Lloyds Banking Share Discussion Threads

[bargainbob] 03/2/2019 19:46

Pete ,

Different story up North, it good that you hear , what you would not hear down south . The ground work before the announcement of a referendum was laid out today . Looking like it will be declared before 1st of March.

Ireland also reporting a united Ireland referendum to be called if Backstop removed.

England and Wales could be left isolated.

Scottish Labour has lost 20 per cent of card carrying members 5000 in total. Talk of a new Labour Party in the offing .
SNP is now the second biggest member party in UK. Though Exlogiclad does not want to accept it lol.

[cheshire pete] 03/2/2019 19:39

Very mixed messages in the weekend press. On the one (positive) hand May with her new mandate saying she's going to fight for Britain when she goes to Brussels this week, then on the downside mention of Downing St. preparing to extend article 50 behind the scenes and drafting in remainers Lydington and Cox to the negotiating team rather than brexiteers.
True litmus test now: either she makes it clear that we get a codicil or similar to the agreement removing the backstop or we leave no deal and she means it, as per no deal is better than a bad deal.... or she doesn't.
As I see it she now has no choice but to hold her nerve and outstare Tusk, Barnier or Juncker the 'Tyranic Trio' or whoever else they put up, and go for NO DEAL.
If she does, and they blink first she gets her deal through. If they don't blink first we get NO DEAL, then she can go to the country after the dust has settled and she would win handsomely imho. She would be able to say, quite rightly, that she has fought hard to overcome obstacles put in her way since the referendum, Miller, Soubry, Grieve, Blair, Major to name a few. Yes she has made it more difficult for herself but people would ignore that and support her 'good effort' noting the absolutely appalling Corbyn being as unhelpful as possible. The penny would also drop with many remainers just how awful the EU really is and why we voted LEAVE in the Referendum.

[bargainbob] 03/2/2019 19:12

Funny ad from Paddypower, how many hard Brexit little Englanders spat out their cornflakes this morning .

The world is laughing at the stupidity of Little England.

[maxk] 03/2/2019 19:10

At first look, the Malthouse Compromise seems to edge it's way towards a solution.


What say you lot?

[bargainbob] 03/2/2019 19:06

Exlogiclad another high profile No voting judge in the golf club moving closer to Yes.

[bbalanjones] 03/2/2019 19:04

"When is Britain going to build a museum to show the Evils of the EUSSR"

Doh . . . .I think you'll find it under "T" for Tory.

[xxxxxy] 03/2/2019 18:52

And define 'temporary'

