Saradoc1972

38 minutes ago, fxe1200 said:

First Europe should refrain from all military actions in the Middle East and Africa. Then it would have the right to send those refugees to those countries, which destroy their lands.

That one is totally off the mark. In Syria we got the IS and the Nusra Front (i.e. Al Quaida) trying to grab power for being Sunni, Turkey trying to destabilise Assad by smuggling weapons to the "Sunni-rebels" to re-establish a neo-Osman empire and generally being dicks, Iran being protective of their Shia friends in Syria, and Russia helping Assad to keep him in power. Which already is enough for all out mayhem.

"The West", Europe to a lesser degree, is supplying weapons to "moderate rebels" (they otherwise would not think of touching with a ten-foot-pole) because those are the "lesser evil" with a view to IS and Al-Quaida, and will protect the civilian population from those. Well, and to some part from Assad, whom the west is also trying to keep from committing atrocities against the population. While nobody likes Assad and there are some useless ruminations about any peace deal being only possible without him, he is the lesser evil. And likely to stay because Russia is [expletive] about the West's handling of Libya

As to African countries, the only thing the west is doing there are peace-keeping missions to keep several Sunni "rebel groups", frankly just marauding bands of robbers and murderers, from wrecking, i.e. keep from destroying, Mali and maybe try and re-establish some form of statehood to Somalia. Plus keep the IS from destroying fledgling democratic Tunisia (as far as it goes, don't ask me if it is going to last and if you can indeed build a Sunni state on democracy) and establishing itself in the remnants of Libya. The various "militias" or "rebels" in northern Africa are not the making of the West, but a result firstly of overpopulation in those regions with a war-index of between 4 and 6 (i.e. the young male population multiplying at that rate within a generation and being unable to sustain themselves; which is obviously infeasible without a spare Earth) and only secondly Islam. Algeria for example is more or less fine with a war index of just 2, after a civil war there start of the nineties that was not any better than what we are seeing now in Iran/Iraq, just there was no internet (i.e. there, or broad public access to it in Europe) and corresponding detailed coverage back then.

What the West did, grain of truth there, was bomb Libya to pieces. Question is if Libya would be looking any better now if the West had not done away with the then regime. Europe gets very little Libyan refugees or migrants, as far as I am aware, we only get people travelling through Libya that would otherwise have been prevented from doing so by that nice bad-ass dictator there while we kept him happy. Which to my mind would have been preferable.

Just now, Bogbrush said:

I'm on an OA but rather fancy the idea of a revolving 90 day visa, particularly if it means (which I suppose by definition it does) no 90 reporting and no 800 000 baht commitment. Of course, its cost is important to take into account (I didn't pick this up on any post) but by leaving every 90 days - which personally I feel is often necessary, just to get a break - presumably one avoids the cost of re-entry visas? All in all, not a visa to be summarily dismissed; if it works.

The usual (non-retirement) multiple-entry Non-O might be harder to come by than you think. You cannot get it in the region (i.e. Malaysia or Cambo) unless you are married to a Thai or have kids. They will still require proof of finance, albeit there is no fixed amount of income or assets stipulated. You will be dependent on the discretion of the civil-servant here, who might as well deny you and refer you to the Non-OA. I, personally, am a bit of a special case, which is why I fly under the radar without hassle. You would have to abide by fixed exit-requirements all the time and make all the arrangements for that whether you feel like it at a given time or not.

I don't actually quite get your point, because on the Non-OA you are *allowed* to just do 90-reporting, even online, instead of having to leave the country, you *can* still leave the country holding that Non-OA (I have no experience whether you need a re-entry permit, but the cost for that is not really prohibitive) in which case you don't need 90-day reporting on top. It's easier with your Non-OA, I wish I had that, could skip the visa-run if I am not feeling like I want to do travelling.

Cost for a single-entry Non-O was 80 USD one week ago in Phnom Penh (and you have to go to the embassy or pay for a visa service), cost for a multiple-entry Non-O in Germany is 150 EUR. That is what I am positively aware of. Cost for doing a back-to-back visa-run on a multiple-entry Non-O from Pattaya is between 2,500 and 2,800 Baht including the visa-on-arrival into Cambo (which you would only enter in spirit, it's all handled in no-man's-land), might be preferable to get an e-visa for Cambo instead, keeps the passport clutter-free.

