Barryd999 Posted January 12, 2022 Author Share Posted January 12, 2022 Did the EU trigger article 16? Answer no. "Has Article 16 been triggered? To date, neither party has formally triggered Article 16. It has, however, been referred to by both the EU and UK. Most notably, in January 2021, the EU proposed invoking Article 16 to allow export controls, designed to prevent Covid-19 vaccines produced in the EU from being exported without authorisation, to apply to vaccines being sent to Northern Ireland which could subsequently enter Great Britain. The EU justified this initial decision as necessary “to avert serious societal difficulties” it argued would arise if the vaccine supply to member states was disrupted.[1] In this circumstance, the EU did not follow the procedures for invoking Article 16, or notify the UK of the proposals through the Joint Committee. Following strong criticism from the UK and Irish governments, as well as political parties in Northern Ireland, the EU quickly U-turned and amended the proposals before any unilateral measures were taken." https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/northern-ireland-protocol-article-16 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted January 12, 2022 Share Posted January 12, 2022 Gremlin - 2022-01-12 8:43 AM John52 - 2022-01-12 7:11 AM Gremlin - 2022-01-11 2:18 PM putting up the cash . Yes Johnson has certainly done that Over £300 billion borrowed and spaffed away to his cronies - for what exactly? We don't know because he keeps kicking the inquiry down the road Easy to say that he “spiffed it away to cronies” but whilst all politicians must be held to account for such actions - the fact that the vaccine rollout has been a success such that it now looks like the U.K. will be one of the first countries to move to endemic rather than pandemic has to be recognised. It should also be recognised that Government Borrowing has never been cheaper. In fact with negative yield Gilts being issued then what has to be paid back is actually less than the original sum borrowed. Bizarre I know. But where else do you go when Q.E. is no longer feasible. "the fact that the vaccine rollout has been a success such that it now looks like the U.K. will be one of the first countries to move to endemic rather than pandemic has to be recognised." Indeed B-) .......... That's why the Squad on here and the BBC etc etc are making such drama out of a few drinks organised by a civil servant ;-) ........ They know Brexit Blighty is on the way out of the Pandemic ahead of the EU >:-) ......... So they also know this is their last chance at vengence *-) .......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CurtainRaiser Posted January 12, 2022 Share Posted January 12, 2022 Gremlin - 2022-01-12 9:42 AM CurtainRaiser - 2022-01-12 9:23 AM Gremlin - 2022-01-12 9:04 AM CurtainRaiser - 2022-01-12 8:46 AM Gremlin - 2022-01-12 6:45 AM CurtainRaiser - 2022-01-11 9:45 PM Gremlin - 2022-01-11 7:25 PM Barryd999 - 2022-01-11 5:57 PM Gremlin - 2022-01-11 2:18 PM Barryd999 - 2022-01-11 1:49 PM pelmetman - 2022-01-11 11:36 AM Barryd999 - 2022-01-11 9:50 AM pelmetman - 2022-01-11 8:59 AM Barryd999 - 2022-01-10 4:50 PM I never thought I would post a "Sun" link or even an article from Piers Morgan. This has got to be the most damaging press coverage for Johnson in his entire shambles of a premiership. Surely thats the end of him now. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/17268563/boris-johnson-shambles-quit-piers-morgan-uncensored/ Oh dreary dreary me *-) ........... You do know that if Boris gets the push.......The Tories will still be in power? ;-) ......... Keep on Hating & Hoping (lol) (lol) (lol) ............ Really? Oh I thought they would all clear off and go home. *-) There is a risk of course that the Tufton street mob could put in a bonkers puppet like Liz Truss but Im not sure even they would get away with that. My money would be on Rishi and I can live with that for now but your hero has to go as he is a disgrace and a totally despicable human being. He has dragged this country into the gutter and we are the laughing stock of the world as a result. Worse than that his horrendous handling of the pandemic, the lies and corruption are unforgivable. Not only do I want him gone, I want him locked up but ill settle for the former for now. Anyone (like you) still supporting this clown after everything he has done needs to take a good long look at themselves. So just as I thought ;-) ......... It's all about LOSER vengence *-) ........ Don't bother looking in the mirror......it'll prolly crack (lol) (lol) (lol) ........... Just as you "thought"? Thats an oxymoron if ever I saw one. You think wrong of course. Revenge for what? Brexit? Screwing the country over? Corruption? Lies? Failing to protect the country from Covid? The list goes on and on. People are allowed differing viewpoints. As for failing to protect the country from Covid - to be honest, by giving the go ahead and putting up the cash rather than delaying everything as the EU did by trying to drive down costs - I would say that if you think Boris is guilty in this regard than so is every country in the world and most certainly China. And you can add the EU to that by as I point out above, delaying the vaccine distribution to its member States and their populations because they wanted to save a few € was not a good decision. Nor was invoking Article 16 when they realised they had made a monumental cook up. Im not sure it was anything to do with saving money why the roll out in Europe was delayed. They signed their deal with AZ for example the day before we did contrary to what the media claimed. There were huge distribution and production issues and Britain got preferential treatment. As to why is a bit fuzzy but it appears to have been down to the difference in contract law between Belgium and the UK. There was also an issue where some countries had concerns over the AZ vaccines in the over 65s (nothing to do with the Eu of course). They never invoked article 16 either, they threatened to but backed down. Since then Johnson has threatened to use it and still is despite it being "his oven ready deal" that he wants to break over NI. The most certainly DID invoke Article 16 - but then revoked it when the whole world went WTF? And as for the price negotiations check out the Poltico article “How Europe fell behind on vaccines” Sun title “The EU secured some of the lowest prices in the world. At what cost?” The article is by Jillian Deutsch and Sarah Wheaton Published Jan27th 2021 It’s a good article outlining exactly how the EU managed to always be two or three steps behind which resulted in a great deal of frustration due to the Commission concentrating on “process over speed”. As for the false criticism of