Lloyds Banking Share Discussion Threads

[xxxxxy] 09/9/2020 17:03

Eleventh Commandment: 'Thow shall not break international law' (unless you are the EU)September 09, 2020By Ewen StewartThere has been a great wailing and gnashing of teeth from the usual remain suspects after Brandon Lewis MP, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, confirmed the Government is considering 'breaking international law in a very specific and limited way', as it seeks to define more tightly the terms of the Withdrawal Agreement. Lewis must have known what he was doing when he made such a questionable contention, whatever his motives however, international law is a fig leaf held by those who want their own way to close down debate. When it suits supporters of the EU they quote international law as akin to the two stone tablets given to Moses setting out the Ten Commandments.  Routinely international law is held as beyond debate, no matter how absurd, or detrimental. It is the decree by the self-proclaimed international law guardians and therefore a good in itself. It is International Law full stop. End of matter. Well is that really true? There are two principal questions here. One particular to the Withdrawal Agreement the other more generally about the supremacy of this tsunami of law emanating from the likes of the UN and various globalist agencies.  Firstly, is the Government justified in re-drawing the Withdrawal Agreement while still in the transition period and before final agreement has been reached? Secondly should international law, which is implemented often as a fait accompli, unquestioningly above legitimate democratic accountability?  The answer to the first questions must be a resounding Yes. The answer to the second a resounding No.  Of course the WA should be re-visited on three main grounds.   First and critically the EU is negotiating in bad faith – negating the legitimacy of the Withdrawal Agreement. Second the WA is in itself contested by lawyers who disagree on the scope and liabilities of numerous clauses; and third the nature of how and why the agreement was struck makes it questionable in the first place. The EU has been humiliated by Britain leaving. Our politicians have been too polite to point that out but on the international stage to lose the second most important economy, one of only two significant military and security powers, its primary financial centre and home to its strongest cultural base is devastating to EU power and ambition. Britain leaving is equivalent to America without New York, Chicago and Los Angeles combined. Imagine that.  Clearly the EU apparatchiks won't admit it but in their heart they must know that to lose another referendum (it's quite a common habit but the various Irish, Danish, Dutch and French referenda lost previously were ignored) clearly suggests something is rotten at the heart of Brussels.  Their response has been vindictive and deliberately so. Article 184 of the WA calls for 'best endeavours, in good faith.'  The EU has done no such thing. Previously Barnier offered the UK a 'Canada Plus Plus Plus' style agreement limited to Great Britain on condition of Northern Ireland remaining in the EU's customs union. Once the UK delivered Barnier shifted in the sand demanding the UK mimic EU law in a multitude of areas from employment, to state aid, environment to elements of tax. Thus we can see it is okay for the EU to bend the rules, but as soon as the UK plays the EU at its own game not just some in our civil service seem to go wobbly but quite a few Tory MP's too. It is also worth reminding ourselves why Johnson's Government was forced to bend in the first place with a very one-sided Withdrawal Agreement (WA).  The people voted Leave in a referendum that Parliament promised to implement. But Parliament's soul was for Remain and continually and deliberately attempted to thwart the British people. In this case the people were the ultimate authority as they had been expressly given that mandate by Parliament.   Parliament then sought to undo the authority of the people and the Government was forced into extension after extension of even failing to leave the EU at all. Ultimately, against the wishes of the people, parliament coerced the Government – if the UK was to be allowed to leave the EU in any form at all, it had to agree to a clearly damaging WA designed to tie the UK to the EU. This was not democracy as some attempted to claim but a deliberate attempt to subvert democracy and undermine the negotiating hand of the British government. Moreover, highly questionable interpretations in international law of the 1998 Belfast Agreement, were used as an anvil by the EU to weaken Northern Ireland's position in the UK union. I do not believe this Government would have agreed to the Withdrawal Agreement in any semblance of its current form had our Parliament not acted in such a disreputable way. It is therefore rather rich that those who sought to undermine British democracy are those shouting the loudest with outrage over a possible re-balancing of the WA in the British interest. Whose side are these people on? Would they prefer the UK was damaged and tied to the EU in semi-detached legal quagmire than actually enabling the Government to have the powers to make Brexit work? (The answer more often than not appears to be "yes".) The second question is more complex.  Is international law really supreme? While cooperation is clearly desirable if democracy is to have any real meaning it must be the people and not an often oligarchic EU or UN cartel. However, the reality is far from clear cut.  When it suits them the liberal elite upholds the sanctity international law – while turning a complete blind eye when convenient. For example EU law is overseen by a supreme court which stands above all members states national jurisdictions, the European Court of Justice (ECJ), that regularly makes up international law on the hoof while its own executive, the Commission, regularly breaches its own regulations with a large Nelsonian blind eye. Hypocrisy and hubris is everywhere.   The law of most democracies is based on the law passed by Parliament which of course is amendable and enforced by national courts. The ECJ is a teleological court where the approach is to interpret law in the spirit of the aims of the EU. This is a subtle but important distinction for, as agreed by founding treaty, a primary aim of the EU is of course 'ever closer union.' The ECJ thus regularly supports and administers EU power grabs through the teleological approach of using the overarching aim of 'ever closer union' as its compass.  This basis of international EU Law is in itself highly questionable but all the more outrageous when the EU continually and cynically breaks its own agreements. There are numerous examples from the behaviour of the European Central Bank's monetary creep (ruled illegal numerous times by the German Constitutional Court), to the way EU power grabs without legal basis often doing so in a small, obscure field, to set precedent for its court to interpret into the subsequent body of law.   The truth is the law is organic and ultimately only enforceable with consent and political will. There is a very strong case for the UK to rip up the entire Withdrawal Agreement based primarily on the EU's bad faith and own inconsistencies. It would be better it the EU would agree to be grown up, trade freely and openly with its largest partner – the UK – and cooperate widely on many issues. But the EU is not like that. It is a wounded animal determined to punish those who repudiate it – and if we are not careful we will end up with years of disputes as the EU attempts legal warfare, often aided and abetted by our own courts and bureaucracy.  David Frost is a much tougher animal than his predecessors who were horrified by Brexit. Now is the time to re-order the agreement. The Treaty of Versailles did not keep the peace. Cutting the UK asunder with a border down the Irish sea for no good purpose will not either. If the EU continues to act in bad faith it will have broken demonstrably the terms of the Withdrawal Agreement. If it wants to play that game we are entirely justified in re-defining a fair re-interpretation of the Withdrawal Agreement.  That is not a breach of international law as Lewis claims it is sensible hard-headed negotiation. 

