Lloyds Banking Share Discussion Threads

[xxxxxy] 18/11/2020 20:20

No Deal. No fig leaves either.Anything stupid and Conservative Party will be sent back to the Stone Age. Any deceit and the Conservative Party will finished, bit like the Liberal Party.One will be dead. Arise the New.The Reform Party.No No No Deal

[xxxxxy] 18/11/2020 20:16

Artichoke Boulevard18 Nov 2020 7:43PMFree trade, economic agility and tax incentives to companies to relocate. This is what we should be doing, and that terrifies the EU, hence their desperate attempts to tie us into a one sided Trade deal. Walk away and start making the economic weather. Learn from the Iron Lady.... Daily Telegraph

[xxxxxy] 18/11/2020 20:15

Former Australian prime minister Tony Abbott told the Commons International Trade Committee there is an "eagerness" on both sides to secure a UK-Australia free trade deal before Christmas."Ideally a deal between Britain and Australia would involve no tariffs, no quotas, as full as possible mutual recognition of standards and qualifications, and as free as possible movement of people for well-paid work, not welfare," Mr Abbott, who now acts as an adviser to the UK Board of Trade, said... Daily Telegraph

[jl5006] 18/11/2020 20:11

Boris digging himself a bigger hole.
I'm proud of the contracts - for PPE - proud all mates got the money - without any tendering by ppl without any relevant involvement in the procurement of such equipment.
NAO did not think so but BJ uses the word proud.

[utrickytrees] 18/11/2020 19:29

Theres a bit more to moving folk onto electric vehicles than banning sales of petrol & diesel. With 1.25m additional people anticipated in London alone in 2030, off street parking will be the provision of the few. Can see these deadlines being extended more frequently than the Brexit ones.

[cobourg1] 18/11/2020 18:16

Immunity to coronavirus lasts at least eight months and may even last for years, new research suggests.

A study of 185 Covid survivors looked at multiple types of immune cells, including those that store the "memory" of the virus, that can activate antibodies when they encounter a new threat.

The study, led by scientists at the La Jolla Institute for Immunology, part of the University of San Diego, is one of the largest so far, assessing several elements of the immune response including antibodies and T-cells.

It found that the "immune memory" may last for at least eight months after infection, with researchers saying the slow rate of decline in some cells required for immunity could mean it lasts longer.

The study raises hopes that the protection conferred by Covid vaccines could last for years instead of an annual jab being required.

Shane Crotty, a virologist at La Jolla, told The New York Times: "That amount of memory would likely prevent the vast majority of people from getting hospitalised disease, severe disease, for many years."
.....................................................................................

Some good news from a Daily Telegraph article. 1:15 PM

I trade solely between BP and Lloyds, both very undervalued but currently I'm all in Lloyds. I've always thought that even the slightest hint of a dividend being allowed and it's 40p plus here. A Brexit deal would be another positive factor.

[k38] 18/11/2020 18:15

No public fraud.... really?well, if you ignore ordinary voters voting two times even more in some cases, burning postal votes, taking advantage of homeless votes, postal vote fraud, counting fraud, filling forms, software fraud which by the way it happens by human taugh. Anything other the election was fair and square win by sleeping Joe.

[stonedyou] 18/11/2020 17:36

Data Scientist Discovers Unusual Change in Votes.


Data scientist Sarah Eaglesfield says she discovered unusual changes in vote counts in several states during the 2020 election.

According to her research, nearly 60 counties across the United States had ballots removed from the total count after they’d been counted.

She said that the changes in data indicate the vote-counting software, known as Dominion Voting Systems, is flawed.


Based on her analysis, ballots in Wayne County, Michigan were counted more than once. Numbers show that ballots with the same voter ID appeared several times in the vote-counting software.

[k38] 18/11/2020 17:05

No petrol or diesel cars from 2030..Electric cars are expensive at the moment and will still probably by end of 2030 because of choice.. battery charging problems to start with too, so..I say buy a diesel or petrol car a year before the ban to avoid the starting problems.

[utrickytrees] 18/11/2020 16:46

Not my boat m8, your the one sticking your fingers in your ears because you dont like what your hearing.

[crazi] 18/11/2020 16:41

Utrickytrees - whatever floats your boat ;-)

[xxxxxy] 18/11/2020 16:38

No Deal.WTO.Independence, Sovereign, Freedom, Regain Democracy, Honesty, Compassion, Liberty.Lots and lots and lots of stuff. Boris better get busy too. No dodging and wheezing and falsity.WTO WTO. WTO.

