Saradoc1972

They'll be glad they did this once Turkey either goes belly-up or reneges on that 'deal' Merkel struck.

Time for a better first line of defence in Serbia, Macedonia und Bulgaria. Forget Greece.

Oops. It actually does say temporary. Apparently it does not on the 5-year-licence, which you can apply for 3 months before your first 2y-licence runs out. Only on a Non-O and B visa.

13 minutes ago, Grubster said:

Then why does it say temporary on it?

It does not. Not on the first, not a renewed one. It just states an expiration date.

So, whether Thai licences are ever "temporary" (as opposed to "provisional") legally, i.e. with ramifications as to whether you could get a Thai IDP on them, is the big question.

On 2/21/2017 at 9:25 PM, KhunBENQ said:

This is new to me.

Never noticed anything in Germany (German) language.

Nah, that is not the case (EU licences scrapped after 5y of non-residence). Wherever OP is from, most certainly not in Germany.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1430377687650&uri=CELEX:32006L0126 , Article 7.

Says that residents in an EU country different from the country of issuance can be required to exchange their original licence for a local one after 2 years, which might have different lengths of validity, news issuance of driving licences hinge on residence in that member state, and newly issued licences will now have a maximum validity of up to 15 years depending on vehicle class, for cars ("B") 15y is fixed.

German licences, e.g. are hitherto permanent (with exceptions for lorries or transporting people), but will have to be exchanged - which could then hinge on residency - between 2021 and 2033, and would then be only valid 15 years max.

That Swedish news-clip does not concern anybody, just says Swedish citizens in countries, where the Swedish licence is not recognized (probably means: outside the EU, without the IDP, or after 3 months there with the IDP), need to get a local licence. Big whoop. And that Swedish regulation is not new, the article does not refer to that EU directive, but is most likely just that, they have now come come round to implement it. 

Quote

 

If you refer to a temporary (2 year) Thai driving license: yes, it is not valid for driving outside of Thailand and you would not get an IDP from Thailand DLT based on the temporary,

 

Sounds like you missed to renew the 5 yr license for 3 yr or more?

 

Don't know whether you could get a Thai IDP on your normal 2-year licence, you normally can't get it on a "provisional" licence. Thailand apparently does not have such a thing. Or maybe the very first licence you get is deemed "provisional", could also hinge on visa-type (most likely does) and residence status. Will check next year, maybe earlier, when I get my new Non-O ME. Maybe Mukdahan, should be good fun ruining the day at that local office there when they frantically try to find the person with the best English in the building.

3 years rule is accurate, at least from the big purple sign that hung in the Pattaya office in October. Or OP only got a tourist visa this time, or entered exempt. Need more info.

In earnest: that Thai driving test is a doodle and costs 315 Baht, plus 300 for a certificate of residence and 100 for a bogus health certificate. Maybe just drive there and show them how we reverse park a car in Europe. Brush up on theory here http://thaidriving.info/ and be done with it.

3 minutes ago, Ralf61 said:

Hey Saradoc, I wanted you to ask whether are you interested of a copy, I could send you (as soon as I got them). Your answer sounds somewhat hysterical to me.

 

And, by the way, the name "Reichstag" (Raichstag is wrong, indeed) is the official name of the German parliament building and part of everyday language. Learned this 30minutes ago from a German

My reply was not meant to sound hysterical, and was not, but was rather matter-of-factly, as I was feeling being wrongly demeaned.

"Reichstag" is indeed, not just in everyday language, the name of the building housing today's German Parliament. Glass dome and everything, which cost the taxpayer tens of millions extra. Snazzy, though. It can also refer to the congregations of German Parliament during Weimar Republic and the laws that were passed there before all constitutionality ended, when "our Adolf" had grasped power, even beyond that, until 1945. After that, the building was still the building, just happened to be situated in what would evolve into East Germany until 1990. German Parliament, be that western Germany ("Bundesrepublik Deutschland", BRD instead of GDR) from 1948 to 1990 or reunified Germany after that, is only called "Bundestag". Literally means "Federal Convention" instead of "The Realm's Convention" (or something along that line).

