paulbj2

Hi Guys

I entered Thailand 20-11-2015 on a 30 visa exemption which I subsequently extended for a further 30 days at Chiang Mai immigration. When that expired, I flew to Vientiane for a 60 day tourist visa that I used to re-enter Thailand on 25-01-2016 and that was extended by 30 days to 18th March. On 18th March I again flew to Vientiane for another 60 day visa that will expire on 27th June.

I need to fly back to Europe for a few weeks in a few days time, returning to Thailand around the end of June. The plan is eventually, to get a "retirement visa" (I know there's no such thing but everybody knows what I mean). After a 30 day exemption and two back-to-back 60 day tourist visas one with a 30 day extension:

if I try to enter Thailand at Suvarnabhumi expecting to get a 30 day exemption visa on my return, am I am I going to have a problem do you think? Are they likely to insist on seeing an outbound ticket?

if I go to the Thai embassy either in London or in Brussels, should I expect problems getting another 60 day tourist visa? Are they likely to insist on seeing an outbound ticket on entry?

if I try for a 6 month METV either in my home country(the UK) or in my country of residence, Luxembourg (the embassy in Brussels handles applications from Luxembourg), is it likely to be granted? Will they want to see an outbound ticket?

would I be better off going straight for the O-A visa in London or Brussels?

what have peoples experiences been like at London or Brussels?

Cheers guys

Paul BJ

Is the expression "cut me up" in common usage in Thailand ?

Not surprising but I thought "cut me off" should be the correct term.

One could become confused after an incident involving a machete and road rage as well.

The term "he cut me up" could hardly be used by the victim if he was already in pieces.

No, it is just a bad translation.

ตัดหน้า dtat naa is how they say it = cut in front. It could also mean "cut face" but not in this example.

Similar in English, someone "cuts you off", no machete and you are not actually cut.

It would be good if OPs on Thaivisa corrected errors before posting them. It cant be that hard. Maths seems to confuse them also.

No, "he cut me up" is perfectly correct in English English. It means he swerved in front of me or drove like a tosser in some other that inconvenienced me on the road.

I thought that most Thais lacked the genetic adaptation necessary to digest milk and other dairy products beyond the age of weaning; if that is correct, what the hell are they doing giving schoolkids milk?

There's the excuse; milk is harming our kids,so we gave it to Cambodia to protect them!

The ancient Chinese texts on the subject of sexual relations strongly recommend relationships between older men and young women not on moral grounds but on medical grounds. I'm sure some of that philosophy has made its way down to Thailand.

Older men in many of the eastern cultures are admired and revered rather than despised and insulted as in the west.

On a visit to my home town of Eastbourne on the south-east coast of the UK two or three years back, I was walking down the main street apparently not fast enough for some folk as a teenager shouted from behind me "Get out the way you <deleted> old fart". I have yet to experience this sort of attitude here in Thailand, thankfully.

In the UK, where I come from, the age of consent is 16, as it is in most European countries; however the UK and a number of other countries have "position of trust" clauses (this impacts relations between, for example, teachers and their pupils) that raise that age to 18 years in specific circumstances. The minimum age at which a person may marry in the UK and likewise in most European countries is also 16 but they require parental consent until they reach 18.

The age of consent at 16 seems to be the commonest throughout the world although there are a few countries where it is 15 or even 14. In Ireland and Portugal, it is set at 17. Until 2013, the age of consent in the Vatican City State was 12, a fact that will surprise no one who has kept themselves informed of the antics of catholic priests in certain countries. Since 2013, on the explicit orders of the Pope himself, it has been effectively, 18, the highest in Europe.

The law in Thailand seems a little opaque but I believe the age of consent in Thailand is theoretically 15 however in the light of the following case, it is probably safer to regard it as 18.

"A high profile example of this application of the law was a statutory rape charge filed against the lead singer of the Thai band Big Ass for allegedly having had sex with a (then) 16-year-old girl. The charge was filed by the girl after the singer refused to take responsibility for her baby. The singer has since been cleared of being the baby's father due to the results of a paternity test and he received 2 years suspended sentence."

If you are paying for sex then it is definitely 18, no shadow of a doubt.

One thing that does seem clear is that with the consent of the parents, the particular relationship mentioned in this article seems perfectly legal.

