RayC

We've been down this road many times before, Jonny. 'Brexit isn't the problem, it's the way in which it was implemented' is the mantra. And my question(s) remains the same, What exactly should Brexit have looked like? How could it have been implemented differently? I'll save you the bother of mentioning the ECHR. Leaving the ECHR might be a bone to throw to the rabid dogs, but it's not going to make much difference to economic performance.

You should read posts more carefully. This is what I posted: "Alternative viewpoints (not all of which I agree with): * Net zero: Necessary if the life on earth is to continue" Notwithstanding the above, I explained the economic concept of an externality in a long reply to you some months ago. I will not repeat it here but suffice to say, environmental pollution is a prime example of an externality. It has an economic (and social) cost to society which is not borne by the producer or the consumer. Ignoring the obvious social costs - e.g. reduced utility resulting from a poorer quality of life, etc - from a purely economic perspective, the market is distorted. The Clean Air legislation introduced in the UK in the '50s are examples of how the costs of these externalities can be addressed. Many producers, notably the electricity providers, were against this legislation and warned of the dire economic consequences of its' introduction. No doubt, you would have been fully behind these objectors. Fortunately, the governments of the day had the sense to ignore these protests. If they hadn't it is almost unimaginable what the effect would have been like on the capital's economy and, more importantly, on the general welfare of Londoners.

What criteria are you using to measure economic health? Try justifying your statement with some empirical data: "10 years of disaster pre- 2024 for Greece" Hard to believe, but ignorance seems to be increasing exponentially rate among certain right-wing members.

KrungThai phoned me back and told me to complete the formalities by 11 APRIL. Other than that it's exactly what Mark and Anrcaccount stated i.e. present myself with my passport and bank book at a branch.

The massive issues were following the 2008 financial crash, the effects of which were mostly felt by Greece up to the early 2010s. You stated that Greece had experienced 10 years of decline until 2024. That is incorrect. Apart from the COVID years and 2017, the Greek economy has been growing year-on-year since 2014 so, no not cherry picking, just correcting your erroneous 'facts'.

Thanks for the reply. I'm here <183 days so (lack of) Thai TIN shouldn't be a problem for me (famous last words). I faced a similar request years back. I'm a Brit but was tax resident in Belgium. UK bank sent me some forms. Filled them in. Sent them back. Last I heard of it. If I remember correctly according to the Belgian authorities, in Europe only the name of account and account # were shared unless there are grounds to investigate criminal activity. Not sure if that is still the case or whether that situation applies worldwide?

Actually, the Greek economy has grown by +/-17% since 2021 but, hey, don't let the facts get in the way.

I thought that the ERG Flat Earth Brigade had exhausted the unsubstantiated, insane criticisms of the EU during the Brexit campaign. Clearly I was wrong. Chapeau, Donald!

Good one😂 But Randy has nothing to worry about. On the days they say he was on Epstein's island, he was actually at Pizza Hut in Woking; he's got the bills to prove it😉

Tried ringing KrungThai about this message but no reply. Before I troop off to my branch, can anyone confirm if there is any documentation other than the usual passport, bank book and bank card that I need to bring with me? Many thanks.

Let's suspend reality for a moment and assume that the UK has some influence on the world stage and has entered into a negotiation about emissions with China and India. Adopting your position, the conversation might go something like this. UK: We'd like you to formulate a plan for achieving 'net zero', C+I: Difficult but we'll give it a go. Can we have your plan. We'll use it as a template for our own. UK: Err .. We don't have one. C+I: What? How do you hope to achieve 'net zero' without a plan? UK: Actually we don't have any intention of trying to achieve 'net zero'. C+I: So let's get this straight. You're asking us to take measures that you are unwilling to take yourself? UK: Err ... Yes. That's the nub of it. C+I: Wonder if we can make it to Heathrow in time to catch the next planes home? Perhaps. But any savings wouldn't be immediate. Starmer is no more an authoritarian tyrant than he is someone deliberately trying to make the UK poorer. It is ridiculous hyperbole. It would.

