May ready for tough talks over Brexit

[mommysboy]

1 hour ago, Flustered said:

In a nutshell, No.

 

The point I was trying to make and probably missed because I had been in hospital most of the day (outpatients with a torn achilles tendon...long time army rugby injury that went again), was that it is not only the UK that imposes restrictions. Thailand does exactly the same.

 

The UK had a real problem with immigration where one person could bring in entire families unable to speak English, not prepared to adopt English culture and unable to support themselves. These families were immediately able to claim benefits, schooling and medical. Something had to change. We were a soft touch for far to long.

 

Thinking in the cold light of day and a decent nights sleep, provided the partner is able to prove that they (the couple/children) can support themselves and not be an immediate burden to the State as well as be prepared to integrate and adopt local customs, I see no problem. However, it is right that the UK should stop the system by where uncontrolled immigration was leading to ghettos where no English was spoken, the culture of the immigrants family was dominant and in general, UK standards and culture ignored. Try visiting Bradfordstan, it's an eye opener and makes you worry about the future.

 

In Thailand, we always abide by local rules and customs, respect the locals, try to speak Thai and are able to support ourselves without State aid (not that it's available to expats in the LoS).I expect no different from those entering the UK to live. My own wife is Asian, was educated in the UK, speaks better English than me, is better educated than me but still had to jump through hoops when applying for UK citizenship. I on the other hand am not allowed even PR in her country (Singapore) for a multitude of reasons not applicable to this thread but would apply to anyone over 50 not working but financially independent.

 

Funnily enough I am carrying an achilles injury at present- it's taking ages to heal, and that's only a strain really.

 

The Labour view is that money should not be a discriminatory factor- it's a reasonable point imo.

 

But yes, surely there needs to be some test of reasonableness.

 

 

 

 

[SheungWan]

9 hours ago, SheungWan said:

You mean, apart from winning three General elections for Labour?

 

1 hour ago, Basil B said:

Labour is bound to win some times with a two party system, after a decade of sitting on the opposition benches many voter with the memory of gold fish forget how bad they were in government. 

Three elections in a row. Look no further from some of the above contributors for memories of goldfish.

[Flustered]

41 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

 

Three elections in a row. Look no further from some of the above contributors for memories of goldfish.

Three elections in a row where Blair had taken the "Labour" party into territory historically and politically held by the Tories.

 

As a disenchanted Neil Kinnock said, " Labour and Tory policies are so close you cannot get a cigarette paper between them"

 

It was the only way Labour could ever get back into Government.

[mommysboy]

Just now, Flustered said:

Three elections in a row where Blair had taken the "Labour" party into territory historically and politically held by the Tories.

 

As a disenchanted Neil Kinnock said, " Labour and Tory policies are so close you cannot get a cigarette paper between them"

 

It was the only way Labour could ever get back into Government.

That's what led me to finally feel dis-enfranchised- it was vote tory red or tory blue.

[sandyf]

In the quagmire of reality, a touch of humour.

 

For those of you reciting the 'Tories defend the rich' argument, read this. It's worth it, I assure you.

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to £100...
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this...
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay £1.
The sixth would pay £3.
The seventh would pay £7..
The eighth would pay £12.
The ninth would pay £18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay £59.
So, that's what they decided to do..
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball.
"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by £20". Drinks for the ten men would now cost just £80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes.
So the first four men were unaffected.
They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men?
The paying customers?
How could they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?
They realised that £20 divided by six is £3.33. But if they
subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.
So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.
And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving).
The sixth now paid £2 instead of £3 (33% saving).
The seventh now paid £5 instead of £7 (28% saving).
The eighth now paid £9 instead of £12 (25% saving).
The ninth now paid £14 instead of £18 (22% saving).
The tenth now paid £49 instead of £59 (16% saving).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.
"I only got a pound out of the £20 saving," declared the sixth man.
He pointed to the tenth man,"but he got £10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a pound too. It's unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!"
"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get £10 back, when I got only £2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works.
The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction.
Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore.
In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics.
For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

[Flustered]

50 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

 

Funnily enough I am carrying an achilles injury at present- it's taking ages to heal, and that's only a strain really.

 

 

It was my anger at the attitude of NHS staff that hurt me more this week.

