a former Secretary of State for Trade & Industy and for Social Security.


“A paramount duty of Government is to ensure Britain’s prosperity”. Hammond’s Mansion House speech – full text
Who’s supporting whom: David Jeffery’s calculations. 5) Meaningful Vote decisions.
Who’s supporting whom: David Jeffery’s calculations. 4) ERG members.
The BBC’s Tory leadership election debate: Brexit moments
The highly unpopular provisions in the Prime Minister’s draft Withdrawal Agreement that could keep the UK indefinitely in the EU Customs Union are driven not just by a pointless attempt to avoid a hard border between the UK and EU in Ireland, but by fears that they will impose costs, cause delays, disrupt supply chains and undermine economic growth.

Those fears are unnecessary, for many of the problems ascribed to leaving the EU’s Customs Union are imaginary and most of the rest are exaggerated.

References to “customs paperwork” having to be “checked at the border” after Brexit conjure up visions of lorry drivers filling in forms which are then laboriously checked against their loads, causing delays and queues. In fact, virtually all customs declarations are made electronically ahead of arrival at a port; most consignments are cleared within seconds of arrival; a tiny percentage are physically checked as a result of risk assessment by HMRC computers or intelligence information; and such checks may be carried out away from the border at an importer’s premises or warehouses.

Most checks relate to dutiable goods, drugs or illegal immigrants and are made on the basis of risk or intelligence information. HMRC do not expect any of these risks to increase or new risks to emerge as a result of Brexit so they will not require more checks than at present. The same is true for checks of food, plants and animals. In any case they will ‘prioritise flow over compliance’ to prevent congestion.

It is often assumed that there are no border procedures or checks on trade with the EU at present. Yet, in fact, companies have to report their transactions with EU countries separately in their VAT returns; pay duty on tobacco and alcohol (which yield far more revenue than tariffs would in the event of ‘no deal’); they may be searched for illegal drugs or immigrants; drivers must show their passports; and companies of any size must submit details of their intra-EU trade to Intrastat. All but the latter (which will be replaced by customs declarations) will continue post-Brexit and constitute the major element of border compliance.

The claim that WTO rules require checks to be made at the border is also incorrect. Checks of customs declarations are carried out electronically and physical checks often made at importer’s or exporter’s premises. Even the Union Customs code, which requires agri-food checks at border inspection posts ‘in the vicinity of the border’ allows them to be as far as 40 kilometres inland. This is particularly important for avoiding infrastructure and checks at the Irish border.

Just-in-Time supply chains do not operate exclusively within the EU. Indeed, a fifth of components imported by UK motor manufacturers come from outside the EU, and their timely arrival is just as essential to the reliable operation of assembly lines. They are subject to customs procedures that do not cause the problems supposed to be likely when applied to future imports from the EU.

Surveys of research literature show that free trade areas – e.g. NAFTA – are more ‘trade creating’ than the EU customs union. Businesses in Switzerland, Norway and other EEA countries are not complaining about completing customs declarations, let alone calling to convert their free trade arrangements into a customs union. This may be because they welcome the free trade agreements their countries have been able to negotiate which would not be possible within a customs union. The Swiss have FTAs with countries whose combined GDP is three times that of the FTAs negotiated by the EU.

Although Switzerland and Norway have fewer checks on product compliance because they comply with EU single market rules the customs declarations required at their borders with the EU are similar to those that will be required at the UK border and they too have to comply with rules of origin.

Of course, we should endeavour to minimise the cost of compliance with customs procedures. But as the Chair of the European Logistics and Customs Association has said: “All the ingredients to ensure a smooth exit process of the UK from the EU and which allow almost frictionless tradeafter the exit, are already available [in the Union Customs Code].” So we do not need to negotiate simplified customs procedures.