[utrickytrees] 18/11/2020 16:36

Crazi, with respect weve had these conversations on here many times before. I'm sorry if the facts contradict your perception of them but I cant do much about that. IM sure if you hang around and do a bit of research you will educate yourself given plenty of time:)

[xxxxxy] 18/11/2020 16:34

Official letters show ministers are still being misled on UK participation in EU defenceNovember 18, 2020By David BanksBREXITERS WILL FEEL reassured by No10's insistence it is 'regaining sovereignty' next year. But how much reassurance can we really take considering the last Government said the same thing? Can we have faith that the Prime Minister and Lord Frost will completely restore the UK's democratic autonomy, when the Government teams controlling key policy areas are in fact composed of the same personnel and will not produce the same advice as before? A crucial example is defence, a topic which is central to the concept of sovereignty, where the future EU relationship has been run by a small band of middle-ranking diplomats in a team called the Euro-Atlantic Security Policy Unit (EASP) whose advice holds sway over ministers. The EASP's stance is revealed in a series of replies to worried MPs and observers who questioned ministers about the proposal for the UK to be attached to EU political programmes for defence via Section 102 of the Political Declaration, namely Permanent Structured Cooperation, the European Defence Fund and European Defence Agency. (Participation in one of these means participation in all of them and brings the obligation to be a rule-taker on wider EU defence and foreign policy. These obligations, which officials are not adequately describing for MPs, are outlined in a Briefing note PDF on Section 102 of the Political Declaration available on our news page or by clicking on this link. What they say, as described below, remains virtually unchanged in spite of the change of PM.In 2018, the EASP said: We will not join PESCO as an EU member, so it is important to us that Pesco remains open to non-EU states. A few weeks later, the Political Declaration said that the UK commits to participate European Defence Agency, Pesco and the European Defence Fund... 'to the extent possible under EU law'. The phrase 'extent possible' actually describes a defence arrangement for non-EU states which is as profound as for a member state, if they are willing to adopt EU terms. At the time, the PD was enforceable by the threat of the WA's backstop, giving extra power to the EU to ensure the UK kept to its PD commitments. In 2019, in spite of the recent change of PM, officials still made statements in support of defence parts of the old agreements: The Withdrawal Agreement would not lock us into EU defence initiatives. Nice dupe, but of course not, it was the Political Declaration enforced by the WA which would have done this. They go on to say: The Political Declaration would maintain vital cooperation on foreign and security policy, defence and development. No mention of sovereignty loss. They add: As a member state the UK currently participates in the European Defence Agency. We offered to continue to participate as part of a future partnership. The current WA and PD provide options to cooperate rather than anything that would undermine the sovereignty of the UK in defence. They get away with this statement because they have failed to adequately inform MPs that participating in these structures would mean taking EU rules, policy and payments. It is inevitable then that MPs did not question it. The new deal was done in October 2019, changing the hard obligation to participate in EU political-military structures to merely an 'option'. Have the officials changed their tune? Apparently not. In April 2020, the EASP wrote a response which started with these obvious statements which could easily be mistaken as reassurance: The UK is no longer a member of the EDA. The UK did not sign up to be a member of Pesco. The UK no longer participates in CARD (EU Coordinated Annual Review on Defence), a part of EU defence policy.The UK's obligations to the EDA and CSDP under article 156 will end on 31 December 2020. So far so obvious that the UK did not (yet) join Pesco and that Art 156 lasts to the end of 2020 – but what about the future relationship and the proposed attachment to EU political military structures? They say: The WA and PD do not undermine the UK sovereignty or command and control over our forces nor do they oblige us to participate in EU defence initiatives. Clever line. Yes, we're not 'obliged', they can get away with that now because the new PD says EU defence initiatives are only an 'option', but will they be encouraging ministers to pursue that 'option'? Apparently they will: We will cooperate with the EU on foreign policy and defence, but we do not need or want an institutional framework in order to do so. The UK is ready to consider standard third country participation in certain EU programmes when it is the in the UK's interests that we do. Any agreement relating to programmes should contain fair terms for UK participation including an appropriate financial contribution and appropriate governance and consultation. This is extraordinary. They acknowledge the PM's rejection of 'institutional' arrangements, BUT cheekily replace this with the prospect of an 'agreement' on governance and payments. This would be an agreement with EU institutions governing EU political-military structures, so it would in fact be 'institutional'. Once again, they get away with these words because ministers and MPs don't understand the topic. This line gives us the clearest indication of what the EASP intends to do. Also, notice how the EASP letters name the structures specifically when presenting that false reassurance, eg 'We did not join Pesco', but they do not name the structures when they alluding to 'third country participation', instead referring to the structures as 'certain EU programmes'. Far easier for them to keep this nebulous as it stops short of a clear admission that they are driving us back into EU Common Security and Defence Policy. In June 2020, the euphemism 'certain EU programmes' is repeated when responding to a letter about defence parts of the PD: the Political Declaration states that the UK is open to participation in certain EU programmes, if it is in our interest to do so. However these programmes would need to provide convincing value for money. They should also not undermine the sovereignty of the UK's defence. We expect foreign policy cooperation to be substantial but we do not think we need an institutional framework to deliver it effectively. We are already working closely with the EU on a wide range of issues absent such a framework and see no reason why this cannot continue. 