For the same reasons as all trolls waste their time on forums, I guess.

I beg to differ here - I think they were all to blame, the EU in particular for allowing/encouraging Greece to enter when it didn't meet the criteria (neither did some other countries too, though that's beside the point).

There was nothing like economic consensus on joining the Euro being good, in fact in the main it was considered a big risk.

i wrote this a year and a half ago and i think it holds up pretty well (dont think anyone really encouraged greece to join though. it was more a case of looking the other way).

FTSE 100 hit a record high today.

Thanks Santa!

Lol you must be trolling. Or ******ed. Maybe brainwashed by daily mail propoganda. Probably all of the above.

Hypothetical question for you diebitter - what happens to the FTSE100 if the £GBP collapses in value? (hint: it doesn't go down)

How is the FTSE250 doing? And the £GBP?

Found a picture of this alleged "record high"...



http://markets.ft.com/data/indices/t...=UKXUSD%2B:FSI


If you want to feel REALLY GOOD about your vote, graph various equities in Zimbabwean dollars! You will find every day is a record high for every sock you hold!

I'm guessing your average working class person spends <20% of their grocery bill on imported good, so I'm an extra penny per pound on their food shop will be seen as a small price to pay for "less foreigners".

non-imported goods can also rise in price after a currency collapse as the goods can be exported for larger profits - so as the manufacturer has a limited production capacity in the short term, they increase the price of domestic sales to reduce demand and decrease the price of foreign sales to increase demand.

Yeah but.... less foreigners.

yeah but...restoration of democratic vote to mean something to people making decisions about our country.

And ability to create own trade deals apart from a monolithic economic failure controlling our trade deals.

And some separation from a monolithic economic failure, albeit small to start with - but allowing us to get some distance before it implodes.

And control of own agriculture and fishing.

And control of own borders to control and manage the influx of the best and brightest, and the most required to drive our economy, in.

But most important...restoration of democratic vote to mean something to people making decisions about our country.

Also a lot of costs associated to farming products are measured in foreign currencies like gas, equipment, fertilizers etc.

The last post from diebitter is straight up trolling.

This thread in general might be overestimating the marginal utility of GDP 'wealth' and underestimating the marginal utility of a population feeling they do can do meaningful work as part of a self-governing community with a congruent cultural identity (even if its just a feeling, and some economists say its 'nonsense').

Although, long term, I think the odds based on the best expert opinions are in favour of UK GDP per capita running higher as a result of Brexit. So it might be win-win.

No.

Sterling says hi. I don't know what "experts" are saying and I don't much care, I do know the pound in my pocket is worth 25% less.

people hating the eu fishing policy are somehow the worst.

the tragedy of the commons is a real thing. and especially with fishing you need coordination and some way to ensure compliance from nations since the fish swim about and stuff. overfishing ruins it for yourself and everyone else, but it still only makes sense to limit your fishing if your neighbor is also committed to it.

so the eu is perfect for it and, not surprisingly, it's working really well. some of the quotas/stocks still need time, but some are higher than ever. which means obviously idiots that have spent 30 seconds considering the issue hate it. why cant everyone not just control their own waters and secure their own fishing stock at the border? ffs

here's a couple of lines from the first story the shows up on google

http://uk.reuters.com/article/us-eu-...0TZ2O120151216

that is the end goal and we're basically there. the eu took on a massive problem and solved it in a way that would have been extremely difficult for individual countries.

still, not good enough for populist clowns. we need control of our own proud fish even when it means there'll be none left.

*some ironic point about the EU taking the movement of fish into consideration when making policy, but not the movement of people*

lol no.

Are you a UK earner with non-GBP denominated liabilities? Otherwise, why are you concerned about that?

Serious?

The FT took a strong remain position, (see the headline and commentary):
https://www.ft.com/content/1a86ab36-...5-1a1d298b6250

But read the economists' full-text survey responses directly and the long term sounds good. As logically it should, if we were asked today whether we would join a political union to exclusively trade with some of the worlds least innovative countries excluding all others, I doubt it would get a positive forecast. (re-framing helps avoid some status quo bias)

The prior year almost every politician and expert agreed that the EU could not work without material re-negotiation. Having demonstrated that was impossible it was disingenuous that lots of people changed their opinion despite no change to the assumptions. (Well, there was one new one, re-negotiation by a member state and subsequent reform was demonstrated impossible. That one alone should convince a lot of people it is a bad idea).

In my view a lot of that was because they were on the payroll or tied to sunk cost and effort. Also because there probably isn't a huge difference in UK EV either way.

Absolutely. Do you think higher is better just because they labelled it 'strength'? Why do some governments go to huge efforts to keep their currency artificially weak?

This framing is also biased, countries outside the EU aren't excluded, they are able to enter into agreements with the EU as a whole. If the decision, as to whether to join, was taken today it would require a comparison of the terms of the bilateral agreements the UK had entered into, with countries outside the EU, with the collective agreements the EU already had in place.

The EU disallowing national immigration agreements is completely obvious. People that have entered the EU can move freely from that point onward. So it's pretty nonsensical to allow individual member states to set the conditions on when people from other countries can enter the EU. That is the exclusive policy domain of the EU, even though, again any agreement reached will have to be ratified by all member states.

Oh wait.

Total goal post shift.

He was talking about his purchasing power as a consumer, and you responded by saying so wat, everything you purchase is priced in pounds, which is an obviously ******ed answer considering much of what he purchases will be imported.