
EU Referendum Results - mmastrac
http://www.bbc.com/news/politics/eu_referendum/results
======
dang
Since we don't need one story about this at #1 and another at #2, I guess
we'll call this thread the dupe and consider the discussion moved to
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11966167](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11966167).

------
hencq
The University of East Anglia have a live blog as well that updates their
predictions based on statistical model [0] by Dr Chris Hanretty. Predictions
are based on how results differ from the prior model. The model is explained
in more detail here [1].

[0] [http://www.ueapolitics.org/2016/06/23/eu-referendum-
allnight...](http://www.ueapolitics.org/2016/06/23/eu-referendum-allnighter/)

[1] [http://www.ueapolitics.org/2016/06/09/the-eu-referendum-
what...](http://www.ueapolitics.org/2016/06/09/the-eu-referendum-what-to-
expect-on-the-night/)

Edit: They moved their blog to Medium because of the demand:
[https://medium.com/@chrishanretty/eu-referendum-rolling-
fore...](https://medium.com/@chrishanretty/eu-referendum-rolling-
forecasts-1a625014af55#.5jm66pitl)

~~~
joosters
Live betting from Betfair's betting exchange / prediction market:

[https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/#/politics/market/1.11...](https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/#/politics/market/1.118739911)

Interesting because the odds react far quicker than any live blog I've found,
so a sudden swing means that there's just been a surprising result announced.

~~~
dzdt
What is the formula to translate from betfair's back/lay for exit/remain to
percent likelihood of each outcome?

~~~
joosters
Implied probability is 100 / odds

~~~
BurningFrog
If the odds are 4:1, I'm not sure what that means.

100/4:1 is a notation mystery. 25%?

~~~
danbruc
x:y or x/y means y / (x + y), so 4:1 is 1 / (4 + 1) or 20 %.

~~~
dzdt
But what do "back" and "lay" mean?

~~~
corin_
Backing is betting on it to happen, laying is being the bookie for somebody
else (i.e. betting against it happening).

So if something is 4/1 and you back it, you'll win £4 for each £1 you wager.
If you lay it, you'll win £1 for each £4 wagered.

Betfair exchange is matching up people on both sides of the bet, with a margin
of commission in between the back and lay values.

------
matthewmacleod
From my perspective in the UK, it's been interesting (though frustrating) to
watch what's been happening.

It definitely seems like political discourse has taken a turn for the worse.
In contrast with the Scottish independence referendum a couple of years ago
which, although there was some animosity, did feel like a genuine political
conversation… this one has seemed much more like an angry shouting match.

I'm particularly interested in the comparison with Trump in the US. In both
cases, it feels like a nominally populist, anti-bureaucratic/anti-
establishment movement (the extent of the truth in that being debatable) has
been able to make a substantial impact with that platform, due in part to the
abject inability of that establishment to deal with and neutralise the
movement.

~~~
hackuser
> t feels like a nominally populist, anti-bureaucratic/anti-establishment
> movement (the extent of the truth in that being debatable) has been able to
> make a substantial impact with that platform, due in part to the abject
> inability of that establishment to deal with and neutralise the movement.

It's happening all over the world: Austria, France (National Front), China,
Japan, Turkey, Israel, etc etc.

It's like the world forgot the lessons of the past - the curses of
nationalism, populism and ideology - and nobody has stood up to remind them.
The latter really angers and depresses me; nobody with a platform is making
the well-known arguments about why these things are very dangerous.

~~~
orbifold
I want to like the EU and this in fact what was pushed really hard for by the
school system at least in Germany. But I can't fail to notice its many
disadvantages. It is fundamentally even less democratic than the
representative democracies it unites, supposedly run by technocrats that in
fact follow agendas set by corporations/industry, with decisions that get sold
to the public as inevitable. I _hate_ what the Bologna reforms did to higher
education for example, but there are many other instances where EU decisions
had extremely negative impact, with sometimes almost no popular support.

Point being not only right wing basket cases don't like the EU. The far left
doesn't really like it either. It is a project conceived by US planners and
executed by the French and German elites pushed onto the rest of the
continent. Whenever there is talk about the "democracy deficit" it is brushed
aside as something that will be fixed once Europe has become more integrated.

~~~
hiram112
>It is a project conceived by US planners...

Any proof of that? From a US perspective, I can't see how a unified Europe
would benefit the US - neither economically nor militarily. The EU is the only
state (besides China with 4x the population of the US) that can compare to the
US economy. Dealing with smaller countries gives the US an advantage compared
with similar deals with the EU itself.

