Jump to content

jonclark

Advanced Member
  • Posts

    3,877
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by jonclark

  1. Maybe instead of trying to 'woo investors' the givernment focuses on the large number of foreign 'guests' that currently live here they might actually get more sustainable investment / income stream. The probelm with investors is they are in it for a profit. As is self evident by the fact they are investors, and are likely to move on when the situation deteriorates or their venture goes south. PR is an irrelevence. 

     

    I feel the government needs to clarify what it thinks an investor is. A person who buys a single condo is not an investor, unless they are buying the condo or multiple condos to rent out to Thais. 

     

    PR to people who live here with wives and families is a much more pragmatic way to ensure investment from the foreign community and with PR it opens up foreigners being more able to get loans from banks, which can be leveraged for new SME's. 

  2. 5 minutes ago, androokery said:

    The "issue" is quite old - but NI formally being part of the UK is not even 100 years old, right?

    Well yes and no - the first act of union in 1800 made all of Ireland part of the UK and NI sort of sprouted out of that until the Irish war on independence after WW1 which created the division that gave rise to NI, so yes i guess you could say NI as a state is 100 years old but it (the land on which the state sits) has been part of the UK for a lot longer, but there is alot of back history. Not really like Titos Yugoslavia. 

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1
  3. 9 minutes ago, androokery said:

    I'm not British. And I feel that any step towards nationalism is basically a step towards nazism. I like the idea of the European Union. I like its stated purpose of being a project for peace. There are of course issues with the EU that I don't like. And there are members that I think should be kept outside. Or kept on a very short leash. 

     

    The current trend towards nationalism in so many countries at the same time is very dangerous. And intensely stupid. The cost in human lives and suffering when it all goes wrong will be as devastating as it has always been with previous unnecessary wars in Europe. 

    So why is the UK taking this step to break the treaty and international law? It is likely that it will have some impact on the credibility of the current administration in regards to future deals and treaties, so there is obviously a cost associated with this decision. For what exactly?

    The exact nature of the law being introduced, which breaks the treaty, has been seriously under-reported in international press. It seems to have something to do with Northern Ireland and the Good Friday agreement. 

    Going forward with an exit from the EU without solving the issue with Northern Ireland and its border with the EU is mindbogglingly irresponsible. When nationalists argue about the UK's right to decide its own path, they probably mean the right of the English to subjugate other countries, regions and peoples. Northern Ireland is a quite recent addition to the UK - is it even a 100 years old yet? And it seems to be a project very much akin to Tito's Yugoslavian project of moving Serbs into every part of the then Yugoslav nation. And we all know (?) how that ended. 

     

    I shouldn't even get into the arguments of what having or not having a hard border on the Irish island would mean. But it is quite obvious that the proposed solution will lead to unrest, probably to violence, most likely to terrorist deaths. Or freedom fighter deaths - depending on your perspective.

     

    I feel that the UK, without the English language, would by now be about as significant and relevant as Hungary on the international stage. Once part of a great empire, but now squandered by selfish nationalists and a weird separatist agenda. But they still have the language, which we all use even on this forum, regardless of our nationalities. So I guess the UK still matters. 

     

    The Ireland issue goes back alot longer than 100 years and it is a sectarian issue that can be traced back to Henry 8th and the English Reformation some time in the 1550's. It is an issue that literally divides families and communities and is incredibly complex and ingrained. 

  4. This is not a terrible idea and as many have pointed out I am not sure how popular the plan will be. I believe that Thailand is still on the UK list of countries that returnees have to self quarantine at home in the UK when they get back. But for expats and retirees etc, it is workable.

     

    The question I have is what is the response plan, if this goes ahead and then 3 weeks down the line, local transmission starts to pop up in Phuket? Does the whole of Phuket go into lockdown and for how long? Phuket would be totally off limits and that would spell economic disaster for everyone there as not even domestic tours could enter, or would want to enter. Or is it track and trace and state quarantine? 

     

    That question must be answered for the people of Phuket, before this goes ahead. What are the consequences for them if local transmissions occur as a result of the 'Phuket plan'?  

  5. 21 hours ago, rooster59 said:

    The study also found that tourists from Hong Kong, Singapore, Philippines, Indonesia, and India are all targeting Thailand as their first destination when their countries’ borders reopen.

     

    Whilst undoubtedly good news. Statements like this need a bit more detail, namely how many tourists from these countries - 10, 50, 100, 10'000, 1 million. That has a big impact - If its only a couple from each country -- is it worth reporting? 

×
×
  • Create New...