Lloyds Banking Share Discussion Threads

[stonedyou] 03/12/2018 22:22

Theresa May - Contemptuous dogs are snapping!!!!!!


‘This is NOT Brexit!’ David Davis ATTACKS May’s deal as MPs calls for CONTEMPT

PROCEEDINGS



DAVID Davis has launched a blistering attack against the Government, branding

Theresa May’s deal “not Brexit” and urging her to release the full legal advice

amid fears the UK will remain trapped forever in the EU’s customs union.



Former Brexit Secretary Mr Davis issued a stark warning to the Government, saying

the legal advice must be published in full to let MPs make an informed decision

over the Prime Minister’s deal. In a statement released today, Mr Davis said: "The

legal summary document is worse than we feared: the backstop customs union is

indefinite, the UK would be a rule taker and the European Court is in charge of

our destiny, rather than the sovereign UK Parliament. This is not Brexit. This

only reinforces what I’ve been saying for weeks: the legal advice must be

published in full so that the House of Commons can debate this properly."

[xxxxxy] 03/12/2018 22:12

The Withdrawal Agreement is toilet paper containing dangerous FAECAL MATERIAL

[alphorn] 03/12/2018 22:10

max - you don't have a guess?

x5 is filtered - I can't read any more of that Redwood stuff. ;)

[maxk] 03/12/2018 22:02

So what do you think will happen next? It is only then that we (posters) can consider what to do.

As a starter:
- The WB will be defeated and TM will attempt to modify and re-present.
- The WB will be defeated and TM will be ousted. Tories remain in power
- The WB will be defeated and an election of sorts will take place.



No idea Alp, your guess is as good as mine .. we are not playing by strict logic logic rules here, but political logic, not the same thing.



anyway, triple xxx has supplied a suitable reply in #

xxxxxy
3 Dec '18 - 21:53 - 238391 of 238391

[xxxxxy] 03/12/2018 21:53

Martin Howe QC responds to No. 10’s ‘rebuttal’ of his Spectator article
December 2018 by Martin Howe

My response: These astonishing and humiliating procedures derived from the Association Agreements of the former Soviet republics of Moldova, Georgia and Ukraine plainly do not respect the principle that the court of one treaty party cannot resolve disputes between the two.

Where the treaty obliges the UK to apply EU law or rules based on it, this procedure will require the substance of the dispute to be decided by the ECJ and not by the panel. The arbitral panel will be in the same position as our Supreme Court now is regarding EU laws. The UK Supreme Court formally “resolves the dispute” by passing the formal judgment in the case, but is obliged (1) to refer any doubtful questions of EU law to the ECJ, and (2) is bound to follow and apply the answers given by the ECJ, whether it agrees with them or not.

Allowing our treaty obligations to be decided in this way by a court of  the other treaty party is totally contrary to international treaty practice under which sovereign states simply do not agree to this happening. It means that our treaty obligations can be effectively rewritten in the future – through the ECJ promulgating a “reinterpretation” of EU rules we have agreed to follow. Our treaty obligations will be changed by an organ of the EU, without the UK having any say.

Most disturbingly, paragraph 124 of the political declaration makes clear that the UK government has caved in to making these arrangements  in the withdrawal agreement a permanent feature of the UK-EU relationship, while paragraph 83 will give the ECJ a similar role in the field of extradition and other criminal law measures.

7. This draft agreement will not take us closer to an acceptable final deal with the EU. Instead, it locks us down by throwing away in advance our two strongest negotiation cards: EU budget payments of £39 billion and the future access to our market for EU goods.

Downing Street: This agreement confirms that as we leave the EU the days of sending vast payments to the EU are coming to an end. The financial settlement reflects a fair settlement of our rights and obligations as a departing member of the EU. It is estimated to be much lower than some of the estimates we heard – as high as £100bn and it is agreed in the spirit of our future relationship.
Under international law the UK owes at most a small fraction of the sums the withdrawal agreement would make us liable to pay. This was confirmed by Dominic Raab as the government’s internal legal advice on the Today programme on 22 November 2018, and accords with the conclusions which I have explained in a 30-page report available at the Lawyers for Britain website.


In fact £39bn is probably an under-estimate of what we will end up paying. The government in yet another foolish capitulation which is contrary to international treaty practice, have agreed in Art.160 to give the ECJ rather than an independent panel the right to rule on the size of the EU’s financial claims. If the transition period is extended, the UK’s financial obligations will automatically increase by tens of billions.

