RayC

I would imagine that all Brits in Thailand, regardless of whether they are 'Leaver' or 'Remainer' wouldn't object to having a few extra baht. However, you know for a fact that Thai 'Remainers' "have no concerns about the UK". I don't suppose you have any evidence to back this claim?

No but leaving the EU was the reason why the pound fell +/-10% and has yet to fully recover The bath might have been strong against the pound due to the latter's relative weakness Any evidence to suggest that the baht has been one of the world's best performing currencies against a basket of other currencies (over 1, 5 and/or 10 years)?

It's what you accepted +/-9 hours ago! Fine. Agreed. But - repeating myself yet again - according to your proposition, we can never be in a position to say categorically whether Brexit has failed. I am not in favour of using anecdotal evidence but since you use it, I'll reply in kind. I distinctly remember a woman being interviewed the day after the referendum, who was full of joy ("We've got our country back" was her memorable comment). When the interviewer pointed out that we would not officially leave the EU for some time, she was shocked and couldn't understand why we couldn't leave immediately (24/6/16)? I doubt that she was the only Leave voter who held that view (although, of course, that is my opinion not a fact). Imo very few remainders would deny that Covid had a major impact on the UK government's ability to implement it's post-Brexit "strategy" (I'm being overly generous in using the word) Nevertheless, it is now two years since the pandemic and there is little, if any, sign of promised benefits coming into view, let alone being realised.

You are backtracking and being semantic

1. It's a false premise. If this board is anything to go by, there is no shortage of Brits living in Asia who are Brexit supporters. 2. 'Remainer' Brits in Asia probably lean that way for any number of reasons. The 'safety net' you suggest might be one reason, but it is by no means the only one e.g. the belief that the EU is economically benefital to themselves and/or their family is another.

So the sum total of your proposition amounts to, "It is - and will remain - impossible to judge whether Brexit is - or has been - a success because in order to do so we would find ourselves in a logically impossible situation". That's it!? It's what I thought all along but I kept telling myself that I must be overlooking something. And to think that I have spent time discussing such a vacuous proposition????

You're right. The example I gave is a logical fallacy. Now apply it to your own suggestion. See any difference? No, me neither. Again I agree, and again it is no different to the argument that you employ: You contend that Brexit is on-going, therefore the only logical conclusion is that we must look into the future to judge it. Ignoring the rather important fact that the success criteria for Brexit remain (no pun intended) undefined, your argument amounts to 1. Brexit is on-going 2. We shouldn't rejoin the EU unless Brexit is judged a failure 3. We can only judge Brexit a success or failure if we rejoin the EU Therefore, a) we will never rejoin the EU (because we can't know if Brexit is a failure) b) it is - and always will be - impossible to judge whether Brexit is a success or failure (because we can't rejoin the EU) c) Brexit will continue to be on-going ad infinitum (Note: #2 is my insertion. I accept that you did not state or imply this. However, surely it is uncontroversial? Why would we rejoin the EU if Brexit is a success? < although we can't actually confirm whether Brexit is a success as we are not in the EU; all these circular arguments can tie you up in knots if you are not careful!>: The conclusions are mine, not yours). No doubt you will say that I am twisting your words. If so, please point out where and how I have done so.

Then using your line of argument/ reasoning, the EU cannot be judged a success or failure as it is ongoing. Why then did we leave - or even hold a referendum - if we weren't in a position to make an informed choice about whether it is a success or a failure?

I'm pleased to have contributed????

It's just as well your comments in this thread aren't being marked. Your grade average would take a massive hit.

An essay was once returned to me ungraded but with the remark: "Well, if that's what you think". Make of it what you will.

You answered your own question: Because they are 'entitled' (in the self-centred sense of the word).

'Argument' as in reasons to support a premise. Whether you call it an argument or suggestion, it is facile: It can be applied to any situation. It's effectively meaningless. If Theresa May had remained PM, relations with the EU might have been better. If Jacob Rees-Moog was PM, then relations might be worse. If Man City didn't have mega rich owners, then they might not be in the CL final but instead been fighting relegation from L3, etc, etc, ad infinitum.

https://www.ft.com/content/e6682422-67cb-47a8-a7d0-fb47f09d4301 Not sure if the above link is behind a paywall? Contained in the link are examples of the EU laws which will be repealed later this year. My take on some of the content is given below. Fortunately, those of us in the UK will shortly no longer have to worry about being prosecuted for any overfishing of anchovies, which we might have undertaken in the Bay of Biscay during the 2012 fishing season. Likewise, those who recklessly disregarded the measures relating to fishing in Sao Tome and Principe will shortly be able to rest easy in their beds, as will drivers who breached the limits to working hours during the 2001 foot-and-mouth outbreak. So this is what was meant by "taking back control"!?