Sunset clause

[xxxxxy] 03/2/2019 18:49

The Malthouse Compromise explained

After readers sought further detail of the so-called ‘Malthouse Compromise’ proposals being pushed by figures representing a broad cross-section of opinion on matters European within the ranks of the Conservative Party in Parliament, BrexitCentral has obtained a document which should answer some of the questions being raised. I understand that the summary document that follows has been cleared by all six participants in its production: European Research Group stalwarts Jacob Rees-Mogg and Steve Baker; Remain-backing ministers Stephen Hammond and Robert Buckland; Treasury Committee Chair and former Cabinet Minister Nicky Morgan; and Leave-backing minister Kit Malthouse, who brokered the discussions that brought the group together… = = = = = Parliament may shortly face a binary choice over leaving the European Union with an agreed Withdrawal Agreement (WA) or without one. Many MPs find the WA in its current form unacceptable. Indeed the Commons have rejected it by a large majority. Others find the possible economic and logistical disruption of an exit without any WA equally troubling. For too long the Brexit debate and negotiations have been stymied by a collective gamble over this choice. Each side of a naturally binary debate – Leave/Remain – was manoeuvring around this fallback arrangement in the event of the WA’s failing, to the extent that the WA itself was being neglected and consensus could not emerge about what it should and should not contain. Our intention therefore was to create a degree of optionality to mitigate the binary quality of that choice – and to do so in a way in which those on both sides could accept a package as a whole that sought to address their concerns. The idea is that each side will find in the package proposals that they might not consider ideal but will find acceptable. In this way we hope a consensus will emerge across the House and that we can have an eminently reasonable set of options to present to our EU partners which could command a majority – something the EU have quite rightly been asking to see for some time. The structure of the compromise is to offer the EU a choice of two plans: Plan A is predicated on achieving agreement on a WA that addresses the principal weakness of the current version, the perpetual character of the Irish backstop, and its consequences for the Future Relationship between the UK and the EU. Plan B assumes that agreement on a WA is not possible and that both sides accept a responsibility to act so as to minimise as far as possible the disruption that might arise to people and businesses in the EU and the UK. Both Plan A and Plan B involve the UK’s ceasing to be a Member State of the EU according to the timetable set by Article 50 of the treaties, that is on 29th March 2019. In order therefore – Plan A – “The Deal”: Essentially we would offer the existing WA with two changes: First we would extend the implementation period until no later than December 2021. This would involve more money, but also provide a longer period to agree the Future Relationship (FR), with an immovable deadline to act as an incentive for talks. Second, to address the backstop, we recognise the legitimate concern on both sides of the border on the island of Ireland about the effects of Brexit on the settled border arrangements, and the profound commitment of all parties to the Belfast Agreement. However, it is clear that the current formulation of the backstop is not acceptable to the Commons, and some of the suggested solutions to this problem essentially mean the backstop isn’t a backstop at all. We therefore propose a different basis for the backstop that is capable of being permanent. In essence the nature of the new backstop is a basic free trade agreement and a brief is attached at Appendix 1. It is important to note that the NI border arrangement requires no new technology and relies on existing administrative processes. All else in the WA remains the same, including, very importantly a guarantee of EU and British citizens’ rights. If this is not acceptable to the EU, or they require more time to consider it, we would propose our Plan B: Plan B essentially creates a transitional standstill period, at the end of which the UK would overnight become a third country in practice but during which we would have time to avoid disruption in a number of ways: 1. We would keep Plan A on offer for as long as the EU was willing to consider it,
2. We would offer to pay our net contribution (c. £10bn p.a.) in exchange for the Implementation Period as negotiated, until no later than Dec 2021, as a standstill period,
3. We would also offer legal text to support a GATT Art XXIV “zero for zero” temporary arrangement for execution either at the start of the standstill in the event the negotiated implementation period could not be secured, or at the end of the standstill if the future relationship had not been concluded (more here),
4. Both sides would prepare for WTO terms fully.
5. We would create an opportunity to discuss our future relationship with the EU as it would apply from the end of the standstill period. This transitional period would last until the end of December 2021, during which time we would pay our net EU budget contribution, and cover our other liabilities subject to arbitration (pensions etc), and we would “stand still” on everything else – so we would remain a member of the customs union and single market, and the various other arrangements to do with security, aviation and so on. Again very importantly we would unilaterally guarantee EU citizens’ rights. In essence this structure throws a safety net around “No Deal” diffusing the drama and mitigating the possible damage on both sides, with plenty of time allowed to agree a future relationship, which is the desired outcome for everyone. It also allows other non-EU countries to see that the UK has proposed something eminently reasonable which protects our supply chains. If this structure of two deals is offered to the EU, we would expect it to receive serious consideration by those concerned to achieve a resolution that works for both the UK and EU. Plan A is reasonable and workable and addresses the legitimate concerns about the Irish border. Plan B provides a transitional period in which we can settle remaining differences without unnecessary economic damage or logistical difficulties, retaining optionality for all sides. In both cases there is no prejudging of the form of the FR. Maintenance of the Common Travel Area on the island of Ireland is also an important part of both plans. The only other option is slamming the door, which would seem irrational and unfair given that the EU have pledged to use best endeavours to agree a smooth and civilized exit. On this basis, given the widespread support for this compromise, and the demonstrated majority for it, we would welcome the opportunity to develop it further with the Prime Minister such that it could be offered to our EU allies as a profoundly reasonable solution. Appendix 1: The New Backstop
