Mike Teavee

35 minutes ago, vogie said:

Twisting figures is something that remainers are very good at, but at the end of the day it is deceitful. Understanding how our voting system works would realy help you in this instance, it is not about people who couldn't be bothered to vote, and children and babies illegable to vote, but the electorate who actually turned up at the polling booth and cast their votes. Just the same with General Elections, the people that don't vote will never ever be counted. 

Again, I'm just pointing out the fact that people who say the majority of the British electorate (by definition people who are entitled/eligible to vote so obviously does not include children/babies) to Leave are wrong... 37% of the British electorate voted to leave. In what way is that deceitful? 

I'm not claiming this changes anything or suggesting that Leave somehow "Lost" the vote, just pointing out the fact that if we do leave the EU, it will be because of 37% of the British electorate & not 52%.

37 minutes ago, vogie said:

Come back to me if you disagree that more people voted to leave than remain.

I never said or attempted to hint that wasn't the case, I merely stated a fact that the number of people who voted leave would not be a majority of the British electorate

Come back to me if I'm wrong

1 hour ago, vogie said:

Anybody that spins numbers to try and make their point is just wasting time, just remember that the people that voted are the only ones that matter.

No spin, I'm simply stating a fact that it was a minority of the British electorate (37%) that voted leave, this minority was greater than the minority that voted remain but it is still a minority whether you like it or not.

Edit "just remember that the people that voted are the only ones that matter" - Do you really believe this or are just saying it because it fits your narrative? 

53 minutes ago, vogie said:

One section of society is angry at the minority section who have no values or beliefs in upholding a democratic vote. If people had come together after the referendum and respected the vote of the majority in the country there would be very little division.

 

M"So Britain is becoming a country where we: -Prosecute dissidents for political opinions -Overturn democractic elections -Raid political parties' offices 2 days before an election You can see why remainers love the anti-democratic EU so much."

Steven Edginton.

To be clear the majority of the electorate in the UK did not vote to leave the EU, approx 37% did,  so by leaving you'd be respecting the majority of the people who voted in the referendum BUT you would not be respecting the approx 63% of the electorate who did not vote to leave.

21 minutes ago, Bournville said:

After living in Thailand for 6 years, 3 of which were in Chiang Mai, I can say this article is like a green light at a busy intersection in Thailand ... Use it only as a guideline. 

 

The cultural side of Chaing Mai is no better than many interesting spots around Thailand. The air is awful most of the year and the traffic/driving habits absurd. My score for Chiang Mai is 5/10. The national problem for many foreigners are the ever changing visa requirements. 

 

I've been on Bali for 7 weeks now. Tested out Ubud... 6/10 and Sanur 7/10. Kuta and Seminyak 3/10. Ubud fails miserably with too many vehicles on narrow roads. Sanur is on the beach...fresh air and still plenty of balinese culture all around. 

 

Indonesia has been MUCH more welcoming with respect to long stay visas. 

 

Just how are these articles compiled? What's the sample size.. 5..  50 or 500 or more ? 

 

Can you please provide more information on your long stay visa as the research I've done suggests is much harder/more expensive to get one unless your married to a local (It doesn't help that < 55 (53))... Unless you go for the 1 Year ME option which seems to involve border runs every 60 days

1 hour ago, holy cow cm said:

Sure.

-Forced deposits you cannot touch or income verification that cannot step out of line per month or void.

-90 day forced check ins. 

-TM30 forced checking of being back at home. 

-Small yearly allowances to stay here. 

So many jump through the hoop benefits

Have you looked at the hoops you need to jump through to retire in the other places mentioned... 

• Malaysia - MM2H is an excellent retirement package BUT comes with much higher financial requirements (a couple who only have $1,200 pm couldn't meet them)
• Bali - min 55, mandatory Health Insurance, $1,500 (~50k THB) pension or $18,270 (~600K THB) in Bank, proof of rental agreement of at least $380 pm (~12K THB) [NB You usually pay 1 year advance in Bali] & a letter stating that you agree to employ at least 1 Indonesian.
• Vietnam & Taiwan - No Retirement Visa Options  

... Makes Thailand look like a doddle (Though as somebody who is on the cusp of making the move, I'm leaning towards elsewhere).

24 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

Not really.

 

Anyone who was determined that the uk should remain would have voted for the 'change' or Lib Dems parties.

 

I'm still suprised that remainers are arguing that only those who voted brexit/ukip were genuine leave voters, whilst endorsing the idea that those who voted green/snp etc. were firm remain voters ......

Why wouldn't somebody vote Green if the rest of the Parties policies aligned closer to their own beliefs & obviously Scotland, Ireland & Wales have their locally focused parties to vote for.

I wasn't arguing that only  those who voted Brexit/UKIP were genuine leave voters, I was stating that if the most important thing to you was Brexit/No 2nd Referendum that was your choice of parties, if you were pro 2nd Referendum then you would choose from any of the ones I mentioned, if it wasn't your main priority you would vote with the party that reflected that... Must say it is laughable that nobody can say with any certainty what the 2 "Major" parties stance is on 2Rm, that's why (IMHO) they lost so many votes 

14 minutes ago, sanemax said:

Which percentage of eligible UK voters voted for the Change party ?