And, no, please spare me with that copy of whatever it is. Might be a mutual failure of German and/or English, I don't know whom you got into contact with there, but I don't think I need to read any of it.

22 minutes ago, Ralf61 said:

There is only one reality. Sorry, just run into a German who got some interesting points of view. He promised me to send me a copy of the protocol of this, eh, "Raichstag" session when Hitler got all the power. May take a while. Are you interested in this sort of stuff? I will send you a private mail... (Sure that copy will be in German)

??? 

I should like you to clarify that in the above quote you are not referring to me or my posts. The two of us have never been in contact outside of this thread, and I certainly never promised you copies of protocols whatsoever.

If you should like to insist I did anything in line of the above whatsoever, I shall feel compelled to refer this matter to the administrators of this forum for due and proper arbitration.

Neither did I spell, in a private message or public wise,  "Reichstag" "Raichstag"; which might seem a minor issue, but in today's Germany is a rather common way of trying to discredit supposedly "far-right" or otherwise dissenting writers by hinting at their supposedly deficient spelling. Notwithstanding one or two glitches I myself notice upon reading my own posts ten minutes later, if somewhat lengthy. If you indeed ran "into a German who got some interesting points of view", that would appear to refer to somebody different from me. If you should deem my views "interesting", in line of what if have actually imparted here, please feel welcome.

Quote

2 hours ago, Saradoc1972 said:

SPD was the only one of 14 parties in Reichstag that in 1933 voted against the Empowerment Act, that allowed Hitler to do away with the then constitution and the judicial and legal system, that much is a fact.

Sorry Sir, here you are wrong...

That one now is easy, just follow the link: Enabling Act

16 minutes ago, Ralf61 said:

Give me a hint in German history, please. Is this SPD that party that released the money for WWI to the then kaiser Wilhelm in 1914?

I wouldn't know about that. They were supportive of the war, that was along the lines of thinking nationalistic at the time, no matter how the then communists held that there were no people or nations, only workers, who would not fight each other. Wrong. I don't know what you are getting at here, I would just like to remind you the Germany did not start this first world war. At least that is the commonly agreed opinion since the seventies. 

Social-Democrats are a downright ancient party that earned it's merits giving workers a voice and a platform, and facilitating social change over a century. SPD was the only one of 14 parties in Reichstag that in 1933 voted against the Empowerment Act, that allowed Hitler to do away with the then constitution and the judicial and legal system, that much is a fact. And whatever you may think of trade-unions, it was them and SPD that facilitated the miraculous economic growth during the Bonner Republic. Social Democrats did great in the cold war era with absolutely memorable chancellors, namely Willy Brand, noted for his eastern European politics, and Helmut Schmidt, who is some sort of a revered hero in Germany, downright unassailable, for his steady hand steering Germany through that cold war era and the Deutscher Herbst.

Chancellor Schröder ("Gerd") quit the second term of office in a coalition with the Greens early, the whole block of coalition parties had gone into total disarray in disagreement over social politics. Bit of a special case, including his ties with Russia, but at least he had balls no end, and kept people in line for a time to follow through with what can only be called coherent, if flawed, politics. Not the way Merkel and her cronies do, mind you. No "anyone not agreeing with Merkel is an a*-h*le and can go" (literal citation of one CSU General-Secretary Tauber).

They used to be a great, ancient party with believable politics and a moral compass. And now that.

Quote

"It's amazing to see how unprepared the CDU was for someone like Schulz ... They assumed the SPD was going to stay stuck in the 20-25 percent range. They've been caught pants down."

Prepared or unprepared for what? It's not like Social-Democrats have come up with *anything new' whatsoever, even in the slightest. Must be the sad-looking fat dud finally promoted away that made people rally behind very much the unlikeliest person ever, no other explanation possible. Not foreseeable.