11 minutes ago, ubonjoe said:

They get a 30 day visa exempt entry. But they cannot get a 30 day extension of it since it under a bilateral agreement not the standard visa exempt entry. They are not limited to 2 at land borders like those on the standard visa exempt entry scheme are. They do not qualify to apply for a 15 day visa on arrival and pay a 2000 baht fee for it.

Yes. Just what I am saying. Russians can enter visa-exempt 30 days a time, just with land borders it is limited to two times a year. Can enter after that on visa on arrival on top, for them it would then be 30 days, each. Seen the queues for that at Koh Kong/Hat Yai for myself. I do not know about extensions on visa-exempt entries, but I trust your expertise on that.

(Link [German], from the Thai Embassy, just what I found researching on this yesterday. Very succinct on the topic, look for "Russland", German for Russia)

Clearly states: visa-exempt entries over land or sea borders are limited to two times a years, apart from Malaysians. Full stop. After that, the nine nationalities from Estonia, Liechtenstein, Oman, Poland, Russia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Czech Republic and Hungary can furthermore enter on a visa on arrival over land borders after that. For which different conditions might apply, and which does not directly concern the topic of the OP trying to get a proper tourist visa.

On 4/1/2017 at 0:32 PM, ubonjoe said:

Who told you a official Thai consulate will only issue you a transit visa that allows a 30 day entry that cannot be extended. Official Thai consulates can issue the same visas as an embassy.

Perhaps you are confusing honorary Thai consulates with official consulates.

Little difference, still. Does not concern this topic.

As of mid-August last year, Honorary Consulates world-wide are not allowed to give you Multiple-Entry Non-Immigrant-O visas, (does NOT concern "retirement-visa", Non-O-A) but General Consulates or Embassies still can. The Honorary Consulates have to ask the true embassies for permission to do that, takes up to 4 weeks upon proper application. My little Honorary Consulate in Essen now, upon phoning them just two weeks ago, has threatened to issue me that nice "M" Non-O visa if I supply them with proper documentation some 4 weeks in advance over email, I just will have to announce myself before popping up there mid-June, no appointment, no nothing. Just my usual spaghetti-alle-vongole in that nice pedestrian precinct over the wait, as always.

1 hour ago, ubonjoe said:

Incorrect

Russians get a 30 day visa exempt entry under a bilateral agreement not a visa on arrival. The 15 day visa on arrival is available to those from 19 countries which includes Lithuania. See: http://www.consular.go.th/main/th/customize/62281-Summary-of-Countries-and-Territories-entitled-for.html

 

Yes, fully true. Just our two separate statements do not contradict each other.

Russians could enter 2 times a year over land borders for visa exempt entry worth 30 days each *plus* then get entry to Thailand, as things stand this week, on any number of visa-on-arrival on top, as I stated. Which is more than I could do as a German. For Russians, that would be 30 days of visa-on-arrival each time then, agreed.

As our OP is Lithuanian, the whole visa exempt plus visa-on-arrival business does not concern him, including the possibility of entering Thailand after two land-border crossings lacking a proper visa. Which he appears to be aware of.

Just now, sanemax said:

UK PP holders can extend the VES by 30 days at IO , not sure whether that applies to Lithuanians though 

What's a VES? Visa-exempt entry? OP can't get that being Lithuanian, only get's a 15-day visa on arrival unless applying for a proper visa.

There is no such thing as a 30 days tourist visa, they are all good for 60 days upon entry. The 15 or 30 days are for visa-exempt entries (i.e. *NO* visa, just a stamp, not extendable apart from special cases as in leaving the country within 7 days [so to speak a formality to play nice with immigration and avoid an overstay stamp; and hospitals probably have their own routines dealing with that]) over land-borders or international airports, different lengths of stay depending on nationality. The over land entries presently seem limited to 2 a calendar year and passport for everybody apart from Malaysia. Or at least that is the last thing I read, might come to see the impracticality of this regime.

