Huguenot

BB100, all that inexperienced and uninformed cynicism reveals is that you shouldn't be anywhere near kids, let alone your nephew.

Who is 'us'? Exports from EU to UK is a silly reference. The question is exports from the UK to Europe. This is what keeps people in jobs. I may be wrong acm, but judging by your indifference to my illustrations of the benefits of the common market, I'm guessing you've never run a business that trades more than 3 miles from your front door. If ?50m is an approximation, multiplying it by 365 doesn't make it more accurate ;-) There is no 'fact' about the money that will be lost by a withdrawal from the EU, but having said that there is also no 'doubt' about the 3 million people who rely on European exports for jobs. Because I work internationally, I'm aware that winning or losing major contracts is a game won on tiny tiny margins. I can assure you that pulling out of the EU is more than sufficient to give the business to a competitor. You probably don't give a toot, because to you they'd just be bloody foreigners. The real outcome is that your attitude costs jobs. Given your beautiful Iraqi wife, I'm surprised that you talk about 'legitimate' concerns on immigration. It clearly makes no difference to the average joe whether it's a bloke from Bradford who has 'stolen' his job or a bloke from Krakow. The only difference with the bloke from Krakow is that he can be subject to abuse and humiliation based on the fact that he's foreign. So I don't really give a shit if you're racist or xenophobic, it simply makes you cryingly stupid. I only give a shit if you somehow legitimise the obnoxious behaviour of others who use your 'legitimate concerns' as a pretext for violence and intimidation. I think you're bright enough to know that too, and that's why I find your noise abhorrent.

In this case if the UK were 'stuffed' it would only because they hadn't been involved with the Euro - the UK doesn't get to decide agreements between other countries on their own fiscal sovereignty. Regarding the referendum - bad luck silverfox: "Downing Street has said that none of the proposed changes being discussed would trigger a referendum in the UK as they would not constitute a significant transfer of power from Westminster to Brussels." Regarding why leaving the EU would start a tit-for-tat trade war it's because membership of the EU has agreements in place that allow mutuality in trading. It would take spectacular naivety to imagine that you can reap all these benefits without engaging in the legislative and political framework that is required to deliver them. These benefits are only available to members of the EU. If you leave the EU, you lose these benefits. If you want to be able to travel and trade freely in Europe, Europeans must be able to travel and trade freely in the UK. It is the largest international single market in the world, which has lead to: greater competition in services - which is good for businesses and consumers removal of trade barriers reduction of business costs greater business efficiency reduction of anti-competitive practices - such as monopolies and cartels The EU has taken measures to reform and make it even easier for countries to trade with each other, such as: reducing paperwork harmonising standards - eg technical and safety standards introducing the euro - allowing a single currency to trade with enforcing the movement of people - allowing member state citizens to move freely between other countries The EU has also introduced measures to harmonise company law across Europe. This has helped to ensure: easier access to funding clearer and more effective legislation protection for shareholders, creditors and employees a reduction in the administrative burden on businesses Frankly acm, given your sympathy with groups such as the EDL and the BNP I don't expect you to be able to recognise any of these opportunities from an independent perspective. I imagine for these groups they seem like tiny benefits that are dwarfed by the supposed benefits of getting rid of foreigners.

My understanding was that they'd like agreement from all 27, but would settle for 17. If the British threatened a referendum then that would be enough motivation to settle. There's an implicit suggestion that the remaining 10 would be entitled to make their owm minds up about the agreement, with the whisper of a suggestion that financial backing may be dependent upon it.

:))

Cross-post, and conincidentally it's the same industry!

I can see plenty of scenarios where that takes place in the private sector. For example in the alrady well paid digital industry, developers will frequently need to offer bigger salaries and perks to programmers to compensate them if they have to move away from London. It's a supply and demand issue.

Rats... rats...

This is what I tried to explain earlier. You didn't follow my advice! Here it is again: "A combination of jiggle jiggle and time (rather than kick) may well cure the problem, and then don't use it again until you've cleared the pressure chamber."

Recruitment and retention are employment concepts based on addressing the needs and contributions of the individuals. Unions don't believe in this - they believe in collective bargaining and cookie cutter employees. Unions can't accept that an individual can be rewarded for talent and hard work - because it assumes that someone else can be paid less if they have less talent and work less hard.

silverfox all that will do will start a tit-for-tat trade war with our largest trading partners. Your recommended approach could cost, say, 10% of GDP and 3,000,000 jobs. Way to go. "What's your point, H?": DaveR, silverfox said 'referendum here we come', but decisions in the management of the Euro as you said would be decided in the Eurozone of 17, which doesn't include the UK. The UK clearly would not accept European financial controls designed for a currency it doesn't use (neither would other members in the same situation) - hence there is no way on earth a Eurozone would introduce a barrier to agreement by making it reliant on all members. QED there will be no referendum in the UK as a direct result of the current decisions.

d_c I love your "Fair day's pay for a fair day's work" - stratight out of the political chants handbook! Of course, that's exactly what regional weighting is all about - fairness. Nurse A gets a 20k salary in Preston and has a three bedroom house. Nurse B gets a 20k salary in London and gets a 10 square metre bedroom and a shared kitchen in sheltered accommodation. What's fair about that?