Something that I have never understood is people's desire to poke their damned noses into and interfere with other folk's sexual and social behavior. If it's legal it's none of your f**king business if it isn't legal, it's the Police's business and none of your f**king business. In the USA and a few other countries, politicians legislating about what people go into what toilet and what people may or may not do in the privacy of their own private space has become almost a fetish. They need to grow up!

Personally, I don't use prostitutes but I have no problem with people who do. However, if you are into paying for sex, then for your own sake, if for no one else's, I would suggest avoiding girls who might be under 18 or if you have any suspicion that they may be acting under duress.

Back in 2014, I had two visits to the Chiang Mai Ram whilst here on holiday. When I arrived home in Luxembourg, I sent the receipted bills off to the CNS (the healthcare system in Lux) and they refunded everything I had paid, in full. If you are a legitimate Luxembourg resident and you are paying Luxembourg social security contributions, you can seek medical treatment anywhere in world so far as I am aware, and they will reimburse you; certainly I opted to have some dental treatment in Germany and that went through the system without any problems. However, the CNS will only pay the agreed standard fee payable in Luxembourg for whatever treatment you receive, so if you fancy getting treated in the US, it will only cover a modest percentage of the total bill as fees for medical treatment there are two to five times what they are in Luxembourg.

Trump is in the same mould as Ronald Reagan; barely a brain cell functioning and heading for the White House

I think it is pretty obvious what makes Trump popular: he tells the electorate what they want to hear. He can't possibly deliver on 90% of his policies as Congress won't let him, but that's not the point, it's what the right wing in America want to hear.

Given time, the crocks will find a way to crack not only chips, but also fish and chips that the

banks will introduce, so far the criminals are winning big times, and the banks don't care

for some reasons, and what happened to all those dozens skimmers that got caught already?

nobody knows.......

Chip and pin cards have been in use since the late 1980s in France and possibly other countries, and, so far as I am aware, the crooks have not so far worked out a way to crack the technology. It helps if the banks are not too mean to pay for end to end transaction encryption (the UK banks were too mean) but the chip and pin cards are orders of magnitude more secure than the old magnetic stripe cards. I could read and write one of the latter cards with a device freely available on the Internet for next to nothing!

This period, just before the Brexit vote and in the run up to the US elections, is a tricky one for me as most of my pension income is paid in Euros and, at the moment, all my savings are in an account designated in Euros. I believe that there will be a radical evolution of Forex rates both for the £ Sterling and the Euro immediately following the Brexit vote whatever the outcome, but of course, upon the outcome depends the direction of the evolution. I think probably both £ Sterling and Euro will benefit from a "remain" vote but that both will crash following an "exit" vote. I also fear for the stability of the US$ if Trump gets the keys to the White House and indeed if Sanders should prevail (although it is Sanders that I myself would support if I voted in the US) I have the option to move my savings into accounts designated in a range that includes most of the worlds major currencies but at the moment, I have no idea which one to choose. Any have any suggestions?

After a prolonged dry spell followed by heavy rain, the roads are like a skating rink anywhere in the world. The combination of rubber dust from tyres and oil drippings from leaky sumps/gearboxes along with dust from brake linings makes a fantastic lubricant that hangs around until the traffic and rain washes it away.

I was driving down the Embankment in London many years back, I stopped at a red light at the bottom of Northumberland Avenue and an articulated petrol tanker slid gracefully into the back of me. It had just started raining after 6 weeks with not a cloud in the sky.

There you go you see. No bribe involved. Thai Police don't do that sort of thing and all's well with the world

The internet is absolutely overrun with people suffering from paranoid delusions. Ludicrous conspiracy theories abound, pseudo-medical nonsense is everywhere. Do I believe a word of it, NO!

We should expect an "informed" description of the products we use, we then have a choice, in many cases we are not informed about the downside of products as it would interfere with sales, a good case is fluoride in water supplies and toothpaste, does nothing apart from making us dummer! Big business cares little about the end user, neither does the small time operator either refering back to the original post, Money is King!

Fluoride makes us "dummer" (sic). Upon what evidence are you basing that statement?

On a related subject, who would ever have thought of this 20 or 30 years ago as a potential carcinogen in the genital area?

http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/89/1/96.full#

Human nature is comical. We worry about the odd dubious ingredient in cosmetic products (like the previously mentioned baby powder) whilst extremely dangerous, 100% dead cert, carcinogens with other deadly effects are sold perfectly legitimately in every corner shop; I refer of course to tobacco.

Another known carcinogen with a wide range of other extremely negative medical and social effects, one that I myself indulge in, is alcohol and that too is on free sale.