On top, a list of 9 nationalities, Russians for example, can enter on a visa on arrival (that is a proper visa costing a fee, not just a stamp, just a simpler way of getting a visa), after that. While Lithuania is not on that list because Lithuanians don't get visa-exempt entries as of yet, but can get visa on arrival for 15 days. That can be extended as far as I am aware only in Bangkok, but it's not the kind of visa we are talking about here.

So, for starters, visa-exempt entries, visa on arrival, and proper visa are three very different categories to keep apart.

Tourist visa come in two flavours recently: Single Entry ("S") for one entry within 90 days for a max of 60 days plus possible extension at the discretion of local immigration, or Multiple Entry, where you can come or go as often as you like for 6 months for 60 days+extension per entry. There will, as things stand, be additional costs for visa for the surrounding countries that see the whole visa business as an income source; apart from Malaysia. If you play your cards (and travels) right, you could stay close to 9 months in Thailand on an "M" tourist visa, i.e. you enter on the last day of the validity the visa states (6 months for "M") for a last glorious 60+30 days.

Regrettably, the "M" tourist visa are only issued for nationals of the country the embassy or consulate called upon resides in, they apparently ask for additional paperwork to state you address if your passport is not the right one. A somewhat strange concept for EU-nationals, not being able to do what they do at home in another EU-country, but to my understanding I as a German could not get an "M" visa in, say, Hull, UK.

Anyway, I have never been to Malaysia for the purpose of getting a Thai visa, I get my Non-O from either Germany, or hitherto from Phnom Penh or Savannakhet. Process seems to be always the same at the local "fast-track" embassies and consulates, i.e. you cross up in person one fine morning to submit passport, fee, and documents, maybe get asked for one more copy, then return on the next day in the afternoon to collect your hopefully awarded visa. That is still fast-track because at most embassies or consulates you have to make an appointment and they work on the thing for up to 5 weeks or so.  So, usually, you will always have to spend at least two nights in any of those towns to get that visa. Essen, Germany, is brilliant, no appointments and you only wait for half an hour having lunch to get your passport back with the visa.

For Cambodia I know there are visa-services anywhere in the towns, i.e. Koh Kong just after the border, Sihanoukville and Kampot, who will charge you some 40$ on top of the visa fee (half of it is for the taxi taking your passport here, or so), if any, so your passport and documents travel to Phnom Penh, where the embassy is, not you. Which is fully legal, providing you left Thailand and got your exit-stamp. If you are in Phnom Penh, you might still use a visa-service to spare you the taxi, hassle, and everything. I suppose the same thing exists in Savannakhet or Vientiane(Laos), or Penang, but those cities are exceptions as they are sitting right on the border or have the consulate/embassy plus airport in town, so the services you might buy here are sort of limited in scope.

It's really a calculation of prices for hotels+transportation, and where you want to go; if you want to actually visit a city doing a little tourism. or just want the formalities be over with. E.g. from Koh Kong I would have to travel 6 hours for 8$ on a bus to Phnom Penh and back, get some hotel for at least 2 nights for 25$ or so each, not even a nice one, and some taxis in the city. I have been to Phnom Penh once, not overly interesting after you've done the tourist trail, in Koh Kong I get a decent hotel for 13-15$, so I rather pay the 40$ service fee, stay for 3 nights there, have a shorter way back, no hour-long bus trips, and I don't have to be anywhere in the morning. Or I submit my passport in Koh Kong and do a little travelling with a copy of it. Laos would be 13 hours of a bus-ride from my local Pattaya, which is OK if I split it up and go tourist somewhere in the middle, hotel rates both in Thai and Lao cities round the border are cheap (some 17$), Lao/Cambodia issue visa on arrival for me (think about e-visas: saves a full page of your passport every time, and they won't try to coax some extra money out of you at the border), local expenses are a trifle.