A revised Withdrawal Agreement (WA) which can be negotiated with the EU, thus avoiding No Deal and honouring the referendum result, whilst protecting the national interest.
Our proposed new backstop would guarantee departure from the Customs Union, Single Market and all EU rule-making for the entire UK.
It can be negotiated because it builds on the EU’s own offer (rather than asking them to compromise the single market) and the concept has already been positively received by the EU privately (they will not publicly back it whilst a permanent customs union is on the table).
It retains the vast majority of the draft WA but crucially removes the four poison pills that have prevented the draft WA from finding widespread support in Parliament and the country at large.
One of the reasons that Parliament is hostile to the Prime Minister’s current proposal is that it would place the UK in a “single customs territory” by virtue of the backstop, giving the EU no incentive to make concessions in future trade negotiations (thereby putting UK interests such as fishing at great risk). It should be noted that any single customs territory that is not the full Customs Union will require checks and customs certificates, such as Turkey is required to use.
This alternative WA proposes a new Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with zero tariffs and no quantitative import restrictions, and a Customs and Trade Facilitation Chapter that will deploy advanced customs and trade facilitation measures which include specific solutions for the Irish border, so the leverage would be the same on both sides. It also addresses the non-regression clauses so as to make them two-way and of the language that would be used in any trade agreement, allowing any potential end state arrangement.
The new backstop does not imperil the Union as it represents a permanent solution to the Northern Ireland / Ireland border making it both a backstop and a frontstop. It does not require any differences between NI and GB beyond those that exist today.
The new backstop will include a Free Trade Agreement in Goods, a Customs and Trade Facilitation Chapter, as well as: commitment by all parties not to place infrastructure on the Northern Ireland border; the UK adopting EU rules of origin; regulatory recognition such as in sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures; in facility and inland clearance; and level playing field provisions on areas such as labour – in other words normal practice in FTAs.
This reformed WA is likely to command a majority in the House of Commons – it is already supported by both leave-backing and remain-backing MPs and, crucially, the DUP.
The main changes to Withdrawal Agreement: 1. No “single customs territory” between the UK and the EU, allowing the UK to regain control over its tariffs and regulations which are required to carry out negotiations for trade agreements with other countries. This makes the UK a credible trade partner for third countries after 29th March 2019. 2. A new backstop to replace the Northern Ireland Protocol which is based on what the permanent solution to the Irish border should be. This maintains the territorial integrity of the UK and allows the UK to regain control over its tariffs and regulation. Crucially to address the concerns of the Republic of Ireland, this arrangement is capable of being permanent – a frontstop – It includes:
a free trade agreement in goods: zero tariffs and no quantitative restrictions, providing for tariff-free trade in goods plus UK-EU regulatory cooperation.
no infrastructure on the Irish border: a commitment by all parties not to place infrastructure on the border.
regulatory recognition based on deemed equivalence because we will be identical on day one of Brexit: on sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) and animal health measures and mutual recognition of conformity assessment, with measures to ensure that the animal health and disease control zone on the island of Ireland can be maintained.
level playing field provisions: on labour, the environment, competition and state aid, consistent with normal practice in FTAs, as opposed to the highly one-sided commitments in the Withdrawal Agreement.
a Customs and Trade Facilitation Chapter with an Irish border protocol: an agreement to deploy advanced customs and trade facilitation measures, including specific solutions for the Irish border.
This will allow us to use a range of proven solutions for our customs procedures, while reducing the burden of formalities on traders and avoiding congestion at ports, and include the principle that any necessary formalities and inspections are carried out with the minimum of delay and, to the maximum extent possible, away from the border. This will employ:
Inter-agency cooperation and information sharing, and recognition of the other party’s inspections and documents for certification of conformity with country or import or export
Simplified procedures and data processing at departure and destination for the import, export and transit of goods
Expedited procedures for qualifying operators, with mutual recognition of trusted trader schemes like authorised economic operator (AEO) programmes, and making them available to as many traders as possible
Self-assessment for importers to declare imports periodically and account for duties payable, plus support to encourage uptake
Inland, in-facility checks and participating in EU systems (such as TRACES) so all SPS related goods will be registered with these systems
Inland, in-facility checks for small businesses (who are already filling out VAT forms)
Adherence to international standards of the WTO and other appropriate bodies
Special facilitations for specific sectors like agriculture.
3. We would propose and extension of the Implementation Period to 31 December 2021, but no further.

