talahtnut

15 hours ago, oldhippy said:

OK

It is because of too many opt outs and exceptions

It is because of not enough EU

No maybe's

 

Maybe you're wrong.

15 hours ago, Grouse said:

I take your point. However, they can't cover all the bases. We are largely responsible for our own economic system. I hate to forecast what's coming down the line...

I can give you a hint...it comes out of the end a sewer, and its brown.

15 hours ago, oldhippy said:

maybe that is because of the opt outs & exceptions?

maybe that is because of not enough EU?

Too many maybe's for me.

15 hours ago, Grouse said:

I think you will find that inequality will increase exponentially without EU constraints on the Komodo Cons.

EU 'restraints' have'nt done much so far.

15 hours ago, simoh1490 said:

But he has access to one, that is the point.

 

I didn't have a car either when I lived in the UK. I lived in the North and I went to job interviews in London by train, coming back the same day, easily a 4 hour journey one way at the time. Only seeking local jobs because the person doesn't have a car, seems like they really aren't trying that hard or are probably not too serious about improving their lot.

 

I think one of the things that is happening with Brexit is many younger people are looking at their wealth versus that of their parents and are feeling disenfranchised and they're looking for someone to blame, for many, the EU and all membership entails is the target and Brexit is the means - that is, seriously misguided stuff. 

Could you afford the Train fare to London now?

House prices have been prohibitive long before brexit.

More and more folk are living homeless.

15 hours ago, simoh1490 said:

In my days there were no employment agencies, no internet, no email, we didn't even have a telephone. If I wanted a job I either had to read the national newspapers with the job adverts in them every Thursday, write a letter and wait for a reply or I would go to the company and try to get an interview. Yes, times have changed, now with the internet you have access to thousands of job vacancies and instant replies.

There are still those without internet or computer. A friend uses my machine, but can only seek local jobs as he has no car,  jobs available are low paid menial positions like washing up, or gardening, at the moment he shovels pig muck in a piggery..he tells me that it is not as easy as it once was to get a job.  Firms paying people not to work, may be the future.

15 hours ago, vogie said:

Yes intelligence can go a long way. You can educate an intelligent person but not the other way round as I'm sure you know.

It is not uncommon for people with high IQ to make stupid mistakes.

On the other hand, a dog can be taught some quite clever tricks.

Common sense is rare.

16 hours ago, simoh1490 said:

I'm having difficulty understanding this, if I take it at face value then I have even more difficulty understanding why that should be! I grew up without the benefit of computers or mobile phones or even a university degree plus I grew up in a class ridden society in which I had no connections, AND I was from the North to boot! I left home with no money to speak of, I moved, I took chances, I worked hard, I took chances and I never lived off the state - I was 35 before I bought my first home in the UK. So please, do tell me MMB, why young people today can't aspire to achieving what I achieved and why it's just fantasy?

In your days there were no zero hours contract, 100 people applying for the same job, and university grads having to work in McDonalds.

Times have changed.

16 hours ago, SheungWan said:

It must be Christmas Panto time.

Widow Twanky advertising the UK panto?

15 hours ago, GarryP said:

You are comparing swimming costumes, not something I would dress up in to go out on the town, nor any woman for that matter.

 

To quote you, "value comes from the heart". How are you able to make a determination on whether a person has a good heart/is a good person without talking to them? And yet you do that very thing, judging them on the way they are dressed. 

 

When a man dresses up to go out at night or to a party he puts on his best shoes, slacks, shirt or even a suit, etc. When women do this many often put on high heels, somewhat revealing or body hugging dresses, or other such clothing. Note the difference. Why is it not wrong for a man but wrong for a woman?  Both dress to attract, but it is wrong for a woman to do so in your book because it makes her shallow.    

The mankini was a metaphor.  Theres nothing wrong with your best bib and tucker,.. its 'style' that's important.

How you dress, and your choice of woman is up to you.