The HMRC estimate of the cost of completing customs declarations is an order of magnitude larger than actual costs incurred by companies and reported by the Swiss authorities. The HMRC figure is based on the charges by customs agents for large consignments of complex products. It ignores the fact that over two-thirds of businesses complete their own declarations because it is cheaper and that for the small repeat consignments that characterise UK/EU trade the cost of replicating declarations is negligible compared with the cost of the initial declaration.

Official estimates of the cost of complying with rules of origin are even less defensible. They are based on outdated and irrelevant studies of trade between underdeveloped countries and the USA or the EU. A more recent authoritative study by the WTO shows that, except for infrequent consignments, the costs of complying with rules of origin are ‘negligible217; – they do not even wipe out a 1% tariff preference. Moreover, the new REX system – which the EU has agreed to extend to the UK post Brexit – further simplifies the procedure for declaring origin.

A particular concern has been fear that lengthy delays at ports and consequent congestion on motorways will disrupt plants dependent on Just-in-Time supply chains (JIT). As explained, HMRC do not expect more checks on imports from the EU post-Brexit and will prioritise flow over compliance. The fear is, however, that delays – either deliberate or through lack of preparation – on vehicles arriving at Calais from the UK will cause a back-up of vehicles extending back over the channel and up the UK motorway system, interfering even with supplies coming in the opposite direction. Deliberate delays would be a breach of three treaty commitments (the original WTO treaty, the Trade Facilitation Agreement (FCA) and the Lisbon Treaty requiring the EU to behave in a neighbourly fashion towards adjacent states). Of course, legal redress would take time but ports in Belgium and Holland are eager to take trade away from Calais.

Moreover, queues resulting from problems at Calais are not unknown. Operation Stack has had to operate on 211 days since 1998 and did so for 23 almost continuous days in 2015 with delays of 35 hours. Yet JIT plants appear to have managed since none were reported halting production.

It is natural that businesses contemplate the worst possible consequences in the event of the UK leaving without an agreement – due to lack of preparation combined with hostile non-cooperation by the EU. Sadly, some commentators present these scenarios as if they represent what would be a permanent situation post-Brexit, when most such problems are not merely unlikely but, if they happen at all, essentially temporary.

[bargainbob] 22/6/2019 10:45

Only a matter of time before Boris messed up. Though surprised he could not hold it together a little longer.

Simply not fit to be Prime Minister. Also highlights the Brexit nutters on here who are backing him even after this .

Next they will say Domestic Violence is character building :-(

[xxxxxy] 22/6/2019 10:44

Trading under WTO rules

By JOHNREDWOOD | Published: JANUARY 10, 2019

There is a lot of confusion and deliberate misinformation about trading under the WTO. Here are some facts that might help.

1. All our current trade is under the WTO, as the EU is a member. The UK will become a full member with vote and voice as soon as we leave the EU, as we never surrendered our membership when we joined the EU.
2. There is no WTO schedule of tariffs that automatically comes in. Each member of the WTO files its own tariff schedule and trades with anyone under that who wish to trade. The WTO requires a member to trade with any other member on the same terms, unless there is an approved Free Trade Agreement that exempts the countries from the common tariff of the Schedules. A country is always free unilaterally to cut or remove tariffs.
3. If a country’s trading terms are disputed by another member there is a dispute resolution procedure. A dispute does not stop trading under the published terms whilst the dispute is being resolved.
4. The EU does not have Free Trade Agreements with the USA, China, Brazil etc so we trade successfully with them at the moment under WTO rules and under the tariff schedule set by the EU. Once out we can sign Free Trade deals with these countries removing these tariffs, or could cut some of the tariffs unilaterally any time we wanted to make imports cheaper.
5. The so called side deals the EU has with these countries are mainly unimportant or unrelated to trade. Some are multilateral agreements that the UK has signed anyway.
6.The one agreement we currently have through the EU that may be important, the General Procurement Agreement, gives us access to public procurement opportunities in signatory states, and gives them the same access to the UK. The WTO has now agreed the UK will be a member of that Agreement in our own right on departure from the EU.
7. The EU has free trade agreements with a number of mainly smaller countries. The top five, Switzerland, Canada, Korea, Norway and Turkey account for three quarters of the exports involved. Switzerland, for example, has agreed to continue all current preferences with the UK as well as with the rest of the EU on our exit. No country with an FTA with the EU has indicated any wish to terminate the agreement with the UK once we leave. Transferring the current deal to both the remaining EU and to the UK is a relatively straightforward process.
8. The WTO does not require us to impose new checks at borders or delay imports into the UK. They recommend risk based checks. As the risks of EU product will not go up the day we leave the EU there is no requirement to impose new difficult checks.
9. If the UK and the EU agree to negotiate a free trade agreement once the UK has left the EU on March 29 this year, we could agree to impose no tariffs on each other and would get WTO consent to not impose them pending the negotiation of a full free trade agreement.