[geckotheglorious] 09/9/2020 16:46

Sterling was down 0.3% against the dollar at 1.2939

"Here come the all and sundry Remainer professional currency traders with their prognostications !!!"

[xxxxxy] 09/9/2020 16:18

Lloyds Bank to axe hundreds of jobsThe UK's biggest banks have all announced new cutbacks or revived previous restructuring plans in recent months... Daily Telegraph

[arjun] 09/9/2020 16:00

Afternoon allDow up 2% Ftse100 up 1.5 % and Lloy up 0.015 of a penny 0% .....it begs the question beside the current issues something else is driving this atm?Have a good evening

[lefrene] 09/9/2020 15:56

grahamite, go to wallstreetonparade.com a highly professional long established site that references everything from government sources that they write about.

Enter 'repo market' in the search box and then keep scrolling down and 'earlier' until you get back to an article on the 20th September 2019. On your way back up read some of the other stuff too. For instance do you know that the 5 big reserve Banks that own the FED have established their own stock market which will begin operations on the 29th of September? Now why would these big bruisers want to have what will likely be a near private market of their own?

There's huge amounts of things going on that the public don't know about, simply because it's not spoon fed to them.

[jl5006] 09/9/2020 15:55

tricky 125
Whats green about ?

[aceuk] 09/9/2020 15:48

Family issue is worse than Brexit Minerve .... well according to leavers MONEY has nothing to do with it. Don't think it will resolve either :-(

[grahamite2] 09/9/2020 15:41

lefrene, I am very sceptical of internet conspiracy theories. But the paranoia and fanaticism of the government's response to COVID does make me wonder if there's more to it than meets the eye!

[utrickytrees] 09/9/2020 15:37

Didn't have u down as a green JL5?

[lefrene] 09/9/2020 15:33

But it's not about a virus, it's about distracting the sheeple from the biggest banking blow up in history that started with the NY repo market freezing last 17th September. There's 160 countries under the sway of the IMF, that's quite some leverage when you need to hide a likely $100 trillion whoopsie. Just because it's not in the mass media, doesn't mean it isn't happening.

[utrickytrees] 09/9/2020 15:33

Boris needs to ban curries and uninsured vehicles.

[grahamite2] 09/9/2020 15:08

Tony - LOL!

He could hardly have made a worse job.

[jl5006] 09/9/2020 15:02

GR2
It is not Tony's fault - but someone has to stand up to PHE and he is not challenging their policies. Guess Witless and Liberty will make matters even worse shortly

[jl5006] 09/9/2020 14:58

I did not write the article careful.
Allison pearson did

[diku] 09/9/2020 14:38

Then another one comes along...wash rinse and spin cycle all over again...




As their lies wash you down and their promises rust..."

[maxk] 09/9/2020 14:36

It's not woke, just stupid!

[careful] 09/9/2020 14:35

A great post jl5006.

And you did not mention the health damage caused by the neglect of other far more serious illnesses such as cancer and heart problems.