"Social justice", yes? What have SPD done since they came to power or shared government since 1998 (with an interlude from 2005-2009, after SPD chancellor Schröder called it a day in mid-term). Nothing. They introduced a cruel welfare system, which in it's own right was the right idea and necessary, they just blundered with the implementation. Let me tell you as a former lawyer that what civil servants have been doing with the law was just cruel and arbitrary. And now it's (captions in the picture) "Zeit für mehr Gerechtigkeit", "Time for more Justice, Time for Martin Schulz", yes?

SPD introduced cuts to pensions (the cold way, mind you; they just don't get adjusted for inflation so much, and a couple of periods for education got annulled), they raised the minimum age for getting a pension. Which was necessary, no doubt. Just they never cared about their own clientele, which brought hardship on society's weak, not those able to fend for themselves. And they're gonna fix it now?

The poor have been voting SPD for 140 years. And they are still poor.

Quote

The Linke were unchanged at 8 percent and the Greens steady at 7. Together with the SPD's 33 percent, the left-of-centre coalition would have 48 percent and enough for a government as small parties fell under the 5 percent threshold.

Ok, then we're done for. Germany is not going to survive 4 years of a hard-left+eco-fascists+loonies government. They are coming now for dissenters via the justice system under little Heiko (Maas), they will step it up once in power until lots of people will need to take Victor Orbán up on his word for asylum in Hungary.

Last exit: Saint Angela needs to step down. No way around it.

17 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

"We had a bad court."

 

He's undermining one of the finest institutions we have.  An independent and fair judiciary.  This man is out of order.

No, he is just expressing a feeling that he has been unlucky before the court(s) that decided upon his matter, and that to his thinking he would have fared better before another court.

I did law for a decade and it was not unusual talking with colleagues about how "that court was a catastrophe" when the judges seemed not to get your point or had legal views that were arguable but left you with no chance.

Law is far from an exact science and you can get a court that sees things your way or run into what you then call "a bad court". Which does not mean the court is "bad" or inept, you just had the misfortune of getting your case sorted out by one with views unfavourable to your cause. So, e.g. Trump got a court here that held his list of banned states to be discriminating against Muslims, next one court argue it was not by dint of the absolute majority of predominantly Muslim states -such as Indonesia or Pakistan- not being on it, so it was to do with genuine security reasons.

Could have happened that way, maybe it will in some two weeks from now.

Just a temporary huge sigh of relief about the sad-looking fat dud being gone for good. (Will, for some 9 months make a nuisance of himself in what he seems to think is a cushy job in the foreign ministry, which is going to serve its purpose.)

Schulz will not be able to bring about meaningful changes in the relevant time span, SPD will still not assent to even the half-hearted measures CDU has adopted from the oh-so-evil AFD (in Germany, you are evil, racist, and anti-immigration if you propose something the government then enacts 3-6 months later), partly because their Green coalition partners in a dozen of the states will not.

1 hour ago, dunroaming said:

I do worry.  In a world where right wing nationalism becomes the norm I would have no place and nor would my family or friends.  People would be persecuted and aggression and bullying becomes acceptable. 

But that is what is happening now. You tell someone you are unhappy with how the asylum/immigration/islamization issues are handled, they come after you, call you nazi, racist, "concerned citizen" in a derogatory way that leaves no questions open they think you are the former two things, and a couple other things that don't really translate. Somebody finds out you're with AFD, you get your house smeared with paint and slogans by some "Antifa" goons, which strangely are never found by police: as in: never. Leading AFD politician Meuthen got a deep-frozen cake hurled full force at his head, 17-y-o who did it was identified, never heard of him being convicted. Press will never fail to publish some arguable misstep of the new right-wing opposition on the front page, government parties get the coverage they want, and state television is actually banned (not by the law, it"s just about who keeps his job) from reporting on certain issues. Especially things that did not happen, woeful backlog of laws they should have churned out by now, due to government show-room politics that become the agenda of news-outlets.

We don't need AFD or the other "far-right" parties to come to power to slide into fascism, it already is coming back under a different name. 