 

My Achilles tendon had been completely severed in a "friendly" army rugby game. The military hospital and doctors were wonderful but over time, the tendon has thickened and lost it's elasticity. It's a simple operation to thin it down but the attitude is that as I am now 70, it is probably not worth doing. Strap it up, take pain killers and  rest. What they mean is "go away and die" you have had your time and we need the money to spend on cosmetic surgery, treating diabetes due to eating junk food loaded with sugar or paying £250,000 for a Nigerian woman to have her babies over here rather than in Nigeria.

 

I will simply wait and have it done in Thailand.

 

Meanwhile, the thread continues.

[Flustered]

7 minutes ago, sandyf said:

In the quagmire of reality, a touch of humour.

 

I had trouble reading this years ago when it first materialised.

 

You lose the will to read any more after the first 4 or 5 lines, it's just plain boring.

[Grouse]

43 minutes ago, Flustered said:

I had trouble reading this years ago when it first materialised.

 

You lose the will to read any more after the first 4 or 5 lines, it's just plain boring.

Sandy's conclusion stands!

[Flustered]

6 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Sandy's conclusion stands!

If you cannot see the flaw in the logic..........look again very carefully

 

It's one of those flawed logic puzzles that you can get in intelligence tests.

[Grouse]

1 minute ago, Flustered said:

If you cannot see the flaw in the logic..........look again very carefully

 

It's one of those flawed logic puzzles that you can get in intelligence tests.

So you did read it to the end!

[Flustered]

15 minutes ago, Grouse said:

So you did read it to the end!

Didn't have to, it's one of the more common tests.

 

Also, the Professor in question does not actually exist and for further info, follow this link

 

http://www.snopes.com/business/taxes/howtaxes.asp

 

 

[Grouse]

12 minutes ago, Flustered said:

Didn't have to, it's one of the more common tests.

 

Also, the Professor in question does not actually exist and for further info, follow this link

 

http://www.snopes.com/business/taxes/howtaxes.asp

 

 

I only got as far as "didn't have to"

 

Too bored to read to the end ?

[rockingrobin]

6 hours ago, rockingrobin said:

I am not really suprised about the threshold increase , considering it was T.May who first introduced this requirement. 

Is it not really T.May response to the SC ruling regarding the treatment of children , to allow other sources of income to be included .

 

4 hours ago, nontabury said:

If you are meaning,other sources of income to include the income or future potential income, of foreign wives, the answer is they are not included. For the husband,it MUST be a guaranteed income or saving etc,or a combination. But like I said before, there are exceptions,but mainly not for British people.

One of the SC comments on the recent appeal

 

; Lord Carnwath said he and his fellow judges had held “that the minimum income threshold is accepted in principle” but he added that the Home Office’s rules and instructions failed to take full account of their legal duties in respect to the children involved or to allow alternative sources of funding to be considered '

 

I suspect that the raising of the threshold is partly in response to this comment

[rockingrobin]

5 hours ago, mommysboy said:

That would be regarded as deprivation of assets in order to avoid fees.  I dont know if it would be followed up in practice, but a lawyer would not advise this.   However, one or both parents could make a will that puts their share in to a trust for the children upon their death. It then becomes random chance as to whether the will is enacted before one or other of the parents has to dispose of the house before enactment of the other's will.

The smallprint gives further information

 

Pensioners will not have to sell their home to pay for care costs while they or a surving partner are alive. Products will be available to allow the elderly to extract equity from their homes, which will be recovered at a later date when they die or sell their residence.

 

The above surely means some form of insurance, that will have to be taken out to allow the pensioner to keep thier home, and the premiums will be collected from the house sale.

[nontabury]

9 hours ago, billd766 said:

 

I couldn't get that link to work so I Googled it and got a printed copy.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/foreign-spouse-income-limit-latest-supreme-court-rules-lawful-bar-uk-entry-couples-british-children-a7592826.html

 

The Supreme Court has said the Government's £18,600 income threshold that bars UK workers’ foreign spouses is lawful, but judges admitted it will continue to cause “significant hardship” for thousands of couples. 

The policy, brought in when Theresa May was Home Secretary, has been blamed for keeping families apart because British citizens living in the UK do not earn enough money to bring their non-European Economic Area partners to the country. It holds even if their partner's earnings would tip them over the limit.