Works for me, might work for you in Penang, which appears to be a bit of a treat because is has an airport with cheap fares from BKK or Phuket, no visa-fees for Malaysia, and the consulate is in town. Take up a little courage here, have your paperwork together, you'll be fine. It's not like you are the only one who needs to do this visa-run business.

Last tip I read here on this forum: have a copy of your proof of finances, i.e. your Lithuanian or Thai bank-account. They apparently don't care for the 20.000 Baht in cash or traveler cheques. So maybe download your bank statement and have this printed out by some local office. It's what I do, though for me things are much different with my steady income from abroad for retirement-purposes sub-50. And you might need proof of a journey out of Thailand at the end of the stay you are applying for, can be a hotel booked somewhere else, do print out proof of payment for it. Have your paperwork together, it's what fills civil servants with feelings of joy-joy.

On 3/31/2017 at 7:01 AM, chuang said:

I doubt he wants to die otherwise he would have chosen a higher building. 

I once witnessed on an obduction of a septuagenarian woman who in a state of dementia (coroner held her brain right under my face to show me the calcified main artery, his kind of humour, but I was sort of interested) had jumped from the first story of the hospital she had been staying in. Effectively died from concussion to one lung that had flooded with blood from an internal hemorrhage. He said, falling over 4 meters onto a hard surface you had to make at least a somewhat half-decent landing or it could be over. Just like that.

On the other hand, a lot of people have survived higher falls with just their legs shattered, but 4 stories of an airport building with a much higher ceiling could translate to well over 10 meters, even 20.

Might be a failure to *read* things. That slip of paper in the packaging is not there because there still was space. Especially in the case of paracetamol, which might likely be what the guy in the article might have been taking for years on end before his renal system gave out, you can notice it says 1000 mg maximum dose, 2000 mg max per day and all sorts of cautionary advice about long term use.

I would not want to have to go to a clinic to buy simple things like paracetamol, here or in Europe, of which I maybe use some 10x500mg per year, a pharmacy is not necessarily giving you more advice. So while there should be a call to make life more complicated, people should be educated about medication, and certainly doctors here about should tone down prescribing a plethora of meds like M&Ms.

I am all in favour of that ruling. The headscarf itself is not all that important to me, but it should be kept out of schools (I don't mind the teachers, but it would give a lot of Arab girls a good excuse), and people have been sued over not employing scarfy-girls, including hairdressers. This ends here and now, somebody has to put the boot down on Muslim encroachments.

It's one of the rare instances I actually do agree with Chancellor Merkel. As in: don't play Erdowahn's game, don't escalate the situation. Be like Teflon, let him drop off. She is really good at being like Teflon, world-class, actually.

Turks are (generally speaking, there's too many of them to be all the same) prone to being nationalistic, very much so. So Erdo plays a game of "we against the rest of the world, all Turks must rally behind me, they are trying to keep us down, despite Turkey being the greatest nation on earth". Sounds familiar, 1933, just wasn't about Turkey.

Germany saw a couple of attempts by Turkish ministers to deliver speeches in Germany to Erdo-adherents over the last two weeks. Just it was not the federal government to fend them off, not even the states, it was the towns, like Gaggenau, on a communal level. German government could, obviously enough, have done the same the Netherlands did, forbid those Turkish officials to enter, fully within international right, but didn't.

Now, those rallying places, like hotels, halls, stadiums had already been booked for months on some pretense, like theater by some Turkish artists, it just did not work out. Bookings got cancelled because the operator was not allowed to host political meetings by its very own statutes, municipalities forbade meetings for lack of sufficient parking spaces, at one location there happened to be a a control by the fire-brigade, and there just weren't enough fire-extinguishers on site. So sad the proprietor apparently was unable to just buy the additional fire-extinguishers in time. Can't really blame federal Germany for strict enforcement of fire-protection regulations by communal legal entities, can you? Well, the big chieftain could, but it was sorta.... inconvincing. If you think those small-towns did not consult with federal ministries before doing what they ultimately did, please inject some additional brain cells.