And I don't like patriotism or nationalism. It's just not called nationalism when Germany under Saint Angela opens the borders to a million plus unvetted fortune-seekers out of misguided political believes, and tries to tell anybody else in Europe they now need to do the same, or else. Don't need AFD for that.

Forsa polls should always be read with a grain of caution, their CEO Manfed Guellner is an SPD member and a bit controversial. A lot of opinion for somebody who should find out about opinions in the first place. Forsa polls get regularly published in exactly the two media quoted above. Stern Gagazine is a high gloss tabloid, it was them who delighted us with the Hitler diaries, RTL... well, middle of the road somewhere. Polls by Forsa regularly show one party soaring, often enough the SPD, another on the way down. It's interpretation, it's not outright lying.

Whether that poll really showed people were, at that point in time, rather going to vote SPD is again open to interpretation, to my mind it rather showed how fed up they had become with the fat one, SPD Vice Chancellor Gabriel, widely seen as a dud and inept, the one calling protesters against the refugee wave  "rabble". Has fallen cushy so far, became foreign minister and is going on about how that would enable him to have more of a family life. Right.

SPIEGEL are on the way down, they laid off 150 workers over the last 2 years, a fifth of their entire workforce. To my mind they are on the decline because that no longer is quality journalism but leftist drivel, and there already are tabloids covering that. They have been accusing people with right-wing (not even extremist) views over the refugee-crisis as psychiatrically ill, living in their own world, the worst of their "wordsmiths" is Jacob Augstein, who inherited a large chunk of share from Rudolph Augstein, the founder of what once was a proud political magazine. They need covers like that now, which says a lot.

2 minutes ago, Ulic said:

The second (and far bigger shoe) is yet to drop when family

reunification immigration starts a year after people are granted

asylum status. If Germany were to stop admitting migrants now

there are still a potential 10-20 million people on the way over

the next 4-5 years once family reunification moves into full swing.  

Basically right, our own Mr Sarrazin did suggest, already a year ago, "to remember the factor five". So it should be closer to 5 million people we are looking at. Unless we finally drop out of the Geneva convention and submit a temporary exception to the European Court of Human Rights. It's not like Germany could cope with that sort of influx with a view to both accommodation and teachers.

Quote

Schaeuble is a member of Chancellor Angela Merkel's conservative Christian Democrats, who have lost support to the anti-immigrant Alternative for Germany(AfD) party over the migration issue, after several attacks carried out by migrants.

Ah, yes. AFD (Alternative for Germany) are NOT anti-immigration as such. Thankfully any notions of "far-right" or "populist" are missing in this news-clip, for a change.

Unless you consider that influx of people parroting "Asylum" when they had been through half a score countries not beset by any sort of war or unrest as "immigration".

BERLIN (Reuters) - Germany made mistakes with an open-door policy that saw more than a million migrants enter Germany over the past two years, Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble acknowledged on Sunday, but he said Berlin was trying to learn from those missteps.

"We have tried to improve what got away from us in 2015," Schaeuble told the newspaper Welt am Sonntag. "We politicians are human; we also make mistakes. But one can at least learn from them."

That was not a mistake in that they did, as in something possibly even stupid that later turned out to have been the wrong way, that was incompetence and megalomania.

Merkel wanted the world to see her friendly face when everybody, including German security experts told her that would have disastrous consequences, including the crime wave and getting multiple identities to rip off the social services, which we are now seeing.

Leading police officers and immigration officials went to notaries by the thousands to put down in writing how they had been ordered to comply with Merkel's directive against their remonstrations, so it would not fly in their face personally.

We are humans? OK, you're my buddy again; just wen't after anyone voicing concerns or protesting as Nazis, Islamophobes and whatnot, taking them to the courts of trivialities.

"Learn" something? Now? Learn how to herd cats?

On 1/26/2017 at 0:24 PM, dick dasterdly said:

And therein lies the problem.

 

The far-right have become more dangerous and, depressingly, more accepted, as ordinary people become disenfrachised from the people who are supposed to represent them.

