AlexRich

8 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

Sorry Alex, your reply is pure, scaremongering, speculation. No doubt you can cite an assortment of 'experts' to support this rather hysterical vision. They were all also predicting this to happen in the immediate aftermath of the brexit vote. It didn't. I predict that there will be more normal ups and downs over the next couple of years, and that remainers will make daft excuses for the ups and jump all over the downs as being impending doom.

Experts ... who needs them?

Funnily enough, the 3 Brexit Amigo's are trying to hire trade negotiation experts from around the world as we speak ... seems they might have something to offer after all? 

31 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

I'm not calling you a a liar, Alex, but this smells of 'a friend of a friend told me', which is probably meaningless.

 

Your question about brexit outcome is a fair one that has been asked a lot. I keep asking why remainers think the outcome will be poor for Britain, but I haven't had one decent answer. My answer to your question is that, even if the brexit ministers are on a steep learning curve (as you hint at), they will simply not present a poor deal to the population (and electorate of course) for obvious reasons.

 

And my take on it is that the EU can go to war with us over trade, but it would be far more hurtful to them than to us. And, because it would be particularly hurtful to Germany, it just won't happen that way.

Not inside information, newspaper reports that Civil Servants with experience and understanding about the working of the EU are shocked at how lacking in knowledge the Government is ... David Davis in one article accused of not understanding how the EU conducts trade deals ... but there have been several articles of that nature.

I suppose if you're convinced that it is a great result for Britain you won't be interested in hearing any argument as to why it is not? I'll give you a few, there are more:

1) Our future economic growth potential will be slower, and might turn negative in the short term.

2) Our currency will fall, resulting in higher prices in shops.

3) The 500 plus European HQ's that are housed in the UK may leave if the deal is not accommodating to them.

4) Trade deals with neighbours tend to be much more valuable than with countries far away, we've made our situation worse by leaving the EU, so that trade will be more expensive.

5) New trade deals will take a very long time to develop and will probably not make up for what is lost.

6) Immigration will remain high near term and those that are here before Article 50 will not be asked to leave once the two years are up, lest we have a flood of poor and hacked off UK retirees back to our shore. Once we have control we'll discover that we actually need immigrants ... is that what people voted for?

7) The so-called saving of £350m will be wiped out by lower GDP and the impact of higher government borrowings (not that the savings quoted ever existed in the first place!).

3 minutes ago, MissAndry said:

 

I thought people from EU countries were generally the same race as Brits?

Do you think that is how Romanian gypsies are viewed?

21 minutes ago, vogie said:

 

Come on now, surely its not the first time a politician has lied, did you actually believe it, I certainly didn't believe one iota what Cameron and Osbourne had to say, if they had not tried to deceive the people, maybe it would have been a different result, and maybe the brexiteers are not as thick, stupid, xenophobic and racist as some of your bremoaners would have us believe?

Did I believe it? No, but even if it were true compared to a $2.85 trillion US GDP in 2015 it was insignificant. The point is that it is a big number in the minds of many people ... so the reason it is used is to make people think they will be so much better off, or that a national treasure like the NHS will suddenly be fully funded. 

As for Cameron and Osborne, they were stupid ... but the idea that we'll suffer economically is most probably correct. 

Not all leavers are thick, racist and xenophobic, but most thick, racist and xenophobic Brits voted leave.

2 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

Agree entirely with the emboldened part.

So when the people voted for the National Socialists in Germany in the 1930's they instinctively knew what was good for them? 

I don't think the comment passed even surface level analysis.  

2 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

Why did the remainers feel the need to lie?

 

The wasteful cost of the EU is not a pointless argument and far from a 'rounding error' - at least to me.

UK GDP $2.85 Trilion dollars in 2015. 

As I said the contribution to the EU was insignificant ... and you have to look at the other side, what do you lose? No point looking only at saving if it costs you more somewhere else.

The value of UK Plc in US dollar terms has fallen by more than the saving, and that's just the. Currency fall. GDP is forecast to be slower in the future and government debt is to be higher ... and the full economic implications are yet to show themselves. There never was a credible economic argument, and that's why the focus went on immigration.

1 minute ago, dick dasterdly said:

But your previous post said "  "Foreigners stealing our jobs" ... "  - and I was trying to point out that its not even close to that simple.

 

Immigration - yes, that had a lot to do with the vote (IMO) - but it is far more complex than that.

Sorry, I don't agree. If there were low levels of immigration then the vote would have been heavily remain ... a landslide vote.

There were other issues of course, and some people with no concern for immigration voted Leave based on them ... but my point is that immigration concerns ... e.g. Turkey joining (a lie) won the day. 

13 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

An "acceptable" outcome is (as always) subjective.

 

If the worst comes to the worst - then the brexit vote should lead to tariffs being applied on all goods traded between the EU and the UK, but without the UK having to accept any EU immigrants who don't have a visa for a guaranteed job?

 

Edit - plus of course, not having to pay to be a member of the EU.

Paying to be a member was a pointless argument as a small percentage fall in GDP eliminates the "saving" ... it was a rounding error in the scheme of things. And we all know that £350 million per week is a lie ... why did they feel the need to lie?

16 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

I think this is a touch simplistic and that there were a number of factors at work that resulted in the majority deciding that they'd prefer to be out of the EU.

Most of the people I watched being interviewed talked only about immigrants ... there sole reason for voting. They seemed to be under the impression they would all be on the next bus home after the vote. The people that voted based on other reasons were a small minority, not sufficient to get over the finishing line.

56 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

With brexiters in charge of the negotiating, Dick, I can't envisage that scenario.

Yes, but what a smart move on the part of May ... put the three Amigo's in charge and let's see then deliver on their promises. The whispers coming out of the Civil Service (who understand the issues) is how clueless the ministers are about how the EU actually works ... doesn't augur well for the future negotiations ... my question is what happens if they fail to deliver an acceptable outcome? 

43 minutes ago, MissAndry said:

Essentially the decision was a choice between

remain - nothing changes.

leave - something might change.

 

The people voting to leave are hoping for a change because it can't get any worse for them, so any change must be for the good. It's simple really.

I think it was al, down to immigration concerns ... "Foreigners stealing our jobs" ... if there were some control on free movement the vote would never been carried on any other issue. Personally, I don't expect a great outcome.

6 hours ago, autanic said:

 

I think that the rest of the EU, need to wake up and smell the coffee. We can have access to any product or service anywhere in the world. Britain buys goods already, from China, India, USA and everywhere else without having to accept thousands of migrants and pay into those Countries.  Well lets face it if HSBC or any other fancies moving to another Country in the EU, simply pay back any bail out funds paid to them from the British Tax Payer if any and book your flight, you won't be missed at all.

 

In Britain, we have a situation where poor white and black kids of 16 -25 years old are unemployed, ok its not as bad as France or Spain, but it is a waste. By implementing a fair pay scheme with benefits (not state benefits), then these kids can make a real life for themselves.  Not every one is going to go to University, but that does not mean they should be written off, teach them a trade, give them opportunity, not made to feel that if you can;t be bothered we will just give your job to a migrant.

 

Pound for Pound (kg for kg), Britain packs the biggest punch in the world for a country of its size with only Japan being more superior, in terms of work ethic and workforce and aspiration. People make out that the UK needs to access the single market, really it doesn't. Yes it's better for exports, but since joining the common market in 1972 Britain's exports have declined, it trade deficit couldn't be worse.

 

I think sometime, there is a bit of Donald Trump mentality in Europe towards the UK. They want a wall and they want the UK to pay for it or else they want it all their own way. 

 

The best of luck and thanks for the opportunity, we will see ourselves out.

The UK was the slowest growth developed economy in Europe between 1950 and 1972, but the fastest growth since joining the EU in 1973 to present day ... we can always access the EU with WTO tariffs, as can every other country. But there will be no free unfettered access ... without some reciprocation on free movement and money contributions. They have a huge incentive to make leaving the EU a foolish move, and that is what will dominate the negotiations ... not how many BMW sales will be lost. 

It's all very well to say good riddance to any company that wants to move, but it's essentially a childish reaction to things not working out as you have been told they would, and has very serious implications for growth and jobs ... but not in a good way. Strangely enough those kids you are so concerned about would rather have stayed part of Europe?

The UK has done well, but not in spite of the EU, because of it. Brexiteers talking about how strong the UK is economically conveniently forget that that strength has been built up over 40 plus years within the EU - an EU that they claim is holding us back? 

Go figure?

36 minutes ago, Gweiloman said:

I'm in my 10th year here in Thailand, still enjoying it although not as much as when I first came here. Have a house in Isaan, a condo in Jomtien where I go chill and eat by the beach, living in Bangkok most of the year and thinking of having a place up North in CM / CR for the winter months.

 

Things I dislike, particularly about Bangkok is the horrendous traffic, idiotic drivers, the oppressive heat, difficulty in communicating (I speak passable Thai), nonsensical rules and regulations (from immigration to traffic issues) and corrupt policemen. Apart from that, I still love the food (though not as much as street side food in countries like Malaysia), the good quality of life that I enjoy and the reasonable prices.

 

However, as time goes by, I believe that the cons will outgrow the pros and that will be the time to start thinking about moving. HK and S'pore are out because of the high cost of living. Met some lovely Vietnamese ladies in HCM although I personally don't think I would enjoy living there (not sure about other parts of Vietnam). PI sounds a good alternative - have friends who rave about life there. Laos might be a bit too backwater. Wasn't impressed by Phnom Penh or the cuisine.

 

At any rate, will wait for the big event and take it from there.

Do you think the big event will be an issue? Don't answer if doing so causes an issue.

6 hours ago, Khun Han said:

 

Favourite remainer ploy: Keep on ignoring everything that brexiters say, and just refer to them as stupid, clueless racists. And don't forget to accuse them of refusing to engage in serious debate after routinely ignoring their debating points. Or , at the very least, keep claiming that they won't get what they want from brexit, without producing a shred of factual evidence to back up the monotonous claim.

They won't get an extra £350 million per week to spend on social services, specifically the NHS. That promise (or as Ian Duncan Smith says "possibilities") was on the side of their campaign bus for all the world to see.

They won't get free unfettered access to the EU market ... unless they offer up free movement and contributions to the EU. If not, we are looking at tariffs of some description, revocation of the Bank's 'passport' system, and we'll still have to comply with their legislation requirements. This one will be a 'red line' in the negotiations. The 'they need us more than we need them' argument will be shown for what it is ... exaggerated. If the EU have to choose between losing a few car sales and discouraging other countries from leaving, they'll lose the car sales.

You should be able to lower the number of immigrants, particularly from the east of Europe, but given that our economic growth projections factored population growth in, we might find that we still get plenty of them, because we need them. 

Ultimately, if the negotiations don't pan out as well as the brexiteers expect and the trade deals don't materialise quickly we might experience 'buyers regret' on sufficient numbers to shape a general election. At the moment, little has changed, but once Article 50 is triggered and the reality of what "exit" actually means becomes clearer we'll all be much closer to what the real implications are. Personally, I don't think the cost/benefit will work in the UK's favour. 

2 minutes ago, Scotwight said:

Jail.  All the druggies are volunteering to go to jail.   Nearly 60,000 drug addicts across the Philippines have handed themselves in http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3691692/Drug-addicts-Philippines-surrender-authorities-president-Rodrigo-Duterte-urges-citizens-ahead-kill-drug-users-d

A bit like Mussolini ... a dictator but at least the trains ran on time!

4 minutes ago, SoiBiker said:

Interesting how many people observe that the locals in many places don't seem to like them as much any more - but don't seem to consider the possibility that the issue might be with them. 

Can that be true? It's the numbers of people who feel that way ... are they really different to the people that came here 30, 20, 10 years ago? The point being, there might just be something to those comments?

I've been here just under three years, as a traveller, and enjoyed the experience ... but then I avoid bars, clubs, jet ski vendors, etc ... so not a Thai hater.

1 minute ago, JB300 said:

 

Davao City is (reputed to be) the safest city in Philippines (largely because their ex-mayor, now the president of the Philippines, took extreme measures to rid the city of major crimes) & have to say that I've never felt unsafe/uncomfortable there (it's the closest major city/airport to where my gf is from so must have visited 20+ times over the past 6.5 years).

Unfortunately it's getting more popular with foreigners nowadays so I've no doubt will become less friendly as time goes on.

 

 

I'll go to Philippines one day ... and I'll check it out!

9 minutes ago, JB300 said:

 

Agree, feels like most countries are becoming more nationalistic/Xenophobic over the past 5-10 years.

Can certainly see the changes in the locals in Singapore (probably more pronounced than most places) over the past 8 years & on my 2-4 annual trips back to the Uk.

Ironically the one place I've not seen the same is the Philippines but that's probably because I'm usually there visiting my gfs family or to some beach resort where they're still happy/appreciate having foreigners visiting
 

 

Where is the safest place to stay in the Philippines? The one thing that comes up time and again is how dangerous it can be, compared to Thailand. I just wondered if there was an area that is generally regarded as being safe?

2 minutes ago, Scotwight said:

Change "old man" with woman, gay man, black man or English man  and the thread gets closed in 4 seconds.  Do you get it?  

That's cause they're too drunk to sue!

1 hour ago, Seraphina said:

 

Unless you're living in the eleventh parallel universe or you're only 15 years old, you must know that currencies go DOWN as well as UP. 

 

If you want to quote currencies, you could have quoted short term, medium term, long term and very long term trends for context. Alternatively, you could have chosen to quote sterling movement using an index with July 2016 as 100. However, choosing a short time period after a particular event as proof of a sustained currency devaluation is both erroneous and misleading. It's what we researchers call, "cherry picking".

 

From an every day, EU perspective, France is one of many countries which suffered terribly - and is still suffering - from the effects of converting from its local currency to the euro.  Local prices in France rose by some 20% or more: the cost of a local cup of coffee rose from 2 euros to 3 euros (it's now 4 euros or more) and the cost of an ordinary 'baguette' - something we buy every day, not every week like they do in the UK, became ridiculously expensive overnight.

 

I would suggest that such price increases on every day items have a genuine adverse impact on the spending power of the common man on an everyday basis and therefore money circulation. To the best of my memory, the UK has never suffered from this type of event, though I wasn't in the UK when decimilisation occurred. Nowadays, the UK continues to import inflation from France, mainly due to the amount of wine and champagne it buys annually, based on euro prices rather than French francs. The point I'm making is this: if you earn in sterling and spend in sterling, you probably won't feel any difference, even over the medium term, unless you take 5 holidays a year in countries with stronger currencies.

I'm not sure what the significance is of being 15 years old, as Sterling would have been fairly volatile to the US $ during that period?

Anyway, a weak currency is no problem if your source of income is in a, now stronger, other currency ... for example, company shares that pay dividends in US dollars or companies that earn in dollars and spend in Sterling. However, if you earn in Sterling and spend in Sterling you are not only affected by the increase in the cost of your two week annual overseas vacation. As retailers will soon show, the buying budget will have to increase to buy the same number of items, so we can expect our prices to increase - for most goods that we buy. 

But it's not just currency ... interest rates for savers will be lower for longer, the Government budget is likely to expand, so as a nation we take in more debt, and our recent impressive growth relative to other countries will come to a grinding halt in 2017. We were doing pretty well within the EU ... immigration won the day?  

It's all a sign of old age ... the kids can't wait for driverless cars as they'll get more time on the mobile.

Amuses me how people spend so much time recording their lives instead of living it ... it's like a full-time job.

1 hour ago, Naam said:

he is entitled to his opinions, he is BRITISH!

Of course he is!

22 minutes ago, i claudius said:

 

 Well if the Greeks "fiddled" their way in ,it was with the full cooperation of Brussels , the way they let in Romania ,latvia , Slovakia and uncle tom cobly and all and the way they want Turkey to join the happy bunch , so please dont make us laugh .

Turkey? Now I'm laughing ... you actually bought that?

2 hours ago, Top man said:

Have you actually seen how much we have traded with China since the vote. Go away you little child. 

Is that the same China who's daily newspaper described the UK after the vote as having a "loser mentality"? 

Trade since the vote? How would that change since 23 June? Any trade that took place did so with a UK that was in the EU ... and, you might not know this, we still are in the EU.

Just now, MJP said:

 

Not the opinion of our biggest client, which happens to be one of Europe's biggest privately owned firms. But who are they to know?

Who are they indeed? As I said, not everyone will lose ... Bamford JCB was a big supporter of Brexit ... Of course they benefit from a weak sterling. Merlin Entertainments might benefit if more people holiday in the UK and more foreigners visit due to weak currency. But that is at the individual firm level, not the country level ... so your client may have been perfectly rational, but that does not mean the country was.