The Dutch obviously are in a different situation, if you're 4 days before your general election with a popular anti-islamist party breathing down your neck, you have denied some Turkish minister entry, and she still comes.... yeah, there's got to be a limit. Maybe a good start at playing "good cop-bad cop". Austria had so far taken that part. Asked one Austrian the other day if Germany could borrow their foreign minister, Sebastian Kurz. Nah, they still needed him.So we got to put up with the fat former vice-chancellor from SPD, instead. Pity.

Just now, katana said:

Turkish newspaper runs full page headline: "The Dutch army has only 48,000 troops, but 400,000 Turks are living in the Netherlands."

www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5yyy88/disgusting_proerdogan_islamist_turkish_newspaper/

 

Read that, too, Yeni Akit "magazine". Sounds like a Turkish newspaper, sounds like their big bellowing chieftain. I actually sometimes wonder whether we could not stop Turkish newspapers in our countries and scramble Turkish government propaganda over satellite. German prisons mostly don't offer foreign channels, so sad. 

Had some of Yeni Akit ("new deal") artikels run through google-translate just now. Was sorta readable, actually. Maybe Turkish lends itself to translation, or more likely it was simple language for simple people. Tabloid style, plain propaganda, no opinion pieces, "Yes" to Erdo, all Nazis but Turkey, Turks don't want the EU, we'll show them, so "Yes!", yes a thousand times, Erdo-this, Erdo-that.....  Yawn

Best one was Erdo being quoted how their Dutch consulate was exterritorial, Turkish soil. Wrong. And "international organizations" were invited to impose sanctions on the Netherlands. Who? Ku-Klux-Klan?

Let's break those numbers down, shall we? 400k Turks, half male 200k, half of them not interested or too young or too old 100k, one half very much opposed to Erdo 50k, , 10% militant at best yields 5k. And minus some 20% Kurds among those, some of which might join the fray, just on the other side.

Go for it, Erdo-Turks! Get your ticket home to Turkey! Nah, come on, this is very theoretical and supposed to be a joke. But makes you wonder if there should not be some legal reaction to that sort of war-mongering in a newspaper.

On 3/12/2017 at 0:04 AM, ddavidovsky said:

There are so many Turks living in these countries that the Turkish Foreign Minister goes there to campaign? Good grief.

2 hours ago, overherebc said:

My time in Germany 70's many of the road workers, garbage collectors, road sweepers were Turkish. I can see many of their kids were born and grew up there.

There are strong Turkish/Kurdish minorities in the Netherlands (400.000, 2.3%, largest non-European minority) and Austria (200.000, 2.2%) and, of course, in Germany with the largest group of Turkish expats in the world. Some 3.5 to 4 millions, nobody knows for sure because many got naturalised, officially some 2.7 million are Turkish nationals. These three states are the big ones, there are sizable Turkish minorities in other states, but nowhere near that quota per population.

Start of the sixties, they were first treated as "Gastarbeiter", guest-workers, on a planned rotating schedule, so none of them would stay longer than 2 years in the country and certainly not bring family. That was not implemented as companies preferred keeping their accustomed "Ali" (somewhat affectionate) with the rudimentary German or Dutch these first arrivals had already acquired over that time. First generation Turks were never a problem, did their work, got themselves German friends at work even if keeping somewhat to themselves, as is the norm with new arrivals in a country, no criminality above the normal German level. Having a job and local colleagues is *the* key to integration.

After that things went a bit downhill as nobody had anticipated extra effort with integration and language-course would be in order, as those were not needed for other immigrants, chiefly Yugoslavs, Greek, Spanish, Portuguese, and Italians, which just mingled with the majority society and, apart from some minor hiccups with the latter, were not heard of, went "pop", and are run-of-the mill German citizens now. Or Austrian, or Dutch. Many Turks did, too, a greater number did not. Well over half of the Turks see themselves as Turkish, even in the third generation now, even if born and raised over here. They are proud of their country and their president, but it's not Germany or, well, that Gauck guy, can't really blame them.

I usually say, Germany and the other countries have been relatively lucky with the Turks and their somewhat moderate, secular Islam, compared to Arab immigrants (got those chiefly from Morocco and Tunisia), although they can be very nationalistic (so can the Greek), both thanks to state-founder Attatürk. Relatively lucky, sure wasn't a catastrophe, it's certainly not a love story either.

