i'd rather not use basic correct punctuation than just spout lies to try and back up my own petty prejudices.

does unemployment not count in a recession or something? are they simply a 'price worth paying'?

this statement is simply a lie. nothing more, nothing less. now, you as do several others may like to pretend that 2008-2010 didn't happen, but it did.

Amazingly I've talked you completely around in a circle, you now seem to be trying to prove to me that unemployment rose in 2008 to 2012 because of the two recessions that occured in that period ?

I already know that, THAT is the point that I was trying to make to you when you asked why unemployment was so high in 2010



Your second quote is not one of mine.

i know exactly why unemployment went up. it's what tends to happen in a recession. i never asked why unemployment was so high in a recession. you should stop banging your head against the wall, it prevents you reading what's actually written as opposed to what you want to see.

i know the second quote isn't yours, it's from someone who thinks 1.7m/2.0m is a bigger number than 2.5m.

So you've answered (at last) your own original question.

Good, are we done ?

i didn't have an original question? you're clearly done.

Really ?

The punctuation thing again, putting a question mark at the end of a sentence, sort of turns it into a question you see.

really? that's what those straws you clutched at came up with? ? ? ?

Deary me, you try and engage some grown up conversation but its not long before the playground kicks in is it ?

oh god, so you're still not done. here, i'll help. the bit in bold below, go find it, then get back to me. that's you're starting point.

Congratulations.

That's probably one of the stupidest posts ever seen on these boards.

???

Don’t argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience

not quite as stupid as thinking 2.5m is a smaller number than 2.0m.

Everyone reading this will have picked up on the fact that one needs to see beyond headline numbers ... but you either can't or, more likely, won't.

To decide if we will come out of it well you'd have to know what Cameron wants specifically and if he gets it judge if that would make the people of this country better off.

Given by amending rules that can be amended by the UK government alone such as reducing redundancy notice period down from 90 to 45 days you can see what is coming of they get the ability to ditch European employment laws.

These include things like not discriminating against part time workers or women, ensuring workers are entitled to paid holiday's and offer protection when companies are taken over and other stuff I think most people take for granted not realising where the legislation originates from and what they therefore risk to lose.

I do not think that equates to us coming out of this well.

Strangely, the only scenario he specifically mentioned was of hospital doctors forced to work to the EU maximum hours directive. I don't know of one working doctor or surgeon who would willingly go back to working 100+ hours per week, nor do I imagine any patient would be happy going under the knife of someone who enjoyed little sleep over the previous week.

As for repatriation of other employment protections, what makes him think that the other 26 countries would willingly give the UK a derogation in order that we can better compete against them?

Regarding the monthly Plenary sessions, I noticed an item in Private Eye.
Apparently MEPs are fed up with traipsing back and forth from Brussel to Strasbourg 12 times a year for these sessions (at £12.5m a pop) and voted to cut them down to 11 as a beninning of a tapering-down of the Strasbourg visits, eventually to have the seat of Parliament in Brussels only.
But the French, losing business etc in Strasbourg, took it to court and won, on the basis that the treaty says 12 per year ... but 88% of MEPs have already voted to phase them out, starting the phasing in mid-2013.
So Cameron will be pushing at an open door on that one and is a bit late coming in on the proposal.

Spot on, on both points.

[url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9830655/We-may-leave-EU-if-we-do-not-get-powers-back-Grant-Shapps-warns.htmlShapps reckons we could leave[/url

Talk about singing off the same hymn sheet, these buggers aren't even in the same church

It shows that the Conservatives are in a total mess, which was pretty much what people predicted as the coalition was formed. Shapps is a loathsome individual with no real grasp of reality, I had the misfortune of meeting him when he was Housing Minister.

Is this the same Grant "Get rich quick" Shapps? www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 09978.html

Is this the same Grant "Get rich quick" Shapps? www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 09978.html

The picture of Shapps in the linked-to article is fairly typical: a looked of bemused ignorance.

Other members of cabinet who always have the same expression are:

George Osborne - always looks like he's just shat his pants

Jeremy Hunt - always looks as if someone has just stuffed a broomstick up his ar[is[/ie and quite often seems like he's enjoying the experience

After reading the Daily Mail's latest story relating to a judgement by the European Court of Human Rights, I despair that the people of this country are intelligent enough to be able to make an informed choice when it comes to a referendum. Most of the comments following the story are clamouring for us to leave the EU. Few if any commentors realise that the EU and ECHR are seperate entities.