Lloyds Banking Share Discussion Threads

[minerve 2] 21/10/2020 17:08

"All commercial ships have self defence weapons on them"

That's nonsense.

Such as, give an example.

Even if they did it would be more in respect of frightening off pirates than an aircraft attack and thus much lower in calibre and complexity. Generally it means one gun in the Captain's cabinet.

[mikemichael2] 21/10/2020 16:50

'Shortage of poultry workers could hit Christmas dinner'

Good, don't like Turkey anyway.Infact we should cancel bloody christmas this year, a right waste of time and cost.

[utrickytrees] 21/10/2020 16:41

All commercial ships have self defence weapons on them.

[xxxxxy] 21/10/2020 15:46

The EUSSR = not in good faith htTps://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1350508/Brexit-news-latest-eu-plan-force-Brexit-deal-boris-johnson-barnier-David-frost

[k38] 21/10/2020 14:55

Good posts stonedyou ???

[stonedyou] 21/10/2020 14:33

I had high hopes for the prestigious MaritimeUK, but these hopes were soon dashed.

Their quick-fire spokesman gave a confident telephone speech about the huge benefit to British shipbuilding if the contract competition was limited to the UK, so I asked, ‘Which exemption would you use?’

Silence.

The break in the conversation allowed me to clarify: ‘It’s just that the EU and European Court of Justice are very strict. They say international competition is mandatory under the EU defence directive apart from the most exceptional cases where their narrow exemptions apply. So which one applies here?’

The answer: ‘I don’t know. But I know someone who might know.’

I was then copied into an email to a policy person from yet another organisation.

More merry-go-round.

This person was senior, well-connected and experienced and, on condition that I would protect his identity, provided a very candid rendition of the landscape, including the fabled explanation of why Westminster and the whole British defence commentariat had come to believe that the EU’s defence contract rules could somehow be bypassed and why everyone believed that the rules were not in themselves an obstacle.

It goes like this, and be warned, it does not resemble anything which the EU regards as an adequate excuse:

It was not originally his idea, he said, but the feeling was that the UK should ‘try out’ a line with the EU which said that the UK needs to keep its shipyards exercised with an order book which is bigger than complex warships alone. Being able to do that, he said, was a national security issue and the UK could attempt to persuade the EU that this desire for extra work met the conditions of the security exemption.

I couldn’t believe what I was hearing.

I almost felt pity on hearing such a doomed excuse.

The security exemption under Article 346 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU does not allow a definition of national security interests which covers attempts to boost national strategic shipbuilding capacity.

According to the EU, the protection of strategic contracts 'contrasts with the operational objective of the Directive, that the majority of contracts in the fields of defence and security should be awarded on the basis of EU procurement rules'. (EU Commission Staff Working Document 2016 on the Evaluation of Directive 2009/81/EC on public procurement in the fields of defence and security).

In fact, it was the EU’s desire to quell this precise type of domestic focused approach which led to the EU creating the defence procurement directive with all its new limitations. They aimed to interfere with member states’ links to their national industry in order to encourage the notion that ‘domestic̵7; procurement means ‘EU’. A whole regulatory landscape has since been built and is pushing EU strategic defence industry alongside EU budgets, projects, targets and infringement action for non-compliant states.

I mentioned some of these points to our well-placed policy person and conceded that trying this approach ‘would be a risk’ which might fail, but the current thinking of industry is that it was ‘worth a try’.

Gulp.

It is not worth a try; it is completely flawed.

The security exemption does not allow the UK to bolster domestic industry by giving it a badge saying ‘strategicR17;. In fact this is expressly forbidden as a discriminatory and market-distorting practice.

The livelihoods of thousands of shipyard workers have been relying on this fallacy. Their trade union supporters and the whole maritime industry would have done much better to call for an end to EU rules and entry into the World Trade Organisation’s GPA agreement which gives a proper exemption for defence. Canada, for example, has constructed a 20-year shipbuilding programme which keeps all defence, military support and coastguard shipbuilding in Canada.

Here are a few excerpts from the EU law which illustrate this complex point.

The EU Commission says that the EU defence procurement directive makes it harder, in practice, to resort to Article 346. To dodge the international competition requirement of the EU directive, a member state must be prepared to “demonstrate that the non-application of the Directive is necessary and proportionate” for the protection of its essential security interests.