So that is what the situation is about now. Erdowahn hopes to get what margin of maybe 2% he may be lacking to change the Turkish constitution into a presidential dictatorship, with a strong bias to Sunni Islam, from the Turkish diaspora. Thing is, many of the Turks abroad are not political, and certainly not all are followers of Erdo. Seems to be split down the middle, we're even having brawls now in Germany between those groups.

Oh, and some 800.000 of those "Turkish" nationals in Germany are actually Kurds, same anywhere else. Good luck bringing those on board. But I would not be be surprised in the slightest if the weirdest things were to happen to the ballots cast at the Turkish consulates abroad.

5 hours ago, heroKK said:

I witnessed an experiment that was done in Portugal and Spain, where small-mid sized entrepreneurs and local authorities were trying to lure businesses and investments by all possible means. They reformed the labor laws to be the most attractive levels, offered attractive tax incentives and cuts, legalized all sort of entertainments etc... and the committee had one conclusion jobs cant be brought back because of the Euro, yes the Euro is blocking all progress,  without it, the local currency would depreciate until it will reach attractive threshold, right now those southern Mediterranean nations that rely on tourism revenue can't be competitive because they don't have overall control over their currency which theoretically pegged to the German Euro.

 

The EU was establishment for the benefits of Germany and Austria period. Big multinationals and large corp loves the EU because they could introduce draconian regulations via their powerful lobby groups to kill all sort of smaller competitions, all the stats proves this, since its creation very few startups became successful or went public, with the exception of Germany it has the lowest growth rates among all industrial nations and the periphery states(Greece, Ireland, Italy ...) are plunged into deeper debts.

 

The EU was established as an economic project, more importantly a project for lasting peace, mostly between Germany and France, additional founding members were Italy and the Benelux states. It was a huge success, growing to what it is now with 28 member states, the east and south European states *had* to be included to facilitate economic growth there, we would have been seeing the same refugee crisis from there mid of the nineties hadn't we done that, and bind them politically to the west. Russia can't go and isolate or pressurize individual states economically, for example. Helmut Kohl, when German chancellor from 1982-1998, bent over backward to further the EU and keep everyone aboard, and he treater especially the small states with utmost respect so nobody was feeling dragged around by the nose.

Things derailed only with the introduction of the Euro. That was one of the things France demanded from Germany 1989 in return for the re-unification of Germany. Idea was apparently to bind a stronger Germany so strongly to the EU to make it impossible to break lose or turn against France. Bit of a history there. Kohl, in his last year in office, had his doubts about the Euro, especially about Greece, but decided, it was up the French to bring it up and postpone the project, for the reasons above, but they did not. 

The problem is not the EU, it's the southern states, Spain, Italy, Greece, and Portugal, the "Club Med", not being able to cope with the Euro, both economically and culturally/politically. Look to Ireland, they could, with a little hickup. That was aggravated by Germany, that round 2000 was a bit of "the sick man of Europe" introducing austerity measures, mostly welfare-cuts ("Hartz4", named after one workers' representative at Volkswagen, Peter Hartz), which were necessary, but badly implemented and went a bit over the top. Under a Labour Government, SPD, mind you. That way German economy picked up the way it did, but the germany defended it's role as top exporter now, too, with a view to worklessness, because the poor states were stuck in the Euro and could not devalue their currencies to counter that effect. 

1 minute ago, heroKK said:

I wish if that things happen so we can rid of the EU as fast as possible.

Be careful what you're wishing for.

Voting to quit the EU was both the only reasonable thing Britain could have done and the dumbest idea ever, at the same time.

Let's hope, for everyone involved, that things are going to fall into place with possibly a new referendum in Britain after a new, amicable, and reasonable deal has been struck between all nations involved, regulating immigration, remittances, child and housing benefits, asylum, corporate taxes, and certainly no Euro-currency. Really the best option for everyone involved, even with Bulgaria and Rumania having come into the fray at least 5 years too early.

