Lloyds Banking Share Discussion Threads

[fatnacker] 07/2/2019 08:14

Some Scott's.

[willoicc] 07/2/2019 08:05

Isn't it really funny how Scots want independence from the UK so that they can mismanage their own affairs, but at the same time they try to stop the rest of the UK doing the same thing getting out of the EU.

Hypocrites or what?

[willoicc] 07/2/2019 08:02

Well done Tusk for demonstrating the arrogance and hectoring tone of the EU Commission.

The sooner we leave the Fourth Reich the better.

[bargainbob] 07/2/2019 07:32

Well done Donald Tusk exposing how inept the Westminister Goverment and key Brexiteers have been . Still no planning . If bunging money cannot solve it they are stumped.

[polar fox] 07/2/2019 07:32

AA WINS ONE OF UK'S LARGEST ROADSIDE ASSISTANCE CONTRACTS WITH LLOYDS BANKING GROUP.

RNS on aa. thread.

[polar fox] 07/2/2019 07:12

A couple of snippets from Bloomberg:

1. "The Telegraph reports on Thursday that a “meaningful vote” on a new deal isn’t likely until the week beginning Feb. 25."

2. Tusk's comment yesterday apparently follows a bad-tempered call he had with the incompetent at No.10:

"A longer-than-scheduled, bad tempered phone call between May and Tusk a week ago prompted a surge of concern in EU circles that May is unable to get any divorce deal through Parliament, according to European officials who asked not to be named. Tusk was horrified that May was still asking the EU for solutions to end the impasse rather than coming up with credible ones of her own. A week later, the despair hasn’t subsided."

[xxxxxy] 07/2/2019 03:24

February 6, 2019
With 50 days until 29th March, the clock is ticking and many of us are hoping for a WTO Brexit

On 14th December at a Leave Means Leave event, Jacob Rees-Mogg said that of the 585 pages that make up the Withdrawal Agreement, 68 pages concerned the backstop. However, he said that these 68 pages were not pure legal text, they were in fact a 68-page list of legal directives that apply to it! How exactly can all of this be unpicked to create a new Withdrawal Agreement in time for 29th March, bearing in mind that the European Parliament’s five-year term ends on 18th April? There simply would not be time.

on WTO rules. Unfortunately, the case for this has not been properly presented to the country, certainly not by what I would call our “Remainstream media”. The golden opportunities need to be clearly set out, especially if the EU will cave in and accept Article 24 of GATT, allowing us to trade with them without tariffs for at least two years or longer, until we do finally agree a trade deal. 90% of world trade is done on WTO terms and a considerable percentage of our trade is currently conducted on those terms – and of course the EU sell us £90 billion more than we sell to them. Leaving on WTO terms gives us everything we wanted when we voted to Leave: taking back control of our country, our laws, our borders, our fishing rights and our money, as well as the ability to agree free trade deals with the rest of the world. The jobs that will be created will far outweigh any short term disruption.




the EU sell us £90 billion more than we sell to them

[xxxxxy] 07/2/2019 03:13

1. Making the backstop terminable
As already stated in a previous View from Brussels, the backstop exposes a major inconsistency in the
position of the EU which has argued that Article 50 only allows the conclusion of an agreement that deals
with separation issues, not agreements setting out a future relationship. The most that can be done, the EU
has argued, is to include in the Withdrawal Agreement transition provisions towards a framework for a future
relationship that could at best be defined in a political declaration of intent. The proper legal bases for an
agreement on the future relationship, it argued, were other provisions of the Treaties and, in addition, formal
negotiations on such agreements could, as a legal matter, only commence once the United Kingdom had
become a third country. It is for this reason that separation issues were prioritised and had to be settled
before discussion on the framework for a future relationship could start (leading to the December 2017
statement of sufficient progress).
The backstop as it has finally emerged is not however a transitional measure. It starts to apply only once the
transition period has expired and has no end date. It applies "unless and until" an alternative is agreed, as is
of course the case for any international agreement. At the very least, the backstop should, in order to qualify
as transitional, be terminable unilaterally by a party on notice.
Accordingly, on the basis of the EU's own view of what is legally allowed under Article 50 and on the basis of
which the negotiations proceeded, the backstop in its present from is illegal as a matter of EU law. The
Attorney-General of the UK came to a similar conclusion in paragraph 17 of his advice to the government of
13 November 2018. It could also be argued that the backstop is inconsistent with the aim of the Treaty on
the European Union to promote peace (expressed in its Article 3) since it is inconsistent with the institutional
provisions of the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement and therefore undermines it.
EU law provides for a specific procedure for ensuring the legality of an envisaged international agreement
before it is concluded. The procedure is set out in Article 218(11) TFEU and is regularly used, most recently
to contest the investment protection provisions of CETA. A request for such an opinion from the European
Court of Justice could be made by the UK while it is a Member State. In view of the fact that the Court dealt
with the rather more difficult request for a preliminary ruling in Wightman in two months, it may even be
possible to obtain an opinion before 29 March 2019. The Court has always striven to provide an opinion
under Article 218(11) before the relevant agreement is concluded and the EU has in any event always
consented, as a matter of sincere cooperation, to delay where necessary the conclusion of the agreement
until the opinion is delivered.
If the Court confirms the existence of an inconsistency between the envisaged Withdrawal Agreement and
EU law, either the Withdrawal Agreement or the Treaty would have to be amended to remove the
inconsistency. It would not in fact be difficult to render the backstop consistent with Article 50. It would
suffice to move the whole Protocol to the Political Declaration (where it more properly belongs) as a model
that the parties could decide to implement after the end of transition period if nothing better is developed in
the meantime. Alternatively, it can be given an expiry date made terminable so that it qualifies as a transition
measure.
Of course, it may not even be necessary for the Court to render an opinion of this matter. The EU attaches
great importance to its respect for the law and often argues that politically desirable concessions cannot be
made because they would conflict with the Treaties. So it should also be able to accept that its politically
convenient position that the backstop must be included in the Withdrawal Agreement and cannot be
terminable cannot be maintained in the face of a demonstrated legal inconsistency with the Treaties.





