Dene16

8 minutes ago, BestB said:

do I get lonely sometimes ? Sure , but it’s an easy fix and only cost 1000 baht .

Thats why your always be lonely, Cheap charlie

5 hours ago, petemoss said:

Not one of them blame immigrants, they all put the blame squarely on a spectacular lack of funding by the government.

So where do you think this funding is going to come from?

If it was that easy would you not think they would of done it

Every government party robs peter to pay paul

As the population increases more funding is required

Our population is growing faster than we as a country can cope with

Put together with a longer living population, requiring greater health care and with fewer workers to pay for that heath care

Although they may not be seen as the problem, they are, a contributing factor 

2 hours ago, wilcopops said:

would you care to elucidate?

Sorry no

I think the statement is obvioius and feel no need to get into a to and fro debate with someone seemingly as narrow minded as yourself (no offence intended)

14 hours ago, wilcopops said:

Possibly the most facile and ill-infirmed post on the whole thread

Possibly the most ignorant statement in the whole thread

19 hours ago, tebee said:

But it's also bad for the country.

350,000 new migrants + entering the country every year

More babies being born by migrants than uk nationals in many parts of the country

So in ten years time around another 4 million + non nationals to cripple an already failing NHS, schools, housing

Damage to the country is nothing compared to what it would of been for our children

As someone has already said remainers all seem to have a personal reason for their decision with no real thought to the consequences in the future

1 hour ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

What’s your point? It doesn’t matter whether your put it in percentages or absolute values; it doesn’t change the fact that, in the event of a no-deal Brexit, the UK is about to put at risk half of its market, the EU only about 7% of its market.

No it does not change the fact that the UK is about to risk half of its market although that is a matter of opinion but in certain aspects i could concur

The point is, which also incorporates all your points is that you are using the EU as a collective. Separately countries within the EU even if only losing 8% of their export market, will have a devastating effect on their economy

Germany exports 14- 18% of its cars to the UK as an example. It does not matter that it may only constitute 0.5 % of its exports, its the damage to the German car industry

Therefore quoting statistical figures can sometimes (sometimes) be misleading or give a false opinion

I understand your trying to impress a point but we can source their products from elsewhere they cannot sell their product to anyone else, thus they rely on us more than them

You could say it goes both ways but not on the present strength of the pound, exports cheaper. Why would they not want to buy from us?

I don't say whether you are right or wrong as only time can tell. Speak to 10 economist/politicians and they will all have a different opinion as we have all seen

The argument is and always has been will those countries wish/have to trade with us. 

It is going to take many many years to recover if we ever fully do and i believe if possible we should leave with a deal . However it is my belief, the repercussions of staying in, over the long term, will be a lot worse for reasons i have mentioned in another post

52 minutes ago, wilcopops said:

Try and learn the difference between search and research

My search was regarding a certain statement that was supposed to of been made of which there is no proof whatsoever

It has nothing to do with an article that was never published

Try to read a post properly before replying to it with a somewhat sad and sarcastic comment

16 hours ago, AlexRich said:

Scotland will be more than happy to do one, as will Northern Ireland

Scotland yes, Northern Ireland i don't think so

I got to know quite a few people from Northern Ireland quite a few years ago and was quite shocked at their desire to be part of the UK instead of a united Ireland

Truth is, if it were not for the Irish back stop the deal would of already of been passed in Parliament

Brussels will except nothing more than a hard border of which we cannot have unless we want a return of the IRA (trust me they are still active)

If we leave without a deal there will be no hard border but the EU must then tell Ireland to put one in place, which they will refuse 

So one way or the other there will be no hard border yet still Brussels refuse to budge on this point

It seems to me that Brussels are doing everything they can to twist the knife whilst also giving credence to the fact that, maybe, we do need to be in control of our own decisions

On 6/26/2019 at 5:04 PM, welovesundaysatspace said:

1) Almost half of all UK exports go to the EU. 

2) Only 7% of all EU exports go to the UK. 

 

Who relies on whom? 

I would not argue against your statement but it could be put in another way

The 7% of EU exports to the UK is far greater than the UK percentage(50%) exports to the EU

In essence the same statement

EU exports are country driven and will have a much larger effect upon individual countries within the EU, If we source products from countries outside the EU

Suddenly the onus changes on who relies on who

Statistical information can always be twisted to support one way or the other

Please ! i don't want to get into some mega argument of who is right or wrong as i feel that many people here will only look to the negative side due to the value of the pound

Is it in our interest to leave on a deal, yes

Did the UK have to leave the EU, yes ( in order to stop the unsustainable migration/ please note i say migration not immigrants who are needed but can be controlled) 

Idiots in Brussels forced us into this position and now idiots in the House of Parliament(all parties) are escalating the problem for their own agenda, regardless of the cost to the country 

7 hours ago, GeorgeCross said:

please feel free to provide some stats yourself as a counter argument to his "outlandish statement" (if you can find any..)

I do not need to provide any stats as do many others who live both in the UK and Thailand

I own and rent 2 houses in the UK and always like to keep abreast of the market situation.

To rent a one bedroom flat in the south of England (the north is cheaper) will cost a minimum of 19,000 baht a month a 3 bed house 32,000 baht regardless of condition.

London !!, do not even go there, that price is per week (have a friend who owns 3) Obviously cheaper the further you move away

Add to this a monthly charge for council tax of 5,000+ baht and a high cost of electric versus Thailand 

I have always maintained that you need to allow 10,000+ baht for all utilities gas, electric, water, tv licence, council tax, insurance etc but this is the minimum

If you are going to rent a nice studio in thailand for 15,000 baht per month or mediocre house (ie: Pattaya) while eating moderately,then Thailand is still the cheaper option (especially if you own your condo or house) 

However if your expectations are grander then the difference starts to diminish

The big difference is quality of life.

In the UK, especially for people returning, they will be virtually isolated, as apposed to an active social life in Thailand  

I have always said that Thailand is as cheap or expensive as you want to make it. What aspects of life do you deem important?