AlexRich

1 hour ago, GuestHouse said:

Very many of the 1.6 million unemployed are unemployable.

 

However Brexit's economic plans might have a cure for that.

 

If Brexit manages to create markets around the world for British turnips, even the most unemployable could be put to work digging for victory.

 

 

Do you think Liam fox is the man to get these great trade deals overseas? Most trade is done with neighbours, for the obvious reason that it is easier logistically - we've kind of messed that one up.

The only way you will get the feckless off their backsides is by abolishing their benefits ... but there are genuine claimants who do need a safety net, and most people would be happy to pay taxes to support them.

I'm sure there are plenty on here who have done this, I'm surprised there was no takers ... but I'd guess you'd get the definitive requirement from the UK immigration or Embassy in Bangkok. 

22 minutes ago, sandyf said:

Only people that have never been an employer would make delusional statements like that.

Not all unemployed, of course, but there are many of them who are happy not to work, and some who just lack the social skills to find and keep work. And for many the benefits they claim are not much less than a weeks wages, and they figure why bother?

3 hours ago, tifino said:

 

I couldn't resist Googling to find what the secret word is:   <deleted>!

 

I thought it might have been something kinky

English phrase, "the dogs b*****"!

I've enjoyed my stay in Thailand over the last three years but will be moving to a sunny part of Europe at the end of next month before the door closes and I'm planning to spend at least a year there. I will come back here at some point as there are other areas of south east Asia I would like to explore. 

Although I like Thailand I would not like to settle permanently here ... I just would not have the same rights as I have in my home country, and in many respects we are all second class citizens here. So if someone decides to leave for whatever reason I wish them good luck.

I'm thinking of entering ... just need to buy some sellotape for my <deleted>!

2 hours ago, vogie said:

 

Not true, his mother was human making him only half Vulcan, hope this helps.

Spoken like a true Trekkie!

2 hours ago, ljd1308 said:

Re. The bit in bold:

 

You may be right, but is a British PM making a statement about it really the confirmation you would choose as verification?

They don't exactly have the best record for telling the truth.....especially from that side of the room.

 

In this instance I can be Vulcanesque as while I have scouse parents i was born and raised in Australia and now live in Thailand....so unless I randomly decide to move the UK in the future(and this vote has put me off that for sure) then it won't affect me. I'm just disappointed that a country that I have an affinity with have chosen to go down this route and for the life of me cannot understand it.

She was speaking as Home Secretary at the time, and the fact that she made that statement made some commentators surprised that she campaigned in the remain camp. The point that is being made is that there is research by both sides, with facts to back them up, arguing both gain and loss. The question about the economic benefits of the immigration that the UK has experienced recently is not something that you can provide a mathematical proof for ... a lot depends on the scope of the research, the assumptions made, etc. So you can craft an argument either way.

Given that you are from Australia the same arguments are being played out there. 

9 hours ago, MadMuhummad said:

Once again, he's still in the U.K.

I think you'll find it's a "she", if you are referring to the child?

4 hours ago, ljd1308 said:

I have never seen any facts to support a negative impact on the economy by immigrants, i have seen many people claim that....but none with any evidence apart from their own anecdotal "evidence".

 

The problem is that in politics emotions should be filtered out, if not you end up with trump and a brexit.......and a world going down the drain.

 

 

There are published works suggesting that EU immigration in the UK has not been a net contributor ... I recall Theresa May making a speech were she stated that ... and that statement will be based on something written or analysed ... as she was a Home Office minister at the time.  

As for emotions in people's decision making ... you might as well ask the tide not to come in ... it's in our nature ... only Mr Spock can manage that ... and he's a Vulcan!

If the child is in Thailand and is a Thai national I don't think a UK court can do anything, and a Thai court is more likely to favour the mother. A heart breaking situation for anyone who wants to be involved and influence his daughters future. I guess the practical solution, if you want to call it that, is to maintain reasonable relations with the mother without putting a strain on your finances ... but don't allow yourself to be bled dry, and all the very best. 

4 minutes ago, ljd1308 said:

The bolded bit I agree with.

 

But no one has been able to give me a logical argument against immigration, everything negative can be refuted by facts. People do have an issue with immigration tend to bring feelings to fact fights.

Yes, like you I don't have a great problem with immigration.

However, you can't just argue on the basis of facts ... which can be disputed ... some claimed immigration added net contributions to the economy, others argued otherwise ... both with their own set of facts to back them up. 