Peter Lilley has published a good pamphlet with Global Britain and Labour Leave setting out more detail called “30 Truths about leaving on WTO terms”

[ariane] 22/6/2019 10:37

YOU TALKING TO ME

makh, if you were, i presume nothing stops until the fat lady sings

The powers that be will find a way round any wall

Thats why i believe its a waste of breath and words to discuss it every day

once a week, perhaps once a month would more than suffice

[maxk] 22/6/2019 10:26

ok, so all trade between the €U and blighty stops dead on the 1st Nov.


Is that the remainer position?

[ariane] 22/6/2019 10:21

Poikka
22 Jun '19 - 10:13 - 262228 of 262228
0 0 0
"Mark Carney, has said that the UK would be hit automatically by tariffs on exports to the EU in a no-deal Brexit"

1. So would the EU, if no negotiations were in progress, which begs the obvious question. Keep the pressure up, Boris.

2. Then there's the small matter of how we, as an independent nation, decide to deal with tariffs.

3. Then there's the small matter of who would benefit most from tariffs received.

But that's irrelevant to Carney.


BREXIT HAS NOT AND WILL NOT HELP ANYONE

WE ALL LOSE

FIRST IT WAS IMMIGRATION CONCERNS THEN IT WAS DEMORACY

TO CONtinue THIS DEBATE IS FUTILE

if voting changed anything they would outlaw it

Carney tried to warn leavers long ago

Russia and USA are laughing at the own goal for europe and the uk

[minerve 2] 22/6/2019 10:21

Very nice Alphorn, enjoy your day.

My daughter is in Florence today.

Looks like I'm in the garden mowing the lawn.

Short straw for me. :)

[alphorn] 22/6/2019 10:19

Some people seem to have forgotten that there are also global rules and regulations.

………;…...the 'W' in WTO may give you a clue.

Off to the beach.

[minerve 2] 22/6/2019 10:17

Oh dear!

They still don't get it!

ROFLMAO!

[maxk] 22/6/2019 10:17

Remainers cant see the two way street thing..

[maxk] 22/6/2019 10:16

Re: #262223

"The Bank of England governor, Mark Carney, has said that the UK would be hit automatically by tariffs on exports to the EU in a no-deal Brexit"




Carney makes it sound like it's a one way street, when trade is actually a two way street.

[poikka] 22/6/2019 10:13

"Mark Carney, has said that the UK would be hit automatically by tariffs on exports to the EU in a no-deal Brexit"

1. So would the EU, if no negotiations were in progress, which begs the obvious question. Keep the pressure up, Boris.

2. Then there's the small matter of how we, as an independent nation, decide to deal with tariffs.

3. Then there's the small matter of who would benefit most from tariffs received.

But that's irrelevant to Carney.

[minerve 2] 22/6/2019 10:12

So, can we put Gatt24 in the coffin?

Any other smart ideas whilst the ship continues to take in water?

ROFLMAO!

[minerve 2] 22/6/2019 10:11

Alphorn beats you all the time Poikka. He is a smarter and more accomplished individual. That is obvious to me.