Lloyds Banking Share Discussion Threads

[diku] 15/9/2020 08:38

UK soft touch Country...when these guys cross all the Countries in between there must an arrow direction pole in each of these Countries pointing which way to UK...and obviously the distance in kilometres...






If the EU stick to international agreements how come so many refugees which should be accepted at the first safe country seem to cross the whole of Europe and settle in the UK. Cant remember who said it but 'Ive got my principles but I can always change them if you dont like them' One of the Marx brothers maybe

[cheshire pete] 15/9/2020 08:37

They can't see it Joe: the EU wants to break up the UK. Divide and rule, infrastructure bungs...you'll never see a clearer example. EU have of course been encouraged by the gobby SNP despite the clear indy ref result.

[xxxxxy] 15/9/2020 08:35

Keith Calder15 Sep 2020 8:13AMWhat is debt deflation anyway?Well, first of all load your economy up with debt until you get a financial crisis.At 25.30 mins you can see the super imposed private debt-to-GDP ratios.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAStZJCKmbU&list=PLmtuEaMvhDZZQLxg24CAiFgZYldtoCR-R&index=6Economies fill up with private debt until they get a financial crisis.1929 – US1991 – Japan2008 – US, UK and Euro-zoneThe PBoC saw the Chinese Minsky Moment coming and you can too by looking at the chart above.Now you've got debt deflation.Debt repayments to banks destroy money, this is the problem.https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/quarterly-bulletin/2014/money-creation-in-the-modern-economy.pdfJapan has been fighting debt deflation since 1991.The UK has been fighting debt deflation since 2008, but our policymakers can't see the problem.Why can't our policymakers see what is going on?This is why our experts put Japan's problems down to demographics; they couldn't understand the real problem.How does Ben Bernanke convince himself debt doesn't matter?Ben Bernanke is famous for his study of the Great Depression and here it is discussed in the Wall Street Journal.https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB113392265577715881"Theoretically, neither deflation nor inflation ought to affect long-run growth or employment. After a while, people and businesses get used to changing prices. If prices fall, eventually so will wages, and the impact on profits, employment and purchasing power will be neutral. Borrowers suffer during deflation because their debts are fixed in value, but creditors benefit because the dollars they get back will buy more. For the economy as a whole, deflation ought to be a wash."What has Ben Bernanke got wrong?He thinks banks are financial intermediaries and there was no way he could understand the debt deflation of the Great Depression.Policymakers can convince themselves "debt doesn't matter", as it doesn't appear to if banks are financial intermediaries, but they aren't.God only knows where they got the idea that banks were financial intermediaries, but this is what they think, so they can't understand debt deflation.LikeReplyfrank davidson15 Sep 2020 8:33AMInterestiing, good stuff, however, wages do not alway fall as you suggest. The public sector, at best, stay the same. Interestingly the top rate for a nurse is more than £105,000

[joe say] 15/9/2020 08:18

They're prepared to see food supplies to Northern Ireland stopped

And head in the sand remoaners want to align with these self centered buffoons - they could always grab the dinghy at dover and sail back - after all they'll be allowed in/through without a passport

[scruff1] 15/9/2020 08:15

If the EU stick to international agreements how come so many refugees which should be accepted at the first safe country seem to cross the whole of Europe and settle in the UK. Cant remember who said it but 'Ive got my principles but I can always change them if you dont like them' One of the Marx brothers maybe

[cheshire pete] 15/9/2020 08:03

Jacko 07:
"It is amazing that as usual the UK are being pilloried for reneging on a deal when it is par for the course for Europe to do it. They have been doing it ever since we joined the common market. Thatcher was the only PM to stand up to their little tricks, John Major would have dropped his trousers and bent down after giving them a jar of vaseline!!!

They move the goalposts all the time, good old Boris, stand your ground and let them know that the UK is no longer the mealy mouthed country it was with Blair and Major, now is the time!"


Well said Jacko. Boris played a blinder...giant compared with Blair, Major, Brown and May.

[covid 19 deal] 15/9/2020 07:35

No symptomatic virus patient admitted overnight...and no virus patients death in last 3.5 months...only had 8 symptomatic cases in my ward.. all done well with simple treatment and went home..once in a life time opportunity to buy lloy and double the money in 1 year time frame from this level

[xxxxxy] 15/9/2020 07:33

SovereigntyBy JOHNREDWOOD | Published: SEPTEMBER 15, 2020We voted for Brexit to take back control. Brexit voters wish to live in a free self governing independent country. Remain politicians thought the vote should be about trade. They wrongly asserted we would definitely be better off in and thought that was all that mattered.I have always thought sovereignty mattered more. I also think that we can follow policies that increase our prosperity once we restore our full powers of self government.I have set out at some length how we can be better off out. I can no more guarantee that than Remain politicians can guarantee greater income if we stay in. It will depend on how we use our freedoms and how the EU use theirs.The Remain politicians have used a variety of ploys and devices to try to delay, dilute or prevent our exit. One of their first was the court case to prevent Ministers sending in our notice to quit without further Parliamentary processes, despite the clear referendum vote. The Miller case produced a useful defence of Parliamentary sovereignty in the verdict. I had always urged Mrs May to hold a Parliamentary vote on a one clause Bill to speed us up and was not surprised by the Court decision, even though it was clearly a delaying tactic.The Judges said"This is because Parliamentary sovereignty is a fundamental principle of the UK constitution, as was conclusively established in the statutes referred to in para 41 above. It was famously summarised by Professor Dicey as meaning that Parliament has "the right to make or unmake any law whatsoever; and further, no person or body is recognised by the law as having a right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament" – op cit, p 38. The legislative power of the Crown is today exercisable only through Parliament. This power is initiated by the laying of a Bill containing a proposed law before Parliament, and the Bill can only become a statute if it is passed (often with amendments) by Parliament (which normally but not always means both Houses of Parliament) and is then formally assented to by HM The Queen. Thus, Parliament, or more precisely the Crown in Parliament, lays down the law through statutes – or primary legislation as it is also known – and not in any other way "This is now very helpful to the cause of Parliament legislating to sort out our border, customs and trade issues for the UK, notwithstanding the EU's view of the Withdrawal Agreement. The Withdrawal Agreement is only the law because of the Act of Parliament that brings it into UK law. The UK Parliament is therefore free to amend it as it sees fit.There are those who still seem to think it would be bad faith for the UK to exercise its sovereign powers in this way, and claim it is a breach of international law to do so. This Agreement between the UK and the EU is not some world law enforced by some world court. It is an international Agreement where the two sides disagree about its meaning and each claim bad faith about the other. Such disputes have to be sorted out between the two parties. This dispute could still be sorted by negotiation. Otherwise it will be sorted by the UK exercising its sovereignty over our single market and customs union, and the EU exercising its powers over its own. Doubtless neither side will like the other's settlement. Each has to respect the powers of the other, as clearly stated in the Withdrawal Agreement itself.