'Absent such a framework'? This is another extraordinary statement as it ignores the UK's current treaty commitment to the whole of EU Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) which underpins participation in CSDP's political-military structures. (see Background note below) Why would they claim this legal-institutional framework does not exist? To answer that question, we only need to consider that the result of such a claim is that readers would be led to believe, wrongly, that EU political military structures do not require a CSDP commitment – but they do. The EASP has been telling ministers that 'value for money' is the key determinant of UK participation and that sovereignty loss should not even be considered. The 'value for money' line is taken up by the EASP's colleagues at the Defence Equipment and Support agency (DE&S) in October 2020. They were asked to compose a line for a minister in response to an irate political researcher who pointed out the danger of UK participation in the EU's political-military schemes. They say: The current third-party rules for the European defence fund mean that UK participation would not represent value for money at this time. 'Value for money', but no mention of sovereignty loss – and why do they say 'at this time'? Do they expect this 'value for money' assessment to change? How can it ever be value for money to surrender control over decision making? They then try the same feints as the EASP in regard to what we are not 'currently' in: The UK is no longer a member of the European defence agency but we continue to participate in some projects until the end of the transition period. The UK did not join permanent structured cooperation. However, they make a further completely false claim which even the EASP has not tried: The UK is not eligible to be a member of permanent structure cooperation now we are no longer a member of the EU. In reality, the EU has published third country participation rules for non-EU states and, through the Political Declaration, the EU has always said the UK can participate in Pesco from outside – provided we are in 'full compliance with EU rules and instruments'. Why would this department say something that is so clearly untrue? Are they trying to line up a story about Pesco being out-of-bounds and therefore a lost opportunity for industrial cooperation? (When Pesco is in fact a political integration device.) If that is the game, officials would be free at any point to tell ministers that the EU is in fact offering non-EU entry and that this 'opportunity' is now open. As the letters show, such conversations with ministers would downplay and reject any notion of sovereignty loss. The same letter says: We would never be part of an arrangement that undermined our sovereignty. Another false claim because the UK was in fact proposing and is still proposing an arrangement which undermines sovereignty, albeit now as an 'option' pursued by these officials. Every year since 2017, the EU has made clear what it expects from third country participants and this is full decision-making adherence to EU Common Security and Defence Policy, including the functioning of budgets and structures adjoining the programmes named in the Political Declaration. The officials informing ministers on this topic have simply found clever and interesting new ways to push the same agenda which purports to align with Government strategy. They must secretly know that participating in any way in the EU's new political-military 'architecture' is impossible if there is no institutional commitment and this commitment would undermine British political autonomy. If they didn't know, they would have to be inept – this is unlikely given that understanding the legal context of EU defence structures is a core part of their work. 

[crazi] 18/11/2020 16:21

Utrickytrees - I'm afraid I disagree. There's a huge amount of data that shows that Scotland contributes a lot more to the kitty than they get back. England's debt is huge and it's definitely not Scotland's fault :-)

Anyway - I'm here to discuss Lloyds...

[mr.elbee] 18/11/2020 16:21

Crimes Against Humanity, fraudulent PCR Tests Taken To Court - Interview with Lawyer Reiner Füllmich



I sent this 5 times taken down each time they are now running scared

[crazi] 18/11/2020 16:17

Tell that to the families of the hundreds of thousands of dead from Covid...

[utrickytrees] 18/11/2020 16:15

Crazi I covered that in post 727. That figure is the Scottish debt by population ie total UK debt÷ uk population × the population of Scotland. It is NOT the debt that Scotland have actually racked up! Think about it Scotlands DEFECIT is 7x higher than the UK. Without Scotalnd the UK would have very little or no debt whatsoever.

[crazi] 18/11/2020 15:03

Utrickytrees - About 75% of that debt is Scottish.

The Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts that by 2016-17, UK debt will be £1.6 trillion - Scotland’s share of the debt would be £132bn.

£132bn of £1.6T = 8.25% (hardly 75% of the debt)...