[xxxxxy] 21/10/2020 13:08

In today's brief: Mixed messages from the EU as Barnier satisfies UK demands but Charles Michel takes hardline stance; Talks could resume as early as Thursday; EU carmakers urge Brussels to rethink and Truss heads to Japan to sign trade deal.More EU mixed messages: This morning, Michel Barnier and Charles Michel have been talking to the European Parliament, again striking completely different tones and muddying the waters around the EU intentions for negotiations. Charles Michel has said that the UK cannot have a free trade deal as a third country with the EU and that an FTA is "having your cake and eating it too" after Brexit. Bruno Waterfield and James Crisp were less than impressed with the EU Council President's comments, so don't expect it to go down any better in Downing Street.However, Barnier is taking a different approach, seemingly hitting the last part of David Frost's criteria for restarting talks when he said "an agreement is within reach if both sides are willing to work constructively, if both sides are willing to compromise, and if we're able to make progress in the next few days on the basis of legal text".British demands met: The speech to the European Parliament was intended to satisfy a British demand that Brussels make clear it will compromise to get a deal done before negotiations resume. UK ministers welcomed Barnier's recognition of UK sovereignty as the Frenchman vowed to negotiate "day and night" on all subjects and on the basis of common legal texts. Charles Michel however doubled down on all the EU demands. Lord Frost, is expected to speak with Michel Barnier again by phone today, making this the third day running that they will have spoken. One Whitehall source said that they were "cautiously optimistic" that negotiations could be back on.Talks to resume as early as Thursday? An article in the Telegraph suggests Barnier could be in London for rebooted negotiations tomorrow. One senior UK Government source said ministers were "hoping to hear more from the EU" before the end of this week and a second source said Mr Barnier could be in London on Thursday. A Brussels source added that Mr Barnier could come on Thursday but "it is not confirmed".Last week, Boris made a big deal out of collapsing talks after his deadline passed and the EU summit just rubbed his nose in it. Now it seems, after a few kind words from Barnier, Downing Street are ready to get back to the negotiating table, despite Charles Michel continuing to make it clear that EU bureaucrats will stop at nothing to make Britain pay for Brexit, whilst Barnier plays Pied Piper. Aside from missing deadline after deadline for Brexit talks, if all it takes to get the UK back to the negotiating table is a little lip service, it's no wonder Brussels seems fairly calm despite recent theatrics. One of the saving graces of the Brexit negotiations thus far has been the UK's Internal Market Bill that, in the event of no deal, would disapply parts of the Withdrawal Agreement that would leave Britain vulnerable to continued EU control. However, as Alexandra Phillips points out in the Telegraph, Gove's Common's performance in regards to the implementation of the Withdrawal Agreement leaves you wondering if he isn't "a fully paid up fellow of the European Commission".The question now is whether Boris and his crew are willing to stand up to the EU and their attempts to clip the wings of post-Brexit Britain, or whether the Government will fully implement the Withdrawal Agreement and continue to compromise with the bloc whose sole aim appears to be to frustrate the democratic will of the British people. Brussels might let Boris claim a big win, but whether or not this is the reality is a whole different story.EU carmakers warn against Brussels' hardline stance: EU carmakers have called on Brussels to 'reconsider' their Brexit stance, seeking less onerous restrictions on qualifying for trade deal benefits. They argue that Brussels should take a less restrictive approach to future market access to the UK and have warned that the bloc's current position is "not in the long-term interests of the EU automotive industry". The European Automobile Manufacturers' Association (ACEA), who represent BMW, Toyota and Fiat and many others, wrote a letter urging the EU to rethink its position over rules for determining whether goods will qualify for tariff-free trade, as well as asking Brussels to lower the percentage of components in a car that must be either European or British for the vehicle to benefit from any EU-UK trade deal.Barnier is adamant that the EU should not sugar-coat Britain's exit from the single market and customs union, but the bloc's hardline stance is prompting increasingly urgent warnings from companies about the consequences of weaker trade ties with the UK.In June, more than 50 food and drink trade associations also wrote to Brussels to urge negotiators to be more "flexible" in their approach. Truss heads to Japan to sign trade deal: Liz Truss will travel to Japan today to get ready to sign the post-Brexit free trade agreement that the two countries have successfully negotiated on Friday. Truss will sign the deal at a ceremony with Japanese Foreign Minister Toshimitsu Motegi, setting the stage for domestic ratification procedures as they look to put the agreement into force in January. US talks 'intensified': In stark contrast to the state of EU talks, are the negotiations with the US. Yesterday, Truss announced that the UK would be "intensifying" talks with America, beginning the fifth round of negotiations to put the talks in a "good position to move forward after the US election". "We want a deal that delivers for all parts of the UK and is forward-leaning in modern areas like tech and services," Truss said.Aussie's set to welcome Brits: Britons could soon have greater opportunities to live and work in Australia and trade talks with our friends down under will place freedom of movement at the fore of negotiations. A source close to Liz Truss told City A.M. that a UK-Australia trade deal will probably allow young Australians to live in the UK for more than two years, with a similar extension for Britons going the other way. Also being discussed are provisions to allow increased access for business people travelling between the countries and greater bilateral recognition of professional qualifications.What next? On our site today the director of think tank The Red Cell, Dr Lee Rotherham looks at the possible options for the UK's future relationship with the EU. You can read the full article here.For the latest news and developments throughout the day, please do follow @GlobalVision_UK on Twitter.Thanks for reading, and enjoy the rest of your day.

[mitchy] 21/10/2020 13:06

I've never seen the market so aimless. It has no idea where to go.

[minerve 2] 21/10/2020 12:41

maxk

That article on the support ships is good news if followed.

However, both the government and The Telegraph are being disingenuous by inferring EU rules have prevented the support ships from being built domestically. As support ships to UK defence vessels they have ALWAYS had entitlement to being excluded from EU competition law. In fact many EU countries have used this entitlement with their own support vessels at the same time the UK decided not to. You have to ask yourself why? Some of these issues are being sold as EU problems when in fact they never have been. Of course the ignorant masses will lap this up as always.

[scruff1] 21/10/2020 12:20

Mo123
Yep. Just seen that reported in the telegraph

[xxxxxy] 21/10/2020 11:10

No Deal No means NoNo Fig LeafNo ObfuscationWTO

[xxxxxy] 21/10/2020 11:09

Someone said.... Drakeford has lost his senses.... Mad as a hatter he is.