1 minute ago, bangsaenguy said:

Maybe you should go to Bangkok sometimes. Tuktuk scams everywhere. I am no fool, just seen enough jewelry stores as suggested by many drivers

"Grand Palace closed today. I take you see temple for free."

12 minutes ago, GinBoy2 said:

So, regardless of quarantines, PCR tests, whatever.

 

Try to get inside the head of an average tourist, and exclude the sexpests or those trying to return to families.

 

The real tourists have experienced economic turmoil we haven't seen in any of our lifetimes. Young families with kids trying to juggle work and home schooling for their kids, it's frikkin tough. Plus there is an element of fear. People aren't flying domestic 1-2 hour flights!

 

I just don't see those folks saying, "hey lets take the kids on an 18 hour flight to Thailand"

 

I just read a news report form our tourism agency, that visitors to South Dakota dropped by 13% YoY, but still managed to pull in 12M visitors, a lot better than many others.

But that I think is because it's a wilderness vacation which gave visitors relative confidence, and you can drive!

 

I work for Delta and we're still seeing domestic load factors around 50%, so folks still ain't flying.

 

Wait to see what the 2021 European & NA summer domestic tourism season for both visitor numbers and airline passengers before making any bold predictions about long haul vacations to Thailand 

Thailand isn't really a family destination. People didn't want to take their kids on an 18 hour flight before covid, either. Older and retired couples like Thailand for the weather, then you have the backpackers, young couples with no kids and groups of friends. Not many people bring their kids.

38 minutes ago, Disparate Dan said:

Isn't it high time to just shut up about tourism? You'd think that was the only casualty of this panic. Yeah, 9 percent of GDP comes from foreign tourists, but the vast majority of Thais (and expats living here) don't see anything from that and care less about missing out on coachloads of [deleted] tourists getting in everyone's way. Round our way, no-one wants mass tourism back.

Moreover, any of this hot air about letting people in with vaccinations is fiction unless/until IATA and "governments" agree on and implement a workable certification process. Only yesterday Europol had to issue a warning about "organised crime gangs selling fake Covid-negative certificates at airports, sometimes for as much as 300 euros each" after several people were caught at airports. Until there's a better system than handing over 250 baht just off KSR, all bets are off even for bona fide travellers, let alone largely unwelcome "tourists".

This forum is full of "I'm alright jack" characters who are already living in Thailand, and don't like having "competition" from the two-week millionaires.

4 hours ago, 7by7 said:

  

How could I deny something which exists? I am not a Brexiteer!

 

As for your example; I will deny it because it is not a benefit of Brexit. It could just as easily have happened if Brexit was still a Farage pipedream.

 

When the UK MHRA first gave temporary authorisation to the supply of specific batches of Pfizer and BioNTech’s vaccine on 2 December 2020 we were still in the transition period and subject to all EU rules and regulations; including those governing the authorisation of medicines.

 

The government used the existing EU rules which allow emergency authorisation of human medicines. 

 

If you don't believe me, maybe you'll believe the BMJ: Vaccinating the UK: how the covid vaccine was approved, and other questions answered

 

As first pointed out by @vinny41 in this post, the Inclusive Vaccine Alliance countries of Germany, France, Italy, and the Netherlands were taking combined similar action to the UK until they agreed to join with the rest of the EU 27 and hand over control to the Commission.

 

Note that, as I say here, this was not, as vinny41 suggests, due to any instruction or demand or pressure from the Commission, but a voluntarily entered into agreement at the suggestion of the German Chancellor. 

 

Now, do you have a real example of a benefit to the UK of Brexit?

 

As I expected. There will never be any benefit created by Brexit that you will accept, so why ask for one?

Never mind the details of how the Commission took over the EU vaccination programme, just look at the results. A disaster for all 27 EU countries. And you believe that the UK would have been completely unaffected by the EU's blunders if they had remained full members?

The Guardian published a good article called "'We had to go it alone': how the UK got ahead in the Covid vaccine race". It helpfully explains, in detail, exactly why Brexit led to the UK's successful vaccination plan.

Quote

 

With Brexit looming, the UK drew huge criticism for declining to join EU schemes to purchase PPE and ventilators. There was also growing pressure to join a joint EU procurement plan for vaccines, and to put aside the Brexit rhetoric.

 

But Brussels’ demands were eye-watering: the UK, unlike EU member states, would not be able to take part in the governance of the scheme, including the steering group or the negotiating team.

Britain would have no say in what vaccines to procure, at what price or in what quantity, and for what delivery schedule. There would be no side-deals possible.

 

British officials were not convinced. “We had to go it alone,” said a UK source. “There was nothing there for us.” By the time a special UK vaccine taskforce was created in April, the seeds of a successful strategy had been sown.

 

You can argue that the successful vaccination programme was an unintended consequence of Brexit - but it was still a consequence.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/jan/29/we-had-to-go-it-alone-how-the-uk-got-ahead-in-the-covid-vaccine-race

4 hours ago, 7by7 said:

 

Obviously; because you cannot find a single positive to say about Brexit!

 

If you could you wouldn't be making pathetic excuses for saying nothing, you'd be broadcasting it from the rooftops. 

What would be the point in providing you with "a positive thing about Brexit"? No matter how obvious the benefit was, you would flatly deny that it existed. Allow me to demonstrate:

"Being out of the EU has allowed the UK to vaccinate its population against COVID more quickly than any EU country"

Now you can deny it and declare yourself "the winner".

1 hour ago, sandyf said:

Not trying to justify anything, just highlighting the hypocrisy.

Three weeks ago the DUP were demanding Article 16 was used and Bojo stood in the House and said he would have no hesitation in using it if necessary.

Fast forward and when the EU suggests something similar the hypocrisy flows forth from UK politicians. If Arlene Foster sees Article 16 as an act of hostility then she must accept the same label in respect of her own actions.

Article 16 is not selective, the outcome is the same irrespective of why.

I would suggest that the decision to backtrack was a result of the Irish and EU politicians, rather than anything the UK had to say.

There's a huge difference between talking about the possibility of doing something (invoking Article 16), and actually doing it!

I see you're struggling to form those words "The EU .... got ... that ... wro ..." - nope, you're incapable of saying it ????

3 hours ago, sandyf said:

"Northern Ireland First Minister Arlene Foster described as "an incredible act of hostility" the decision by the EU to invoke Article 16 of the Northern Irish Protocol, which allows Britain or the EU to take unilateral action if there is an unexpected negative effect arising from the agreement."

 

Article 16 should only be used when required....by the DUP.

 

Speaking at a meeting of Westminster’s Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, the DUP’s North Antrim MP said it was time to invoke article 16 of the protocol.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/paisley-calls-for-britain-to-disapply-northern-protocol-due-to-trade-disruption-1.4451671

Predictable attempt from you to justify the EU's actions ????

We'd all respect you more if you were prepared to say "The EU got that wrong".