[maxk] 15/9/2020 00:02

Minny liar ..

[k38] 14/9/2020 23:55

Boris is a winner.

[k38] 14/9/2020 23:53

Quiz, who said..Self made multi-millionaire by the time I was 30. Founded a company that listed. Had cars that cost more than your house. Understood concepts and issues you'll never understand. Had more holidays and visited more places before I was 40 than you'll do for the rest of your life. Lived in many countries. Fully sampled many cultures.

[minerve 2] 14/9/2020 23:45

Another embarrassing day to be British.

Goodnight y'all.

[maxk] 14/9/2020 23:21

And they are probably "permitted" turncoats.

[grahamite2] 14/9/2020 23:13

Boris wins with a majority of 77.

77! Can't be many turncoats then.

[utrickytrees] 14/9/2020 23:12

Bet you've not lost your cherry, virgin.

[minerve 2] 14/9/2020 23:09

Two facts easily forgotten:
- the 'Troubles' were the largest and longest civil war in Europe since WW2. The Good Friday Agreement was made possible by the EU (acting as guarantor for Human Rights that the IRA could trust, and by pouring billions of regional development assistance into the area). The EU as well as the US are guarantor under that international Treaty.
- Barnier was European Commissioner for Internal Market and Services, and has been in that role in NI dozens of times, over more than a decade. He knows NI better than anybody in the UK cabinet. He was also in charge of European Banking reform, so he knows the London city's regulatory system very well and was twice European Commissioner for Industry and Entrepreneurship.
Peace on the island of Ireland would not have happened without the EU, it represents a unique compromise where everybody 'wins' - one side 'wins' because the open border and democratic representation means that the island is, in practical, day-to-day terms fully unified. The other side 'wins' because the area is peaceful and 'London rules' still. The EU has 'won', coz I can't think of a better example where "breaking down borders and barriers" is a successful route to peace and peaceful collaboration.
So if Barnier wanted to shaft the UK, there are more elegant ways for him to do that. He would not have to poke a big stick into that dormant hornets' nest. If London thinks that they can change or rescind the GFA (and any treaty supporting it without the EU kicking up a mighty fuzz, they are either too gullibly trusting their own projection or suffering from London hubris beyond belief. Or have not fully understood what "solidarity with Ireland as a member state" really means. Or all three.

[stonedyou] 14/9/2020 23:05

Text of the letter from Sir Peter Marshall to Sir Geoffrey Cox:

Persistent EU contravention of the terms of Article 50

THE following conclusions emerge unassailably from my correspondence with the Presidents of the European Council, the President of the European Commission and the European Union Chief Negotiator, summarised in the Annex:

(a) the Withdrawal Agreement and the Political Declaration, together with the other texts agreed, are inconsistent with the terms of Article 50 to such an extent that the UK could not ratify them while respecting its EU Treaty obligations;

(b) the inconsistency is overwhelmingly due to the adoption by the European Council (Art 50) of the Guidelines of April 29, 2017. These are both deeply flawed in substance, and at open and persistent procedural odds with the terms of Article 50. They are also a direct rebuff to the positive and forward-looking letter from the Prime Minister to the President of the European Council "triggering" the withdrawal process. If the procedure suggested in the Prime Minister's letter had been followed, the outcome would have been much more fruitful;

(c) "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed" is a standard safety concept employed where complex agreements are of necessity being negotiated piecemeal. This caveat naturally figured in paragraph 5 of the Joint Report from the Negotiators of the European Union and the United Kingdom Government of December 8, 2017: but it seems to have vanished without explanation since then. Its absence is crucial;

(d) as matters now stand (the outcome of the Special European Council (Art 50) on April 10), our partners are waiting for us to ratify a deal which they know full well any respectable democratic legislature would and should reject. Rejection, however, would oblige us near-farcically to take part in the forthcoming EU elections.

I have set these propositions out in diplomatic terms; but I find it hard to believe that they do not have analogous legal validity. In which case, surely our Government and our Legislators, instead of attempting to satisfy the egregious criteria of the European Council (Art 50), should demand that our EU partners show the flexibility they are seeking from us, and legitimise matters by bringing them into line with the terms of Article 50.

With great respect


ANNEX

[minerve 2] 14/9/2020 23:03

Losing what?

LOL!

What have I lost in real-life?

You are the losers, always have been, always will be.