Lloyds Banking Share Discussion Threads

[careful] 09/3/2019 12:38

stoned.
This is just small change, peanuts.
Equivalent to asking Branson for £20.

The EU has a GDP of $20 trillion.
That is; $20,000,000 million.

I know Brexiteers find numbers confusing.

We pay (net) £9bn p.a. to the EU. budget
Out of our annual spend of about £800bn.
This is not only good value it is peanuts.

[stonedyou] 09/3/2019 12:29

Christine Lagarde

The IMF chief will again warn against Brexit during a meeting with Osborne at the

Treasury, a geo-political courtesy return favour to the Chancellor, who campaigned

hard for her to get the job. Like pretty much every group Remain have wheeled out,

the IMF has received funding from the European Commission. Pro-Remain groups which

have made referendum interventions have received €160 million from the Commission

in the last nine years:


1-OECD.....30,532,562

2-CBI.....1,350,737

3-NFU.....133,842

4-Institue for fiscal studies.....7,400,974

5-PWC.....16,304,778

6-LSE.....18,333,273

7-Standard & Poor`s.....745,189

8-RSPB.....19,630,265

9-WWF.....45,762,505

10-Friends of the Earth.....17,112,870

11-TUC.....763,473

12-NUS.....767,196

13-Unite the Union.....285,788

14-Communicasion Workers Union.....25,097

15-GMB.....372,942

16-Unison.....188,893

17-Total.....159,878,761




PWC warned leaving would cause a “serious shock” – no kidding, they’re bankrolled

by the Commission to the tune of €16 million. LSE say we’re better off Remaining –

they certainly are having received €18 million. The WWF says EU

membership “benefits our environment” – it benefits theirs by €46 million.

Remain have barely named a group supporting them which hasn’t received huge

amounts from the Commission. He who pays the piper…

[patientcapital] 09/3/2019 12:19

"All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others."

[careful] 09/3/2019 12:08

Corruption is everywhere.
If you think that our leaders are as pure as driven snow then you are in denial.

[poikka] 09/3/2019 11:15

Careful - "Barnier is simply saying what is obviously true."

You obviously didn't read the article that I copied - see above, or you wouldn't have written that. Actually, you're so blinkered that you just refused to accept it.

Actually, again, you just write absolute nonsense. I know, that's offensive, but it's undeniable.

[grahamite2] 09/3/2019 10:18

I think that they have not yet given up hope, longer term, of a second referendum

I bet they haven't! Vote, vote and vote again until you get it right is the EUs modus operandi.

[alphorn] 09/3/2019 10:07

Careful - IMO it is just a different culture. Relative stability and a medium to long term view beats short termism and the quick buck in their eyes. Look no further than infrastructure projects and the ownership of utilities etc etc.
Travel on the trains to prove my point.

[patientcapital] 09/3/2019 09:35

Plenty of existing ways to mitigate it if only Barnier et al would look beyond the end of their biased noses.

[careful] 09/3/2019 09:24

Barnier is simply saying what is obviously true.

If we leave without a deal and apply WTO rules and tariff, then checks on goods at the EU. border will need to be made.
We will control our borders and fishing grounds in a similar way.

If the Irish situation is so important to us and we cannot risk checks at the EU. border, then we have to either stay in the customs union, which to many offer great advantages anyway, or cancel Brexit.

It is our choice, we cannot blame Barnier or the EU.
(You do remember that it was May and her bungling negotiators who originally insisted on the backstop.)

[minerve 2] 09/3/2019 09:13

Nonsense

He was right. If Lehman's rescue was such a good idea than how come no US bank got involved?

DUH!

The financial crisis originated in the US and was due to poor regulation and ignorance by US banks, financial institutions and rating agencies. Brown acted quickly and things would have been much much worse if he hadn't have done the things he did.

That broadsheet piece was obviously politically biased.

