[boogers]

About the Trump article: i accept that the locals had problems with that sea wall because of the locals' access to the beach but the rare snail stuff was something typical of the EU's environmental attitude lol ofc it's impossible to decide if that wall would have wiped out that species or even decimated its numbers.

No, it isn't. Further, it's not as if Ireland doesn't have it's own conservation laws. The whole thing appears to just be a big fat lie from the mental lightweight.

Anyway, here's a source for you, you were asking for it so much, maybe will dig up more later, so here the minister is talking about EU environmental regulations which are impossible to comply with and other messy and shady things the EU is responsible for, use google translator on the page and here's an excerpt too:

I don't speak Hungarian, and Google translate does not produce intelligible results. You're also appear to be straying into agricultural policy, which is a distinct and different subject.

I was mostly interested in whether you had any actual real knowledge on the subject, or if you were just aping talking points you'd heard elsewhere.

You see the EU itself is revising its rules, that's a proof in itself that they are bad..

I think that rules and regulations being updated as practices change and knowledge is acquired is a good thing.

[boogers]

Evidence?

Simple: the EU Habitats Directive states that permission or continuation of activity on a protected site is allowable if the licensing body has made certain that it will not adversely affect the integrity of that site, and that: 'That is the case where no reasonable scientific doubt remains as to the absence of such effects'

Those are some of the problems businessmen/farmers are facing HERE, so that's what i can confirm too and it's well sourced, i could make a better translation but imo it's quite clear to most (those who really attempt to make sense of the google translation) what's in that article.

Doesn't demonstrate that the rules are irrational. For example, treating sewage can cause problems, but that doesn't mean that we should relax the rules and pump raw effluent into the nearest river.

So far you've failed to demonstrate that the rules you've cited are irrational, or that they are anti growth. This pretty sad, because there are a few EU laws and regulations which fit those criteria, even if the body of legislation itself is rational and not anti-growth.

[boogers]

That's not evidence that the seawall would have killed the snails and you yourself stated that it wasn't cause of the EU Trump stopped the project. (Even though in a post before you said the opposite.)

You said:

it's impossible to decide if that wall would have wiped out that species or even decimated its numbers.

In the context of this conversation - whether a development is permitted where protected species exist - I think it's quite clear: yes, it's possible to decide if that the wall would have "wiped out that species" or not.

You kinda keep contradicting yourself

I don't.

you also accused Trump of lying when it's obvious it was for a mix or reasons he stopped building the wall. Oh wait, now comes the part you didn't accuse him cause you added very smartly "appears to be" to lying.

Trump said this:

I own a big property in Ireland, magnificent property called Doonbeg. What happened is I went for an approval to do this massive, beautiful expansion — that was when I was a developer, now I couldn’t care less about it . . . but I learnt a lot because . . . they were using environmental tricks to stop a project from being built. I found it to be a very unpleasant experience. To get the approvals from the EU would have taken years.

This is prima facie a lie. Another lie: that approvals have to be got from the EU. They don't.

As you said what's "rational" is subjective in many cases, and the debate here wasn't about whether they were "irrational" or not, however, you're not right that I didn't demonstrate they were anti-growth

 

The debate here was very much about if they were irrational.

You said:

The EU has some totally irrational rules for environmental, etc protection and it's anti-growth for real.

This is what I said to stat this conversation:

Care to name some irrational EU environmental protection rules?

rules that are killing businesses with no good or outright ridiculous reasons are bad and anti-growth. That article's is just one good source and it demonstrates perfectly what lots of people feel in many countries about the EU and many of its regulations.... Also that the EU is dancing back cause they failed. The article said they were dancing back cause they admitted they were unfair and bad, and therefore anti-growth. The EU leadership is failing so hard......

This is just nonsense. You have not demonstrated that EU regulations are anti-growth. Indeed, harmonisation of rules and regulations across the single market actually reduces the overall regulatory burden.

Now gotta do stuff will be back to say some words about Trump and Russia.

Nah, don't bother. This isn't working out very well for you.

[boogers]

The one this isn't working out well for is you:

You said:
You didn't say anything like because he thought that or that he lied that.  It's like you said the EU was in involved but then danced back to say he lied about it lol

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. It's a paraphrasing of what Trump said: that he dislikes the EU because it's environmental protection laws prevented him from a property development.

Maybe paraphrasing is one of those linguistic devices - like sarcasm - that you're not able to cope with?

So looks like the bureaucrats there too, just like here, care more about the snails washed out than the people washed out?

 

Do you think environmental protection is ever worthwhile?

Irrational like "save the geese and let the people starve to death"

Stop inventing strawmen. Just admit that you were wrong - again - and move on.

About Russia, Trump is again right, like look at the mainstream western media: Russia is dangerous, you have to fear Russia, they will attack lol.

Another strawman. The concern with Russia isn't that they'll necessarily invade anyone (though the Estonians, Poles and Latvians are pretty worried), but that they are actively working to politically destabilise the West. Given that this is a stated Russian objective, I don't think it's too contentious.

[boogers]

Phil are you suggesting Trump is anti-EU because of the property stuff or that simply a contributing factor to his established pro-Brexit and anti-EU rhetoric?

It's Trump. Who knows. He himself probably doesn't know. How established is his "pro-Brexit and anti-EU rhetoric"? The snail thing seems to have been rumbling on since early 2016. The earliest stuff I can find about Trump not liking the EU is from around May, which is when his expansion plan at Doonbeg first hit the rocks.

[Mark]

Whatever the reason(s), hopefully it will turn out to be a net benefit for a post-Brexit UK and with NATO left alone. Mattis seems very pro-NATO at least.

[PompousPitchforkPeasant]

We went over this last time, when you tried to make silly claims about Russian investment into Hungary. Probably best not to retread old ground. It didn't end well for you then, it's unlikely to do so again.

?

About the Poles "welcoming" the NATO troops is that a joke?  all EU countries are "welcoming" NATO troops all the time, especially countries like poland, my country too is participating in all of the NATO projects, it's bringing some little $ to these countries and also good for our military, that doesn't mean we have fear of Russia or anything like that, it's politics, NATO or US representatives go to Poland, polish politicians: ofc Russia's making us tremble, so good you guys are here. that doesn't mean the population or the politicians themselves have real worries about Russia. Same for my country too, the population and the politicians are positively anti-american and russia friendly but when USA or just nato peeps come here they are always brownnosing them. It's called politics and diplomacy.

What Russian investment are you talking about that didn't end well for me? I won all those debates even though i don't know which one you're talking about specifically. If the nuke plant first you said that it was against environmental rules but after some further reading you said that in the end they found it was not against the rules. What i stated was that (and it's a case i kept following for long months) the EU wanted to kill this project with a million little tricks and and with all kinds of excuses not just environmental ones but in the end they just fo cause they saw we were going to do it... and it was like that ....

If you're talking about the deals people are doing with Russia i can say only good things about that, Not only entrepreneurs i know but me, my family and friends are doing business with Russia too and it's great to work with those trustworthy Russian people.

So that's just fear-mongering about russia, you guys really jump on all those liberal fear-mongering articles like candy. Like when there was the Ita voting Althusser was talking about Ita exit, you also said it was very worrying ,  i said  gf voted no too and she's pro eu and she knows what she's doing and ofc i was right and nothing serious happened, i was right then too. So don't listen to the fear-mongers,

No gotta bolt for a while cu....