Bear in mind, the divorce rate is quite high, even in the street where I am, its not unusual to hear a rumpus going on in the early hours...

to everyone's amusement.    We're all different, have fun.

15 hours ago, simoh1490 said:

Oh dearie me, feeling victimised are we!

 

The fact is that if Brexit goes really well, everyone will benefit, if it goes poorly it will result in higher taxes to pay for services and borrowings and as a result, the wealth creators, the business owners with money, many will leave. That will leave the less well off to fill the tax gap either directly by paying higher taxes or indirectly through fewer services. At some point, the electorate will get fed up with the Cons. and there will be an election where Labour could well end up in government. Given that scenario, the poorer in society will benefit in the short term but again, at some point, taxes will have to rise to pay for improved services and borrowings - that leads to a repeat of the above.

 

But getting back to being stuffed! As I recall I was twenty years old before I lived in a house that had central heating and my family was quite well off, many still didn't have an inside toilet. I was seventeen before we owned our first TV and car ownership was not common at all - few people had ever travelled overseas. Forty-five years on those things are now very different, just one example of how everyone benefits if the country does well, not just the very wealthy.

Perhaps you are lucky and done well in the system, but I know folk who are  poor, no car, no tv, no hope, working class.  Its known as austerity..a government policy to reduce the UK massive debt. The rich get the pleasure, and the poor get the blame.

15 hours ago, GarryP said:

So a man can "dress up" but a woman can't. A man "dressing up" would not be seen as provocative, but a woman "dressing up" would. Perhaps chador is the way to go then!!!!!

 

One can be both intelligent/kind and attractive. Everybody should be confident in the way they look and if you happen to be attractive/handsome, it should not detract from the fact that you are also intelligent/altruistic or whatever. If I am handsome or beautiful why should I not dress to show it if it makes me happy. 

 

When I see a beautiful "provocatively" dressed woman, I do not instantly go, "Oh she must be evil and thick".  I do not make assumptions about people based on the way they dress.

 

 

The same applies too men.. try walking down beach road in a mankini.

I have noticed that some farang boast of their wealth to attract the ladies..Handsome is as handsome does.

Where did I mention evil and thick?  Read again word for word, you have misunderstood at first glance.

18 hours ago, Kadilo said:

 Don't know where you go with your lady but places I go don't have this problem. Sounds more like a zoo. 

And once again......it's not about guys showing off their lady, it's about letting her dress herself. If she wants to wear a short skirt/ dress, as many ladies do, that's her choice. You can't legislate for animals. 

There is no gain in telling a woman how to dress, one choses the right woman that suits oneself.  When we choose to dress in a provocative way, we send a message that we believe our value comes from our looks rather than from our heart. Skimpy clothing says that our worth is in our sex appeal. This is a weak foundation to build self-esteem or self-worth. What happens when we age and the wrinkles start showing? Where will the sense of value and worth come from then? For various reasons (e.g. past sexual abuse, low self-esteem) some believe that their worth comes from how good they look and how many heads they can turn. But that can leave a person feeling empty and alone. All of us, ultimately, want to be pursued and loved deeply because of our hearts and minds, not for our bodies. Dressing in a showy fashion puts the focus on our outward appearance, not on our heart.

15 hours ago, melvinmelvin said:

 

The campaigns leading up to the referendum on leave/stay and the debates after the referendum

have revealed, in abundance, extraordinary talent in the UK population.

 

There is absolutely no end to the hoards of people being able to predict the political and economical

future of the UK, and that with high degree of accuracy.

Impressing.

 

That is a talent which is highly sought after in Asia. Truth sayers can make fortunes here.

 

Without the Brexit referndum this talent may not have been discovered.

 

 

I am amazed that someone else has seen it other than me.

Well done Sir.   But you will be vilified by the many.

16 hours ago, baansgr said:

Well Im actually a millionaire twice over and that will be even more so in 14 months on vesting my numerous pensions when im 55.

Actually I'm a skint millionaire magnet.

18 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

Well, when there's nothing substantive to discuss, it's likely that only inane comments like this will be posted. My money is on you.