They were the only other party to stand on the one issue of leave or remain .

The big difference is that if you wanted to vote Remain (or at least for a 2nd Referendum), you could choose between voting Change UK, Lib Dem, SNP, UDP, PC, if you wanted to be sure of a vote for Brexit/No 2nd referendum, then your only choice (with any certainty) was to vote Brexit or UKIP.

Again, it's impossible to compare the parties whilst one of them is campaigning on a single issue and the rest are being judged (maybe more favorably) on a variety or issues.

As an aside, I'm surprised that nobody has pointed out the fact that a large percentage of the Brexit Party 31.6% votes would have been cannibalized from UKIP (Down 24.2%) so the overall gain would probably be more like 7.7% 

1 hour ago, dick dasterdly said:

"60% voted for leave parties, Brexit, Tory, Lab, UKip ......... all leave parties.

Remain in the form of ChangeUK got 2.9%,  & LibDems 18.5%"

 

Precisely, it's easy to shape statistics to support a viewpoint - and this is evident by the inclusion of Green/SNP etc. in the remain statistics, ignoring the likely fact that a number of those who voted for these parties were less interested in brexit than the parties' other policies!

 

If not, they would have voted for the brexit party/ukip/change or libdems.

 

Agree entirely with your last para. - except the next GE will be a long time coming as a result of the eu elections.....  Politicians from both tory and labour are going to be very frightened and not stupid enough to call for a GE in the near future.

By the same token you could say that the absence of policies on anything but leaving the EU means that the Brexit Party's numbers cannot be relied upon as when (IF!!!) they put policies forward on Education, Health Service, Pensions & Benefits, Policing, Armed Forces, the Economy etc... People may not agree with them & switch their vote to a party that they do agree with.

E.g. What would you do if the Brexit party announced a policy that State Pensions would only be paid to people living in the UK? [I'm not saying for 1 minute they would, just using it as a (hopefully) extreme example of something that could  cause people to switch their vote from them).

You can't really compare a one-tune party with ones that have to put out complete albums... 

8 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Shouldn't you be including Labour and Conservatives in with Brexit?

Making the leave vote 60%.

They all seem to want to leave, but merely argue about the deal.

Again, the original article I posted & the Telegraph article are highlighting the Pro Vs Con Brexit results neither the Tories or Labour are clearly committed one way or the other or we would have got something through Parliament before now

2 hours ago, Loiner said:

Remainer Fake News and fake graphics. It's the BBC, therefore subject to Remainer spin and bias.

CON and Liebour are both 'Pro-Brexit' parties. They must be, because they both still say they respect the referendum result; both were elected on Leave manifestos; and both enacted legislation for our Withdrawal, didn't they??

That would make it 58.1 for Brexit.

If you don't like the BBC, try the Telegraph... https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/05/27/won-uks-european-elections-leave-remain/

While the Brexit Party was the clear individual winner in the UK's European elections, picking up a third of the national vote, straightforwardly pro-Brexit parties were actually out-polled by those who are arguing for a second referendum.

The Lib Dems, Greens, Plaid Cymru and Change UK - all backers of a second referendum - collectively gained the support of 40.3 per cent of voters in England and Wales, against no-dealers Ukip and the Brexit Party's combined 36.7 per cent.

2 hours ago, Jip99 said:

 

 

Interesting that you have totally discounted the Leavers in the Tory and Labour votes.

 

Take half out of each (neither have declared themselves as Remain... only Lib Dems and the pathetic Change UK) + half a million UKIP votes and I think you will find that your conclusion holds less water than a sieve with bl00dy big holes in.

I discounted nobody, I merely shared a news story showing the %s won by openly Pro/Con Brexit parties - I don't think anybody believes that the Tory's & Labour are clearly one way or the other, or something would have managed to get through parliament (even if it was No Deal).

Rumblings are that Labour might contest any GE on a Remain card (or at least a 2nd referendum card), would that make it 54.5 to remain? Who knows, the only thing we do know are the percentages for the openly/overtly Pro/Con Brexit parties.

17 minutes ago, evadgib said:

He had an umbrella ????

(TBH I heard rather than saw the interview, but it was a good one in which he was 'on form' albeit a little tired/grumpy.

I was horizontal at the time doing some floor exercises!!)

Most guys just think of baseball, but I suppose listening to Nigel would do the trick ???? 

[Sorry, couldn't resist - I'll get my coat) 

4 minutes ago, LennyW said:

And readily available here, lovely!!

Yep, picked a few tins up from Villa last week ???? 

3 hours ago, Peterw42 said:

It would be great to see a couple of retractions/I was wrong statements. There was lots of speculation and opinion either way, only applies to OA or its for all visa/extension.

3-4 posters were adamant that it was for all visa's and all extensions, and were pushing that narrative. a lot of scaremongering and angst for nothing, they appear to be very quiet now.