Over consumption of red and processed meats, and refined carbohydrates like sugar and above all, the ubiquitous "high fructose corn syrup" are known to have extremely negative effects on peoples health but salami, ham, burgers, beef steaks, ice cream and all manner of cakes, sweets and candy are still on free sale along with what, these days, is regarded as the "bête noire" of the dietary sugar debate, Coca-Cola and other fizzy drinks containing medically ludicrous doses of sucrose.

The elephant in the room is standing right in front of us!

^ Exactly, is the "real" stuff any better? Johnson & Johnson have been sued recently as talcum powder has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt to be carcinogenic, has it been withdrawn from the market or warnings posted!

Talcum powder has NOT been proven beyond reasonable doubt to be carcinogenic. A US jury has found in favour of the plaintif in a case where J&J was sued for the supposed effects of its "Baby powder" and J&J are quite rightly, going to appeal. Most scientists in this field are very doubtful that the statistical effect observed (women who use talc on their genitals are more prone to develop ovarian cancer) is "cause and effect" as the effect seems to be unrelated to dose or exposure. Remember the golden rule in statistics:

Correlation does not equal causation

Take a look at this site to see what spurious correlation is all about http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations . "Expert" witnesses and clever lawyers can manipulate relatively ignorant jurors really very easily and I don't doubt that that is what has happened in this case.

Literally 1000s of companies sell talc in one form or another and it has been in use for 100s of years. 99.99% of us in the west will have been liberally sprinkled with it repeatedly when we were babies for Christ's sake and back in those bad old days, most of it contained trace amounts of asbestos as well!

http:/Blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/4/live-from-the-London -palladium-the-spectators-brexit-debate/

paulpj2

As we all know this referendum is not only about immigration, but also the effect it would have on the UK economy, the future existence of the U.K. itself and the state of democracy in the U.K.

Well in the recent debate in the UK we had Nigel Farage the experienced leader of the largest UK party in the European Parliament describing the EU as being undemocratic,no surprise there then. Dan Hannan leaders of the Conservatives in the EP also stating, that with his experience in Brussels,or is it Strasberg this week, he had to agree with NF. Theses two were then joined by Kate Hoey,a veteran Labour politician who was by far the most fervent and articulated opponent of the political EU system, continually pointing out how undemocratic the EU is. So with all due respect to you I think I will go with those who have the most knowledge of this corrupt organisation and not someone who benefitted from the gravy train.

But most of that is just bullshit by politicians looking/hoping to be on the 'right' side after the vote.

I trust politicians almost as much as I trust known liars.

Nigel Farage doesn't like the EU...WOW! The democratic deficit in the EU is in part caused by clowns like Farage who virtually never turn up to meetings of the parliament that pays them and, you will remember, has so far signally failed to obtain a seat in the British Parliament; the one he apparently wants to claw back sovereignty for!

Gravy train? Well, Farage certainly has his snout so deep in the trough he can't see daylight, but me, I don't think so. I was simply employed by a commercial consulting company to advise the EU and to do some database work for them. If I hadn't been working there I would have working for a bank or some other commercial organization as indeed I was before I went to the EU. My only qualification is that I know something of the internal workings of that organization, much more than most of the people commenting on this thread I would hazard to guess.

And that's pretty much what I said - they are only interested in furthering their own interests in this 'debate'. Except there is no debate, its just at everything vested interests have to say.

Which only aggravates those of us who are looking for the 'right' decision.

But there is no 'right' decision - the EU is good when it comes to workers' rights etc., but also v corrupt and wasteful of the money paid into the EU.

I don't see myself as having a vested interest but I do have some experience of the internal workings of the EU that most people won't have.

I consider myself to be privileged to have been part of the "EU" generation (we joined when I was 23). It gave me the opportunity, as of right, to go live in the four EU countries where I have lived and worked and I am extremely grateful to the EU for giving me the opportunity to enrich my life in that way. Without the "free movement of labour" provisions, I doubt if I would have been able to do it and my life would certainly have been the poorer for that. I'm now retired and my concern therefore is for coming generations; will they have the same opportunities as I had if we leave the EU. I believe that the answer is "no", they won't. Will they have a vital and thriving economy with plenty of job opportunities in an isolated Britain, no, I don't think they will.

Does the EU have problems, yes of course it does! Does the British civil service have problems, yes it most certainly does (somewhere around 40% of their major IT projects are in danger of catastrophic failure). Does the NHS have problems, yes it most certainly does. Does almost any very large organisation or entrerprise that you care to name have problems, yes it does!