the AZ vaccine not working as well in the over 60/65’s - this is and was never the case as the AZ vaccine follows old school methodology that was known and has now be proved to stimulate the memory T-cells that provide longer term immunity. Whereas the new (wonderful!) mRNA technology vaccines certainly trigger a greater antibody response but this falls off and so the AZ vaccine is no slouch when it comes to protecting any age group. Certain EU leaders were most certainly guilty of “misunderstanding” this, for reasons best known to themselves. The FT in the 14th April 2021 reported the research that showed that the “AZ vaccine elicits stronger T-cell response in the elderly than the Pfizer jab”. Then on the 23rd November 2021 The Guardian carried the story that because of the superior T-cell response from the AZ vaccine and the rejection of the AZ Vaccine by Europe is the link as to why there was such a Covid Surge in the EU. Whilst the Guardian tries to “poo-poo” the idea - The AZ vaccine is now recognised as having a VERY good protective effect for the elderly, for this very reason. Article 16 was never triggered https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/northern-ireland-protocol-article-16 As to T cell response the jury is still out in terms of longer term effectiveness, anyone saying otherwise is either banging a nationalism or commercial drum. Ninety percent of the jabs I delivered were AZ and I'd obviously like to claim its super duper, but there are two reasons why it is no longer being used in this country 1.There are more side effects with adenovirus vaccines like AZ and Johnson and Johnson, even the UK government accepted this when they ruled out the use of AZ for those between 18 and 40. Although for obvious reasons they haven't highlighted this too much. 2. A mixed vaccine schedule provokes the immune system into the best response, or at least that's current thinking. https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-today-programme-interview-with-pascal-soriot-and-comments-made-about-t-cell-immunity-generated-from-the-oxford-astrazeneca-vaccine-compared-to-mrna-vaccines-and-the-impact-on-risk-o/ T-cell response is key to long term protection. And the AZ jab does have a significant advantage here. But I totally agree that a mix gives the best overall protection. From what I have seen, for most people, AZ 1 and 2 then an m-RNA one works well but even better is if somewhere along that path the individual picks up antibodies from an actual infection as well. As for what actually happened re the EU Triggering Article 16 it is worth looking at what happened as a timeline and the resulting reaction from the Irish Government, the U.K. Government and the entire political spectrum of N.I. By Wednesday 27th Jan the EU was reeling from its failure to secure enough vaccines for its population. EU member States were in open revolt and threatening to “go it alone” to secure their own jabs. The EU announces it will set up a “vaccine export transparency mechanism” to control the export of vaccines to non-EU countries. Thursday 28th Jan - EU Council President Charles Michel (who is Belgium and who Government was truly reeling from the then infection rate and the virtual paralysation of Belgiums Health Service with no sign that the EU vaccine procurement programme was actually going to deliver anything) stated:- “The EU needs to take robust action to secure its supply of vaccines and demonstrate concretely that the protection of its citizens remains our absolute priority” This left the EU reeling as other non-EU countries had stumped up cash and signed supply contracts with International Pharmaceutical Companies who were now able to supply vaccine whereas the EU was way behind because it focused on cost rather than delivery. This raised eyebrows in the International Community after the EU announced:- “There is a possibility in certain circumstances not to allow the export to move forward. But the basic assumption is that the exports will take place as foreseen” - this raised alarm bells the world over. Not least when an Export of vaccine to Australia was stopped. Friday 29th Jan The EU publishes its contract with AZ and the debate about the exact meaning of “Best Available Efforts” starts. The U.K. states that it will aid other countries where it can however it prioritises its own population. Late afternoon that day the European Medicines Agency finally approves the AZ Vaccine for over 18’s. It is worth noting that the EU was trying to exert control of a vaccine that it had not, up until late on the 29th Jan, actually approved for use as a Covid vaccine. Shortly after this, at about 5:30 reports started to emerge that the EU Commission had triggered Article 16 of the NI Protocol as part of the wider EU controls on vaccine exports. The move implemented a hard border for vaccines in the island of Ireland. NI First Minister calls this “ an incredible act of hostility “ Irish Taoiseach Michael Martin - in a rare act of unity with the U.K. - expresses Irelands concern to Ursula Von der Leyen. In fact all parties on all sides of the Irish Sea are stunned by the EU action in triggering Article 16. By 10:55 the EU has backed down after the Irish Taoiseach in particular expresses everyone’s anger at the EU unilaterally invoking Article 16 without any discussions with any of the Governments affected. Both the U.K. and Irish Government as well as all Parties in NI were clear in their anger and disquiet at the EU invoking Article 16. Triggering A16 is a formal process and has not happened by either parties. If the threat of triggering A16 is enough to say it's been actioned, then Mr Frost has so far triggered it 28 times and Ms Truss triggered it most recently in her Telegraph article at the weekend. Even the HOC states this. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9330/ And its pointless arguing about the efficacy of AZ when you are only prepared to listen to one source, the link I provided earlier demonstrates that the scientific jury of peer review is still out. The EU did trigger Article 16 - yes they did then retract it. This is not the same as stating that triggering it is an option. And please don’t hide behind the notion of “Peer Review” - the AZ Vaccine is excellent - especially as regards T-cell stimulation - this has been established by peer reviewed studies. " the AZ Vaccine is excellent" so why is it no longer being used in the UK? Do you ever bother to read the links others provide that might give you a more rounded picture So you are right and the House of Commons library is incorrect on A16? https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9330/ https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-today-programme-interview-with-pascal-soriot-and-comments-made-about-t-cell-immunity-generated-from-the-oxford-astrazeneca-vaccine-compared-to-mrna-vaccines-and-the-impact-on-risk-o/ I suspect it has something to do with the overall level of vaccination thus far achieved. As for your links - the first just outlines what Article 16 is and how it can be used. As far as I can see it makes no mention of it’s use/triggering by the EU Back in January last year. As for SMC - it’s little better than “New Scientist” as an objective source and has a known bias - I’m not surprised you cite it. I agree with “Nature’s” assessment:- “… they push science too aggressively, acting more like a PR agency than a source of accurate science” It’s a lobby group and it’s bias is well known. If I’m wrong please point out the exact passage where it is covered. The second A16 link I provided was HOC library. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted January 12, 2022 Share Posted January 12, 2022 pelmetman - 2022-01-12 9:46 AM .....................................That's why the Squad on here and the BBC etc etc are making such drama out of a few drinks organised by a civil servant ;-) ........ They know Brexit Blighty is on the way out of the Pandemic ahead of the EU >:-) ......... So they also know this is their last chance at vengence *-) .......... Your political bias has seriously skewed your thinking, Dave - I'm tempted to say "yet again". :-| For a government to issue stringent, very specific, and far reaching, restrictions on public behaviour - with legal penalties for disregarding them, and then to repeatedly arrange (i.e. not by accident, but by conspiring beforehand to do so) to disregard those same regulations themselves is, at the very least, the height of hypocrisy. To have denied doing so before parliament is to attempt to mislead parliament, which is a serious contempt. Those are the charges. Gathering to have a few drinks, whether organised by a civil servant or anyone else, was, at that time, essentially illegal. Had anyone else been caught doing so they would have been treated as law breakers. You are pleading that government should not be expected to comply with the same laws as parliament imposes on the population at large. I think you need to think that through. If not checked, that presumption of executive privilege creates very queasy precedents, potentially leading to authoritarianism and the collapse of democracy. Be very careful what you wish for - or seek to excuse - merely because it suits your transient agenda. No "if's", no "but's", this is foolishness on a grand scale. As it is coming from someone who considers that disagreeing with the outcome of a non-binding referendum, while accepting its outcome, is "undemocratic", is, I'm sad to say, also rank hypocrisy. You can't have it both ways. 8-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malc d Posted January 12, 2022 Share Posted January 12, 2022 Brian Kirby - 2022-01-12 12:28 PM Gathering to have a few drinks, whether organised by a civil servant or anyone else, was, at that time, essentially illegal. Had anyone else been caught doing so they would have been treated as law breakers. As a gesture of his ( fake ) contrition in parliament today - why doesn't Johnson order that anyone outside his exclusive club, fined for breaking HIS rules on the day of his party - should get their money back. :-| Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barryd999 Posted January 12, 2022 Author Share Posted January 12, 2022 Gremlin - 2022-01-12 1:13 PM Brian Kirby - 2022-01-12 12:28 PM pelmetman - 2022-01-12 9:46 AM .....................................That's why the Squad on here and the BBC etc etc are making such drama out of a few drinks organised by a civil servant ;-) ........ They know Brexit Blighty is on the way out of the Pandemic ahead of the EU >:-) ......... So they also know this is their last chance at vengence *-) .......... Your political bias has seriously skewed your thinking, Dave - I'm tempted to say "yet again". :-| For a government to issue stringent, very specific, and far reaching, restrictions on public behaviour - with legal penalties for disregarding them, and then to repeatedly arrange (i.e. not by accident, but by conspiring beforehand to do so) to disregard those same regulations themselves is, at the very least, the height of hypocrisy. To have denied doing so before parliament is to attempt to mislead parliament, which is a serious contempt. Those are the charges. Gathering to have a few drinks, whether organised by a civil servant or anyone else, was, at that time, essentially illegal. Had anyone else been caught doing so they would have been treated as law breakers. You are pleading that government should not be expected to comply with the same laws as parliament imposes on the population at large. I think you need to think that through. If not checked, that presumption of executive privilege creates very queasy precedents, potentially leading to authoritarianism and the collapse of democracy. Be very careful what you wish for - or seek to excuse - merely because it suits your transient agenda. No "if's", no "but's", this is foolishness on a grand scale. As it is coming from someone who considers that disagreeing with the outcome of a non-binding referendum, while accepting its outcome, is "undemocratic", is, I'm sad to say, also rank hypocrisy. You can't have it both ways. 8-) I agree with most of what you say - apart from your suggestion (?) that the Referendum was not binding. Cameron was very much a Remainer and the Government leaflet that was delivered to every household clearly stated that the Referendum was a chance to “Decide”. This was made very clear. The vote was not an expression of a view, or to give a hint, or to give the Government a mandate to go back the EU and try again. Their election manifesto stated that they would hold a Referendum and they made it clear that whatever the result it would be binding. It was worded in that way because the Government genuinely believed that there would be a vote to Remain. And as such a binding vote to stay would draw a line under the issue of EU membership that had plagued the Conservatives for decades! But the result went the other way - and the result is binding. Binding only in the sense of a promise. It was never "legally" binding which sadly backfired when Vote Leave were found to have broken electoral law. If it had been legally binding chances are the referendum result would have to have been ruled null and void. Back on topic. Johnson finally admits he was at the party but he just cant help himself. He still has to lie and make out he didnt know it was a party. The email invitations said exactly what it was but lets imagine he didnt get one and just happened to gate crash it, how could you not know it was a party and why did you as PM not stop it immediately? It just gets more laughable by the minute. When you are in a hole, stop digging (a term often used on here but ignored by a certain member (lol) ) It was totally delicious though watching him squirm today in the house while Starmer tore him a new arsehole. 