Oh, oh!
I was saying, therefore, that this makes reference, in fact, to the conditions that have been imposed in order to be eligible for this extension. It refers to an unemployment rate that has increased by 2% in a three-month period without any significant signs of recovery in the region. According to him, the definition is arbitrary. Indeed, how would you describe recovery or significant signs of recovery?
Do you not think that a bill should contain clearer, less ambiguous wording?