Based on my experience inside the EU civil service, it is no worse than any of the other huge organisations I have worked for in the past and it is a great deal better than some!

Yes there is some corruption, I saw some first hand! Is there any corruption in the British government, most certainly! Any large organisation where is money swilling round in quantity will have some level of corruption (depending of course how you define corruption). Is accepting a very expensive lunch from a lobbyist corruption; in my view yes. In which case just about every MP in the House of Commons is guilty and most of the House of Lords.

From what I can see, most people in this discussion have made up their minds and will defend their position to the death so I don't think there is any great likelihood of swaying anyone one way or another. I do find it irritation that people talk such utter twaddle but there you go.

There's another bit of mis-information that has been circulating in this discussion. When British nationals get medical treatment in France, Spain or other EU countries, it's paid for by the British government. This is true ONLY if the British nationals in question are resident in the UK and have a UK EU medical card.

If, like me, they are are permanent residents of the EU country in question then the burden of their medical care falls on the state where they are resident and is NOT reimbursed by the UK government. Different states have different arrangements, in my case I pay around 25 Euros/month to the Luxembourg state, out of my pension for contribution to the Luxembourg equivalent of the NHS (I used to pay a great deal more than that when I was working as it a percentage of earnings). I believe in France, if you are over retiring age, you are entitled to medical care without making contributions. The situation in Spain may be similar to France.

In summary, if there are 800,000 British retirees legally resident in Spain then yes, it will be costing the Spanish government a fortune to treat them and the don't get a penny back from the UK.

Whilst resident in Luxembourg but visiting the UK on holiday, I needed to see a doctor as I injured myself. I explained that I was a Luxembourg resident and proffered my Luxembourg medical insurance card. The receptionist said she didn't need it and that she would take my word for it. The NHS could have clawed back the money for my consultation from the the Luxembourg authorities but they couldn't be bothered! Great eh!

Ignore that poster. He's just pissed off with Brits living in Spain and couldn't give a flying fig that the UK pays for all hospital treatment (assuming the Brit has filled in whatever forms necessary to activate EU medical care).

Try reading what I wrote:

The UK only pays for people who are resident in the UK not people who are permanently resident elsewhere in the EU. It is not a matter of nationality its a matter of permanent residence! The UK does not pay for any treatment for me, Luxembourg pays for my treatment; am I British yes, does Britain pay one penny piece for me...NO! Why because I have not been a resident of the UK since the 1990s.

I don't know where anyone gets the idea that Britain pays for Brit's medical care ad infinitum. It doesn't work like that!

As a matter of interest, unlike the NHS, Luxembourg covers medical care anywhere in the world so when I fell ill here on a previous visit, the Luxembourg version of the NHS paid my medical bills.

Trump backs Bexit.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36219612

Sent from my SMART_4G_Speedy_5inch using Tapatalk

That's another reason to vote to stay in then!

There's another bit of mis-information that has been circulating in this discussion. When British nationals get medical treatment in France, Spain or other EU countries, it's paid for by the British government. This is true ONLY if the British nationals in question are resident in the UK and have a UK EU medical card.

If, like me, they are are permanent residents of the EU country in question then the burden of their medical care falls on the state where they are resident and is NOT reimbursed by the UK government. Different states have different arrangements, in my case I pay around 25 Euros/month to the Luxembourg state, out of my pension for contribution to the Luxembourg equivalent of the NHS (I used to pay a great deal more than that when I was working as it a percentage of earnings). I believe in France, if you are over retiring age, you are entitled to medical care without making contributions. The situation in Spain may be similar to France.

In summary, if there are 800,000 British retirees legally resident in Spain then yes, it will be costing the Spanish government a fortune to treat them and the don't get a penny back from the UK.

Whilst resident in Luxembourg but visiting the UK on holiday, I needed to see a doctor as I injured myself. I explained that I was a Luxembourg resident and proffered my Luxembourg medical insurance card. The receptionist said she didn't need it and that she would take my word for it. The NHS could have clawed back the money for my consultation from the the Luxembourg authorities but they couldn't be bothered! Great eh!

http:/Blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/4/live-from-the-London -palladium-the-spectators-brexit-debate/

paulpj2

As we all know this referendum is not only about immigration, but also the effect it would have on the UK economy, the future existence of the U.K. itself and the state of democracy in the U.K.