[patientcapital] 09/3/2019 09:08

Not really. This was written in a broadsheet at the time of his resignation:"And myths are what they will be. Gordon Brown did not save the world from the banking crisis. In reality, his misregulation of the finance industry went a long way to precipitating it. The biggest single decision he took during that crisis was to veto Barclays rescue package for Lehman's. "We don't want US problems infecting the UK system," US treasury officials were told. Lehman's collapsed, and the dominoes on both sides of the Atlantic duly toppled. "No return to boom and bust!" he pledged. Then he presided over the greatest economic cataclysm of the century."

[poikka] 09/3/2019 09:07

Minerve - "Brown was good. You know zip Shy Tott."

He can't have been too bad as he kept us out of the Euro.

[shy tott] 09/3/2019 08:51

Someone mention Daniel Hannan? Here's a classic speech sticking one on the useless and corrupt Brown. Let's hope when he's no longer an mep he'll stand for parliament here.

[xxxxxy] 09/3/2019 08:39

Votes next week

By JOHNREDWOOD | Published: MARCH 9, 2019

Another Groundhog week looms, when Remain MPs who cannot accept the verdict of the Peoples Vote have another go at derailing Brexit.

We know that the first vote will be a reprise of the Withdrawal Agreement. Unless there is a great breakthrough in negotiations with the EU this week-end with the removal of the backstop provision, the government is likely to find plenty of rebels against its three line whip and the proposal will be defeated once again.

The government has not yet offered Conservative MPs guidance on how to vote should there be subsequent votes next week about keeping no deal on the table, and a possible delay to exit. Maybe they hope that by creating uncertainty about their intentions they will maximise pressure to vote for the Agreement. I do not see this working.

The government should whip its MPs to vote against taking no deal off the table. As the Prime Minister has regularly explained, you can only take no deal away by agreeing a deal. As others have explained, the right to leave without signing an Agreement is the main pressure point we have on the EU to try to get a better agreement.

The government should also whip its MPs to oppose any attempt to delay Brexit. The Prime Minister has told us all many times that we are leaving the EU on 29 March. She also told us at the election and for many months thereafter that no deal is better than a bad deal, showing she was prepared to leave without a deal if necessary.

Some think the government could lose both of these votes. Both are clearly winnable if the government puts the effort in. There are Labour MPs who would be very reluctant to vote for a delay given the strength of feeling in their constituencies pro Leave, and given the promises Labour made in their Manifesto to back Brexit. It would be perverse if Parliament voted for delay given the pledges made by most MPs in the election, and given the support of the government with their DUP allies. It would place Parliament at loggerheads with the 17.4 m majority in the referendum and leave many MPs trying to explain why they had switched from their position to get elected that they supported leaving. If they now said that they wanted to delay it probably with a view to second referendum or to delay for a long time in the hope that people would change their minds, they would need to agree delay with the Eu and change our legislation.

Were Parliament to vote against no deal and against the Agreement it would have voted a contradiction. In that circumstance the government should proceed to exit in accordance with the legislation Parliament has already passed. The legislation takes precedence over a subsequent motion.

If a group of MPs try to legislate for delay they will find it difficult. It would need the government to back them to gave a serious chance of success.The issue would be enforceabilty without government agreement. Parliament could legislate to say it must not rain tomorrow, but it would have no meaning and would be unenforceable. Delay requires the agreement of the EU as well as of the UK government. If the UK government is against delay they could claim they could not negotiate one sensibly. The only way to ensure delay would be to bring the government down and replace it with one that does want delay. The courts are unlikely to uphold a case against Ministers over such a political issue which can only be resolved by Parliament.

[polar fox] 09/3/2019 08:29

Reading this morning's press and such like, you have to wonder whether, in modern times - post Henry VIII -, there has ever been such an incompetent and duplicitous bunch in charge. If it wasn't actually happening, it would be impossible to believe.

How on earth has this come to pass? It's truly mind-boggling.