I have rarely heard anything so silly - calling a massive increase of exports to Europe as 'exasperating' is extraordinary! We don't export to Asia so much because we no long have an Empire!! We export more to Europe because we're not at war with them. Would you prefer we tried to continue living in 1850 and we were all bankrupt?

Seriously UDT, you're starting to behave like a stalker now, pack it in. I didn't say you've added little to the debate (so fuck knows why you claimed that I did, it's written down right?), I simply asked you to stop insulting me, which you have continued to do. I'm putting you on ignore.

I think that's an electronic one, but can't be definite. Electronic ones won't be helped by a bit of physical effort.. *scratches head* I think you may be stcuk until morning :(

It sounds like a pretty standard problem with Hotpoints that use a pressure chamber to work out whether water is in the drum or not. When the tube to the pressure chamber gets blocked the door lock feature thinks there's still water in the drum. That's why jiggle jiggle freed it up before - the jiggling freed up the pressure pipe. A combination of jiggle jiggle and time (rather than kick) may well cure the problem, and then don't use it again until you've cleared the pressure chamber. For more clarity, model number please?

I've got ten quid saying that any new Euro currency treaty won't ask the opinion of the UK, as it shouldn't.

Good point - are these criticisms specific or general? The suggestion in this case is that there is serious concern the woman is psychologically unstable, that she was remanded in custody for this reason, and that the kids being put into care was a side effect, not the intent?

"And that's what we all are - equal." - that's what we could be, it's hardly what we are. We generally seek advantage through association (my family, my neighborhood, my peers) at early stages, but we exert rational judgement to compensate when this threatens the social cohesion necesaary to deliver maximum benefit. This is the same in business. When opportunities are plentiful, capable businesses compete with each other. When resources are sparse, capable businesses usually collaborate. Positive discrimination is sensible checks and balances to ensure a productive working environment.

I can see where you're coming from Loz, it's a difficult area. One point of note that I heard was... "Minority racism can serve as a coping mechanism to respond to perceived racism rather than as anti-white bias. Even when minorities are actually prejudiced against whites, they lack the institutional power or intent to adversely affect whites? lives." I don't know whether that's true or not - but I can see how the "lack of institutional power or intent to adversely affect whites' lives" somehow diminishes the scale or impact of the attack. White people are regularly abused or ripped off in Asia, but somehow it lacks the scale of threat that Gary Dobson represents. I wouldn't expect to see a 6 year old in a temper tantrum to be jailed for telling his parents that 'I'm gonna kill you!!' - neither would I expect the parents to be unduly perturbed. However, I would expect the security services to be interested if that was yelled by a gang of youths at a white teenager at 1am in a deserted High Street.

"This trope that some how mainstream society over looks other types of racism, or treats minority groups differently or gives them more 'rights' or respects minority rights better, is all part of a discourse of hate promoted by certain groups. "To the educated it is neither clever nor convincing. To the morons, it glitters like an irresistible argument." and how beautifully expressed :)

Really? You said :"Brussels is full of non-entities like McIntyre who nobody has voted for and nobody has heard of and who would struggle to be elected to a parish council in Britain." Except she's been elected 8 times... Anyway, I suspect your argument is actually against proportional representation - a system I don't agree with myself, since it allows the party to select representatives rather than the people. However, I would point out that it's the Conservative party (your best chums) that appointed her, so I wouldn't be too difficult about it if I were you?

UDT, insulting me is not a discussion. You haven't made a comment on this thread that hasn't involved insulting me. Conversely all I've done to you is disagreed with you and asked you to stop telling porkies. You'd be the first one to start complaining if I turned my guns on you, so stop ruining other people's contributions with your rather witless attacks. Chippy, as with Loz, what's the taxpayer subsidy for private sector pensions? I must have missed it.

No UDT, it is you that are claiming they are affordable, the public accounts committee that you have asserted supports you made no such claim. Stop bullshitting. Taper, with a view to getting rid of hyperbole and humbug, to that end Lord Hutton ran an independent enquiry that came to the conclusion that those proposals currently in front of the public sector are fair and equitable. Hutton has also been on air recently saying that we should NOT bet on the current situation being sustainable. From Chippy Minton's point of view, it's clear that the recipients of Large pensions and early retirement think it's reasonable to take that bet (after all they cannot lose), and those who have to pay the bill do not think it's a good gamble (they cannot win). No surprise there. Your own views about what is 'clearly' sustainable are not shared by the public accounts committee, who have serious doubts not least about the GDP forecasts that would underpin any claim about percentages.

No UDT, that's your claim being wrong isn't it - you know it too. Saying it's an achievement is a long way from claiming that it's sustainable isn't it? When you read it you'll also discover that the committee actually questions quite closely whether it is sustainable or not, and comes to the conclusions that it's only seen to be 'affordable' after the revisions of May 2011. Even then it doesn't say that it IS affordable, just that it is SEEN TO BE affordable. So your assertion was wrong. I fully expect you to start squirming and moving the goalposts now, because that's what you usually do. Why don't you just man up and say you were wrong?