Chelseafan

33 minutes ago, boonrawdcnx said:

It’s a bit like a road that you paid for with your taxes and then they make you pay again to use that road.
Pretending it’s necessary for
“maintenance “ and “service improvement “which is virtually non existent or at least kept to an absolute minimum - but a great way to skim of a lot of money for “friends” in need - (of a new watch? - sorry I could not resist! )


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

Do you live in the UK ? We pay road tax each year and then have to pay extra to drive on certain roads. ......It's already here my friend

22 hours ago, sanemax said:

Didnt they already have machines by then ?

Might have.

My first trip was in 2000 and I know somewhere along the line I was handing 500 baht to the check-in girls.

18 hours ago, wump said:

Isn't the international departure fee 700 Baht already?

Yeah it was 500 baht 10 years ago when we had to hand over the cash at check in.....

Do the figures include those in transit? If so then its a whole new story.

9 hours ago, joecoolfrog said:

So Laos , despite being the poorest nation in SE Asia , had nearly a million of its citizens visit Thailand ?

Visa runners , foreign backpackers and village traders perhaps but hardly tourists !

I suspect they are workers and are being bracketed into the total figures.

18 minutes ago, Kaalle said:

Almost every single thai person I have met and had more than one meal with has tipped sometime even if ordinary local restaurant.

Sent from my MI 5 using Tapatalk
 

Is that because they are with you and have to save a little face ? If The same Thais ate without you would they still tip ?

If in a restaurant I will tip the waiter/waitress directly.

6 hours ago, bristolboy said:

It's a matter of fact that the government said it. It's a matter of speculation whether or not the government will enact it.

6 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Wonderfully droll old chap.

 

And by the logic of your own statement, the government’s claims of a ‘Brexit Dividend’ are also pure speculation.

 

The Government’s promise to spend the speculative ‘Brexit Dividend’ on the NHS, pure fantasy.

I quoted a soundbite from the government with evidence to back me up. As I said, whether they enact on their promises is another kettle of fish.

The poster just speculated.

Just for the record, I voted to remain but I'm not going to shout that it's all doom and gloom. The biggest problem is that we are throwing ourselves into the unknown but I'm a positive guy and like to think we can come out of it relatively unscathed. Time will tell.

2 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

Yep.

 

Just as brexiteer tories claim it is a brexit dividend. 

 

May has provided no evidence brexit will fund the proposed increases. 

 

Read the bbc report attached to that post. 

What report ?

2 hours ago, bristolboy said:

As no one really knows what's going to happen, the extra funding for the NHS is only speculation on your part.

I didn't speculate, I reported what the Government had stated and had been printed in the media...whether it happens or not is another matter...

1 minute ago, bristolboy said:

Yes, the government claims that there will be a Brexit dividend. What the government doesn't say is that since the most likely result of Brexit will be a slowing of the economy, whatever "dividend" may be realized by exiting the EU will most likely be lessened if not eliminated by lowered tax revenue. 

Anyway, the realization of the plan is dubious given the Tory devotion to lowering taxes on the rich.

As no-one really knows what's going to happen I can only assume that's speculation on your part.

Just now, Bluespunk said:

“Last night, some Remain-supporting Tory MPs said the timing and content of the announcement was “cynical” and designed to give a misleading impression that Brexit would make the country better able to fund public services.”

"some Remain-supporting Tory MPs "

1 minute ago, Bluespunk said:

The money has not come from any “brexit dividend”. 

 

It’s money that that could be spent on the nhs regardless of brexit. 

"Government sources said the increases, which would be paid for in part by a “Brexit dividend”, would amount to around £600m a week extra for the NHS in cash terms within six years."

12 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

There is no justification for denying citizens their democratic rights to call for another vote. 

 

Don’t know what you’ve been reading, but the economic downsides and exposure of brexiteer misleading campaign promises (nhs funding for one) have become a lot clearer since the vote. 

Isn't an extra £20 billion per year going to be given to the NHS ....monies to be paid for by extra taxation but also the "Brexit dividend". ..

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jun/16/may-to-unveil-20-billion-pound-a-year-nhs-boost

If the article from the Sun is to be believed, another referendum would have 'leave' miles ahead

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/7047947/british-voters-give-brexit-verdict/

30 minutes ago, billd766 said:

 

So who decides what is the "correct" vote?

 

What is the "correct" vote?

 

1 from 2, 1 from 3, 2 from 3, 3 from 4 or 5 ad infinitum and who should pay for all these extra referendums?

 

What would be the pass mark, a simple majority, 60/40, 2/3, 70/30 etc?

 

Who will formulate the question (s) and supervise the vote?

 

What would happen if the winning side did not achieve the correct number of votes but still won a majority? Would it revert to the status it was before?

 

Democracy doesn't work like that, which is why we have general elections to select people to make the decisions for us.

 

Very well put.

As the TAT count arrivals, does that number include those in transit to other countries? After all Suvarnabhumi is considered one of the largest hubs in SE Asia.

1 minute ago, candide said:

Several arguments have been exposed in this thread. I have not seen much pro-brexit arguments except " we will be free" "we will be able to make sovereign decisions" "we will not be subject to the ECJ", etc...

The only coherent arguments I have seen were from ultra-liberal economists: free trade, low taxes, minimal regulations, minimal social help. I don't support them but at least they are coherent. But I'm not sure that's what all leavers voted for.

I haven't read all the threads so can't really comment and I suspect the pro-brexit arguments are few because in all reality it's a big leap into the unknown. You're right,  additionally we we should see lower food/clothing prices from free-trade agreements, an end to protectionism and lower taxes but my concern is that I don't think we have people capable of taking the country forward.

2 minutes ago, candide said:

There is scare-mongering, true or not.

But that's not the issue. The issue is: after 2 years, is there still any sensible argument that explains that it will be better after Bexit?

And is there any sensible argument to say that it won't....and that's my point....if the economists, politicians and those more intelligent than you or I can't make a real case either way what hope do we have of making an informed decision. For every economist who shouts fire and brimstone there will be another who thinks we will be better off.

Personally, I think for the short-term we are in for a bit of pain but if we can get a strong Government who can negotiate well then free trade agreements could make this country prosper

1 hour ago, Basil B said:

I for one did not vote leave...

I believe had the voters been told the true facts the result would have been a decisive remain...

But a lot of water has passed under the bridge since the referendum, and a lot of bad blood, I do not feel we could ever be a full member receiving fair treatment again so would next time vote leave.

 

 

We don't really know the "facts" two years later. How can anyone really make an informed choice ...then or now?

7 hours ago, Thailand said:

I guess the only only reason the pro Brexit camp would not want a second vote is the certainty they would lose.

How do you reckon on "certainty" ? I'm a remainer but if a second vote came up, I would vote to leave.

Even if you pay, whats not to say she wont come back again and again for more money

34 minutes ago, simoh1490 said:

At what point does a person cease being a tourist and then become an expat, there is no legal definition in respect of time frame......and do you really think the Thai authorities will attempt to distinguish between the two factions!

A tourist doesn't make said country their residence. As for the Thai authorities, that's mere speculation*

* I agree with you.