Planet Rugby Forum

pandion wrote:

Caley_Red wrote:

bimboman wrote:

Mick Mannock wrote:

bimboman wrote:Breaking:

Italian president refuses to accept appointment of finance minister. Back to the polls for the Italians. Danger is more no forza involvement in future government at all.

Refused to accept a Eurosceptic?

Yip. The next election will play very very badly for Italy now.

I understand it is within the President's remit but it is highly unconventional and he's put his foot right in it with his justification: "I asked for... an authoritative person from the parliamentary majority who is consistent with the government programme... who isn't seen as a supporter of a line that could probably, or even inevitably, provoke Italy's exit from the euro"

Only adds to the narrative of 'Elites vs the People'.

For what it's worth, an unelected figurehead blocking a cabinet appointment whilst trying to shoehorn some grey ex-IMF bureaucrat into the role is pretty unedifying for Italian democracy (and it's seen some dark days recently. . Mario Monty anyone?).

Talk of large street protests this week. I can see this getting very emotional

village wrote:Of course the Italian president has every constitutional right to reject the appointment. Unfortunately for Mattarella, the Italian parliament has the right to impeach him for it if they can get the votes (and with 5* and Legia working together they may well have the votes).

The contempt of democracy among the Eurocrats will be the cancer that brings the whole EU edifice down eventually.

village wrote:Of course the Italian president has every constitutional right to reject the appointment. Unfortunately for Mattarella, the Italian parliament has the right to impeach him for it if they can get the votes (and with 5* and Legia working together they may well have the votes).

The contempt of democracy among the Eurocrats will be the cancer that brings the whole EU edifice down eventually.

bimboman wrote:

village wrote:Of course the Italian president has every constitutional right to reject the appointment. Unfortunately for Mattarella, the Italian parliament has the right to impeach him for it if they can get the votes (and with 5* and Legia working together they may well have the votes).

The contempt of democracy among the Eurocrats will be the cancer that brings the whole EU edifice down eventually.

Well it appears that he will impose a technocrat govt until Dec and they'll have a new vote. Nothing to see here.

camroc1 wrote:

bimboman wrote:

village wrote:Of course the Italian president has every constitutional right to reject the appointment. Unfortunately for Mattarella, the Italian parliament has the right to impeach him for it if they can get the votes (and with 5* and Legia working together they may well have the votes).

The contempt of democracy among the Eurocrats will be the cancer that brings the whole EU edifice down eventually.

Well it appears that he will impose a technocrat govt until Dec and they'll have a new vote. Nothing to see here.

That will be the 66th, or 67th Italian government since the foundation of the modern Italian Republic in 1946.

So no change there then.

Plato'sCave wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -eu-brexit

The chancellor, Philip Hammond, has warned that the UK will build its own satellite navigation system to rival the European Union’s €10bn Galileo project if Brussels carries out its threat to block access.

The Man Without Fear wrote:Wasn't that the argument used against pirate radio stations?

La soule wrote:http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-44274022

Seams like fair expectations from the food and farming sector.

bimboman wrote: , is someone seriously arguing that we can’t have a GPS system of
Our own because the world has to approve a frequency and they’re running out?

Take a bow, that’s the stupidest thing posted on this thread to date .

bimboman wrote:

The Man Without Fear wrote:Wasn't that the argument used against pirate radio stations?

You’re kidding right ?

Pirate radio met with increasing opposition, especially from the authorities in the form of the Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications (MPT) Radio Regulatory Division (and later the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) after it became responsible for radio regulation) which had claimed since the late 1960s that pirate radio caused interference to licensed broadcasters and could interfere with frequencies used by emergency services.

camroc1 wrote:

La soule wrote:http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-44274022

Seams like fair expectations from the food and farming sector.

Have you read this ?

https://www.rte.ie/news/analysis-and-co ... tain-food/

Another vital point notes: "It seems unavoidable that in either a ‘deal’ or ‘no deal’ scenario, Brexit will result in some additional border checks and documentation requirements for food imported from the EU to the UK.

"These will increase the time it takes for food to reach shop shelves and result in additional costs to businesses, which may be passed on to consumers through food price rises".

Error loading player:
Network error
The Lords also note that EU businesses exporting food to non-EU countries face various non-tariff barriers before their product leaves the EU, such as veterinary certificates.

Post-Brexit, EU businesses – including Irish businesses – that want to export food to the UK will encounter these additional barriers for the first time.

An example from a KPMG report for the Dutch government – getting the necessary veterinary certificates to export meat products to a non-EU country (as Britain will soon be) costs between €130 and €725 per shipment.

