Budget 2010: EU calls for faster UK deficit cuts

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

European Commission not in the financial industry.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

It's true. Not specifically. But to imply they are not into finance is hysterical!

sorry Graham but this must be the stupidest thing you've said (maybe not as bad as you thinking Amsterdam was a country and not in Holland)

The European Commission is the executive of the European Union. The body is responsible for proposing legislation, implementing decisions, upholding the Union's treaties and the general day-to-day running of the Union

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Commission

here's there web-site and have a read
http://ec.europa.eu/unitedkingdom/index_en.htm

if someone has a current account does that make them part of the financial industry.
you really do struggle don't you

educate yourself

Financial services refer to services provided by the finance industry. The finance industry encompasses a broad range of organizations that deal with the management of money. Among these organizations are banks, credit card companies, insurance companies, consumer finance companies, stock brokerages, investment funds and some government sponsored enterprises.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_industry

no mention of any organisation like the EU there.... :eek:

Graham_Devon

As I said earlier. Get a grip.

While your at it, you may aswell imply the chancellor of the exchequer is not involved in finance, as he is actually in legislation and the day to day running of the country.

It would be a stupid thing to imply. Stupid enough for you to say it.

you really do struggle don't you

educate yurswelf some more

Indeed. I'll take your comments on board.

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

As I said earlier. Get a grip.

While your at it, you may aswell imply the chancellor of the exchequer is not involved in finance, as he is actually in legislation and the day to day running of the country.

It would be a stupid thing to imply. Stupid enough for you to say it.

no not Finance but the Financial Industry that you're trying to claim and you tried to pick me up on with your rolling smily heads.

they are different things so stop trying to twist things and stop being stubborn.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Indeed. I'll take your comments on board.

you really should because first you think Amsterdam is a country in itself and now you think the Chancellor of the Exchequer is in the Finance Industry. where has that confused smiley gone??

Graham_Devon

chucky wrote: »

no not Finance but the Financial Industry that you're trying to claim and you tried to pick me up on with your rolling smily heads.

they are different things so stop trying to twist things and stop being stubborn.

So if I had said finance, you would have been ok with that? (Even though the EU Commission works with so many in the financial industry?).

Righty Oh. I don't believe you for a second.

I think you have just figured out what a stupid thing you are saying.

I mean, look at this on the first page headlines of the EU commision website.
http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=STAT/10/39&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

Anyone would think they had major dealings with the financial industry.

Ahhh, we back to the amsterdam thing yet again? Christ, I must have touched a nerve

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

So if I had said finance, you would have been ok with that? (Even though the EU Commission works with so many in the financial industry?).

Righty Oh. I don't believe you for a second.

I think you have just figured out what a stupid thing you are saying.

I mean, look at this on the first page headlines of the EU commision website.
http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=STAT/10/39&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

Anyone would think they had major dealings with the financial industry.

:wall:
What we've got here is....... failure to communicate.
Some men you just can't reach.
:wall:

behave yourself Graham you're not very intelligent and it's showing

stueyhants

chucky wrote: »

the point is that no one is saying that Labour is going to be better - the point is that you keep on preaching to us that the Tories have all the answers.

it may come to you as a surprise but they don't - they probably have less ideas of how to deal with the deficit than the current people in charge.

If the markets really believe labour are a better prospect after the election why is the £ devaluing against all major currencies now there is a sniff of a labour victory?

Kohoutek

chucky wrote: »

the point is that no one is saying that Labour is going to be better - the point is that you keep on preaching to us that the Tories have all the answers.

it may come to you as a surprise but they don't - they probably have less ideas of how to deal with the deficit than the current people in charge.

You weren't writing that with a straight face, surely? I don't preach that the Tories have all the answers, I would just prefer a new government to five more of years of Labour, because I would prefer a party that is ideologically committed to a smaller government, not tax and spend. You're the one that doggedly defends Labour on every policy, despite ridiculously claiming at times that you don't support them at all.

In fact, if you look at the first page of this thread, you'll find that you turned it into a Tories v Labour discussion. I was just pointing out that Labour were using the budget to play electoral games - which they are.

You say that the Tories 'probably have less ideas to deal with the deficit than the current people'. Why is it then that Labour constantly refuse to give any details of their plans to deal with the deficit, despite the fact that unlike the Conservatives, they have all the information at their fingertips they need to make decisions on public spending? Why is it the Labour have indicated they won't use the budget to announce how they will deal with the deficit? As usual, your statements are based on nothing.

StevieJ

stueyhants wrote: »

If the markets really believe labour are a better prospect after the election why is the £ devaluing against all major currencies now there is a sniff of a labour victory?

Not true, the worry is a hung parliament, overblown in my opinion.

Mr.Brown_4

StevieJ wrote: »

Not true, the worry is a hung parliament, overblown in my opinion.

Surely a dream team - Brown, Cameron and Clegg. What a frightening thought.

chucky

Kohoutek wrote: »

You weren't writing that with a straight face, surely? I don't preach that the Tories have all the answers, I would just prefer a new government to five more of years of Labour, because I would prefer a party that is ideologically committed to a smaller government, not tax and spend. You're the one that doggedly defends Labour on every policy, despite ridiculously claiming at times that you don't support them at all.

In fact, if you look at the first page of this thread, you'll find that you turned it into a Tories v Labour discussion. I was just pointing out that Labour were using the budget to play electoral games - which they are.

You say that the Tories 'probably have less ideas to deal with the deficit than the current people'. Why is it then that Labour constantly refuse to give any details of their plans to deal with the deficit, despite the fact that unlike the Conservatives, they have all the information at their fingertips they need to make decisions on public spending? Why is it the Labour have indicated they won't use the budget to announce how they will deal with the deficit? As usual, your statements are based on nothing.

nine one Tory boy - actually that was you. mine was Post 13, yours was Post 12 commenting on Labour's inability to do something or other that the Conservatives have done the same thing.

are you getting paid for being a Tory activist?