Melrose Industries Share Discussion Threads

[brexitplus] 16/1/2019 21:42

Hypocrite.

[minerve] 16/1/2019 21:35

The issue was inequality against someone from Ghana, no?

And yet you want to exclude certain people from certain things and create priorities based on domicile! That is not equal opportunity.

Either Brexiters ARE for equality or they aren't. ;)

[minerve] 16/1/2019 21:33

I'm not pretending to be one when I am the other. You are!

[brexitplus] 16/1/2019 21:32

So says the man constantly who tells everyone on every Advfn board that he is much more wealthy than them😁㈳3;😂😂😂🤣

[minerve] 16/1/2019 20:51

As if Brexiters care about inequality.

Only when it suits them!

[steeplejack] 16/1/2019 20:38

https://medicaltravelcompared.co.uk/travel-blog/travel-news/is-the-european-health-insurance-card-valid-after-brexit.aspxPerhaps they'll do away with the EHIC sometime after Brexit.That'll ease our consciences about the inequality.

[brexitplus] 16/1/2019 20:24

Vote of confidence. Just picked up the result. No surprises. All ahead for Brexit.

[stmartin] 16/1/2019 19:51

@ tournesol

I think this covers my resons why.

"If you are a visitor from the European Economic Area (EEA) and you fall ill or have a medical emergency during your temporary stay in England, then you'll need a valid European Health Insurance Card (EHIC) issued by your home country. If you can't show a valid EHIC, you may be charged for your treatment."

"Seeking planned treatment in England
If you are coming to England specifically for planned treatment, you will need to make all necessary arrangements yourself in advance. Planned treatment is not covered by the EHIC. If you do not have valid documentation, you may be charged for treatment."


hxxps://www.nhs.uk/using-the-nhs/nhs-services/visiting-or-moving-to-england/visitors-from-the-european-economic-area-eea-or-switzerland/

[minerve] 16/1/2019 17:42

tournesol

That is because WE HAVE reciprocal agreements within the EU. My daughter can access health care whilst she is currently studying in Italy.

Ghana is not part of the EU.


What is the problem? I don't see one.

[minerve] 16/1/2019 17:26

If the EU is a failure for us it is because we are impotent in negotiation and influence AND THAT ISN'T GOING TO CHANGE ONCE WE ARE OUT AND NEGOTIATING WITH CRETINS LIKE TRUMP.

[minerve] 16/1/2019 17:25

Maybe, just maybe, the EU has never worked for the UK in the way you Brexiters would like BECAUSE we have had numpty MEPs like Farage whose ONLY objective was to leave and other politicians we send couldn't argue themselves out of a domestic dispute with wifey!

[minerve] 16/1/2019 17:22

"I do not want us to become a disenfranchised and marginalised province of a european super state."

Living in the North West I can tell you that we ALREADY ARE disenfranchised and marginalised from those in Westminster, London Super State.

[steeplejack] 16/1/2019 16:58

Well,of course,the French are a peculiar bunch.They are strangely reluctant to speak English and are in possession of a beautiful country that they simply don't deserve to own.Large swathes don't belong to them,if my history serves me well.

[sogoesit] 16/1/2019 11:53

I don't think I have seen any objective unbiased analysis of the economic consequences in the future for Leaving or Remaining, neither of which would be static, other than bitty reactions like Slovakia taking car manufacturing from the UK or other bites of "information" spread by each side.
Of course, trade is a hugely complex arena to judge statically (have a look at some of the so-called FTAs or, to be kind, regulated/restrictive trade agreements' schedules hobbled together discretely without knowledge of the holistic consequences) and is kept quiet or confidential most of the time, especially when under negotiation. The ordinary "man on the Clapham Omnibus", let alone ordinary MPs, are, I would hazard, at a complete loss confronted with this complexity.

That's the static position. Now introduce unpredictable, judgemental, assumptions into an economic model developed by fallible humans which would attempt to predict the future and you have an unreliable, likely false, prognosis. In short, probably a waste of effort given that the course of the EU's future is unpredictable as is that of a "free trading" UK's adaptability of its economy over time.

So, given that there were "lies" on each front (assuming by lies we mean prognoses of the future) about issues which were/are outside the control of all parties is it any wonder that people either turned towards "simple", not necessarily simplistic, judgements about their self-interest and their futures or visceral decision-making when voting? This happened on both sides.
For both cases the economy will have to adapt in the future. That is a certainty. The complexity of national and global markets means there is no certainty of any predicted outcome in the future. [Who predicted riots against Macron? Who predicted the turn towards the Right in Italy and Brazil? Who predicted the formation of an EU army? Who predicted Trade wars between the US and the EU and China and their outcomes? Who predicted an "approchement" between North & South Korea?].

So, markets are our best predicting (or discounting) tool for pricing risk. Forget the rest! Luckily we are sovereign in our currency. Pity any nation in a situation considering an exit which is a participant in the Euro!

And, on a personal level, knowing the above, I can say with certainty I did not vote on the issue based on money or an economic "fantasy" of the future. There are higher principles and risks at stake. How many others of the electorate thought like this? Impossible to say. Which applies to both cases and probably why the question posed on the ballot was simple.
That set the agenda and direction of travel for the executive.
The electorate will decide in due course whether their aspirations have been met, or not.

EDIIT: Indeed tournesol post 7957.