Nah, that's not them. Not so much about disenfranchisement, more about wack-a-rama and some megalomania thrown in. And they've been around for years, only things boiled up a little some 2 or 3 months ago when one of them shot a police officer raiding his home for formerly legally owned weapons...

They may be far-right, but this is nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with refugees and how Merkel and her cronies have been comporting herself over the last two years.

On 1/26/2017 at 0:26 PM, Stargrazer9889 said:

Book Em,  Jail Em,  Deport Em.

Can't deport your own citizens.

And regardless of whether they don't co-operate with authorities, which they denounce as unlawful to non-existent, don't believe the Federal Republic of Germany actually exists, and run around with their own fantasy passports, the lot of them are autochthonous Germans whose ancestors may have been in the country since Hermann the Cherusker. They are complete wackos, and dangerous, but they are *our* whackos.  

Exactly what Germany needs. Starting to like the man, could set an example for European sates. Then again, Norway and Switzerland can apparently deport to Somalia and Eritrea, and Spain can keep asylum seekers detained in closed camps, when other states claim legal reasons for not being able to do the obvious and ostensibly sensible.

1 hour ago, DGS1244 said:

I obtain mine by first getting my home driving licences translated into Thai then visiting the centre. I had no problem getting the Thai licence, just had a colour test. At no time did they ask for an International Driving Permit, all they are are translations, has no real use.

Do you have a home licence in English, did you have to notarize the translation of you IDP?

9 hours ago, ezzra said:

Errr, Excuse me folks, isn't how Nazism came to power back in e 30' when

the NSDAP party gain majority and in January 1933 Hitler named Reich chancellor?

Am I missing something here?.....

 

The NSDAP came to power when Hindenburg, the then German President of the Weimar Republic, made the freshly naturalized Hitler chancellor (Reichskanzler), quite likely believing him to just come and go like half a score of chancellors in those difficult times had before him. NSDAP, while still a minority party, then successfully usurped real power with the "Ermächtigungsgesetz" (Empowerment Act or something), that effectively ousted parliament from making any real decisions and handed what de facto where legislative powers to administration, i.e. the executive branch. That's why in a healthy democracy you have "checks and balances" between parliament (legislative), administration (executive, government itself), and the courts (judicative). Courts did not play much of a role back then anymore, they tailored their emergency "laws" in a way they could do whatever they wanted, there were only show trials afterwards, even when the system generally speaking kept on going with administrative stuff and civil lawsuits. They did pass a good couple of well-made, workable laws back then which still are in power in modern Germany, after some cosmetic changes; by which I am not saying the Nazis did some good work, it was only life going on despite everything else.

The parliamentary system of the Weimar Republic was in many aspects built round the President as a central figure, so Hindenburg (a former General and war hero from WW I) had real power and could do a lot of things, like inaugurate a chancellor even without a majority support in Reichstag (parliament) or dissolve parliament. It partially is still the same in Austria, that is why there was such an upheaval over the direct elections last year, ending with Green Von-der-Bellen (Greens barely have anyone in Austrian parliaments) , where there is a tacit agreement the President should not actually use some of his powers.

The Weimar phase is likened to a "presidential dictatorship" with a view what back then the President could do; e.g. nominate Hitler Reichskanzler.

1 hour ago, stevenl said:

Got it, they're not right wing enough any more for you to really appreciate Der Spiegel.
 

Oh, I did appreciate DER SPIEGEL, did so for over a decade since they went online first, read that on a daily basis over my morning coffee until... sometime round 2014.

And they never were right-wing or anything, one columnist "Der schwarze Kanal", yes, and witty on top, otherwise they proudly claimed to be "left, if in doubt", and everyone knew.

It's just that appalling drop in quality that made me discontinue following them; apart from the cooking recipes, they're rather good at covering that sort of thing.

It's not for nothing they had to make over 150 workers redundant over the last year. Nobody want's to pay for that drivel anymore.

I am OK with press having views not matching my own, I accept if they offer a wide gamut of possible opinions, but what Spiegel has been offering over the last 2 years or so by way of commentary is nothing short of malignantly defamatory, usually against supposedly right-wingers, and, on top, poorly researched. Thanks, but no thanks.