La soule wrote:

camroc1 wrote:

La soule wrote:http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-44274022

Seams like fair expectations from the food and farming sector.

Have you read this ?

https://www.rte.ie/news/analysis-and-co ... tain-food/

I am sure Bimbo will find a way to use cameras to sort that little non-problem out

bimboman wrote:

La soule wrote:

camroc1 wrote:

La soule wrote:http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-44274022

Seams like fair expectations from the food and farming sector.

Have you read this ?

https://www.rte.ie/news/analysis-and-co ... tain-food/

I am sure Bimbo will find a way to use cameras to sort that little non-problem out

We don't pay the costs. The EU either competes or lowers its stupid internal charges. We care very little.

The Man Without Fear wrote:

bimboman wrote:

The Man Without Fear wrote:Wasn't that the argument used against pirate radio stations?

You’re kidding right ?

Nope.

Pirate radio met with increasing opposition, especially from the authorities in the form of the Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications (MPT) Radio Regulatory Division (and later the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) after it became responsible for radio regulation) which had claimed since the late 1960s that pirate radio caused interference to licensed broadcasters and could interfere with frequencies used by emergency services.

Source: Wikipedia

La soule wrote:

bimboman wrote:

La soule wrote:

camroc1 wrote:

La soule wrote:http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-44274022

Seams like fair expectations from the food and farming sector.

Have you read this ?

https://www.rte.ie/news/analysis-and-co ... tain-food/

I am sure Bimbo will find a way to use cameras to sort that little non-problem out

We don't pay the costs. The EU either competes or lowers its stupid internal charges. We care very little.

Sure you don't. Way to kill off an industry and end up eating shit.

Congratulations.

bimboman wrote:
That makes no sense. None . If we are going to pay "more"importing then our internal market blossoms the article says we will pay more.

bimboman wrote:

The Man Without Fear wrote:

bimboman wrote:

The Man Without Fear wrote:Wasn't that the argument used against pirate radio stations?

You’re kidding right ?

Nope.

Pirate radio met with increasing opposition, especially from the authorities in the form of the Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications (MPT) Radio Regulatory Division (and later the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) after it became responsible for radio regulation) which had claimed since the late 1960s that pirate radio caused interference to licensed broadcasters and could interfere with frequencies used by emergency services.

Source: Wikipedia

Sorry I was referring to the comparison of pirate radio and a Global Positioning System run in the billions by the British state. Well you've certainly made a play for more stupid than the post about needing the congos permission at the UN for the UK to operate a positioning system. Well done.

mikerob wrote:

bimboman wrote: , is someone seriously arguing that we can’t have a GPS system of
Our own because the world has to approve a frequency and they’re running out?

Take a bow, that’s the stupidest thing posted on this thread to date .

The clue is in the name: GLOBAL positioning system. So yes, the world needs to approve the frequencies used (assuming the U.K. wants a system that works all over the world rather than just telling a squaddy exactly where they are in Aldershot)

And yes, frequencies are running out. Laws of physics mean there is only a relatively narrow range that can be used for this type of application.

Here is some background https://www.itu.int/newsarchive/wrc2000 ... lileo.html

I’f you have any questions about the technology I’ll do my best to explain it because you clearly don’t have a clue about it.

haunch wrote:Ha so when the south americans or africans fancy having their own gps capabilities in the future well just say 'tough shit we were here first' and they'll just eat it. A likely story.

bimboman wrote: , the EU had to beg the Americans in 2003 regarding the frequency they were using. And that's the only conversation the British will need to have. And again on your interpretation of the link you posted , you're a wonder.

mikerob wrote:

bimboman wrote: , is someone seriously arguing that we can’t have a GPS system of
Our own because the world has to approve a frequency and they’re running out?

Take a bow, that’s the stupidest thing posted on this thread to date .

The clue is in the name: GLOBAL positioning system. So yes, the world needs to approve the frequencies used (assuming the U.K. wants a system that works all over the world rather than just telling a squaddy exactly where they are in Aldershot)

And yes, frequencies are running out. Laws of physics mean there is only a relatively narrow range that can be used for this type of application.

Here is some background https://www.itu.int/newsarchive/wrc2000 ... lileo.html

I’f you have any questions about the technology I’ll do my best to explain it because you clearly don’t have a clue about it.

DragsterDriver wrote:I don’t think food will be a problem, there’s going to be a surplus from Ireland owing to the 19hr queues at dover trying to reach mainland Europe.

mikerob wrote:

bimboman wrote: , the EU had to beg the Americans in 2003 regarding the frequency they were using. And that's the only conversation the British will need to have. And again on your interpretation of the link you posted , you're a wonder.