Britons have previously told The Independent they have had to move abroad to be with their families because of the policy.

I've read, though I don't know if it true. That citizens of other E.U. Countries can bring into the U.K. Their non-European spouses, without all the hassle that British people have to endure. If this is true, then I think it's another black mark against our country. It should be an automatic right of all British citizens to reside and bring into their country of birth A wife. As long as they can prove a relationship going back some time.

  There are also other exceptions. Such as the one taken advantage off, by blond blue eyed Russians. Money does help.

[SheungWan]

On 5/18/2017 at 10:18 AM, Grouse said:

The dollar took it on the chin in N.Y. trade on Wednesday, with U.S. political concerns keeping risk taking levels well-contained. Gold soared, yields fell, and Wall Street was hit hard following reports that Trump asked then FBI chief Comey to call off the investigation into former NSA head Flynn and his Russian dealings. The DXY fell to 6-month lows of 97.53, led by a six-month EUR-USD top of 1.1154. Risk sensitive USD-JPY fell to 111.02, a three-week low from opening highs near 112.50. USD-CAD remained relatively firm despite higher oil prices and decent Canada data, holding over 1.3600 through most of the session. Cable printed new 7-plus month highs of 1.2991, though turned lower after the London close.

One of the interesting fall-outs from Sterling's drop after the referendum was the queue of Brexiteers saying that it was good for the pound to drop as it was positive for the UK and so on. Nobody really believed them and of course as soon as sterling perks up a bit so do they, so that's the end of that one....GBP not going up against EUR. I thought the EUR was supposed to collapse imminently? The bigger story was the rise in UK inflation. That is going to hurt.

Edited May 19, 2017 by SheungWan

[mommysboy]

3 hours ago, rockingrobin said:

The smallprint gives further information

 

Pensioners will not have to sell their home to pay for care costs while they or a surving partner are alive. Products will be available to allow the elderly to extract equity from their homes, which will be recovered at a later date when they die or sell their residence.

 

The above surely means some form of insurance, that will have to be taken out to allow the pensioner to keep thier home, and the premiums will be collected from the house sale.

Currently, the protection is quite inadequate.  In order to comply one has to enter in to an arrangement which is not at all wise, and there is compound interest involved. Its unlikely the new deal will be any different: we were advised not to go there at all cost.  Hence, I didn't look in to it that much, but itn is essentially like a remortgage.

 

To an extent this is a game of cat and mouse- the least the authorities know the better! 

[Johnyo]

I've read, though I don't know if it true. That citizens of other E.U. Countries can bring into the U.K. Their non-European spouses, without all the hassle that British people have to endure. If this is true, then I think it's another black mark against our country. It should be an automatic right of all British citizens to reside and bring into their country of birth A wife. As long as they can prove a relationship going back some time.
  There are also other exceptions. Such as the one taken advantage off, by blond blue eyed Russians. Money does help.

So it's OK to have been away for 20 years from the U.K. and just rock up back whenever you feel like it with your wife but it's not OK to have been away for more than 15 years when voting in the referendum. Makes sense.


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[mommysboy]

7 hours ago, Flustered said:

It was my anger at the attitude of NHS staff that hurt me more this week.

 

My Achilles tendon had been completely severed in a "friendly" army rugby game. The military hospital and doctors were wonderful but over time, the tendon has thickened and lost it's elasticity. It's a simple operation to thin it down but the attitude is that as I am now 70, it is probably not worth doing. Strap it up, take pain killers and  rest. What they mean is "go away and die" you have had your time and we need the money to spend on cosmetic surgery, treating diabetes due to eating junk food loaded with sugar or paying £250,000 for a Nigerian woman to have her babies over here rather than in Nigeria.

 

I will simply wait and have it done in Thailand.

 

Meanwhile, the thread continues.

As well as paying taxes, there are responsible citizens who make only minimal demands on services.  It is indeed a shame that when their turn comes they quite often miss out.  It is so often the way that the reasonable man, the ordinary guy looking to make good, gets shafted all ways round.

[nontabury]

56 minutes ago, Johnyo said:

 

So it's OK to have been away for 20 years from the U.K. and just rock up back whenever you feel like it with your wife but it's not OK to have been away for more than 15 years when voting in the referendum. Makes sense.