6 hours ago, the guest said:

Be careful what you say to Turkey, they could at any time open the floodgates to Europe with even more immigrants

You're overestimating that option. They've threatened with that at least one too many times, Turkish economy is down on its knees to the point that they've actually started pleading with Germany for some fresh money. Lots of fences in place now, the southern states (forget Greece) have mustered some resolve on the issue, plus Germany, Netherlands and Austria are in election mode right now with the (more-or-less) far-right breathing down the established parties' necks, the UK, Sweden, and France have basically shut down. No repetition of 2015 in sight.

And the EU would be rather unforgiving for a loooong time, if it came to that. Megalomaniac airport near Ankara would be for naught, new "silk-road" with China would lead nowhere without a big accessible market on the Turkish side, only so much options with Russia with a rather shaky entente so far. Germany and Austria, for example, could get what they import from Turkey, like textiles or automotive parts, from scores of different sources, the machinery, parts, tools, tourism, remittances and investments from Germany and Austria now... 

5 hours ago, jollyhangmon said:

Good!

 

^ Well, then hit 'em with some friendly reminding sanctions if they don't comply (or threaten not to), for sure they took the fat money already!
Just start to really 'check' all their trucks coming into EU for once - wouldn't even have to find any contraband (highly unlikely scenario btw.) and still they'd start to crumble when it all comes to a halt the 3rd day ...
As in: you call us Nazis, we practically ground your fleet of moving rust-heaps until further notice if need be - all in full compliance with the law of course.

Difficult. Need agreement of all other NATO-states to impose sanctions against a member. But has been done, and against Turkey, back in 1992, if memory serves. Let's see what comes out of Merkel's visit to Trump this week.

On 3/10/2017 at 6:49 PM, Baerboxer said:

 

But isn't that part of the "multi-speed" philosophy Mrs, Merkel now dictates as EU policy? That the subsidies would be cut? 

 

Watch the Eastern nations leave once the gravy train stops. Germany, dragging France along with some others, sees the Eastern countries as a cheap source of labor and products. Hmmm. History certainly repeats.

Agree. I remember how we laughed about Helmut Kohl back here, and when running for a fifth term he definitely had overstayed his welcome. But in retrospect, he definitely had leadership qualities, subtlety, and certainly made sure he treated the smaller states in the EU, east or west, economically or geographically, with the necessary respect to forge and maintain a union of a host of very different nations. Merkel has developed some traits of megalomaniac despot in the last 4-5 years, and Poland will definitely be getting back at the hitherto so-perceived centre of gravity of the EU for this, 

6 hours ago, mrwebb8825 said:

So, it seems completely alright with the world if every country EXCEPT the U.S. puts up walls and fences to protect their borders. Too many hypocrites in the world today.

The US have already put up a fence, which is alright by me. Actually not just a fence, but a multilayer line of defences (note to self: look up etymology of fence and defence; personal hobby). Just that "wall" is not going to actually add anything worthwhile to it.

12 minutes ago, smedly said:

plus if they think it won't have an impact on tourism they are wrong

 

the problem is that Thais making these decisions travel to the west and frequent expensive joints like nightclubs and hotels in the big cities were prices are generally sky high and they think Thailand is extremely cheap in comparison - they are wrong and misguided in their thinking

Exactly what I think. Met two young Germans about a year ago sitting in front of my personal 7/11 looking rather pissed-off, asking me how everything was so expensive around here. Ok, Baht had hit an all-time low of 35-something to the Euro, and they had been planning to do a 2-weeks-tour of Thailand on a budget of 1800 Baht a day plus accommodation. And they were a little out of touch with things, having eaten the last two days at McD's, been frantically searching the area for Becks beer, of all things, and were just after having been ripped off for a taxi back from the local tiger zoo at 500 Baht per nose.

I had to let them in how things work here, the local beer was ok, what the prices are, you shouldn't eat at 7/11 unless having a hypoglycaemic attack, certainly not at McD, and while their budget was sorta OK for Patty, better stay here for the two weeks and have some fun with it. Looked much happier after 4 hours at a local bar stall round 5 a.m.