Sliding doors! If we had left the EU in March 2019, everything could have been different. That's the extent of your argument?

Ok, there would have been "plenty of time" - sigh ... in reality, an 'extra' eight months - to work on the intricacies .... and ...? You seem to be making great play of this 8-month delay in the original schedule but are unable to explain why and what the effects have been. You're right???? Parliament continued to meet remotely throughout the Covid crisis. If the Minister for Brexit had developed a solution for, say, the Irish border question, it could have been discussed during cabinet meetings and presented to Parliament if needs be. Would you now care to try to explain why there is little sign of any Brexit benefits two years after the pandemic restrictions ended? No wriggles, now.

It is directly relevant to the conversation. I haven't twisted anything to suit myself. I have simply challenged you to defend your position; something you appear unable to do. You suggest that the 8-month - sorry, "nearly a year" - delay in our initially planned departure from the EU and the Covid crisis was instrumental in the benefits of Brexit not being realized: No one would doubt that the Covid restrictions had an impact (although it would have been possible for some work on, for example, trade deals to have continued during lockdown). But why would this eight month delay have made all the difference? What would have been possible during the period between April 2019 and January 2020 that wasn't possible thereafter? As I stated previously, it is two years since the pandemic restrictions were lifted; surely (the beginnings of) these Brexit benefits should have started to become visible by now? (I'll preempt the Ukraine war card being played by asking how it affects the Brexit benefits being realised?)

Two years on from the pandemic and is there any sign of Brexit delivering any economic benefits? It's a rhetorical question: The answer is 'No'.

Imo it is pretty much as simple as @dunroaming suggests. MPs are not delegates and are under no constitutional obligation to vote according the majority view in their constituency: Their remit is to vote in what they consider their constituents' best interests. Having said that, imo there was a strong moral argument that MPs should have voted according to the majority view in their constituency. Nevertheless that is all besides the point. The UK served Article 50 in March 2017. If the process had run to the planned schedule, the UK would have left the EU in April/May 2019 (after the Withdrawal bill had been passed by the UK parliament). As you know, we actually left on 1 February 2020; imo leaving the EU eight months earlier wouldn't have made a blind bit of difference. There would still be no sign of the 'sunny uplands'.

You ignore the fact that this Conservative Government sells arms to repressive regimes such as Saudi Arabia?

Excellent advice but I am bit surprised that you limit these rules to dealing with Immigration only, and have completely omitted Rule #3: Rule #3: When discussion has concluded, wai deeply in the general of all in the vicinity, and recite 'Khob Khun Krub' repeatedly until you are sure that you are out of earshot.????????

I should have been more exact and said 'resident for tax purposes'. I believe Thailand has the same (basic) determinant for tax residency as the UK i.e. that you are tax resident if you spend more than 183 days/year in the country. You say that you receive no benefits from Thailand but what about the emergency services, government departments, government investment in infrastructure, etc? People might complain about the quality of the services and/or claim that they do not benefit from them personally but theses services still need to be provided and paid for.

That's a reasonable (and reasoned) argument. However, if you are a resident of Thailand, then imo that's where your UK pension should be taxed (and where you should be permitted to vote: I accept that this is unlikely to occur anytime soon). I know that pensions are (usually) a product of income earned in an individual's home country, but expats benefit from the services provided by their host countries and imo they should contribute financially for their provision.

Fair point and Harry may well still be traumatized by his mother's death. You would have to be heartless not to feel sympathy for him in this regard. However, the description of this particular event; 2 hour high-speed chase through Manhattan endangering all and sundry, with the police unable to intervene and put an end to things, beggars belief. He appears to be ill-advised.

I am not a monarchist and usually try to avoid this soap opera, however, I find myself becoming increasingly irritated by this self-seeking, publicity-hungry couple. The paparazzi might be a bunch of ***** but I find it hard to believe that they would be active, willing participants in a "catastrophic" event and even less likely that the NYPD would not be able to intervene, especially as two of their colleagues were nearly mown down according to the publicity-shy couple's spokesman. Perhaps Harry is still suffering mental health problems and I should be generous?