A unified EU military would be the only state both large enough and advanced
enough to pose a valid military challenge to US hegemony.

~~~
hackuser
Europe is a US ally; the US wants them stronger. Also, dis-unified Europe cost
the US quite a bit in the first half of the 20th century.

------
alva
One of my favourite part of this whole thing is seeing just how little my
friendship group understand how much FB/Twitter are self-selecting
echochambers.

My feeds are full of people who just absolutely cannot believe that other
people hold "wrong opinions".

~~~
chjohasbrouck
This is very true, and something I didn't even realize until I entered a
period of life in which I'm simply too busy to participate in social media.

If something went viral, I used to take that as a signal or indicator of how
the majority of people think. Now when something goes viral, I think, "that's
roughly how a lot of men and almost as many women, age 13 to 30, who are
comfortable aligning with that particular opinion publicly, think."

Then I started considering what that might mean for television, movies, print,
etc.

I always knew that media was skewed in favor of attracting the youngest
audiences, because they're more valuable to advertisers. Now I'm also
considering that maybe those forms of media are also skewed in favor of the
type of person who tends to watch a lot of television, go to a lot of movies,
buy a lot of magazines, etc. I used to think everyone did that, now I know a
lot of people do it far less than others.

Daytime television, for example, is full of advertisements for private
colleges that exist mostly just to take your SSN so they can pocket federal
loan money and list you as the debtor. That's because people who watch daytime
television tend to be uneducated and unemployed.

Daytime television is nothing close to a cross-section of humanity. It's
content engineered to appeal mostly to people who don't go to school and don't
work.

Now, what kind of people tend to watch primetime television? Or listen to
terrestrial radio? Or buy a magazine at an airport?

As a result of media producers learning more about their audiences, pretty
much every form of media eventually becomes an echo chamber.

~~~
eru
That's why it's entertaining to look at the ads in the Economist.

~~~
chjohasbrouck
The first time I read it I was amazed at how unaffordable everything was.

But Bill Gates has said he reads every issue of The Economist from cover to
cover, so they definitely know their audience. They'll be in the black as long
as they can sell him and Richard Branson one Gulfstream every 5 years.

------
owenversteeg
Wow, I knew that all the non-attached parts of the UK would want to remain,
but not by this much. Both the Shetland and Orkney islands voted to stay by a
fair margin, about 65% Remain, but Gibraltar was far more heavily Remain.
Gibraltar, for example, had 96% vote to stay, with 85% turnout (!).

This is partly because the islands are far more dependent on the EU than the
mainland, but in Gibraltar's case it is particularly extreme. Without EU
membership Gibraltar may not be able to have a border with Spain due to the
territorial conflict. Spain already occasionally closes the border on a whim,
for example when a Spanish fishing boat was arrested for illegally fishing in
Gibraltar waters.

[edit] I don't want to get into a debate (w/commenter below) but basically
both the UK and Spain claim that they own all the waters. International
rulings so far seem to be leaning towards giving the UK some and Spain some; a
lot of these rulings come from the EU courts which is yet another reason why
those in Gibraltar have a very strong interest to stay.

While I'm amending my comment, I think it's interesting that there were any
Gibraltar citizens who voted to leave. This shows that there is a solid 8% of
the population or so that will vote how they feel is important despite a very
strong economic incentive to the contrary. I'm simultaneously surprised at how
few people voted to leave (only 4%!) and at how there were still people who
voted to leave despite the obvious economic problems leaving would bring to
Gibraltar.

~~~
saool
Gibraltar does not have waters:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disputed_status_of_Gibraltar#T...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disputed_status_of_Gibraltar#Territorial_waters)

~~~
Lio
That's only the Spanish view.

~~~
antr
The Treaty of Utrecht only referred to Gibraltar, not the waters. IMHO, it's
the UK who has a view.

------
pash
One of the things I dislike about graphics displaying live (or otherwise
unfinalized) electoral results is that the viewer must know something about
political geography in order to interpret them: Are the tallies I'm seeing in
line with how those districts were supposed to vote? Is it just happenstance
that the votes counted so far have come in disproportionately from districts
expected to vote against the expected overall result?

Please, if you work on these things, try to help us understand what we're
really seeing. Otherwise, your work is for naught, because we will all learn
to say, "Bah, I'll check the results in the morning."

Do any of you have ideas about how better to display live results? Maybe a
heat map showing the difference in the actual results versus the polled
expected results?