[minerve] 03/2/2019 18:42

Now maybe something to happen in a few other LEAVE areas. Might help them change their minds. ;)

[xxxxxy] 03/2/2019 18:39

When is Britain going to build a museum to show the Evils of the EUSSR

[minerve] 03/2/2019 18:39

Guess what, diesel sales down and they could have replaced those with petrol models.

But, hey ho, what do you know? They looked at the economics and decided shifting petrol engines from Japan for car build in Sunderland wasn't viable. Add to the circus Brexit and Bob's YOUR UNCLE! LOL

Just shows that trading with your neighbours is critical when it comes to supply chains!

But Brexiters know best. ROFLMAO!

[minerve] 03/2/2019 18:34

Jacko07

Yes problems, and Brexit one more problem they really could do without ATM!

SO BYE BYE SUNDERLAND! That should weaken the LEAVE vote there.

Nascent doubts of Brexit I would have thought. ;)

Are you proud Brexiters? Sinking ship is already sinking before leaving port.

More to come. Watch this space Jacko! LOL

[xxxxxy] 03/2/2019 18:32

Other Japan

lan Jutson
Posted January 18, 2019 at 7:42 am | Permalink
Dougal


Pray tell me:
Did Japan pay the EU Billions to get that deal.
Did Japan allow EU laws to take precedence over their own laws in their own Country.
Did Japan allow EU nationals free right of entry into their Country.
Do Japan now have to make all of their Products for use in their home market to EU standards.
If not, then why do you want to us to accept all of the above and more !
The EU think we will be more competitive outside the EU, hence they want to punish the UK, it’s a simple fact.
You roll over if you want, but most of us would not agree.

[xxxxxy] 03/2/2019 18:31

Andy Medler NISSAN X-Trail Story - the facts (correcting the nonsense)
The X Trail was never produced in the UK.

The plan was to start producing the X-Trail in the UK for the European market.
The X-Trail is a large budget 4x4.

Large budget 4x4 sales are 90% Diesel. Diesel sales are down 50% - and falling - right
across Europe.

Most X-Trail’s are used as Tow Vehicles - these buyers prefer diesel for low down grunt.

The latest X-Trail has one petrol engine, a 1.6 turbo, which will struggle to pull the skin
off a rice pudding - compared to a diesel.

Nissan realise sales of X-Trails will fall across Europe because of the slump in diesel sales
and the fact their 1.6 petrol isn’t capable of doing the job most buyers purchase X-Trails to do.

This is why Nissan are no longer developing a further X-Trail production facility in the North East.

No jobs will be lost as this expansion project hasn’t even commenced.

We do hope this helps the poor dears ! 😉

PS: This has sweet FA to do with Brexit. It's about diesels and the car market

[xxxxxy] 03/2/2019 17:44

LEAVE and WTO

[minerve] 03/2/2019 17:44

Every LEAVE voter in Sunderland gets what they deserve.

Happy Christmas, Turkeys!

[xxxxxy] 03/2/2019 17:44

JOHN LONGWORTH AND RICHARD TICE’S REACTION TO PARLIAMENT PASSING GRAHAM BRADY’S AMENDMENT

Reacting to Parliament passing Graham Brady’s amendment, John Longworth and Richard Tice said:

“Parliament has told the PM to go back and re-negotiate what was the worst deal in history. If she can’t make material changes within a couple of weeks, then she must stick to her original word: no deal is better than a bad deal. The likelihood is that EU will reject further changes. A Managed no-deal WTO style Brexit will be fine for the UK to thrive and prosper. Let’s go for it.”

– ENDS –
Latest from Leave Means Leave
John Longworth and Richard Tice’s reaction to Parliament passing Graham Brady’s amendment
British Business Owners: What We Need NOW Is A Managed No Deal Brexit
British Business Leaders: What We Need NOW Is A Managed No Deal Brexit
PM Must Keep to No Deal Better Than Bad Deal Promise
ECJ Ruling Means Nought Unless UK Parliament Betray Brexit

[diku] 03/2/2019 17:38

What do you expect Nissan to do...when you have indecisions in HOC with Brexit...

[jacko07] 03/2/2019 17:19

Minerve is Transgender that is why he is obsessed with 'balls'. Minerve, you are a Scrote!!!!!

ROFLMAO

[minerve] 03/2/2019 17:17

jacko07

Ever wondered why you haven't got anywhere in life?