Lloyds Banking Share Discussion Threads

[utrickytrees] 09/9/2020 19:50

Boris should do his PC's in Urdu.

[k38] 09/9/2020 19:47

How many rounds yet...?Boris, this is stupid, leave first, FOR GOOD, negotiate after.Brussels do not negotiate with it's "slave states". Brussels are not and must not to be trusted!

[gary1966] 09/9/2020 19:30

Dow had flown before our markets had closed

[aceuk] 09/9/2020 19:28

Like most things Minerve, it will in the end come down to bottle. Thanks for your kind words :-))

[mikemichael2] 09/9/2020 19:25

Dow flying, might put a penny on tomorrow if we are lucky!!!

[utrickytrees] 09/9/2020 19:18

Exactly JL5, M2 opinion is worthless. When will these idiots grasp the public mood they change nowt.

[minerve 2] 09/9/2020 19:08

Aceuk

I'm sorry to hear that again Ace.

Hopefully someone within your family, perhaps those you care most dearly for like sons & daughters, are witness to what has happened. Take fortitude from the fact that your legacy to them which truly matters the most, that is the passing on of strong moral values and character, is strengthened and not weakened by the actions of lesser men towards you. :)

[jl5006] 09/9/2020 19:03

aceuk
Why are u reading M2?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

[jl5006] 09/9/2020 18:59

nothing is done in hurry
The Police in England / heddlu in Wales have been gagging for the powers to fine ppl.
now they have them.
Respect has gone - and there will be civil disobedience.
police could not cope with Er/XR and got what they wanted.
It is a pity that the Police have no pension fund - pensions funded by current contributions -retire at 55 why? and deficits are charged to Council tax.
just like the teachers - they work the same way.
WE PAY.
So we can expect to be stopped on regular basis.
Stasi state

[minerve 2] 09/9/2020 18:54

Downing Street’s latest attempt to explain its breach of international law — that Mr Johnson did not fully understand what he was agreeing in his deal with the EU last October — is unlikely to impress fellow leaders. “The treaty was written in a rush and was never meant to be the final agreed text between the UK and the EU,” Number 10 said.

Simply disgraceful. Nothing else to say.

[aceuk] 09/9/2020 18:53

Test of my now somewhat aged resilience Minerve - would not have chosen this and it has not been easy at all. I now know how people end up rough-sleeping - I became a non-person, I had no rights at work or home. I am utterly amazed how easy it is to get abandoned by authority and the system and then how difficult it is to re-engage.

.... am sure authority would have taken notice pretty quick if I had gone through Birmingham on the M6 at 150 mph during lock-down!

[minerve 2] 09/9/2020 18:52

Talk about leaving wakes of distruction behind you. And the gammons chose this man as our leader?

It just goes to show how many are simply out of their depth in judgement and reality.

[minerve 2] 09/9/2020 18:50

"apparently it was all done in a hurry ;-)"

Just like the new baby, eh?

LOL

[aceuk] 09/9/2020 18:44

apparently it was all done in a hurry ;-)

[minerve 2] 09/9/2020 18:29

“Britain does not break treaties. It would be bad for Britain, bad for our relations with the rest of the world and bad for any future treaty on trade we may need to make.”

Margaret Thatcher 16/4/1975 speech.

[minerve 2] 09/9/2020 18:27

Johnson signed the Withdrawal Agreement treaty knowing it would create a border between Northern Ireland and GB.

He said during the general election there would be no border.

He now wants to break international law and go back on the treaty.

He conned the electorate. He conned the EU.

The man is despicable.

[minerve 2] 09/9/2020 18:24

If I was Barnier I would walk away.

You can't do business with scum who have no integrity.

Any government watching this should just shy away from any negotiations and let the Little Englanders get what they thoroughly deserve.

[minerve 2] 09/9/2020 18:18

Ace

Sorry to hear about that. :(

[xxxxxy] 09/9/2020 17:03

Article 184 interesting too. Another time.Nos da. Cymru am byth.

[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.