hate these ads?, log in or register to hide them
Page 1290 of 1298 FirstFirst ... 2907901190124012801287128812891290129112921293 ... LastLast
Results 25,781 to 25,800 of 25960

Thread: (UK EURO WAFFLE) Limey Civil War

  1. #25781
    Donor erichkknaar's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    8,939
    Quote Originally Posted by The Contemporary Poster View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by El Capitano View Post
    Here's the definition of workless household:
    Households where no-one aged 16 or over is in employment. These members may be unemployed or economically inactive. Economically inactive members may be unavailable to work because of family commitments, retirement or study, or unable to work through sickness or disability.
    Better get those wheelchair bound grandmas out in the fields! I can't believe such idiocy can work out how to post.
    Your definition excludes those who are working part time but want full time work which is also included in the ONS definition. Also at least some portion of students will actually be merely enrolled and not actually studying.
    If they arenít actually studying, do they qualify as students?

    Sounds like some kind of benefits fraud to me...

  2. #25782
    Super Chillerator Global Moderator teds :D's Avatar
    Join Date
    November 9, 2011
    Posts
    7,096
    i thought farming wasn't hard work

  3. #25783
    מלך יהודים Zeekar's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    14,642
    Quote Originally Posted by teds :D View Post
    i thought farming wasn't hard work
    It isnt. The stuff just grows out of the ground. And you can sell it. For money!


    

  4. #25784
    Super Chillerator Global Moderator teds :D's Avatar
    Join Date
    November 9, 2011
    Posts
    7,096
    Quote Originally Posted by Zeekar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by teds :D View Post
    i thought farming wasn't hard work
    It isnt. The stuff just grows out of the ground. And you can sell it. For money!
    free minerals!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  5. #25785
    Movember 2012 Zekk Pacus's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 11, 2011
    Posts
    6,821
    Quote Originally Posted by Zeekar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by teds :D View Post
    i thought farming wasn't hard work
    It isnt. The stuff just grows out of the ground. And you can sell it. For money!
    'I'm pro life. I'm a non-smoker. I'm a pro-life non-smoker. WOO, Let the party begin!'

  6. #25786
    Banned
    Join Date
    October 30, 2017
    Posts
    500
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by The Contemporary Poster View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by El Capitano View Post
    Here's the definition of workless household:
    Households where no-one aged 16 or over is in employment. These members may be unemployed or economically inactive. Economically inactive members may be unavailable to work because of family commitments, retirement or study, or unable to work through sickness or disability.
    Better get those wheelchair bound grandmas out in the fields! I can't believe such idiocy can work out how to post.
    Your definition excludes those who are working part time but want full time work which is also included in the ONS definition. Also at least some portion of students will actually be merely enrolled and not actually studying.
    If they aren’t actually studying, do they qualify as students?

    Sounds like some kind of benefits fraud to me...
    Loan fraud usually, students don't qualify for many benefits, main one I got was council tax exemption.

    But I am aware of many, many people who never showed up as soon as they got their loan payments. Doing my A Levels some people turned up to the actual college but never went to classes but all still technically enrolled as students.

  7. #25787
    Donor erichkknaar's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    8,939
    Quote Originally Posted by The Contemporary Poster View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by The Contemporary Poster View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by El Capitano View Post
    Here's the definition of workless household:
    Households where no-one aged 16 or over is in employment. These members may be unemployed or economically inactive. Economically inactive members may be unavailable to work because of family commitments, retirement or study, or unable to work through sickness or disability.
    Better get those wheelchair bound grandmas out in the fields! I can't believe such idiocy can work out how to post.
    Your definition excludes those who are working part time but want full time work which is also included in the ONS definition. Also at least some portion of students will actually be merely enrolled and not actually studying.
    If they aren’t actually studying, do they qualify as students?

    Sounds like some kind of benefits fraud to me...
    Loan fraud usually, students don't qualify for many benefits, main one I got was council tax exemption.

    But I am aware of many, many people who never showed up as soon as they got their loan payments. Doing my A Levels some people turned up to the actual college but never went to classes but all still technically enrolled as students.
    Well, those are the ones you can clap in irons and make pick fruit then.

    Problem sorted!

  8. #25788
    Banned
    Join Date
    October 30, 2017
    Posts
    500
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by The Contemporary Poster View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by The Contemporary Poster View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by El Capitano View Post
    Here's the definition of workless household:
    Households where no-one aged 16 or over is in employment. These members may be unemployed or economically inactive. Economically inactive members may be unavailable to work because of family commitments, retirement or study, or unable to work through sickness or disability.
    Better get those wheelchair bound grandmas out in the fields! I can't believe such idiocy can work out how to post.
    Your definition excludes those who are working part time but want full time work which is also included in the ONS definition. Also at least some portion of students will actually be merely enrolled and not actually studying.
    If they aren’t actually studying, do they qualify as students?