I'm afraid emotions can't be filtered out of political decisions and that's why they are currently being exploited, not just in the UK, even more so in the US election. The problem is that if you have an open door then areas of a country find that their local services get overwhelmed, wages in some sectors fall, and those that lose out feel resentment. Even if the net is a benefit. The problem in the UK is that too many people felt left out ... and people stepped in to exploit that. You need to have some control to stop that from happening. Merkel meant well, but she may just have reached a tipping point, that will be exploited by the sort of people we would normally never have considered voting for. 

54 minutes ago, ljd1308 said:

There are more than just Syrian immigrants....

 

They had Turks, a Ghanaian, a Tunisian, a couple of Poles(who are also 2 of their 3 top scorers and appearance makers of all time) etc. Like I said, their immigration policy helped them win the world cup.

 

The French also won with a lot if immigrants....maybe that is the way back to the top for England? 

England has had immigrants for hundreds of years ... I voted remain because immigration was not an important factor for me, but I do understand why it was for others ... it builds up resentments if it becomes too high ... as for Germany, an open door to refugees is similar, it is building up the same resentments in Germany. And that's dangerous as it leads to people voting for parties with hidden (and not so hidden) agendas ... in France, Austria and Holland we are seeing this. And Trump is jumping on that bandwagon. I've been lucky to avoid a world war in my lifetime ... no Somme or Stalingrad for me ... but I'm a bit uneasy about the direction of travel of the world today. Just an opinion.

1 hour ago, yogi100 said:

 

Sovereignty in the context of the referendum refers to independence and self governance rather than whether or not we have a monarch.

Does it? We elect people and they make decisions ... many of which we don't like much. In the EU, we elect Governments, and they decide, after horse trading, who the EU top tier politicians are. Just as the Prime Minister selects a Foreign Secretary. I certainly didn't vote for either May or that knob Boris Johnson. 

Was it really about being able to have a Brit decide how bendy our bananas are allowed to be, or was it really all down to immigration? 

1 hour ago, yogi100 said:

 

You just claimed that she was, here are your words.....

 

"If you really are concerned with sovereignty you might want to prioritise having a head of state, currently the Queen, who is elected by the people and a second chamber, currently the Lords, that is also elected by the people."

 

It's quite an understandable mistake, some Americans have some very strange ideas about the Royal Family and the British aristocracy and one that I once met even thought that all Englishmen lived in castles.

Keep digging ... "you might want to prioritise having" ... "who is elected by the people" ... not the easiest sentence I'll grant you, but the meaning is clear ... the comma enclosed section explaining who the head of state and second chamber are.

God ... this is tiresome. And what makes you think that I am American? 

1 hour ago, ljd1308 said:

The Germans won the world cup on the back of their immigration policy.

As did we with our Olympic medal haul. What Syrian born player was in that German team?

4 hours ago, draks said:

You know people do sometimes lose their temper and do all sorts of very naughty things. Now all you very perfect people here should really accept that this huge world has all sorts of people in it and they are not all perfect as you all are.

I only have a problem with it when their imperfections potentially put the lives of hundreds of people at risk, not to mention the damage to their properties. It wasn't naughty, it was arson, and that is incredibly dangerous ... as any Fireman and emergency services worker would tell you. 

19 minutes ago, billd766 said:

 

If you knew what you were talking about people might believe you.

 

The sovereign of the the UK, currently Queen Elizabeth ll is in a hereditary position and is NOT elected by the people of the UK.

 

The second chamber, called the House of Lords is populated by some hereditary peers and many more life peers, selected by outgoing Prime Ministers and once again NOT elected by the people.

 

Would you like to research that and try your post again?

I think you need to read it again ... "you might want to prioritise having ... a head of state ... the Lords ... that is elected by the people" In other words, the current incumbents are not. Tricky, I'll give you that, but it meant the opposite of what you believe it to mean. I was explaining that the head of state is currently the Queen, and the Lords is currently the second chamber. 

Do you really believe that there is someone out there who thinks the Queen was elected?

47 minutes ago, yogi100 said:

Most Brexiteers were under the impression that we'd be masters of our own destiny and be making our own laws paricularly when it comes to immigration because that's the main reason 17.5 million people went to the polling station that day.

 

They were also under the impression that the UK is a democracy and that politicians are elected to implement the will of the people. We'll soon see how democratic the UK actually is if and when the government gets round to regaining our sovereignty, putting British people first in their own country and deciding whose laws we live by.

 

Unless Farage is back on the scene to use his undoubted charisma and ability then any changes we see will take years to come about. His presence is needed to monitor the transformation and see that the government does not try and hoodwink the British public like it usually does.