The EU attaches
great importance to its respect for the law and often argues that politically desirable concessions cannot be
made because they would conflict with the Treaties. So it should also be able to accept that its politically
convenient position that the backstop must be included in the Withdrawal Agreement and cannot be
terminable cannot be maintained in the face of a demonstrated legal inconsistency with the Treaties.

PDF]Using EU law to improve the Brexit deal along the lines requested by ...

UK Parliament. 4 FEBRUARY 2019. Brussels. Table of contents. 1. Making the backstop terminable. 2. 2. Contacts. 3. Related links. Herbert Smith Freehills.

[bargainbob] 07/2/2019 01:36

Pete ,
Top tip

Get the Lentils and toilet rolls in .

[cheshire pete] 07/2/2019 00:09

Off to Stoke tomorrow to buy up a load of pots....may need our help if project fear mark 36 is to be believed, still some room in the shed next to all the tins stockpiled.

[shy tott] 06/2/2019 23:30

Tusk and Go Your Own Way were two of the best songs Fleetwood Mac recorded.

[willoicc] 06/2/2019 22:44

Tusk does not understand that the Brexiteers DID have a plan - to escape from the special place in the hell of the EU which we have been stuck in and tormented in for the last 45 years.

[willoicc] 06/2/2019 22:09

Ref yesterday's post re: Corporation Tax at 19% on company profits.

Anyone drawing a salary from said company also has to pay PAYE and employers and employees NIC in the same way as other limited companies.

Also, dividends are taxed as follows:

[xxxxxy] 06/2/2019 22:06

'Brexit has uncovered too many versions of the legalities...does anybody really know the true legalities?...'

It is the language of Animal Farm. There is no truth for the pigs.

Just the trough

EUSSR is Animal Farm in our time


LEAVE LEAVE LEAVE and WTO

[xxxxxy] 06/2/2019 22:04

Alex R • 5 hours ago

I think it’s fair to say Tusk has had a pretty bad day. Eurozone in recession and Germany in technical recession and all those German and french cars that await our custom. Egg and face come to mind when I think of

[diku] 06/2/2019 22:03

Brexit has uncovered too many versions of the legalities...does anybody really know the true legalities?...are they in a paper format somewhere in a cupboard?...

[fatnacker] 06/2/2019 22:00

Indeed, you could bore them to death.

[minerve] 06/2/2019 21:57

Brexiters - two-faced chimps.

On the one side they are stiff upper-lipped, take on the word, world-beaters, 'have a go', knuckle in, and then....

on the other side.....

As soon as someone makes a little comment...

He has offended us, mummy he is a naughty boy, we can't stand it, he should resign, we can't be in a club with someone who calls names, wimp....wimp...wimp...

So which is it guys? LOL

FFS in WW2 you would have all wet your pants and stood there whilst Remainers won you the war!


ROFLMAO!

[xxxxxy] 06/2/2019 21:55

There is also a formalised legal procedure in the EU for ensuring the legality of an envisaged international agreement set out under Article 218(11) of the TFEU, which could force the ECJ to give a ruling before 29th March. The backstop is only being kept alive by bluster from the EU – and the acquiescence of the UK…
h/t Henry Newman

[diku] 06/2/2019 21:44

If Tusk is making those comments in the open can you imagine what he might be saying behind closed doors...