Lloyds Banking Share Discussion Threads

[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.

[grahamite2] 14/9/2020 22:49

Minerve 214 Sep '20 - 22:35 - 314567 of 314570

I never had a fair referendum.

Boo-hoo-hoo! Blub blub blub!

[cheshire pete] 14/9/2020 22:41

Boris majority of 77.

[valuetracker] 14/9/2020 21:39

Value Target (Lloy): 22p

[geckotheglorious] 14/9/2020 21:31

Utrickytrees
Post 314559
Absolutely agree,and a bloody funny post too!!!!

[xxxxxy] 14/9/2020 20:48

But Boris won the election and taken us out if the EUSSR..What did that other guy do .

[xxxxxy] 14/9/2020 20:44

That's going to be the Brexit Party Mark2 then.

[xxxxxy] 14/9/2020 20:43

DouggPosted September 14, 2020 at 3:19 pm | PermalinkDave Camrron and others are talking about keeping our eyes on the big pr- ize- an FTA with the EU but we didn't vote for a FTA with anybody- we just voted to leave- we did not vote to trade with WTO rules either- if the politicians cannot follow simple democratic wishes of the people then I'm afraid the people will have no choice but to assert their wishes in a different way