If you really are concerned with sovereignty you might want to prioritise having a head of state, currently the Queen, who is elected by the people and a second chamber, currently the Lords, that is also elected by the people. Separating from the EU is hardly full 'sovereignty'. I wonder of Farage will now campaign to have the Queen replaced by a Republic and abolish the House of Lords?  

I stayed for a couple of months in a place called "Sunshine House" ... it was modern, friendly, close to the walled part of the city and walking distance to Nimman Road, Maya Mall and very close to a big Mall with a supermarket (the name escapes me). The wi fi was good, so no issues with working.

You can book as a daily rate hotel or a monthly rate ... if my memory serves me right it is around 9,000 Baht plus bills ... so would be within your budget. The daily rate is more expensive. 

Check them out by website (google it) and email them. Not a big place, but this time of year you may be in luck.

An incredibly stupid act, if the fire had spread the consequences would have been devastating. Deserving of a jail sentence.

One concern for anyone buying or renting a condo is the risks that emanate from the actions of others. 

13 minutes ago, See Will said:

Hi all,

 

I am actually German but working since over 20 years offshore and almost all my colleagues are Brits.

Most have been working over years in German Projects and so made a living within Europe.  Sure they were contra brexits and have now in mind what happens when all Europe collapses and you need working visas again. 

 

On the questions what did the EU good to me as a German my answers came instandly:

1st.. I wouldn't mind showing my Passport again at the borders within Europe

2nd: The EU made me leaving from Germany to Thailand 12 years ago. And that was the best move I ever did. LOL

I think Germany was one of the winners from the EU, particularly with regard to the Euro. If the Deutschemark still existed it would be much stronger than the Euro, so given Germany's massive export business it has helped having a weaker currency. You've lost in terms of open door policy ... immigration and refugee intake is very high.

2 minutes ago, SoiBiker said:

 

Many of the younger crowd are women too, so they're generally not here for the local girls. There are loads of young couples travelling together - just go to any (non sex-related) tourist area and you'll see them all over the place. 

 

Plenty of younger expats come here to work real jobs, too, not just the cliche of the 'digital nomad'.

 

This forum presents such a limited, weird view of the expat world, I sometimes wonder if I live in the same country as the rest of you!

Was I expressing a weird view? Given that I've been all over Thailand the last few years I don't think so. I am that cliche.

15 minutes ago, SoiBiker said:

We don't get many western couples on this forum, it's true. This thread alone should give you some idea why.

Many of the younger crowd are here to use as a base for travelling and exploring south east Asia, some of whom earn money online or run blogs, etc. They might hook up with some local girls but it is not the sole reason. In places like Pattaya I think you have more who are here specifically for the women, and they tend to be older guys. If you like it here, why not, better than being miserable in your home country. There are some retired couples, or young couples travelling together, but not many.

1 hour ago, emilymat said:

I expect a way will  be found (next year) for Brexit (In full) to be discarded. Whether it is via a Parliamentary vote, (a legal case is now going on), a super duper deal with the EU that would trigger a second referendum or something else. In my view, that is why Teresa May has made it clear that article 50 will not be triggered until at least 2017.

 

I returned to the UK to vote remain, but, apart from the hit on income  - due to devaluation - I have to accept the outcome. My daughter voted Brexit because she didn't like George Osborne. (I couldn't stand the man, but could  not allow that to influence me).

 

There is no doubt the government welcome the fall in the value of the pound and, in reality, your ordinary Joe in t he UK isnot going to notice much - except maybe a tenner on the price of a flat screen TV.

 

I've read a lot of posts  on this thread about the baht/pound. All I know is that in 1989 (my first visit) it was about 40 and I've known it rise to 90 around 1997. All I ask, and probably many in Thailand, is for some form of stability. I think we now have it - the mid 40's.

 

If my theory takes place, and Brexit in full does not happen, then it may well rise again to the giddy heights of 50.

I think the £ will recover eventually, as it has been down at these levels vis a vis the $ and € before. Not in 2017, though as everything is relative not impossible either.

We now have Ian Duncan Smith urging the PM to trigger Article 50, he mentioned something about the electorate sending a message to the "elites" ...  given that there were "elites" campaigning on both sides of the question he's at least consistent in his stupidity and his inability to recognise that he is one of them. 

In October there is an Italian referendum that could well go against the reigning PM, that might shake things up more in the EU ... I think that the Daily Mail backed May and trashed the competition because they got a promise on exiting the EU. Although I think leaving is is a dumb move, something would have to give on free movement to keep the UK inside.