~~~
natrius
The New York Times has done live predictive models as results come in, which
is the best election night tool I've ever seen. Here's the New York Democratic
primary: [http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/04/19/upshot/live-
mo...](http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/04/19/upshot/live-model-
estimating-new-york-democratic-primary-delegates.html?_r=0)

All of the charts updated in real time based on how precincts actually voted
compared to their predictions.

~~~
danso
I agree completely...a shining example of how there's always more data to the
data. I remember in 2014, they were tracking a Senate race in which the
underdog, because of the order of precincts reporting, was seemingly on its
way to a massive upset. To its credit, CNN made a few caveats while at the
same time talking about how exciting things were as they did Jerry-
Bruckheimer-zooms of their fancy electorate map...but all the while, the NYT
kept calm and steady with its prediction and as the night went on, the vote
results line gradually converged to nearly exactly what the NYT's analysis
predicted.

It's definitely made election night a lot less dramatic.

------
owenversteeg
The BBC just announced that "Britain has voted to leave the European Union".

Leave only needs 2,105,984 more votes to win. [edit 12:15am EST] 1,715,256
votes now and closing fast. [edit 12:19am EST] 1,196,678 [edit 12:27am EST]
894,189 [edit 12:31am EST] 785,549 [edit 12:37am EST] 741,795 [edit 12:38am
EST] 592,337 [edit 12:45am EST] 448,596 [edit 12:46am EST] 373,532 [edit
12:51am EST] 308,519 [edit 12:57am EST] 94,635 [edit 1:00am EST] 37,665 [edit
1:02am EST] 0. The UK has officially voted to leave.

Predicted result: Leave 52%, Remain 48%

Wow. So what happens now?

\- Scotland voted 62% Remain. The SNP said it will call a second independence
referendum if Leave wins. Many estimate that the independence movement will
win this time around. Literally every single Scottish division voted to
remain.

\- Gibraltar will probably be royally screwed [0] as well as some other areas
that are heavily dependent on trade/travel with EU countries

\- The pound drops like a rock. Was stable at $1.48 all day, peaked at $1.50
earlier after Remain was doing well (~6pm EST), now at $1.33 (12:13am EST),
now at $1.32 (12:21am EST) and the lowest level since 1985. In 1985 it hit
$1.08, which was then the lowest value in a very long time.

\- The pound is down 17% from the yen by the way.

\- Other independence movements in other EU countries gain a bit of
legitimacy. The euro drops (currently at $1.09, down four cents or 3%), and
the yen gains (currently up 6%) (12:25am EST)

\- For those of us fortunate enough to have our savings in dollars, everything
denominated in pounds is currently on a 12% off sale.

[0]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11965342](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11965342)

------
joeyspn
The pound is in free fall (-7%)...

[http://www.investing.com/currencies/gbp-usd-
chart](http://www.investing.com/currencies/gbp-usd-chart)

This is going to hurt...

Edit: now rebounding... Remain is winning now thanks to London.

~~~
guelo
meh, it's still trading around the same levels as it has been since January.

~~~
jonknee
Meh? It's the largest single day drop for the Pound in history.

~~~
guelo
When I said meh it was around 1.45. It's now officially beyond meh levels.

~~~
jonknee
You replied to the comment that noted it was down 7% which is an outrageous
move for a currency.

------
yummyfajitas
I hold the belief that the apocalyptic predictions of Brexit are mostly bunk,
and Britain will soldier on. I additionally believe that the market is
overreacting.

Can anyone more familiar with UK markets offer suggestions on how I can trade
this opinion?

~~~
jonknee
Buy the pound, buy FTSE, buy really anything tomorrow because it's all going
to be on sale.

~~~
bbcbasic
Yes it is an easy buy. Wait a few days and get options to buy GBP @1.5 USD :-)

------
semberal
Results are appearing a bit sooner at
[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mI2o0smlVC_TyzhsnweL...](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mI2o0smlVC_TyzhsnweLEayc3tRgtBxIDCotABtUIX0/htmlview?sle=true)
and [https://twitter.com/britainelects](https://twitter.com/britainelects)

------
jsmeaton
I wonder if referendums should have a higher bar than 50% against the status
quo. Referendums are reserved for big changes (generally) or constitutional
changes, and the population can be extremely fickle. A 50% target might go one
way or another depending on the week or month you call it - and probably
doesn't represent a true majority, especially in a state where voting is
optional. The ramifications can be very large and shouldn't be expected to
change again for a very long time.

If a higher percentage was thought to be a good idea, what would that
percentage be? 60/40? 55/65? 70/30? I'm not advocating for this by the way,
just figure it might be an interesting thought experiment.