The whole thing is pointless and boring, like flogging a dead horse, most of is sourced from newspaper cuttings, and 'experts' that all have different perspectives.  Think of ways of dealing with it..that might be interesting.

If your money is on me, then you've already lost your password and 50 satang.

Only Bitcoin accepted please.

16 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

Well, when there's nothing substantive to discuss, it's likely that only inane comments like this will be posted. My money is on you.

Your down for 50 satang each way.

Anyone fancy a flutter on who makes the last post?

At  the moment its odds on for Grouse, with oldhippy on evens.

16 hours ago, taipeir said:

It wasn't the immigrants that caused this but the UK's poor economic and political choices. For instance I fail to see how it was foreigners fault that the UK stopped investing in other cities besides London? 

Or that the comfortable buffer of North Sea oil ran out ?

 

Or that Thatcher decided to go all in on the City instead of supporting the manufacturing industry to retool?

 

It wasn't immigrants who landed all the venerable old British industrial giants with debt , broke them up and sold them off.

 

Its not the immigrants who own one third of UK land in aristocratic family trusts and vast urban areas for hundreds of years.

 

Its not the immigrants who implemented NIMBY planning laws.

 

Its not the immigrants who decide to light tax the high earners.

 

Its not the immigrants who instructed universal social credit.

 

Its not the immigrants who didn't decide to become nurse or caregivers or agricultural workers.

 

So to blame the 'immigrants' for economic decay and polarisation and lack of investment is pretty Risible and lazy thinking of the highest order.

 

Many other neighbouring countries like Germany, France , Ireland and Sweden have large numbers of immigrants and are doing pretty well and in fact in some cases better than ever.

 

Besides you are still going to get large numbers of migrants due to the historical British empire links and the service based economy which needs skilled and unskilled labour so not much is going to change anyway.

 

 

You make excellent points there, but I dont think anyone objects to immigrants, its just that its been a bit too many at once, and many suffer overcrowded accommodation I believe there were several families in one flat in the Grenfell tower that burnt down recently.

Slow it down a little and everyone is happy.

Hell, we're all immigrant here..

 

 

 

 

 

15 hours ago, oldhippy said:

Between France and Germany?

With the rest of Europe choosing sides?

As it was for centuries?

 

No. Think bigger problems.

16 hours ago, oldhippy said:

6/ A united Europe is in a stronger position to negotiate with US, China, Russia, India,... than the individual countries.

 

Strength in trade negotiations comes from integrity, not numbers of countries.

15 hours ago, nontabury said:

I think you’ll find that it was the American and British money, that financed NATO, that had something to do with peace.

In the E.U it will not be the people who steer titanic, but the unelected Commissioners in Brussels, and their rich backers.

The E.U. Is for the benefit of the rich, multi national corporations and the so called elite. Not that those who have been brain washed will realise.

When everybody is starting off from the same level playing field, then yes, people may accept free movement, along of course with a willingness to integration.

 And so May democracy.

Nice one.   And still there is no guarantee that there won't be another war.

15 hours ago, oldhippy said:

I can remember my philosophy professor talking about Russell (philosophy was part of my masters in macro economics).

I also remember the Russell tribunals.

 

The idea that a statement is either true, false or meaningless was one of the greatest insights philosophy has ever generated.

"Brexit is good for the UK" is a fine example of a statement that is neither true or false, but meaningless.

 

As for "antiques":

Russell's idea can perfectly be applied on the statement that "antiques are right" or "antiques are wrong".

I see,   so Hippys can be right or wrong..or just plain crafty        lol

15 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

Really. The new Brexit minister disagrees with you:  “Thankfully David Cameron is committed to withdrawing Britain from the Social Chapter from which John Major won us an opt-out in 1992 but to which Tony Blair signed us up in 1997. This is an essential step if we are ever to break free from the debilitating effects of EU regulation on our country.” 

Whatever politicians say, SJ will no improve in UK. Big corporations set the agenda.