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

You forgot to mention, many of those British citizens may have been paying British tax,while out of the country. In the meantime, E.U citizens can come into the U.K with their non-eec spouses, without having to meet all the requirements demanded of British citizens. Makes sense not.

 P.s What have you got against your fellow countrymen, that's of course if you are British.

Edited May 19, 2017 by nontabury

[SheungWan]

UK Inflation Rate:

 

[Khun Han]

9 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

UK Inflation Rate:

 

 

Oh well, you can't use your preferred toy the exchange rate graphs at the mo, so you've found another one .

[Khun Han]

2 hours ago, SheungWan said:

One of the interesting fall-outs from Sterling's drop after the referendum was the queue of Brexiteers saying that it was good for the pound to drop as it was positive for the UK and so on. Nobody really believed them and of course as soon as sterling perks up a bit so do they, so that's the end of that one....GBP not going up against EUR. I thought the EUR was supposed to collapse imminently? The bigger story was the rise in UK inflation. That is going to hurt.

 

But the main cause of current inflation is the previous low value of Sterling. Once it's current higher value filters through, there will be a lowering of inflation.

[Scott]

I strongly suggest people stop with the personal bickering and remarks.  

 

Stay on the topic, and the topic isn't about other members.  

 

Edit:   Off-topic posts and replies removed.  

[Khun Han]

10 hours ago, Flustered said:

Three elections in a row where Blair had taken the "Labour" party into territory historically and politically held by the Tories.

 

As a disenchanted Neil Kinnock said, " Labour and Tory policies are so close you cannot get a cigarette paper between them"

 

It was the only way Labour could ever get back into Government.

 

I remember John Major remarking that Blair was pushing through right wing policies which his (Major's) government would never have got away with.

[SheungWan]

6 hours ago, Khun Han said:

 

Oh well, you can't use your preferred toy the exchange rate graphs at the mo, so you've found another one .

I am happy to use sources from ONS, Bloomberg, CNBC. I would use WSJ and FT as well but they are behind a firewall so less useful for illustrative purposes. There is also BoE.

[SheungWan]

3 hours ago, Khun Han said:

 

I remember John Major remarking that Blair was pushing through right wing policies which his (Major's) government would never have got away with.

Whatever the observations and commentary on the parliament, the fact remains that Blair won 3 consecutive elections for Labour, the only Labour leader to have ever done so. It should also be a sobering factor to consider that he is the only Labour Leader to have won any General Election since Harold Wilson's victory in October 1974.

[SheungWan]

43 minutes ago, nontabury said:

Interesting that you should mention Tony WMD Blair in the same sentence as Harold Wilson. They may have been Labour leaders,but that's where the similarity ends.

Harold Wilson served his country well, unfortunately dying penniless, his widow Mary haveing  to rely on charitable donations in her final years.

Tony WMD Blair has left a legacy of disruption, as can be seen on the streets of certain U.K. towns. Very much doubt he will die a pauper, certainly not after acquiring such wealth as £20million, or is that £30 million.

Harold Wilson won 4 General Elections, but not consecutively and one of those was a minority government. Electorally, Tony Blair was the most successful Labour leader since its formation, winning 3 consecutive elections with overall majorities. His majorities in 1997 and 2001 were larger than even Attlee in 1945 and were bigger than any of Thatcher's government majorities.

Edited May 20, 2017 by SheungWan

[Scott]

Off-topic posts removed.  

[sandyf]

16 hours ago, Grouse said:

Sandy's conclusion stands!

Not mine, I just reposted it. Thought it a good reminder of why people should never take things at face value. Here is another one.

 

"But here’s an odd thing, and one that has not been widely reported. As it happens, companies are paying an increasing amount of tax. Even more significantly, they are doing so as the rate of corporation tax falls. There are two things that we can learn from that. The corporate sector is paying its “fair share”, and arguably more than it really should. And if lower rates generate more cash for the Government, perhaps we should think about bringing them down further."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11498135/Why-lower-corporation-tax-means-more-for-Treasury.html

 

Off course there are always those that want to believe that in the face of a financial storm that companies and individuals will sail on regardless rather than take refuge in an offshore port.