Posting lols doesn’t cover up how clueless you are on this subject. The EU didn’t beg the US for frequency. The Americans decided they weren’t going to request new bands but consolidate use of their existing L5 band which made it easier for the EU to get new frequencies for Gailleo, however there were still significant technical barriers to overcome.

If you think the Americans are simply going to hand over their frequencies then god bless your innocence...

shaggy wrote:

mikerob wrote:

bimboman wrote: , is someone seriously arguing that we can’t have a GPS system of
Our own because the world has to approve a frequency and they’re running out?

Take a bow, that’s the stupidest thing posted on this thread to date .

The clue is in the name: GLOBAL positioning system. So yes, the world needs to approve the frequencies used (assuming the U.K. wants a system that works all over the world rather than just telling a squaddy exactly where they are in Aldershot)

And yes, frequencies are running out. Laws of physics mean there is only a relatively narrow range that can be used for this type of application.

Here is some background https://www.itu.int/newsarchive/wrc2000 ... lileo.html

I’f you have any questions about the technology I’ll do my best to explain it because you clearly don’t have a clue about it.

You even dumbed it down by using GPS instead of GNSS.

bimboman wrote:

mikerob wrote:

bimboman wrote: , is someone seriously arguing that we can’t have a GPS system of
Our own because the world has to approve a frequency and they’re running out?

Take a bow, that’s the stupidest thing posted on this thread to date .

The clue is in the name: GLOBAL positioning system. So yes, the world needs to approve the frequencies used (assuming the U.K. wants a system that works all over the world rather than just telling a squaddy exactly where they are in Aldershot)

And yes, frequencies are running out. Laws of physics mean there is only a relatively narrow range that can be used for this type of application.

Here is some background https://www.itu.int/newsarchive/wrc2000 ... lileo.html

I’f you have any questions about the technology I’ll do my best to explain it because you clearly don’t have a clue about it.

You're 18 year old link was superseded 2 years later when after American threats Galelio changed its frequency requests, they seemed to agree that with the Americans and not the telecoms Union ...

Tell me more about the "tricky" negotiations through the 1990's , while Galelio wasn't born until 1999. You're a bluffer. If I need any technical information I'll speak to a good friend who has worked on the development of new frequencies for the military. I just textedhwr, she says there's 1,000's of frequencies available.

bimboman wrote:

mikerob wrote:

bimboman wrote: , the EU had to beg the Americans in 2003 regarding the frequency they were using. And that's the only conversation the British will need to have. And again on your interpretation of the link you posted , you're a wonder.

Posting lols doesn’t cover up how clueless you are on this subject. The EU didn’t beg the US for frequency. The Americans decided they weren’t going to request new bands but consolidate use of their existing L5 band which made it easier for the EU to get new frequencies for Gailleo, however there were still significant technical barriers to overcome.

If you think the Americans are simply going to hand over their frequencies then god bless your innocence...

Sorry tell us more about the UN and the 1990's where the unannounced Galalio made representations and had tough negotiations ?

And yes they ended up being blocked by the Americans in 2002 , the Europeans changed their frequencies.

Are you also saying that in 18 years there's no new frequencies and that the UK don't own lots of them ?

mikerob wrote:

bimboman wrote:

mikerob wrote:

bimboman wrote: , the EU had to beg the Americans in 2003 regarding the frequency they were using. And that's the only conversation the British will need to have. And again on your interpretation of the link you posted , you're a wonder.

Posting lols doesn’t cover up how clueless you are on this subject. The EU didn’t beg the US for frequency. The Americans decided they weren’t going to request new bands but consolidate use of their existing L5 band which made it easier for the EU to get new frequencies for Gailleo, however there were still significant technical barriers to overcome.

If you think the Americans are simply going to hand over their frequencies then god bless your innocence...

Sorry tell us more about the UN and the 1990's where the unannounced Galalio made representations and had tough negotiations ?

And yes they ended up being blocked by the Americans in 2002 , the Europeans changed their frequencies.

Are you also saying that in 18 years there's no new frequencies and that the UK don't own lots of them ?

Galileo subsumed 3 previous projects (L-SATNAV, M-SATNAV and E-GNSS).

The U.K. frequency allocation is in the splendidly titled U.K. FAT (frequency allocation table) but there is a difference between frequencies allocated for domestic terrestrial or regional satellites compared to a global satellite network and the U.K. simply doesn’t have global frequencies ready to use for a GPS, GLONASS or Galileo competitor.

bimboman wrote:

We don't have any satalites up there yet either, we will develop both if we have too. And there's plenty of capability in house for that.