Just think of me as a latter day Buddah bringing enlightenment.

I'll take my leave of this thread now as it became tedious a good while ago. No doubt you and your fellow intellectual giants of the right will be congratulating each other about how you saw off another socialist, communist, national socialist, fascist - I probably missed a few - lefty with the power of your argument. Have fun. Fill your boots as they say. All the best.

I have no idea of the relevance of this question but the answer is because we don't like British/ European winters, and we are in the fortunate position to be able to winter in Thailand. We will return to the UK next month. I hope that has sated your curiosity about my domestic arrangements?

Oh dear, I'm under surveillance. I thought that was the preserve of the socialist lefties?

Alternative viewpoints (not all of which I agree with): * Net zero: Necessary if the life on earth is to continue * Higher (business) taxes: Necessary if public service provision is to be maintained * (Further) Incentives for illegal immigrants: ??? None that I can see * Apple demand: Made under the Investigatory Powers Act in order to enhance the protection of UK citizens So what we have is option. In your opinion, Starmer's policies have a negative effect, others have a different perspective. Starmer may be stupid in your opinion, but to accuse him of having more sinister motives requires a lot more evidence than just your opinion.

He was always going to. Any US President can have influence (some) worldwide events although Trump has certainly made a large impact in quick time.

Is there any point to this comment?

Where have I insulted Trump? Where have I criticised him for stating that Europe should increase its' defence spending? Answer to both questions: I haven't. In fact, I think that he is correct regarding Europe's defence spending. Might be best to get your facts straight before commenting.

Ok. I'll admit it. I got it completely wrong when I thought that the comments in this thread couldn't get any more banal and simplistic. As for the three comments which precede this one? These are meant to be examples of the supposed intellectual superiority of the right?

I have my bias - we all do - but I don't see how you could deduce that from my previous post? It's also ironic that having accused me of bias, you prove my point regarding your own anti-Labour/ anti Starmer bias by openly displaying it so plainly in the very next sentence! You clearly object to UK Overseas Aid: Given that, surely the only valid criticism which you could make of Starmer's announcement would be that the cuts don't go far enough? Of course Starmer didn't want to do this and I agree, his hand has been forced by Trump (Reform are irrelevant in this regard). The situation has changed and Starmer has adjusted his stance. To misquote Keynes and do so out of context, "If the facts change then I may change my position". Or as the blessed Nigel said very recently, "I'm allowed to change my mind". What is so wrong with that? I don't understand what is the relevance of the removal of the winter fuel allowance to this discussion? Labour (Starmer) made a policy decision to get rid of it. You think that it was the wrong decision. Fine. It's valid to criticise Starmer's character/ attributes as being unsuitable for the role of PM, however, the idea that any UK PM - whatever their political persuasion - would possess "natural instincts to make the UK poorer" is so ridiculous that it doesn't merit a response. As for the next election. 4.5 years is a long time in politics in normal circumstances. Given the pace with which events are moving, imo it would be foolish to predict what will happen next month let alone in 2029.

Some people's bias apparently know no bounds. Starmer could announce that he has found a cure for all cancers. Rather than see the good in that, you would both probably criticise him for not curing Alzheimers at the same time.

You consider that to be an intelligent observation?

It is impossible to comment on the findings of this particular study as your link provides only the Abstract. Post a link to the full article and the methodology can be examined. Notwithstanding that, the conclusion suggests correlation not causation. Also worth noting that the research methods employed by the author in many of his other studies have been widely discredited by his peers e.g. "Academic scrutiny of Noah Carl's [OpenPsych] papers clearly reveals selective use of data and unsound statistical methods which have been used to legitimise racist stereotypes about groups" — Clement Mouhot, Professor of Mathematics, Cambridge University

Suggesting that your initial statement is nonsensical and that the subsequent comments of those who support you are banal and simplistic are not mutually exclusive statements.