8. It would not let us forge our own trade policy with other parts of the world.
Downing Street: The political declaration is clear that whatever is agreed in the future partnership must recognise the development of an independent UK trade policy beyond this economic partnership. During the IP we will be able to negotiate, sign and ratify free trade agreements with rest of world partners, ready to bring them into force thereafter. Even in a backstop, we could implement any elements that do not affect its functioning — such as those aspects related to services and investment.
My response: As I have already said, the theoretical right to conclude trade agreements will be of no practical use if those trade agreements cannot extend to doing deals on tariffs with prospective trading partners. Further, no serious trading partner will think it worthwhile to conduct negotiations with us with a view to bringing a deal into force as soon as we escape from the transition period and the Protocol if we are unable to give any assurance as to when – or even whether at all – we will be able to escape from the Protocol.

Full article

[stonedyou] 03/12/2018 21:51

Brexit: Government may have broken rules by not publishing legal advice - Speaker


The UK government may have broken Parliamentary rules by not publishing Brexit legal advice, the Commons Speaker has said.

John Bercow said "there is an arguable case" that a contempt of Parliament has been committed.

It means MPs will debate and vote on Tuesday on whether or not to refer the case to the Standards Committee.

This is likely to delay the start of the debate on Theresa May's Brexit deal.

Mr Bercow was responding to a call from senior MPs in six parties - Labour, the Lib Dems, the SNP, the Democratic Unionist Party, Plaid Cymru and the Green Party - for contempt proceedings to be launched.




They say the government has gone back on a binding vote to release "any legal advice in full".

This breaking news story is being updated and more details will be published shortly. Please refresh the page for the fullest version.

.

[careful] 03/12/2018 21:31

Great news on the backstop.
we can benefit from the customs union forever.
Well done Theresa, outsmart them.

[stonedyou] 03/12/2018 21:27

Who`s a treacherous DOG!!!!!!





Tory Brexit anger as Attorney General says backstop ‘indefinite’


The government’s top law officer angered Conservative Brexiteers and opposition

MPs from all parties as he presented the government’s legal position on the Irish

border backstop, admitting the UK could be kept under EU trading rules

indefinitely with possibility to leave unilaterally.Attorney General Geoffrey Cox

could face possible suspension from the House of Commons if the Speaker finds him

in contempt of parliament, after opposition parties claimed he had failed to

produce the full legal advice demanded by MPs.Tory Brexiteers shouted “it’s a

trap” as Mr Cox set out the government’s legal stance on the backstop, which will

act as an insurance policy preventing a hard border in Ireland if there is no

trade deal agreed between the UK and EU by the end of the transition period.The

Attorney General admitted that the UK would be “indefinitely committed” to the

backstop if it was activated, and told MPs there was “no unilateral right for

either party to terminate”. Mr Cox told MPs that the Prime Minister’s deal was

a “calculated risk” but insisted: “I do not believe we will be trapped in it

permanently”.However, when asked by SNP MP Joanna Cherry whether there is anything

in international law to prevent the backstop becoming permanent, Mr Cox

replied: “As a matter of international law, no.”


Appealing to dozens of his Conservative colleagues set to vote against the deal,

Mr Cox said: “I make no bones about it - I would have preferred to have seen a

unilateral right of termination in this backstop.”He added: “I’m prepared to lend

my support to this agreement because I do not believe that we’re likely to be

entrapped in it permanently.”





Earlier, the UK Government published its 43-page Legal Position On The Withdrawal

Agreement that confirmed the Irish backstop would continue to apply “unless and

until it is superseded” by a subsequent agreement.It also says the UK faces making

additional payments to Brussels if the Brexit implementation period is

extended.Opposition parties including Theresa May’s DUP allies said the document

and the Attorney General’s statement failed to meet the terms of a vote demanding

publication of the full legal advice and asked Speaker John Bercow to launch

contempt of Parliament proceedings.In the Commons chamber, Mr Cox told MPs to

stop “braying” for the full legal advice be published, and said: “There is nothing

to see here!”




It is time they grew up and got real,” the Attorney General added. “The public

interest is at stake, what part of that proposition is the opposition not capable

of understanding.”




Last night a letter to the Speaker was signed by shadow Brexit secretary Sir Keir

Starmer, DUP Westminster leader Nigel Dodds and senior MPs from the SNP, Liberal

Democrats, Plaid Cymru and Green PartyIf Mr Bercow agrees to launch contempt

proceedings, a debate in the Commons could follow with the possibility of MPs

voting on whether to suspend the Attorney General from parliament.Shadow Brexit

Secretary Sir Keir Starmer said: “The Government has failed to publish the

Attorney General’s full and final legal advice to the Cabinet, as ordered by

Parliament.“We have therefore been left with no option but to write to the Speaker

of the House of Commons to ask him to launch proceedings of contempt.”