Well in the recent debate in the UK we had Nigel Farage the experienced leader of the largest UK party in the European Parliament describing the EU as being undemocratic,no surprise there then. Dan Hannan leaders of the Conservatives in the EP also stating, that with his experience in Brussels,or is it Strasberg this week, he had to agree with NF. Theses two were then joined by Kate Hoey,a veteran Labour politician who was by far the most fervent and articulated opponent of the political EU system, continually pointing out how undemocratic the EU is. So with all due respect to you I think I will go with those who have the most knowledge of this corrupt organisation and not someone who benefitted from the gravy train.

But most of that is just bullshit by politicians looking/hoping to be on the 'right' side after the vote.

I trust politicians almost as much as I trust known liars.

Nigel Farage doesn't like the EU...WOW, now that IS a revelation! The democratic deficit in the EU is in part caused by clowns like Farage who virtually never turn up to meetings of the parliament that pays them and, you will remember, has so far signally failed to obtain a seat in the British Parliament; the one he apparently wants to claw back sovereignty for!

Gravy train? Well, Farage certainly has his snout so deep in the trough he can't see daylight, but me, I don't think so. I was simply employed by a commercial consulting company to advise the EU and to do some database work for them. If I hadn't been working there I would have working for a bank or some other commercial organization as indeed I was before I went to the EU. My only qualification is that I know something of the internal workings of that organization, much more than most of the people commenting on this thread I would hazard to guess.

I'm getting a bit brassed off with all the utter twaddle that people keep spouting on this topic. I spent the last 11 years before my retirement in September 2015 as a consultant to the EU so I know a bit about how it functions.

Faceless Brussels bureaucrats do NOT just dream up legislation and then foist it on an unsuspecting Britain. That's the story the likes of the Daily Mail, The Express, the Sun and the other "Daily " rags of the British press have been selling the gullible British public for years and it is a barefaced lie! You only have to give your grey matter a chance for a split second to realize that that is a completely farcical idea; do you really see the Germans, the French and all the other nations accepting that? Dishonest British politicians (and frankly that's most of them) also have a lot to answer for, as when they have agreed some legislation in Europe they they think the British public will not like, they blame it on Brussels.

In this context, the European Commission is responsible for PROPOSING and researching legislation and, when it has reached some conclusions as to what is needed, a discussion document is prepared and submitted to all interested parties for discussion and comments. That includes, of course, the relevant government departments in the UK. When everybody has had their say, further documents are prepared and submitted to all interested parties and this iterative process continues until there is a consensus of some sort and a final draft document can be prepared. The final draft has to be approved by the Council of Ministers of the EU which includes the relevant senior ministers from the British government (plus a small army of senior civil servants from Whitehall) as well as by the European Parliament. At all times and at all levels the British and its civil servants are as deeply involved in the process as all the other member nations.

This only becomes like "Faceless bureaucrats imposing their will on an unwilling Britain" if you are the editor of the Daily Mail or a dishonest British Minister who doesn't want to admit that (s)he has agreed some new unpopular legislation.

I agree - except I've always thought that the Brit govt. was complicit when it suited their (big business) interests and only put their foot down when Brit business interests were threatened (financial sector) or they were concerned about working hours being reduced.

There's no need to mention the press, as most of us know they are only interested in increasing their profits - or their bosses profits. We take their editorials with a pinch of salt.

Even so, the EU is corrupt (like the Brit govt.) and also undemocratic. Its also extremely expensive - to pay for the corruption as well as the OTT salaries.

I wish! I'm afraid the famous "OTT" EU salaries are a thing of the past as well.

The project manager of the application that I worked on in the EU wanted to ensure that I wasn't tempted away from his team by a juicier offer from elsewhere so he offered me a renewable temporary contract direct with EU. I would probably have taken it, had the offer from Human Resources been sensible but it wasn't. At the time I was earning just short of £70,000/annum which was about par for the course for someone of my age, skills and experience in Luxembourg where salaries are generally rather higher than in the UK. The offer from HR to become a civil servant didn't exactly thrill me, therefore, it was £27,000/annum. Had they offered me double that, I would maybe have considered it as I would have had a lot more holiday each year than the miserable 32 days statutory minimum that I received from the consulting company for whom I worked.

There was a time when EU salaries were a legend, but that time has long gone. The starting salaries offered now are now utterly miserable and they don't go up that fast either. HR couldn't believe that anyone would turn down a job as a civil servant and actually phoned me up to ask me why I didn't take them up on their generous offer!

