cleopatra2

Big Joke as immigration chief always regarded the immigration act outdated and sought to have it rewritten. Now maybe he has sufficient evidence to persuade the person's in authority to do so. My personal opinion is that the prospective changes will involve more than the monies in the bank. It will involve a complete overhaul of the system.

MF seems somewhat confused. Initially claiming that Parliament did not have the authority to apply rule 41. Some MF taking the issue to the ombudsman and eventually the CC. Now MF want Parliament to settle the issue and not involve the CC.

There is no obligationt for a shop/store to accept legal tender. The method of acceptable payment is at the shops discretion. The term Legal tender only means that if a person owes a debt and presents legal tender to pay that debt , the creditor cannot pursue the debt if they refuse to accept the legal tender.

Oh come on ! The singular pronoun They is used when the subject has been introduced but the sex has not been identified. " They " as a singular pronoun is used in spoken English regularly , and is recorded in literature from 18th , 19th century.

You are correct that the UK does not need to have another states permission. However the UKs position is the uprating as a general rule is not exportable outside the UK. In addition over the years the UK have entered into agreements with other states on Social Security provisions. These agreements can require that the uprating is to be applied.

The CC suspended Pita acting only in the capacity of MP. Pita was still able to be nominated to be PM.

I would agree. However the supposed meeting is gaining traction in the media. The timing of MF requesting the issue of Pita renomination to be sorted by Parliament alone aligns . The alleged meeting took place on Monday/Tuesday. MF makes the statement of Pita renomination on Wednesday.

Did not 17 MF members petition the ombudsman , who then went to the CC. Now the MF want not to involve the CC and allow Parliament to decide . Parliament already decided for Pita to be renominated a change of status is required. The same nomination cannot be resubmitted.

The new Senators do not have a vote. It will solely be the House of Representatives.

If the strategy is to wait for May when the senators no longer have a vote, this would be a mistake for the MF party. The coalition only exists in an attempt to nullify the Senators vote. Once the Senators no longer have a vote , there is no reason for the coalition to exist. Both MF and PT have sufficient numbers to bring about their own separate majority with other parties. Of course there is no guarantee that before May next year an opposition party nominates another candidate and bypassing the existing coalition.

Regarding the PM does not have to be a MP. However the PM candidate still falls under the prohibition of MPs , namely section 98. I would envisage if Pita is approved as PM whilst the issue of ITV shares is still unresolved , then a petition on Pita suitability as a minister will be lodged. Section 89 of the constitution leads to section 160 ( prohibitions of ministers) , which further leads to section 98 and the prohibition of share ownership arises again.

The Ombudsman is saying Parliaments use of rule 41 was unconstitutional.Thus has refered the use of rule 41 to not accept the renomination to the CC . The CC acceptance of the EC Pita shares and subsequent suspension is not being challenged by the ombudsman

They have already 2 votes for this coalition , one by motion the other by proxy. On both occasions the coalition unsuccessfull.

I must have missed something . Has there been amendments to the constitution that i am unaware of/ According to section 109 of the constitution the outgoing Senators remain in position untill the new senators are appointed. There is also the issue the opposition can nominate a candidate. The longer time passes the more apathy will encumber the population.

The Senators stay in place beyond their term untill new Senators appointed.

This is laughable. MF will support a PM candidate that will not touch section 112. But we're willing to hamper their own PM nomination by insisting on section 112 amendment. If amendment of section 112 is such a principle stance within MF how can they support a PM candidate that has stated they will not touch section. 112

Equally there was a MP who was disqualified for owning 1 share . Nobody can be confident how a court will rule. With regards the AIS shares the EC initially disqualified the candidate , which was overturned by the Supreme Court.

Ok I understand that Pita could as executor be holding the shares. However this raises the question why did Pita continue to hold the shares as executor untill after the election. Under Thai inheritance laws Pita would be the owner of at least part of the shares if no will left to state otherwise. I do not know all the details but am leaning towards that Pita was the true owner of the shares.

Do the Senators not stay in position beyond their term untill new Senators appointed.

Given that PTP have stated they will not touch section 112 . How can MF justify staying in the coalition , considering the recent PM nomination principles that section112 is cornerstone of their election promises

If that is the case why did the MF party leave out of the MOU the section 112 amendment.

So is amending section 112 more important than MF party promise to give pensioners 3000 baht every month.

Of course it's possible. There are 500 seats to be won.

I would agree if MF had won sufficient seats without needing a coalition . Is it right that he should sacrifice all his other policies for amending section 112. Why does he hold amending section 112 so sancrement at the expense of others. I would prefer he compromised on section 112 ,( don't fight the battles you cannot win) and implemented the issues that improve the Thai people.

The numbers 1.57 1.61 etc in first column are the light refraction index. Simply put they reflect how the thickness of lens will be. The other numbers prefixed with sph and cyl are the prescription.