    Sounds like some kind of benefits fraud to me...
    Loan fraud usually, students don't qualify for many benefits, main one I got was council tax exemption.

    But I am aware of many, many people who never showed up as soon as they got their loan payments. Doing my A Levels some people turned up to the actual college but never went to classes but all still technically enrolled as students.
    Well, those are the ones you can clap in irons and make pick fruit then.

    Problem sorted!
    Dude we don't even send people to prison for stabbing someone in this country anymore

  9. #25789
    Super Chillerator Global Moderator teds :D's Avatar
    Join Date
    November 9, 2011
    Posts
    7,096
    Quote Originally Posted by The Contemporary Poster View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by The Contemporary Poster View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by The Contemporary Poster View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by El Capitano View Post
    Here's the definition of workless household:
    Households where no-one aged 16 or over is in employment. These members may be unemployed or economically inactive. Economically inactive members may be unavailable to work because of family commitments, retirement or study, or unable to work through sickness or disability.
    Better get those wheelchair bound grandmas out in the fields! I can't believe such idiocy can work out how to post.
    Your definition excludes those who are working part time but want full time work which is also included in the ONS definition. Also at least some portion of students will actually be merely enrolled and not actually studying.
    If they aren’t actually studying, do they qualify as students?

    Sounds like some kind of benefits fraud to me...
    Loan fraud usually, students don't qualify for many benefits, main one I got was council tax exemption.

    But I am aware of many, many people who never showed up as soon as they got their loan payments. Doing my A Levels some people turned up to the actual college but never went to classes but all still technically enrolled as students.
    Well, those are the ones you can clap in irons and make pick fruit then.

    Problem sorted!
    Dude we don't even send people to prison for stabbing someone in this country anymore
    which is even better, if they can use a knife they should be handy with a hoe.

  10. #25790
    Straight Hustlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 14, 2011
    Posts
    9,921
    I hate you guys for making me agree with Smuggo but he is absolutely correct that the government defines what exactly unemployed means. In the US for example, the BLS uses some rather questionable metrics to determine the unemployment rate; They do not count a person as unemployed if they have stopped looking for work in the past 4 weeks, or if they are working a minimum of 1 hour or $20 a week in compensation.

    The official US unemployment rate is 4.5%; the real rate is almost double at 8.9%

  11. #25791
    Donor erichkknaar's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    8,939
    Quote Originally Posted by Straight Hustlin View Post
    I hate you guys for making me agree with Smuggo but he is absolutely correct that the government defines what exactly unemployed means. In the US for example, the BLS uses some rather questionable metrics to determine the unemployment rate; They do not count a person as unemployed if they have stopped looking for work in the past 4 weeks, or if they are working a minimum of 1 hour or $20 a week in compensation.

    The official US unemployment rate is 4.5%; the real rate is almost double at 8.9%
    It's actually 7.9% right now. It's record low of 7.1% in 2000 since they started tracking it in 1994, and it's trending downward.
    meh

  12. #25792

    Join Date
    April 14, 2011
    Posts
    5,498
    Quote Originally Posted by Straight Hustlin View Post
    I hate you guys for making me agree with Smuggo but he is absolutely correct that the government defines what exactly unemployed means.
    just repeating stuff doesn't make it true

  13. #25793
    Straight Hustlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 14, 2011
    Posts
    9,921
    Quote Originally Posted by elmicker View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Straight Hustlin View Post
    I hate you guys for making me agree with Smuggo but he is absolutely correct that the government defines what exactly unemployed means.
    just repeating stuff doesn't make it true
    Indeed

    The level and rate of UK unemployment measured by the Labour Force Survey (LFS) using a definition of unemployment specified by the International Labour Organisation. Unemployed people as those without a job who have been actively seeking work in the past 4 weeks and are available to start work in the next 2 weeks. It also includes those who are out of work but have found a job and are waiting to start it in the next 2 weeks.
    https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentand...k/unemployment

    hmm looks like a government definition of unemployed...

    wellwaddyaknow.jpg

  14. #25794

    Join Date
    April 14, 2011
    Posts
    5,498
    Fuck you're stupid, it says ILO right in your own fucking quote

  15. #25795
    Straight Hustlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 14, 2011
    Posts
    9,921
    And who decided to use the ILo metric?

    Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk

  16. #25796

    Join Date
    April 14, 2011
    Posts
    5,498
    Quote Originally Posted by Straight Hustlin View Post
    And who decided to use the ILo metric?

    Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk
    Fucks sake, choosing to use someone else's internationally standardised and recognised definition is not the same as:
    1) Coming up with your own definition
    or
    2) Arbitrarily changing definitions to meet political purposes

    stop being dumb

  17. #25797

    Join Date
    April 14, 2011
    Posts
    5,498
    Quote Originally Posted by The Contemporary Poster View Post
    I don't believe that and can you explain why we can't take the Norway option?
    Meant to reply to this hours ago.

    Yes. While the UK is technically a signatory to the EEA in its own right, the EEA is defined as such:

    The Agreement shall apply to the territories to which the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community
    (20) is applied and under the conditions laid down in that Treaty (21), and to the territories of Iceland (22), the
    Principality of Liechtenstein and the Kingdom of Norway ( 23 )
    So reading this part of the text, which is the least ambiguous section, upon leaving the "EEC" (i.e. the EU), the EEA treaty would cease to apply due to our Article 50 withdrawal.

    Slightly contradictory, the very next paragraph says this:

    Each Contracting Party may withdraw from this Agreement provided it gives at least twelve months' notice in writing to the
    other Contracting Parties.
    Immediately after the notification of the intended withdrawal, the other Contracting Parties shall convene a diplomatic
    conference in order to envisage the necessary modifications to bring to the Agreement.
    And this is the only description of a mechanism for withdrawal. Which confuses the matter a little, but also provides a mechanism for the government to clearly withdraw with a notification any time in the next four or so months.

    So, put simply, the law isn't exactly clear as it wasn't designed for withdrawal. This makes it as much a political question as anything else, and Norway and co. aren't likely to let us into their side of the club for free.

  18. #25798
    Banned
    Join Date
    October 30, 2017
    Posts
    500
    Quote Originally Posted by elmicker View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Straight Hustlin View Post
    And who decided to use the ILo metric?

    Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk
    Fucks sake, choosing to use someone else's internationally standardised and recognised definition is not the same as:
    1) Coming up with your own definition
    or
    2) Arbitrarily changing definitions to meet political purposes

    stop being dumb
    The UN is unsurprisingly the friend of globalism and wants to make sure we all know how great globalism is for us.

  19. #25799
    Banned
    Join Date
    October 30, 2017
    Posts
    500
    Quote Originally Posted by elmicker View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by The Contemporary Poster View Post
    I don't believe that and can you explain why we can't take the Norway option?
    Meant to reply to this hours ago.

    Yes. While the UK is technically a signatory to the EEA in its own right, the EEA is defined as such:

    The Agreement shall apply to the territories to which the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community
    (20) is applied and under the conditions laid down in that Treaty (21), and to the territories of Iceland (22), the
    Principality of Liechtenstein and the Kingdom of Norway ( 23 )
    So reading this part of the text, which is the least ambiguous section, upon leaving the "EEC" (i.e. the EU), the EEA treaty would cease to apply due to our Article 50 withdrawal.

    Slightly contradictory, the very next paragraph says this:

    Each Contracting Party may withdraw from this Agreement provided it gives at least twelve months' notice in writing to the
    other Contracting Parties.
    Immediately after the notification of the intended withdrawal, the other Contracting Parties shall convene a diplomatic
    conference in order to envisage the necessary modifications to bring to the Agreement.
    And this is the only description of a mechanism for withdrawal. Which confuses the matter a little, but also provides a mechanism for the government to clearly withdraw with a notification any time in the next four or so months.

    So, put simply, the law isn't exactly clear as it wasn't designed for withdrawal. This makes it as much a political question as anything else, and Norway and co. aren't likely to let us into their side of the club for free.
    Well I wouldn't have expected it to be pain free, but it gets us part of the way there. Given the shambles of the government it seems a reasonable option though will likely kill the Tories stone dead, which may be why they're currently been torn every which way.

  20. #25800

    Join Date
    April 14, 2011
    Posts
    5,498
    It doesn't get us any of the way there. As soon as we're out of the EU we're out of the EEA. Simple as that. The only question is whether it has to spend all of ten minutes in front of the ECJ before we're kicked out or whether the government ticks the box and provides a notification. "Joining" the EEA would require a negotiation with not only the r27 of the EU (because that's going so well so far) but three more countries, none of whom are known for their internationalist or egalitarian stances or their love of free trade.

    The EEA/EFTA option is a complete political nonstarter. It'd take upwards of a decade to get anywhere near it.

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •