Chelseafan

20 hours ago, simoh1490 said:

May just offered £40 bill., will it be enough I wonder, more importantly, where's it going to come from, what will need to be cut to in order to pay for it and/or, will taxes have to increase as a result.

 

. http://www.independent.co.uk/

I presume its £40billion and not a bill for £40 because that would be freakin' awesome... :)

Godfrey Bloom made a good point on the radio today. If we have to pay a heavy penalty divorce bill then we should know where every penny is being spent. In a matter of business there  would be a forensic report by an external auditor who would itemise what each party owes,  real estate, parliamentary buildings, commitment to investment bank, etc .  At the moment numbers seem to be made-up on the back of a fag packet.

On 11/17/2017 at 3:34 AM, Grouse said:

This is all completely off topic

 

The point is that this Brexit foolishness can easily be halted.

 

Only extreme Brexiteers are still in favour. Certainly a case of the tail wagging the dog (the head knows the better option is to remain)

 

Let's check the current position with an online or postal referendum? What's to lose? It would cost peanuts.

In your opinion.

33 minutes ago, Stupooey said:

The main reason for the high turnout was the number of first-time voters (and I'm not talking about the 18 year olds), most of whom voted to leave and who came primarily from the CDE group. This also goes a long way to explaining why the opinion polls got it so wrong, as pollsters tend to omit people who say they have never voted in any general election from their figures, on the assumption that they will not vote this time round either. Referendum results tend to be weighted in favour of those who want change, as such people are more likely to make the effort to vote than those who are content with the status quo. This is the reason referendums to effect major changes, such as amendments to constitutions, typically require a 2 to 1 majority.

Yes but there was also a big increase in 18-24's who would typically of voted to remain. Interestingly if you look at the poll data leading up to the referendum, all had it neck and neck surveying circa 2000 people. The  only one to get it right was Panelbase who surveyed over 5000 people. Maybe the sampling was just too small. It's a shame that there isn't any data specifically on first time voters - well none that I can find anyhow.

6 hours ago, mrfill said:

You seem to have forgotten to mention that the terms of the first vote were terrible and after considerable changes, the terms improved sufficiently to make ratification acceptable to the Irish. Their economic growth since accepting the Lisbon Treaty suggests they were correct.

However, the UK electorate are expected to accept whatever crappy deal is put together with no chance of rejection and re-negotiation as the Brexit camp will not accept that the people should decide if a deal is bad or good. Now, why would that be?

I wasn't aware of any serious improvements on the deal. I'm not saying you are wrong but I can't see anything on the web. What were the improvements ?

5 hours ago, adammike said:

,only 38% of the electorate voted to leave that won the ballot  hardly the will of the people. T

Yes but 72% voted which makes it one of the highest turn-outs for many years. Maybe I'm leaping to conclusions but I suspect many of the 28% who didn't vote would of been in the CDE demographic group (low income, typically right-wing, anti-immigration etc) and judging by the polls would of more likely voted to leave anyhow making the margin to leave much higher.

9 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

Except, the higher the degree of education, the less likely they were to be Brexiters...

 

I'll let you ponder the math on that one...

 

More likely that they were swayed by their left-leaning, tree-hugging lecturers/teachers :)

5 hours ago, Kenegg said:

How do you know this when they don't keep accounts?

They do keep accounts, it's just that they never get signed off :)

As indeed happened when the ROI rejected the Lisbon treaty only for Brussels to ask them to vote again.... in the middle of a recession I might add...

4 hours ago, Grouse said:

Because you don't REALLY think things through. Does it not give you pause that ALL the bright people are anti Brexit? But we have a majority of low level munchkins who are going to get shafted yet won't see it coming!

I HAVE thought things through or are you talking about the group collective "you". I don't disagree with you, I consider myself fairly bright. I work as a buyer and can see the issues that are going to arise in particular with trade but we can't call people stupid for their views. There have been plenty of bright people who say we will be better off. Personally I don't see it myself. We can't walk away without pain.

31 minutes ago, allane said:

Re: Post #8: At the risk of stating the obvious, NATO and the EU are two different organizations. Or are those stupid Brits going to have a referendum to leave NATO too ?

Why are we stupid? With people like you I'm beginning to think it was the right thing to do !!

2 hours ago, mfd101 said:

An obvious question is: Why would the EU want Britain back anyway?

 

Of course there is some loss to the EU with Britain's departure - strategically as against the other great powers, and economically (though nothing compared to the economic damage Britain is already doing to itself) - but there is also considerable gain longterm in losing a fractious member that whines the whole time, always demands special deals on everything and generally makes arriving at agreements for action much more difficult than it should be.

Here is some of the potential loss

£8b per annum (net) will have to be made up by other countries.

Potentially £550m per annum of trade could be affected.

Job losses not only in the UK but also in the EU.

Intelligence gathering would be affected.

Despite the UK's ever-decreasing military force we still contribute a larger proportion than most EU countries.

Please don't get me wrong, I am a remainer. I believe we need the EU but they also need us.

You believe we are a bunch of whiners. Not true. You are only hearing what the press and politicians tell you. Our biggest problem (like many EU countries) is immigration and I believe the Brexit vote was a two-finger salute to the Establishment for not actively doing anything over the past 20 or so years. It was our only way of making ourselves heard.

We are not a right-wing country like some people may say , in fact we are one of the most tolerant countries in the west .

There are losses and potential (long-term) gains for both parties.

Like I say, I think it's a mistake but the "people" have voted

Involved in a car crash unfortunately. In a pretty bad way. Hope she pulls through.

It mystifies me why some people cannot understand that Visa and Work Permit legislation in nearly all Countries is “Broad Brush”; designed to cover the most usual situations and applicants.

There will always be individuals whose circumstances are fairly unique and fall outside the general – such as those on TV who (claim to) have sufficient Funds to retire but are under the required age to qualify for a Retirement Visa.

No-one is deliberately picking on you or trying to make your life difficult – but no legislation can be written to cover all and every exceptional situaton.

Patrick

Why Not ? Surely if you have provisions to support yourself and you are spending your money supporting the Thai Economy then some sort of legal stipulation could be put through. Maybe make an adendum that you have to report to your local office every 90 days with your bank statements? Its not difficult to do...

Interrogate the tourists. All part of their holiday experience. Maybe someone will write a book about it.

Smokie, its not the tourists that they are after. Its the people who are seeking work in Thailand on a tourist visa that they want to stop and I understand this.

I would haphzard a guess that a good 99% of genuine tourists would only require a 30 day visa on arrival. The 1% that require a 60 day visa would be scrutinsed. It makes a lot of sense.

I just wish the UK border controls would put the same some of restrctions in place! They probably do, but it doesn't feel like it.

Lastly you have to remember that a lot of us would love to work there, but if you are a Thai, how pissed would you feel that a farang comes and takes a job that you are equally qualified for.

If the TAT were serious about bringing tourists to Thailand then surely asking the airlines to reduce their prices would be a good start, they could supplement them for any loss they would make.

I usually travel twice a year to LOS but with the baht running at 50 / £1 it doesn't exactly make it cheap anymore.

Vietnam here I come....

no smoking in soi 6

Thats funny

Had it over here in the SMOKE for a couple of Months now and guess wot...No Problem......

The Real HEAVY Smellies "badger off" outside somewhere and the whole Pub/Restaurant scene now is pretty good....

I dont stink like Fag Ash Lil ...or Arfur ...any more when I stagger back from the Boozer and I am saving a fortune on Dry Cleaning Bills ....another Business Trip to LOS maybe.....

Those Arggg....KOFF Koff....Days have Happily..GONE.......

Nope you just stink of booze and start fights with innocent people on the way home.....I wish those days were gone

They should of added the inconsistant bar closing times

If they were one third of the way smart, they would simply let the falang fo to immig and pay a few hundred B to extend.

Instead of causing more traffic, more wasted fuel [so much for "energy policy"] and making the Burmese and Lao rich.

I guess we file this under "not smart enough."

On the contary, The Thais are being very smart. A poster mentioned about the advertising abroad, this is exactly the point. Thailand wants foreign people in thailand, or rather they want foreign investment....the average sex tourist who does a 30 day run isnt the sort of person that LOS wants.

On the other hand, a businessman who wants to legitimately set up a company that pays taxes and employs Thai personnel is welcome via a work permit.

I can see their point. Someone who has been in Thailand for 5 years on continious 30 day stamps does not bring money into the country and in all honesty is more than likely working illegaly....

The smaller issues is that of those people under 50 who have more than enough money to support themselves but are not ledgable for a retirement visa - This is where the Thai's should change the law.....but at the end of the day, its THEIR country.

my very very very wild guess is it wouldnt have happend without the authoritarian PM back in his seat firing his guns.

For anyone who lives in London, you'll understand when I say that Thaksin reminds me very much of Ken Livingstone....Refuse to apologise when your wrong, instill your will on the people even though they dont like it, not listening to others better advice and running a city through authortarian methods.....they could be brothers!

I personally think it is great that they issue warnings in advance if they deem there is a potential threat. Even if the risk is low.

I agree, however, you have to feel sorry for these guys and their warnings.....damned if they do, damned if they don't.

Can you imagine it: bars covering their booze displays with a blanket and a small A4 sign sayin "Beer sold here", the Johnnie Walker Classic golf tournament becoming the Hale's Blue Boy Open, people wearing Everton or Liverpool football shirts arrested on the spot and all alcohol brand websites will be added to the 800,000 already allegedly blacklisted in this country.

They do it with ciggies - Try and find a 7/11 with ciggies on display. All they have is a sign saying "we sell ciggarettes" which to me is pointless. Seems to me, all they are doing is hiding the brands on sale rather than the fact that they sell ciggarettes.