So far we've had 1 announcement from a Health Minister & 1 radio interview with an immigration officer that were both inaccurate & (IMHO) inconclusive, once the position has been confirmed, I'd be happy to say that I was wrong if that is the case, but for now I'll keep believing in logic/common sense (I know...  TiT & I shouldn't expect logic/common sense, it's a bad habit I'm trying to get rid of)

2 minutes ago, madmen said:

See now your just being nasty. Was only trying to help...keep pumping the key board drama, knock yourself out ! Im out for a beer ????

Lol.. Knock myself out!!!  See the other thread on mandatory Health Insurance, I literally did that coming out of the BTS on Sunday & ended up in Sukv Hospital with a 15K bill

Have 2 insurances one of which should cover it (hopefully corporate as it wont impact my private renewal), will work that out when I'm back in the office on Monday... 

Enjoy your Beer(sssssssss) ???? 

9 minutes ago, Peterw42 said:

The first announcement came from the ministry of health, and it was clear they didnt really know how OA visa's work. Subsiquent announcements (like this thread) have come from immigration to clear up the misunderstanding.

 

OX visa's list the same thai insurance companies for the specific insurance required, I presume the OA will operate in the same manner, you get the visa then there is a check-in with immigration when you arrive to show you have taken up the insurance.

Nowadays you can actually buy thai insurance via a website with a credit card from your home country if required.

So this one is more valid because it comes from some guy in HH..

And you "Presume"... so that makes it all ok then?

I'm not being argumentative, you can see where I'm going here, my original post commented that you cannot just accept this only applies to Non-OAs (Which we've already agreed it doesn't)... 

Think I've made my point so I'll leave it now :} 

7 minutes ago, madmen said:

Your gonna have a heart attack LOL

Go for a walk dude. have a beer, rent a girl , get out into the real world away from your PC your a bundle of nerves right now

LMFAO... I've got beer, no need to rent a girl & very much live in the real world... 

When was the last time you left the house, that wasn't to your local watering hole?

Edit: Only sat in front of my laptop (With beer) is because I have an early flight back to SG tomorrow, what's your excuse/plans? 

6 minutes ago, madmen said:

 The original release said that you can also get Insurance from your home country as LONG a sit meets 400/40k. But anyone wanting the local insurance can go online and buy it..Internet is pretty amazing these days

 

What do you do with your time outside of being a pro scare mongerer ????

Keeping my head out of the sand ???? 

Joking aside, as I said a couple of posts back I am at the stage where I'm jumping in & when I see these completely illogical arguments/thinking it concerns me about going in nuts deep.

Fortunately which ever way it goes, it doesn't really impact me (53, touch wood healthy no priors & budgeted 10k THB pm for health insurance) BUT what makes me uncomfortable is the seemingly randomness of the rules.. 

17 minutes ago, Peterw42 said:

Why quote the original announcement, this Thread and others have shown it was not correct.

 

The word renew or any confusion about its meaning is not in the OP.

 

Quote: "Prachuap Khiri Khan Immigration told Thaivisa that the new requirements only affect people seeking Non-Immigrant Visa O-A."

 

Notice the word renew is no longer used.

Huh?  Who made the original announcement no longer relevant & how is this one more valid (I understood the 1st one came from a more senior / official source).

The reason I quoted it was to show that these official announcements cannot be relied on - how is the guy from HH Immigration going to impact a Non-OA Visa Issuance in Timbuktu?

And... again... If it's only  Visa's obtained in your own country WHY are the Thai Insurance companies the only ones listed on the "Official" approved insurance list & can you even apply for one of these if you don't currently live in Thailand (Which I would imagine a large proportion of the Non-OA Visa applicants wouldn't)

Edit: I've already pointed out that this announcement is not accurate (It states ONLY NON-OA & we all know the rules originated from the Non-OX) so have shown it to be incorrect, why bother commenting on it.

25 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

Why wind yourself up?

The article, and the original article form a few weeks back, clearly stated "O-A Visas" only.

 

There are other regulations in place for extensions of stay such as money in the bank or proof of income being paid into a Thai bank account.

The reason it winds me up so much is though I have a 1 year Non-O ME (Only got it due to the clamp down on frequent visitors, I visit 20 or so times a year), I still live & work in Singapore but plan to make the move full time (already have Condo here) in January, reading statements from so called "Officials" which simply don't make sense (Haven't seen one yet on this subject that an imbecile couldn't point out flaws in) is making me have 2nd thoughts.

If you're committed to Thailand already & are choosing to read what you want into these flawed statements then I genuinely hope you're right (And I do genuinely hope I'm wrong & what they end up implementing really does makes no sense at all), but it's a different ballgame when you're having to choose to do it.

5 hours ago, HuaHinHim said:

So I have the O-A visa in my passport which was issued based on marriage to a Thai and we also have a child. So that means I need insurance or not? Clear as mud

You cannot get a Non O-A on the basis of marriage or supporting a Thai Child, that's a Non-O.... 

You may have originally moved to Thailand on the Basis of a Non OA but that would have been "Retirement" (Over 50)