The definitive rugby union forum. Talk to fans from around the world about your favourite team
https://forum.planetrugby.com/
derriz wrote:Shit maybe I misjudged you and you actually believe half the shite you post on here.bimboman wrote:derriz wrote:I don't. And I doubt he takes me seriously either.iarmhiman wrote:Do what I do and don't take him seriously.
I am struggling , you seem to be having a huge amount of discussion , introducing of strawman etc all on your own.
It's more that he refuses to let a single post go. I have ignored a lot of his replies this week purely because there is no end to it.DragsterDriver wrote:And yet, they queue up to spend their leisure time debating with/abusing bimbo.
iarmhiman wrote:It's more that he refuses to let a single post go. I have ignored a lot of his replies this week purely because there is no end to it.DragsterDriver wrote:And yet, they queue up to spend their leisure time debating with/abusing bimbo.
Have fun.bimboman wrote:iarmhiman wrote:It's more that he refuses to let a single post go. I have ignored a lot of his replies this week purely because there is no end to it.DragsterDriver wrote:And yet, they queue up to spend their leisure time debating with/abusing bimbo.
"I have bimbo on ignore"
iarmhiman wrote:Have fun.bimboman wrote:iarmhiman wrote:It's more that he refuses to let a single post go. I have ignored a lot of his replies this week purely because there is no end to it.DragsterDriver wrote:And yet, they queue up to spend their leisure time debating with/abusing bimbo.
"I have bimbo on ignore"
camroc1 wrote:You'd swear the Brits hadn't stuck two fingers up to the rest of the EU and said " See you, we're leaving".
You have no real interest in who runs the survey because you already know who runs the survey - it's been mentioned on the thread already. But yeah, you're really going to convince me that euroscepticism remains on the rise in Europe with this line of pissing into the wind.bimboman wrote:derriz wrote:If you want to go down the conspiracy theory hole, if "they" manipulate the survey, wouldn't they have done something about the results which showed growing negative feelings towards the EU for years? The methodology and data is public and subject to academic scrutiny. But hey, if the results don't match your expectations, then obviously "they" must be fixing the results.bimboman wrote:derriz wrote:It not that hard to understand. People vote for parties for a variety reasons, their anti-EU stance may be one of them. The stance may range from hard-brexit to time-to-reform-the-EU. They might also vote for the same party because of their anti-immigration or protectionist stances for example. Or it may be a mix of reasons. I doubt you or anyone has the statistical tools to turn all this into a decades long trend of attitudes to the EU. Or you can simply ask people directly, using statistically verified method in a standard way, what they think of the EU. Even if you think there is some flaw in the survey methodology, any bias is irrelevant when discussing trends and this survey has been running for decades.bimboman wrote:"Surveyed" vs "actual national votes"
Who runs the survey ?
I'm not going down any route you twat, I am just asking who's survey it is ?
You've introduced all the other stuff about manipulation yourself, unless he simple request "who runs the survey" contains a lot more words than I can see.
And the eu wasn't such a good club they could say 'see you later, good luck!'camroc1 wrote:You'd swear the Brits hadn't stuck two fingers up to the rest of the EU and said " See you, we're leaving".
No the sort of stuff where you claim the EU can engineer a change of government.bimboman wrote:derriz wrote:Shit maybe I misjudged you and you actually believe half the shite you post on here.bimboman wrote:derriz wrote:I don't. And I doubt he takes me seriously either.iarmhiman wrote:Do what I do and don't take him seriously.
I am struggling , you seem to be having a huge amount of discussion , introducing of strawman etc all on your own.
"Blimey", "often"
This sort of stuff ?
It's 1500 pages, how the f uck can I remember one detail about a survey, I didn't know it was more important than actual elections and stuff.eal interest in who runs the survey because you already know who runs the survey - it's been mentioned on the thread already. But yeah, you're really going to convince me that euroscepticism remains on the rise in Europe with this line of pissing into the wind.
We don't care about anything your Grandads (probably great grandads) did 80 years ago.Chips wrote:camroc1 wrote:You'd swear the Brits hadn't stuck two fingers up to the rest of the EU and said " See you, we're leaving".
As opposed to saying "We're saving you. Again".
Mullet 2 wrote:We don't care about anything your Grandads (probably great grandads) did 80 years ago.Chips wrote:camroc1 wrote:You'd swear the Brits hadn't stuck two fingers up to the rest of the EU and said " See you, we're leaving".
As opposed to saying "We're saving you. Again".
Soz
See; I don't agree with that.derriz wrote:I don't. And I doubt he takes me seriously either.iarmhiman wrote:Do what I do and don't take him seriously.
Mullet 2 wrote:We don't care about anything your Grandads (probably great grandads) did 80 years ago.Chips wrote:camroc1 wrote:You'd swear the Brits hadn't stuck two fingers up to the rest of the EU and said " See you, we're leaving".