Over and out, they did not forbid NPD, because it was too small and meaningless to warrant that step.

http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/npd-bundesverfassungsgericht-verbietet-rechtsextreme-partei-nicht-a-1130311.html

Oh, Der Spiegel, formerly the leading weekly political magazine in Germany, were stupid enough to tout out loud, NPD had been forbidden. They had been listening to Constitutional Court reading out the writ those German countries had submitted before the actual verdict and thought their dreams had come true; they apologized for that, but it only goes to show they've sunk to the level of a despicable tabloid. A mere shade of what that magazine used to be, not like I was going to buy it ever again before that lapse.

Totally lost touch, gone extra-leftwing, nobody needs them anymore, "Schad' um's Geld" as the then Chancellor Kohl said: a waste of money.

1 hour ago, stevenl said:

I speak German. And disagree with you on Merkel's position. She is far from isolated in Europe and very likely to stay PM after the next election.

Sent from my ROBBY using Thaivisa Connect mobile app
 

Good. Follow the news. Better still: read this Jewish guy's take on things here: http://www.achgut.com/artikel/zu_merkel_faellt_mir_nichts_ein_fortsetzung1

Got his own Blog, "Die Achse des Guten": just an example of what's in stall 

Yes, Merkel is going to be the next Chancellor or "PM", again, 2017. Seemingly no way around it, with her sorry rest of a party going to score some 30% and the Special-Democratic-Party-of-Denouncers scoring a humble 20+%, her grace being unwilling to enter a coalition with AFD.

1 hour ago, DM07 said:

I knew it: a bunch of Know- it-alls with their "freedom of speech" -rethoric and the "but the communists"- argument!

Great!

1) the NPD is a fascist organisation! They simply want to take away human rights from minorities, they would abolish freedom of speech the second they had any power, they take a big runny dump all over the constitution...but we should never infringe their right to freedom of speech on the grounds of said constitution!

Yeah...right!

2) I don't know who said it, but there is a quote something to the effect of "You can be a communist for humanitarian reasons- but you can never be a fascist for humanitarian reasons!" ...and before you have a go at me: this is about the IDEA of communism, not the fascism called communism by Mao or Stalin!

We are in agreement. NPD are a fascist, racist, xenophobic, anti-semitic, antiquated, hateful, homophobic, distasteful, unappetizing bunch of knuckleheads seeking to abuse parliamentary democracy to overthrow the system as such, even if it takes presenting itself as a democratic party catering for other, innocuous issues to further their ends of adulating our Adolf and a German Reich of sorts. Period. 

Still, that is not enough, as such, to ban them. Someone has to decide, if their are to be banned, on factual findings. These someones are usually called "the courts", Federal Constitutional Court, in this case. Could ban anyone you like, if it were otherwise, i.e no hearings and no facts to establish. As in: you need to prove that, and they are right-wing extremists, they are not daft. With left-wingers, it's the other way round. You think they are going to hand an opportunity to ban them to you on a plate?

This is not about freedom of speech as per the US take on things (well, it might be... complicated, it's touching on many things, really), as per Article 21 (2)  GG, German Constitution:

Quote

(2) Parteien, die nach ihren Zielen oder nach dem Verhalten ihrer Anhänger darauf ausgehen, die freiheitliche demokratische Grundordnung zu beeinträchtigen oder zu beseitigen oder den Bestand der Bundesrepublik Deutschland zu gefährden, sind verfassungswidrig. Über die Frage der Verfassungswidrigkeit entscheidet das Bundesverfassungsgericht.

Ad hoc translation: "Parties, which by their intend or by the demeanour of their adherents are aiming to abolish or work to the detriment of the free, democratic, constitutional foundation or endangering the existence of the Federal Republic of Germany , are unconstitutional. It shall be the prerogative of the Federal Constitutional Court to decide upon the unconstitutionality. "

Ok? Factual findings are going to be tricky, court proceedings are absolutely necessary and will take time. Plus some other issues, as pointed out.