Other story is about an elderly German couple who had been coming here for the last 15 years or so for 3 months worth of holiday every time, who reported they formerly had been saving some money on that trip, compared to what they would have spent on living in Germany, now they could only just about make it cost-neutral, including having Thai-food getting a share of their drinks for the evening at a supermarket. Good couple of expats have quit the country, too, healthcare obviously plays a role here. Could spell problems for Thailand in the long run, TAT is apparently fixated on tourist numbers, which would include our friends, the Chinese and Indians, but excludes the nice and steady revenue a country gets having people living there on a permanent basis transferring their income from one national economy to theirs.

58 minutes ago, madmitch said:

Supermarket beer prices are not much cheaper than the UK now. 

Deep condolences to all UK residents.

Now, cheap beer like "Cheers", the stronger quality, is about 46 Baht a 0.5 l can in 7/11, about 40 Baht if you buy a palette of 12 at Tesco, which would put it at 2.16 Euro or 1.85 quid a litre.
In Germany now, it has been said alcohol was generally too cheap there by some health experts and whatnot, buying a litre of beer at a discounter, say ALDI with their Karlsquell or Karlskrone brands (better known under their moniker "Aldis Rache"), will set you back 0.56 Euro a litre, or 0.48 quid.

http://www.discounter-preisvergleich.de/Pilsener-6x-0-5-L-ALDI-Sued-1552.html

We're talking plastic bottles here, but it is still beer under German legislation, same a "Cheers"; I sometimes don't know what the buzz is all about. There are premium beers, yes, but to me that's mostly Bavarian or Mexican stuff. Maybe some Belgian craft stuff. And when I throw a party I will offer Früh Kölsch or Sion, otherwise don't bother after the first two bottles.

20 minutes ago, elgenon said:

Why don't people think that private insurance is socialist? It is a redistribution of wealth. I have friends who don't believe Social Security or Medicare are socialist. Social Security even has the word social in its name.

 

Yes, it would be nice to guarantee free care in an emergency. I would be willing to pay after the fact. What I am concerned about is becoming unconscious, the blue lights people pick me up and I arrive at the hospital minus my credit cards. I am too old for insurance in Thailand and am covered by a policy from my own country. But I have to pay first, then I get reimbursed. I am thinking of having my credit card number tattooed on my butt.

 

In the States a hospital emergency room can not refuse you. Even just that would be nice and would work for me..

Wasn't it the US where you had to have either your Medicaid card or what's it called or 150 $ in cash on your body to get picked up by an ambulance? Or is that info from days long gone?

42 minutes ago, John wilfred edward Sharp said:

Compulsory insurance 

it is not normal for anyone 

to pay for others lack of due care.

you have money to pay your plane ticket

pay also your insurance.

It is, however, quite normal to share the burden, so an individual can get healthcare that would otherwise be beyond that person's means. WHich can quite easily happen and without any personal fault whatsoever. 

That is the general idea of an insurance, otherwise you needn't bother taking one out, just pay by yourself for everything. Some folks could do that, most cannot, so it's up to the state to make everyone share the costs. It's not the nanny-state either, it's a very basic level social coherence everyone should find himself consenting to. You don't need to be a socialist to do that. Seen what is does to people, when the first thing someone in financial scrapes does is to stop paying insurance and then hope for the best, in the US haven't we?

So does anyone have actual figures how that is going to affect costs of your can of Chang at 7/11 or a pack of SMS in the immediate future, say, a year?

Storm in a teacup.

It's mostly about gay marriage being called that, i.e. "Ehe", marriage in a sense of "holy matrimony", not partnership or something, which some more conservative Christians oppose to as they think "marriage" should be only what the Bible refers to, not just any partnership. Some other ramifications tax-wise and the right to adopt children, yes, but that is about it.

Oh, and "evil" AFD, btw is quite in favour of all that, just don't want it to be called marriage. Recent poll showed, a lot of gay people are actually quite conservative with corresponding views, not SPD or even Green/Left. CDU's Jens Spahn is quite a nice figurehead, I like him. Merkel apparently not so much.