As opposed to saying "We're saving you. Again".
Soz
Rinkals wrote:I played cricket against a few, too.Gospel wrote:Good lads too, I used to go fly fishing with a few.bimboman wrote:I'll,acknowledge the reality that is the miracle of British policing, and the amazingly low incidents of tragic errors they make, especially with their armed units.
At the post-match drinks, I remember a copper regaling us with a story about how he fitted up a drug dealer. When I questioned him about this he said "Look, we only fit up people who are guilty, obviously." Obviously.
Good lads.
, massive laugh out loud.I said your Grandadsbimboman wrote:Mullet 2 wrote:We don't care about anything your Grandads (probably great grandads) did 80 years ago.Chips wrote:camroc1 wrote:You'd swear the Brits hadn't stuck two fingers up to the rest of the EU and said " See you, we're leaving".
As opposed to saying "We're saving you. Again".
Soz
That's a shite load of Irish pub songs you're trashing there fella.
The Observer view on Theresa May’s Brexit speech
It’s shaping up to be a dreadful deal for Britain
Be in no doubt. Theresa May’s watershed Brexit speech on Friday was a sobering defeat for the UK. It was a defeat for the Leavers’ vision of a sovereign country freed from the constraints imposed by European politicians, laws and regulations. It was a defeat for those who voted Remain and hoped against hope that Britain would, at the last moment, draw back from this gross act of national self-harm.
May’s speech, signalling a fundamental parting of the ways, was a defeat for the business people, trade unionists and community leaders who rightly fear for the country’s future prosperity, cohesion and jobs. It was a defeat for young people, British and European, who, more so than older generations, will perforce inhabit an ugly new world of harder borders, work permits, bureaucracy and pervasive state intrusion.
Looked at in a wider context, May’s speech marked a moment of British retreat from the shared ideals and principles of collaborative internationalism that have guided the western democracies since 1945. It presaged a historic abdication of leadership that many in Europe and beyond will neither understand nor quickly forgive.
The gaunt post-Brexit future towards which May is stubbornly leading us will make Britain a poorer, meaner, lonelier and shabbier place, hostile to immigrants yet badly in need of their skills, struggling to maintain its trade across the barriers we ourselves erected, and exploited by the world’s big economies whose governments and multinationals, imposing unequal trade treaties, will take what they want and leave the rest.
May’s speech was welcomed by hard Tory Brexiters, who imagine that quitting the EU single market and customs union, whatever the consequences, is a sufficient victory for their blinkered, jingoistic cause. It was seen by Tory Remainers as recognition of the need for compromise. And this blurry reconciliation of her party’s schismatic factions, albeit probably temporary, was May’s main achievement. It may be a good deal for the Tories. It is a bad deal for Britain.
Bad because, in overall terms, the proposed settlement is neither one thing nor the other. Britain will not have its cake and eat it, in Boris Johnson’s preposterous parlance. It will simply have less cake. May rejected the single market largely because of its freedom-of-movement provisions. Even though employers have been telling her for months that Britain relies on EU workers, the prime minister remains foolishly frit of Daily Mail spectres of invading foreign hordes.
Yet even as she rejected it, May recognised the benefits of the single market, sought continued, frictionless, access to it, and lamely admitted that we will all be the poorer for being outside it. What kind of leadership is this? Such self-contradictory thinking would give Descartes a headache. The same applies to her Through the Looking Glass “customs partnership” wheeze that, she said, would “mirror EU requirements”. If she means future customs arrangements will be reversed, back to front and inside out, she may well be right. What a nightmare of red tape is now in prospect from those who promised a liberating bonfire on the cliffs of Dover and will create, instead, a giant lorry-park.
Bowing to Brussels, May accepted that post-Brexit Britain would be obliged to observe EU-approved regulatory standards. She agreed with Michel Barnier that competition rules must remain unchanged, to ensure a level playing field. She confessed that, thanks to her, the City of London would lose valuable passporting rights. And she offered to pay cash to stay in selected EU agencies while surrendering any overall say in how the EU is run.
May has made previous, reluctant concessions to reality. One is that Britain must pay a large divorce bill fixed by Brussels. Another is that the rights of EU citizens must be upheld during the post-2019 transition. On Friday, her unsustainable position was further exposed to the hard light of day. After all that noisome backbench huffing and puffing about sovereignty and the diktats of foreign judges, May agreed that the European court of justice will continue to have a significant role.
Even this prime minister’s special talent for delusional politics cannot conceal the fact that she still has no real clue how to avoid a hard border with the Republic of Ireland. A few cameras and a trusted trader scheme will simply not hack it when the other 27 EU members come to consider their security, migration and trade rules. Nor is there much reason to believe that they will agree a bespoke, pick-and-mix free-trading arrangement that has never been tried and undermines existing practice. Even if they were willing, there is not enough time left before the guillotine falls next March.