Ms Cherry, a qualified QC, added: “The binding motion passed by this House on 13

November ordered the production of any legal advice in full, including that

provided by the Attorney General. What he has produced is a legal commentary not

legal advice.“The Attorney General said that he wished he could comply with the

order of the House but he cannot. A theatrical lawyer might say it looks like an

open and shut case of contempt.”

[polar fox] 03/12/2018 20:59

maxk,

You may be interested in this tweet:

Latest @ConHome survey:

1) 67.8 per cent of Party member respondents think MPs should vote against May's EU deal hxxps://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2018/12/our-survey-almost-seven-in-ten-party-members-say-that-conservative-mps-should-vote-against-mays-deal.html …

2) The proportion wanting May to quit now has hit half for the first time:

unquote

Also, based on survey data from Con Home, the Meaningful Vote is expected to be lost by about 181 votes next Tuesday.

[alphorn] 03/12/2018 20:40

Max - your views please on my post would be appreciated re. next steps.

I have my coffee!

[maxk] 03/12/2018 20:35

G+T Alp, a large one :-)




Opposition parties launch joint contempt proceedings against ministers over Brexit legal advice – Politics live




1h ago
19:32


Geoffrey Cox's statement - Snap verdict

Andrew Sparrow Andrew Sparrow



Geoffrey Cox, the attorney general, has achieved something remarkable; he has united all the Commons opposition parties (and the DUP, which is not sure at the moment which side it’s on) who now want to see him face disciplinary action for not publishing his full Brexit legal advice. John Bercow, the speaker, has promised a decision very soon, possibly tonight, and so it is probable that within the next day or so we may get a full-blown Commons debate on the government’s contempt of parliament. We don’t know yet what the motion would say. Normally in these circumstances it would just be a referral to the privileges committee for an inquiry, but given the point made by Labour about the need to resolve this quickly (see 6.56pm), MPs could soon be voting on whether or not to suspend Cox from the Commons.

[careful] 03/12/2018 20:24

The parliamentary arithmetic must point to a second referendum.
Gove was right.

About 200 tories are remainers.
Most of labour are remainers.
All of SNP are remainers.


Because Brexiteers are loud and make the most noise we sometimes forget that they are a small minority.

[aceuk] 03/12/2018 19:56

k38 is not indigenous Alphorn - one of my mates said to me at the time of the vote 'I don't understand Trev voting leave, he's half German for chrissakes'!

[k38] 03/12/2018 19:55

There is no democracy in Brussels. I am afraid Brussels and Europe are two different worlds. Trust me you don't want to experience like the rest of them. Take the chains and they all walk away, far away from Brussels.

[alphorn] 03/12/2018 19:46

k38 - the when in Rome, etc.

(In the past the rules were different (eg USA, Aust, NZ etc) - wipe out the indigenous people - no respect in those days. Let it stay in the past).

[k38] 03/12/2018 19:39

You can't change what happens in the past.. you learn to live with. As long as people are behaving and respect the law of this country I see no problem especially when they don't force their beliefs on me. But immigration need control not just here but in all European countries.. otherwise we lost control of our lives.The key word is, Respect !

[alphorn] 03/12/2018 19:37

Lime cordial at the ready max?

So what do you think will happen next? It is only then that we (posters) can consider what to do.

As a starter:
- The WB will be defeated and TM will attempt to modify and re-present.
- The WB will be defeated and TM will be ousted. Tories remain in power
- The WB will be defeated and an election of sorts will take place.

etc etc

[toon1966] 03/12/2018 19:33

maxk = I think you'll find it's the Attorney General who is refusing to publish the report. Made numerous references to this fact in the HoC this afternoon/evening.


No doubt if Labour were in power they would ensure the report was published...… ;o)

[kenbachelor] 03/12/2018 19:27

k38 3 Dec '18 - 18:55 - 238370 of 238372

Brexiteers knew what they are voting for.

Yes. At least the ones who thought about it did: 'Absolute chaos'.

[maxk] 03/12/2018 19:25

So, what is May and her merry band of remainers trying to hide?

We have had plenty of speculation in the news, but she still refuses to publish the AG's full report.

Why?

I suspect it is because it is probably even worse than what has been reported. She is now risking a real blowout on the HoC, with half her own party voting with labour against the gov.

No sensible politician takes those sort of risks unless the is a gun to their head.

Who is holding the gun?

[k38] 03/12/2018 19:13

8 years after 4 years.. That makes 12 years under Brussels rules. That means no deals till then !!