10/10 sir Kier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barryd999 Posted January 12, 2022 Author Share Posted January 12, 2022 Gremlin - 2022-01-12 2:41 PM Barryd999 - 2022-01-12 2:02 PM Gremlin - 2022-01-12 1:13 PM Brian Kirby - 2022-01-12 12:28 PM pelmetman - 2022-01-12 9:46 AM .....................................That's why the Squad on here and the BBC etc etc are making such drama out of a few drinks organised by a civil servant ;-) ........ They know Brexit Blighty is on the way out of the Pandemic ahead of the EU >:-) ......... So they also know this is their last chance at vengence *-) .......... Your political bias has seriously skewed your thinking, Dave - I'm tempted to say "yet again". :-| For a government to issue stringent, very specific, and far reaching, restrictions on public behaviour - with legal penalties for disregarding them, and then to repeatedly arrange (i.e. not by accident, but by conspiring beforehand to do so) to disregard those same regulations themselves is, at the very least, the height of hypocrisy. To have denied doing so before parliament is to attempt to mislead parliament, which is a serious contempt. Those are the charges. Gathering to have a few drinks, whether organised by a civil servant or anyone else, was, at that time, essentially illegal. Had anyone else been caught doing so they would have been treated as law breakers. You are pleading that government should not be expected to comply with the same laws as parliament imposes on the population at large. I think you need to think that through. If not checked, that presumption of executive privilege creates very queasy precedents, potentially leading to authoritarianism and the collapse of democracy. Be very careful what you wish for - or seek to excuse - merely because it suits your transient agenda. No "if's", no "but's", this is foolishness on a grand scale. As it is coming from someone who considers that disagreeing with the outcome of a non-binding referendum, while accepting its outcome, is "undemocratic", is, I'm sad to say, also rank hypocrisy. You can't have it both ways. 8-) I agree with most of what you say - apart from your suggestion (?) that the Referendum was not binding. Cameron was very much a Remainer and the Government leaflet that was delivered to every household clearly stated that the Referendum was a chance to “Decide”. This was made very clear. The vote was not an expression of a view, or to give a hint, or to give the Government a mandate to go back the EU and try again. Their election manifesto stated that they would hold a Referendum and they made it clear that whatever the result it would be binding. It was worded in that way because the Government genuinely believed that there would be a vote to Remain. And as such a binding vote to stay would draw a line under the issue of EU membership that had plagued the Conservatives for decades! But the result went the other way - and the result is binding. Binding only in the sense of a promise. It was never "legally" binding which sadly backfired when Vote Leave were found to have broken electoral law. If it had been legally binding chances are the referendum result would have to have been ruled null and void. Back on topic. Johnson finally admits he was at the party but he just cant help himself. He still has to lie and make out he didnt know it was a party. The email invitations said exactly what it was but lets imagine he didnt get one and just happened to gate crash it, how could you not know it was a party and why did you as PM not stop it immediately? It just gets more laughable by the minute. When you are in a hole, stop digging (a term often used on here but ignored by a certain member (lol) ) It was totally delicious though watching him squirm today in the house while Starmer tore him a new arsehole. 10/10 sir Kier. A Referendum becomes legally binding if the Government of the day says it will be! That has always been the issue with EU Referendums in that populations vote for one thing and their Government with the EU’s help simply ignores the vote or keeps re-running the vote until it gets the result it wants. With the Brexit Referendum the parameters could not have been more clear. Whichever way the vote went the result was binding. You cannot say that the result was not legally challenged! And the result of those legal challenges was unequivocal. As for Boris - he needs to go. Sooner the better. It wasn't legally binding. This fact check explains it better than I can but shows examples of how for example the 2011 voting system referendum was legally binding but the Brexit referendum was not. https://fullfact.org/europe/was-eu-referendum-advisory/ Agree however about Johnson. I do wish people would stop calling him Boris though like he is some kind of cuddly pet dog. He's actually a nasty piece work IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted January 12, 2022 Share Posted January 12, 2022 Gremlin - 2022-01-12 2:41 PM As for Boris - he needs to go. Sooner the better. I disagree ;-)......... The fact that he annoys the hell outa Remoaners is enough for me to vote for him again as a paid up member of the Tory party :D .......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barryd999 Posted January 12, 2022 Author Share Posted January 12, 2022 pelmetman - 2022-01-12 3:29 PM Gremlin - 2022-01-12 2:41 PM As for Boris - he needs to go. Sooner the better. I disagree ;-)......... The fact that he annoys the hell outa Remoaners is enough for me to vote for him again as a paid up member of the Tory party :D .......... Just one problem with your plan. If he loses the initial vote which is MPs only he is barred from entering the leadership contest. *-) Keep paying your £25 though. I suspect many others who despise Johnson may also have joined the party. (lol) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted January 12, 2022 Share Posted January 12, 2022 Gremlin - 2022-01-12 8:43 AM It should also be recognised that Government Borrowing has never been cheaper. In fact with negative yield Gilts being issued then what has to be paid back is actually less than the original sum borrowed. Not true https://www.bloomberg.com/markets/rates-bonds/government-bonds/uk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted January 13, 2022 Share Posted January 13, 2022 Gremlin - 2022-01-12 8:43 AM Government Borrowing has never been cheaper. Not True It was cheaper in May 2020 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted January 13, 2022 Share Posted January 13, 2022 Gremlin - 2022-01-13 1:00 AM So why on earth would investors buy into a deal whereby they get less back in real terms - or even ACTUAL terms with a negative yield Gilt? Some of them have no choice. If you are managing a pension fund with £billions in pension payments owing, the only way you can be sure to have the £ to pay them is buying UK Gilts - The UK Government will never run out of £ because they have their own printer. Its the only situation I can think of where the little man gets a better deal than the big investor. The little man can still earn interest in a retail deposit account with £85k guaranteed - the fund manager can't. His only safe option is Gilts. Anything else could lose value in £ - the fact that the £ itself loses value is irrelevant if their liabilities like pension payments are in £. The other big gilt buyer is the Government themselves (BOE) - printing money to buy up gilts and rig the market to keep the price high. Despite all that the only people who can sell Gilts at a negative rate now are strong economies like Germany. And even if the UK Government could still sell Gilts with a negative yield the money still has to be paid back. So its better to spend it sensibly. What Johnson is spaffing away on his 'world beating' test & trace could have built about half a million Council Houses. Made a home for all those homeless families,,generated rental income for hard pressed councils instead of having to pay extortionate rents to Rentier Tory Landowners in Tax Havens Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted January 13, 2022 Share Posted January 13, 2022 Gremlin - 2022-01-13 8:52 AM Which is rather my point Negative yield gilts were issued in May 2020 - so the government secured funds via a normal gilt auction whereby the capital repayment at maturity is less than the sum borrowed. It’s not a new phenomenon- and as you say, strong economies can do it. Which is a bit of a positive for the U.K. don’t you think? …. :-D Well it would be if the UK could still do it - but they can't any more So what you said here is clearly wrong, isn't it Gremlin - 2022-01-12 8:43 AM It should also be recognised that Government Borrowing has never been cheaper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted January 13, 2022 Share Posted January 13, 2022 pelmetman - 2022-01-12 3:29 PM The fact that he annoys the hell outa Remoaners is enough for me to vote for him again as a paid up member of the Tory party :D .......... This shows the total disconnect you have with reality if that's what you believe. Your love flame is a dead man walking......and thats coming from his own MP's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted January 13, 2022 Share Posted January 13, 2022 Gremlin - 2022-01-13 4:58 PM John52 - 2022-01-13 1:33 PM Gremlin - 2022-01-13 8:52 AM Which is rather my point Negative yield gilts were issued in May 2020 - so the government secured funds via a normal gilt auction whereby the capital repayment at maturity is less than the sum borrowed. It’s not a new phenomenon- and as you say, strong economies can do it. Which is a bit of a positive for the U.K. don’t you think? …. :-D Well it would be if the UK could still do it - but they can't any more So what you said here is clearly wrong, isn't it Gremlin - 2022-01-12 8:43 AM It should also be recognised that Government Borrowing has never been cheaper. Errrr - No And please stop being obtuse. "And please stop being obtuse." Good luck with that :D .......... (lol) (lol) (lol) ........... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted January 13, 2022 Share Posted January 13, 2022 Gremlin - 2022-01-13 4:58 PM John52 - 2022-01-13 1:33 PM Gremlin - 2022-01-13 8:52 AM Which is rather my point Negative yield gilts were issued in May 2020 - so the government secured funds via a normal gilt auction whereby the capital repayment at maturity is less than the sum borrowed. It’s not a new phenomenon- and as you say, strong economies can do it. Which is a bit of a positive for the U.K. don’t you think? …. :-D Well it would be if the UK could still do it - but they can't any more So what you said here is clearly wrong, isn't it Gremlin - 2022-01-12 8:43 AM It should also be recognised that Government Borrowing has never been cheaper. Errrr - No And please stop being obtuse. At the risk of stating the obvious Government Borrowing was cheaper in May 2020 So how can you say its never been cheaper? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted January 13, 2022 Share Posted January 13, 2022 Gremlin - 2022-01-12 4:21 PM..........................Yes - I’ve read that - and it seems that unlike you I read all of it because whilst it sets out the rationale for Referenda NOT to be binding, it then goes on to explain in what circumstances they become legally binding. Specifically they cite that the Foreign Secretary on the 9th June 2015 stated “(the) decision about our membership should be taken by the British People, not by Whitehall bureaucrats, certainly not by Brussels Eurocrats; not even Government Ministers or Parliamentarians in this Chamber”. They go onto state;- “Similarly, the Governments leaflet to each household advocating a Remain Vote told voters that it (The Government) would implement the result.” They go on to say that the Courts made it quite clear that MP’s delegated the decision to the voters and that MP’s have no legal right to “unmake it now”. So the Referendum is and always was, legally binding. Even your own link explains this fact. This is from the HoC library, Thursday, 12 May, 2016 - here: https://tinyurl.com/ycy99b7k Is the result binding? The national result, once declared, will be final but it is not legally binding. The European Referendum Act 2015 does not include provisions to implement the result of the referendum; legally, the Government is not bound to follow the outcome. However, it would be very unlikely for the Government to ignore the outcome of the referendum. The point is contested, depending on which side of the debate you stand, but my understanding has always been that there were several electoral transgressions on the part of the leave campaigns that would, had the referendum been made legally binding, resulted in the Electoral Commission intervening over the standing of the result. The reasons most quoted for their not doing so relate to those transgressions, and the fact that the referendum was not authorised by parliament on the basis that it's outcome would be legally binding. So yes, various political undertakings were given, but those did not amount to any more than politically binding agreements between members of government and the public. So, the result stands on that basis, presumably because had the result been overturned there would have been widespread "public unrest"! With no uncertain result in prospect it might have been very wise to duck the issue of making the result legally binding and so leaving the Electoral Commission to declare the result void! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted January 13, 2022 Share Posted January 13, 2022 Gremlin - 2022-01-12 8:43 AM Government Borrowing has never been cheaper. Well at least you are changing your tune to Gremlin - 2022-01-13 8:14 PM when the government needed to borrow money - it was never cheaper. So maybe there is hope for you yet :-D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted January 13, 2022 Share Posted January 13, 2022 Gremlin - 2022-01-13 8:33 PM Brian Kirby - 2022-01-13 6:57 PM Gremlin - 2022-01-12 4:21 PM..........................Yes - I’ve read that - and it seems that unlike you I read all of it because whilst it sets out the rationale for Referenda NOT to be binding, it then goes on to explain in what circumstances they become legally binding. Specifically they cite that the Foreign Secretary on the 9th June 2015 stated “(the) decision about our membership should be taken by the British People, not by Whitehall bureaucrats, certainly not by Brussels Eurocrats; not even Government Ministers or Parliamentarians in this Chamber”. They go onto state;- “Similarly, the Governments leaflet to each household advocating a Remain Vote told voters that it (The Government) would implement the result.” They go on to say that the Courts made it quite clear that MP’s delegated the decision to the voters and that MP’s have no legal right to “unmake it now”. So the Referendum is and always was, legally binding. Even your own link explains this fact. This is from the HoC library, Thursday, 12 May, 2016 - here: https://tinyurl.com/ycy99b7k Is the result binding? The national result, once declared, will be final but it is not legally binding. The European Referendum Act 2015 does not include provisions to implement the result of the referendum; legally, the Government is not bound to follow the outcome. However, it would be very unlikely for the Government to ignore the outcome of the referendum. The point is contested, depending on which side of the debate you stand, but my understanding has always been that there were several electoral transgressions on the part of the leave campaigns that would, had the referendum been made legally binding, resulted in the Electoral Commission intervening over the standing of the result. The reasons most quoted for their not doing so relate to those transgressions, and the fact that the referendum was not authorised by parliament on the basis that it's outcome would be legally binding. So yes, various political undertakings were given, but those did not amount to any more than politically binding agreements between members of government and the public. So, the result stands on that basis, presumably because had the result been overturned there would have been widespread "public unrest"! With no uncertain result in prospect it might have been very wise to duck the issue of making the result legally binding and so leaving the Electoral Commission to declare the result void! Another Obtuse uttering - sorry but it is. The result of the Referendum was legally binding BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT OF THE DAY SAID IT WOULD BE!! Lady Hale disagrees with your opinion.......and she's one of the Supreme Court judges who heard the governments Brexit appeal. https://tinyurl.com/3re8hfkn As you dispute what the HoC briefing document clearly states you need to cite your sources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CurtainRaiser Posted January 13, 2022 Share Posted January 13, 2022 Bulletguy - 2022-01-13 10:07 PM Gremlin - 2022-01-13 8:33 PM Brian Kirby - 2022-01-13 6:57 PM Gremlin - 2022-01-12 4:21 PM..........................Yes - I’ve read that - and it seems that unlike you I read all of it because whilst it sets out the rationale for Referenda NOT to be binding, it then goes on to explain in what circumstances they become legally binding. Specifically they cite that the Foreign Secretary on the 9th June 2015 stated “(the) decision about our membership should be taken by the British People, not by Whitehall bureaucrats, certainly not by Brussels Eurocrats; not even Government Ministers or Parliamentarians in this Chamber”. They go onto state;- “Similarly, the Governments leaflet to each household advocating a Remain Vote told voters that it (The Government) would implement the result.” They go on to say that the Courts made it quite clear that MP’s delegated the decision to the voters and that MP’s have no legal right to “unmake it now”. So the Referendum is and always was, legally binding. Even your own link explains this fact. This is from the HoC library, Thursday, 12 May, 2016 - here: https://tinyurl.com/ycy99b7k Is the result binding? The national result, once declared, will be final but it is not legally binding. The European Referendum Act 2015 does not include provisions to implement the result of the referendum; legally, the Government is not bound to follow the outcome. However, it would be very unlikely for the Government to ignore the outcome of the referendum. The point is contested, depending on which side of the debate you stand, but my understanding has always been that there were several electoral transgressions on the part of the leave campaigns that would, had the referendum been made legally binding, resulted in the Electoral Commission intervening over the standing of the result. The reasons most quoted for their not doing so relate to those transgressions, and the fact that the referendum was not authorised by parliament on the basis that it's outcome would be legally binding. So yes, various political undertakings were given, but those did not amount to any more than politically binding agreements between members of government and the public. So, the result stands on that basis, presumably because had the result been overturned there would have been widespread "public unrest"! With no uncertain result in prospect it might have been very wise to duck the issue of making the result legally binding and so leaving the Electoral Commission to declare the result void! Another Obtuse uttering - sorry but it is. The result of the Referendum was legally binding BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT OF THE DAY SAID IT WOULD BE!! Lady Hale disagrees with your opinion.......and she's one of the Supreme Court judges who heard the governments Brexit appeal. https://tinyurl.com/3re8hfkn As you dispute what the HoC briefing document clearly states you need to cite your sources. I think people on here need to understand that Grumbling doesn't need to read our links, his opinion is final. Yesterday I linked to the House of Commons Library view containing the statement "These calls were intensified in January 2021, when the EU briefly suggested it might trigger Article 16 to restrict exports of Covid-19 vaccines from the bloc." But even that isn't evidence enough for Gremlin that A16 was never triggered. You can't argue with a closed mind so I would not bother trying Paul. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted January 14, 2022 Share Posted January 14, 2022 Gremlin - 2022-01-14 8:11 AM rates are still at “an all time low”. Not surprising with a BoE of 0.25% - after it being 0.1% for quite some time. You even contradict yourself in your next sentence Send for Dr Shipman ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted January 14, 2022 Share Posted January 14, 2022 Gremlin - 2022-01-14 8:42 AM John52 - 2022-01-14 8:31 AM Gremlin - 2022-01-14 8:11 AM rates are still at “an all time low”. Not surprising with a BoE of 0.25% - after it being 0.1% for quite some time. You even contradict yourself in your next sentence Send for Dr Shipman ;-) But even at the slightly higher state - they are still at historic lows. And I state again - despite your every desperate need to regain some credibility - Negative Gilt yield in 2020 means that the borrowing made to pay for PPE will require the U.K. government to pay back a smaller sum than the amount borrowed. Thats wrong too actually, because yields were only negative for a very short time, and then only slightly. Most of the money won't have been borrowed at negative yield. But even if it were true, its still got to be paid back. Most people have no conception of the size of the debt Johnson has taken out in their name. Current inflation and pending tax rises don't even scratch the surface. Or what he has spaffed it away on because he keeps scuppering any investigation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barryd999 Posted January 14, 2022 Author Share Posted January 14, 2022 CurtainRaiser - 2022-01-13 10:26 PM Bulletguy - 2022-01-13 10:07 PM Gremlin - 2022-01-13 8:33 PM Brian Kirby - 2022-01-13 6:57 PM Gremlin - 2022-01-12 4:21 PM..........................Yes - I’ve read that - and it seems that unlike you I read all of it because whilst it sets out the rationale for Referenda NOT to be binding, it then goes on to explain in what circumstances they become legally binding. Specifically they cite that the Foreign Secretary on the 9th June 2015 stated “(the) decision about our membership should be taken by the British People, not by Whitehall bureaucrats, certainly not by Brussels Eurocrats; not even Government Ministers or Parliamentarians in this Chamber”. They go onto state;- “Similarly, the Governments leaflet to each household advocating a Remain Vote told voters that it (The Government) would implement the result.” They go on to say that the Courts made it quite clear that MP’s delegated the decision to the voters and that MP’s have no legal right to “unmake it now”. So the Referendum is and always was, legally binding. Even your own link explains this fact. This is from the HoC library, Thursday, 12 May, 2016 - here: https://tinyurl.com/ycy99b7k Is the result binding? The national result, once declared, will be final but it is not legally binding. The European Referendum Act 2015 does not include provisions to implement the result of the referendum; legally, the Government is not bound to follow the outcome. However, it would be very unlikely for the Government to ignore the outcome of the referendum. The point is contested, depending on which side of the debate you stand, but my understanding has always been that there were several electoral transgressions on the part of the leave campaigns that would, had the referendum been made legally binding, resulted in the Electoral Commission intervening over the standing of the result. The reasons most quoted for their not doing so relate to those transgressions, and the fact that the referendum was not authorised by parliament on the basis that it's outcome would be legally binding. So yes, various political undertakings were given, but those did not amount to any more than politically binding agreements between members of government and the public. So, the result stands on that basis, presumably because had the result been overturned there would have been widespread "public unrest"! With no uncertain result in prospect it might have been very wise to duck the issue of making the result legally binding and so leaving the Electoral Commission to declare the result void! Another Obtuse uttering - sorry but it is. The result of the Referendum was legally binding BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT OF THE DAY SAID IT WOULD BE!! Lady Hale disagrees with your opinion.......and she's one of the Supreme Court judges who heard the governments Brexit appeal. https://tinyurl.com/3re8hfkn As you dispute what the HoC briefing document clearly states you need to cite your sources. I think people on here need to understand that Grumbling doesn't need to read our links, his opinion is final. Yesterday I linked to the House of Commons Library view containing the statement "These calls were intensified in January 2021, when the EU briefly suggested it might trigger Article 16 to restrict exports of Covid-19 vaccines from the bloc." But even that isn't evidence enough for Gremlin that A16 was never triggered. You can't argue with a closed mind so I would not bother trying Paul. Im still trying to figure out who Grumbling is. Could he be FUNSTERJohn or whatever he was called? He was another one that even in the face of hard facts and evidence would argue that he was still right. I Cant remember whether he pretended to be a remainer though as Grumbling is clearly doing. This is a tactic by the way of some hardcore Brexiteers, to claim they voted remain when they clearly didnt. They feel it gives them more gravitas somehow to show how they saw the light and backed Brexit in the end. (lol) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted January 14, 2022 Share Posted January 14, 2022 Gremlin - 2022-01-14 9:20 AM John52 - 2022-01-14 8:58 AM Gremlin - 2022-01-14 8:42 AM John52 - 2022-01-14 8:31 AM Gremlin - 2022-01-14 8:11 AM rates are still at “an all time low”. Not surprising with a BoE of 0.25% - after it being 0.1% for quite some time. You even contradict yourself in your next sentence Send for Dr Shipman ;-) But even at the slightly higher state - they are still at historic lows. And I state again - despite your every desperate need to regain some credibility - Negative Gilt yield in 2020 means that the borrowing made to pay for PPE will require the U.K. government to pay back a smaller sum than the amount borrowed. Thats wrong too actually, because yields were only negative for a very short time, and then only slightly. Most of the money won't have been borrowed at negative yield. But even if it were true, its still got to be paid back. Most people have no conception of the size of the debt Johnson has taken out in their name. Current inflation and pending tax rises don't even scratch the surface. Or what he has spaffed it away on because he keeps scuppering any investigation. Of course it will be paid back - unless the U.K. defaults. Russia did back in 1998, but I really don’t think even Boris is capable mucking things up as bad as that. But you seen to see things in binary terms only. I tried to explain in an earlier post about how even a negative gilt/government bond can provide a positive return for the investor. This is primarily due to the Investor having faith in the underlying currency and that country’s economy. This is a very simplistic example but it should get over the point. A 5 yr bond is issued at -1% - which means that you buy into it at £100 then at maturity in five years time you get back £99 On the face of it, a loss. But if the £ and the underlying U.K. economy performs well such that the buying power of a £ improves by 5% then the investor whilst getting back only £99 - that £99 now has had its buying power enhanced by 5% So the Investors return equates to/is £103.95 Bonds have a positive rate and are auctioned. Rates are quoted annually. Bonds sell for above or below their face value, which determines the actual rate you will get on them. Which may be positive like UK bonds, or negative like German bonds. You don't appear to appreciate some people are effectively forced to buy them, however bad the rate. (Index linked bonds may still sell with a guaranteed loss built in.) If you are a fund manager with £1billion, and £1billion of liabilities due soon - like pension payments, UK bonds are your only option. Anywhere else it would be at risk, however small, of falling seriously below £1 billion Buying bonds is the only way you can be sure of meeting your payments. The fact the £ is worth less is irrelevant, because your payments are due in £, irrespective of the value of the £ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barryd999 Posted January 14, 2022 Author Share Posted January 14, 2022 Gremlin - 2022-01-14 9:58 AM Barryd999 - 2022-01-14 9:47 AM CurtainRaiser - 2022-01-13 10:26 PM Bulletguy - 2022-01-13 10:07 PM Gremlin - 2022-01-13 8:33 PM Brian Kirby - 2022-01-13 6:57 PM Gremlin - 2022-01-12 4:21 PM..........................Yes - I’ve read that - and it seems that unlike you I read all of it because whilst it sets out the rationale for Referenda NOT to be binding, it then goes on to explain in what circumstances they become legally binding. Specifically they cite that the Foreign Secretary on the 9th June 2015 stated “(the) decision about our membership should be taken by the British People, not by Whitehall bureaucrats, certainly not by Brussels Eurocrats; not even Government Ministers or Parliamentarians in this Chamber”. They go onto state;- “Similarly, the Governments leaflet to each household advocating a Remain Vote told voters that it (The Government) would implement the result.” They go on to say that the Courts made it quite clear that MP’s delegated the decision to the voters and that MP’s have no legal right to “unmake it now”. So the Referendum is and always was, legally binding. Even your own link explains this fact. This is from the HoC library, Thursday, 12 May, 2016 - here: https://tinyurl.com/ycy99b7k Is the result binding? The national result, once declared, will be final but it is not legally binding. The European Referendum Act 2015 does not include provisions to implement the result of the referendum; legally, the Government is not bound to follow the outcome. However, it would be very unlikely for the Government to ignore the outcome of the referendum. The point is contested, depending on which side of the debate you stand, but my understanding has always been that there were several electoral transgressions on the part of the leave campaigns that would, had the referendum been made legally binding, resulted in the Electoral Commission intervening over the standing of the result. The reasons most quoted for their not doing so relate to those transgressions, and the fact that the referendum was not authorised by parliament on the basis that it's outcome would be legally binding. So yes, various political undertakings were given, but those did not amount to any more than politically binding agreements between members of government and the public. So, the result stands on that basis, presumably because had the result been overturned there would have been widespread "public unrest"! With no uncertain result in prospect it might have been very wise to duck the issue of making the result legally binding and so leaving the Electoral Commission to declare the result void! Another Obtuse uttering - sorry but it is. The result of the Referendum was legally binding BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT OF THE DAY SAID IT WOULD BE!! Lady Hale disagrees with your opinion.......and she's one of the Supreme Court judges who heard the governments Brexit appeal. https://tinyurl.com/3re8hfkn As you dispute what the HoC briefing document clearly states you need to cite your sources. I think people on here need to understand that Grumbling doesn't need to read our links, his opinion is final. Yesterday I linked to the House of Commons Library view containing the statement "These calls were intensified in January 2021, when the EU briefly suggested it might trigger Article 16 to restrict exports of Covid-19 vaccines from the bloc." But even that isn't evidence enough for Gremlin that A16 was never triggered. You can't argue with a closed mind so I would not bother trying Paul. Im still trying to figure out who Grumbling is. Could he be FUNSTERJohn or whatever he was called? He was another one that even in the face of hard facts and evidence would argue that he was still right. I Cant remember whether he pretended to be a remainer though as Grumbling is clearly doing. This is a tactic by the way of some hardcore Brexiteers, to claim they voted remain when they clearly didnt. They feel it gives them more gravitas somehow to show how they saw the light and backed Brexit in the end. (lol) Wow! Make up a whole fictional story to attack someone who has differing views to you. Dear me - but you are nasty Not being nasty. I even added a little smiley at the end. I just don't believe you were ever a remainer and I also don't believe you are new to the forum. I am certainly not alone on the last one. Me thinks you doth protest too much cos you has been rumbled! (lol) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.