When May said she wanted to be “straight” with people and that Britain had to face the “hard facts” of Brexit, it seems she was talking first and foremost to herself. For her, finally, it was wake-up time. This sudden dawn of pragmatic realism is welcome. But at this point a basic question becomes unavoidable: what on earth is she trying to achieve? Given the emerging shape of this unfavourable, damaging and overly complex “EU lite” deal, is Brexit, as now envisaged, really worth the trouble? Better, perhaps, to admit we made a mistake in 2016 and humbly ask for time to reconsider.
And now he turns on the Irish.shereblue wrote:.
What sort of inadequates have to hope for bad things for their nearest neighbours? They should turn this wannabee schadenfreude on their own little disunited union.
Practical, ambitious, flexible, detailed.c69 wrote:May on AM now. She really doesn't do well in interviews and is coming across terribly with her Mr Bean like gurns.
camroc1 wrote:You'd swear the Brits hadn't stuck two fingers up to the rest of the EU and said " See you, we're leaving".
c69 wrote:Mr Bean like gurns
And we just will ignore now who the official opposition are in Germany.In more positive news for our near neighbours, I see that there is to be a Grand Coalition with Merkel re-assuming her chancellorship. I appreciate this will be a cause for dismay for those who seem to be alleging, almost revelling, in havoc for Europhile centrist parties being created by fascist parties.
Great tip and just in time for lunchtime.SamShark wrote:I hate this political thing of claiming you've "set out" something when actually you haven't been that clear and don't want to say any more.
Who first used this phrase - it's sounds a bit Blair?
Nobody uses that in real life?
"What time will you be home from the pub?"
"I've set out my approach to leaving the pub"
"But what time?"
"As I said, I've already set this out"
Shamefully, I use it in briefings on policy or regulatory mattersSamShark wrote:I hate this political thing of claiming you've "set out" something when actually you haven't been that clear and don't want to say any more.
Who first used this phrase - it's sounds a bit Blair?
Nobody uses that in real life?
"What time will you be home from the pub?"
"I've set out my approach to leaving the pub"
"But what time?"
"As I said, I've already set this out"
SamShark wrote:I hate this political thing of claiming you've "set out" something when actually you haven't been that clear and don't want to say any more.
Who first used this phrase - it's sounds a bit Blair?
Nobody uses that in real life?
"What time will you be home from the pub?"
"I've set out my approach to leaving the pub"
"But what time?"
"As I said, I've already set this out"
Those technological solutions May is talking about would probably need to use a Telco network to get back to servers doing the checks in real time.Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs Simon Coveney has said Theresa May’s plan to ensure the continuation of a soft border could be rejected by the European Union.
The British Prime Minister has committed to leaving the EU customs union which guarantees tariff-free trade, but insists a hard border can be avoided through technological solutions and placing no new restrictions on the 80% of cross-frontier trade carried out by smaller businesses.
However, Minister Coveney told BBC One's The Andrew Marr Show he was "not sure that the European Union will be able to support" the plan, as it would be worried about protecting the integrity of the single market.
"While of course we will explore and look at all of the proposed British solutions, they are essentially a starting point in negotiations as opposed to an end point," he said.
Mr Coveney said if agreement cannot be reached during talks between the UK, Ireland and the European Commission, the backstop plan of full British alignment with customs union and single market rules that Mrs May "committed clearly" to in December would have to be put in place.
In a Brexit speech on Friday, Mrs May rejected "unacceptable" EU proposals to retain customs union arrangements in Northern Ireland, but accepted the UK's "responsibility" to help maintain a soft border - spelling out in detail how she believed this could be achieved by technological means or through a broader trade agreement.
But Mr Coveney said: "This isn't a question of either side wanting to put up borders, but if you have to protect a functioning single market, just the same way Britain wants to protect its own single market, well then you have to understand that if goods move from one customs union to another then there needs to be some checks unless there is some mechanism that is negotiated and put in place that prevents that."
He said the Irish Government is seeking a "better solution" that applies to all the UK and so the trade that occurs today can be maintained.
He added: "Brexit was not the choice of the Irish people, it was the choice of the British people, so there is responsibility that the impact of Brexit on its neighbours is managed."
Mrs May said she was pleased that Taoiseach Leo Varadkar had agreed to form the three-way talks to look at her proposals.
She declined to defend Boris Johnson's comparison of the border to crossing between London congestion zones in Camden and Islington, but insisted both of them are "absolutely clear" that there will not be a hard border.
"We've got proposals as to how we're going to achieve that, now we're going to be able to sit down and talk with others about how we're going to do that," Mrs May said.