The EU is changing but it's not "news" in Britain so no one other than insiders like me ever gets to hear about it.

The low end starting salary in the EU today is £22,000/annum and to get in, you have to pass a pretty stiff exam and speak at least two European languages fluently (and if you want to get promoted, ever, make that three)

Fair enough, but how much are EU MPs paid?

I think you'll find that MEPs are paid at the same rate as MPs in their home state. Kind of just, I guess.

Their expenses are pretty generous which they would need to be as most of them will need to maintain a home in Brussels which is a pretty expensive city or stay in hotels and I don't think it's reasonable to expect them to stay in dodgy flophouses. (I don't think payments for moat cleaning or duckhouses are permitted by the EU, however). Nigel Farage takes his salary and does, by all accounts, very little for it. On the subject of his expenses, I can't comment.

I'm getting a bit brassed off with all the utter twaddle that people keep spouting on this topic. I spent the last 11 years before my retirement in September 2015 as a consultant to the EU so I know a bit about how it functions.

Faceless Brussels bureaucrats do NOT just dream up legislation and then foist it on an unsuspecting Britain. That's the story the likes of the Daily Mail, The Express, the Sun and the other "Daily " rags of the British press have been selling the gullible British public for years and it is a barefaced lie! You only have to give your grey matter a chance for a split second to realize that that is a completely farcical idea; do you really see the Germans, the French and all the other nations accepting that? Dishonest British politicians (and frankly that's most of them) also have a lot to answer for, as when they have agreed some legislation in Europe they they think the British public will not like, they blame it on Brussels.

In this context, the European Commission is responsible for PROPOSING and researching legislation and, when it has reached some conclusions as to what is needed, a discussion document is prepared and submitted to all interested parties for discussion and comments. That includes, of course, the relevant government departments in the UK. When everybody has had their say, further documents are prepared and submitted to all interested parties and this iterative process continues until there is a consensus of some sort and a final draft document can be prepared. The final draft has to be approved by the Council of Ministers of the EU which includes the relevant senior ministers from the British government (plus a small army of senior civil servants from Whitehall) as well as by the European Parliament. At all times and at all levels the British and its civil servants are as deeply involved in the process as all the other member nations.

This only becomes like "Faceless bureaucrats imposing their will on an unwilling Britain" if you are the editor of the Daily Mail or a dishonest British Minister who doesn't want to admit that (s)he has agreed some new unpopular legislation.

I agree - except I've always thought that the Brit govt. was complicit when it suited their (big business) interests and only put their foot down when Brit business interests were threatened (financial sector) or they were concerned about working hours being reduced.

There's no need to mention the press, as most of us know they are only interested in increasing their profits - or their bosses profits. We take their editorials with a pinch of salt.

Even so, the EU is corrupt (like the Brit govt.) and also undemocratic. Its also extremely expensive - to pay for the corruption as well as the OTT salaries.

I wish! I'm afraid the famous "OTT" EU salaries are a thing of the past as well.

The project manager of the application that I worked on in the EU wanted to ensure that I wasn't tempted away from his team by a juicier offer from elsewhere so he offered me a renewable temporary contract direct with EU. I would probably have taken it, had the offer from Human Resources been sensible but it wasn't. At the time I was earning just short of £70,000/annum which was about par for the course for someone of my age, skills and experience in Luxembourg where salaries are generally rather higher than in the UK. The offer from HR to become a civil servant didn't exactly thrill me, therefore, it was £27,000/annum. Had they offered me double that, I would maybe have considered it as I would have had a lot more holiday each year than the miserable 32 days statutory minimum that I received from the consulting company for whom I worked.

There was a time when EU salaries were a legend, but that time has long gone. The starting salaries offered now are now utterly miserable and they don't go up that fast either. HR couldn't believe that anyone would turn down a job as a civil servant and actually phoned me up to ask me why I didn't take them up on their generous offer!

The EU is changing but it's not "news" in Britain so no one other than insiders like me ever gets to hear about it.

The low end starting salary in the EU today is £22,000/annum and to get in you need speak at least two European languages fluently, or if you are a manager grade or want to be, three languages fluently, and you have to sit a competitive exam from which the top very small percentage will be put on the list for potential job offers when something comes up. It's very difficult to get into the EU civil service and not very well paid when you get there unless you manage to climb the greasy pole.