And, to prove my point, you resurrect a post of mine from last year on another topic which has very little to do with the current exchange to put forward more whataboutery. Good stuff.bimboman wrote:Rinkals wrote:I played cricket against a few, too.Gospel wrote:Good lads too, I used to go fly fishing with a few.bimboman wrote:I'll,acknowledge the reality that is the miracle of British policing, and the amazingly low incidents of tragic errors they make, especially with their armed units.
At the post-match drinks, I remember a copper regaling us with a story about how he fitted up a drug dealer. When I questioned him about this he said "Look, we only fit up people who are guilty, obviously." Obviously.
Good lads.
Serious stuff rinkals , serious stuff.
Oh and "devalues the process "
Rinkals wrote:And, to prove my point, you resurrect a post of mine from last year on another topic which has very little to do with the current exchange to put forward more whataboutery. Good stuff.bimboman wrote:Rinkals wrote:I played cricket against a few, too.Gospel wrote:Good lads too, I used to go fly fishing with a few.bimboman wrote:I'll,acknowledge the reality that is the miracle of British policing, and the amazingly low incidents of tragic errors they make, especially with their armed units.
At the post-match drinks, I remember a copper regaling us with a story about how he fitted up a drug dealer. When I questioned him about this he said "Look, we only fit up people who are guilty, obviously." Obviously.
Good lads.
Serious stuff rinkals , serious stuff.
Oh and "devalues the process "
Yes. the topic is serious, and deserves to be debated in an honest way, not just incessant frivolous point scoring.
Rinkals wrote:Yes.bimboman wrote:Rinkals wrote:I played cricket against a few, too.Gospel wrote:Good lads too, I used to go fly fishing with a few.bimboman wrote:I'll,acknowledge the reality that is the miracle of British policing, and the amazingly low incidents of tragic errors they make, especially with their armed units.
At the post-match drinks, I remember a copper regaling us with a story about how he fitted up a drug dealer. When I questioned him about this he said "Look, we only fit up people who are guilty, obviously." Obviously.
Good lads.
In the UK ?
It is the treatment from a wide array of people who really ought to know better of all EU brexit prouncements as completely impartial, judicial empirical fact as opposed to negotiating positions from a player with vested interests that really grates me.Gospel wrote:They are just so breathtakingly arrogant. I have genuinely been amazed by the rhetoric from the Eurocrats at times. Perhaps the optics play well in the various European capitals but I suspect it's more a case of grandstanding to the devout.
This must be a small group of people you're referring to or a misinterpretation.croyals wrote:It is the treatment from a wide array of people who really ought to know better of all EU brexit prouncements as completely impartial, judicial empirical fact as opposed to negotiating positions from a player with vested interests that really grates me.Gospel wrote:They are just so breathtakingly arrogant. I have genuinely been amazed by the rhetoric from the Eurocrats at times. Perhaps the optics play well in the various European capitals but I suspect it's more a case of grandstanding to the devout.
I thought there would be divisions within the EU about this even up to December but thus far they have stayed together and stayed cohesive.SamShark wrote:This must be a small group of people you're referring to or a misinterpretation.croyals wrote:It is the treatment from a wide array of people who really ought to know better of all EU brexit prouncements as completely impartial, judicial empirical fact as opposed to negotiating positions from a player with vested interests that really grates me.Gospel wrote:They are just so breathtakingly arrogant. I have genuinely been amazed by the rhetoric from the Eurocrats at times. Perhaps the optics play well in the various European capitals but I suspect it's more a case of grandstanding to the devout.
"Project fear" clearly stated that the EU wouldn't be reasonable and impartial. They would ensure they didn't make leaving look attractive and have their own red lines.
The supposed come back to that was "so what, our hand is strong so they will back down".
This is the same as the suggestion that "Oh so Britain can't cherry pick but the EU can?" which again is disingenuous. Anyone can cherry pick if they are able to. If they can't, they can't.
I'm more than happy for Britain to have our cake and eat it, but it was clear that wasn't on the cards which we see again with May's latest speech, where after bloody months of internal bickering, she's encouraging people to hear some hard truths
Lets put it on record again; the EU has ideologues and people who don't want Brexit to succeed. They are cut from the same cloth as Liam Fox and Rees Mogg probably, despite having polar opposite views about the EU.
The EU have vested interests but so far unity. We have vested interests and disunity and disagreement. Surely you don't disagree?
SamShark wrote:
Lets put it on record again; the EU has ideologues and people who don't want Brexit to succeed. They are cut from the same cloth as Liam Fox and Rees Mogg probably, despite having polar opposite views about the EU.
The EU have vested interests but so far unity. We have vested interests and disunity and disagreement. Surely you don't disagree?