~~~
tomcorrigan
I'm inclined to agree given that voting is not compulsory. In Australia, where
voting in all elections and referenda is compulsory, I would have to
stridently disagree. I suspect the result today was skewed by the big swing
towards the 'Remain' vote following the assassination of Jo Cox causing a lot
of 'Remain' voters choosing to stay at home in the expectation of 'Remain'
comfortably prevailing.

~~~
jsmeaton
I'm Australian, but I'm still not sure a 50/50 split on something so important
is right. At least here in Australia you need a 50% total and a 50% of states.
I don't think the extra requirement of locality would have prevented the leave
in the UK though - it seems only London and Scotland really led the way for
the stay vote.

> I suspect the result today was skewed by the big swing towards the 'Remain'
> vote following the assassination of Jo Cox

That's kind of what I'm getting at. With a vote so close it's almost a
decision that could change day to day, or depending upon the weather. For a
vote that can only happen every decade or three I don't think 50% is a high
enough bar for change.

------
_rpd
Results timeline - local (US Eastern):

3-4 a.m. (10-11 p.m.) - Results from half of the counting areas are in

Around 5 a.m. (midnight) - About 80% of counting areas have reported results

7 a.m. (2 a.m.) - All votes are likely to have been counted and the official
result is expected shortly after.

------
dankohn1
This is such a tragedy. How many voters and observers understand than that
European project was never primarily about economics? It was a political
project that has produced 71 years "since an army crossed the Rhine with fire
and sword" [0].

And now, we can watch as the project that has brought peace and prosperity to
more than almost any in history unravels. And yes, Europe has been failed by
horrendous, narrow-minded economic policies of the EU, but a previous
generation of leaders who still remembered the horrors of war would not have
sacrificed Europe for their own narrow benefits.

[0] [http://delong.typepad.com/delong_long_form/2015/01/the-
futur...](http://delong.typepad.com/delong_long_form/2015/01/the-future-of-
the-european-project-and-the-future-of-the-eurozone-a-talk-from-2013-the-
honest-broker-for-the-week-of-janua.html)

~~~
rukittenme
I think you're wrong to despair.

The Europe of < 1910 was very different. Socially, politically, and
economically. If the EU dissolved today, I don't believe France and Germany
would be at war within 200 years. So long as strong democratic values persist
in Europe, peace, I think, is a certainty.

~~~
afarrell
There is currently war in Europe
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Ukrainian_cr...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Ukrainian_crisis)

~~~
rukittenme
Yes but Russia is not a member of the EU and its not really a democracy.

------
StavrosK
Is this going to be decided by the pure number of votes, or is it separated by
region and the number of regions is what will decide the result?

~~~
lambada
Pure number of votes. THough the regions will declare separately, it's the net
remain vs leave votes overall that matter.

~~~
noobermin
A sane voting scheme...unlike what we have in the USA. IMAO of course, but I'm
so A about it I don't care.

~~~
c0g
Don't worry, in all of our normal elections it is insane.

~~~
newjersey
There was an opportunity to fix the insanity in an earlier referendum. Such a
wasted opportunity.

Probably the saddest referendum result in my lifetime
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Alternative_Vot...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Alternative_Vote_referendum,_2011)

~~~
matthewmacleod
I'm a big fan of reforming the electoral system in the UK, but the AV
referendum was an awful fudge at best, plainly just offered as a sop to the
Liberal Democrats.

It was genuinely one of the worst referendum campaigns of all time though. I'm
still haunted by the 'if you vote for this then babies will die' adverts.

~~~
Freaky
[https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/feb/25/no-
to-...](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/feb/25/no-to-
alternative-vote-baby-ad)

:/

------
Yhippa
Wow. Everything I'd heard today pointed to them staying in the EU. As of now
the leave votes are winning. This will probably be one of the big political
experiments in my lifetime.

~~~
jmedwards
There's approx 30m votes to declare - only 1m has so far. It is early

~~~
contravariant
If votes were being counted in a completely random order then 1m votes would
have been more than enough to determine the result with very high accuracy.

Regional variations are the only reason things haven't been decided yet.

------
diakritikal
I think this almost guarantees the break up of the UK (if the result stays
with the leave Eu campaign). Scotland is voting overwhelmingly to remain in
the EU.

I doubt we'll stand by and stomach a far right dogwhistle government. Most of
the politicians advocating leaving the EU also want to abolish the Scottish
parliament.

~~~
sbmassey
I'd like to see an independant Scotland, but I wonder if they would actually
vote for independence this time around, even in the face of a Leave vote: the
low price of oil, and the chaotic state of the EU might make that look too
scary for the Scots

------
carwyn
I don't think this is a vote for the the #brexit campaign as such. The major
exit votes are from working class areas that are traditionally Labour meaning
this could be more of a #Lexit which was hardly covered in the mainstream
media. This is also a general protest vote against the establishment not just
the EU.

------
MBCook
Something I hadn't considered was the breakdown between the individual UK
nations.

What happens if the UK as a whole decides to leave the euro zone, perhaps by a
small margin or perhaps by a lot, but for some reason Scotland decides buy a
15% margin to stay in the euro zone.

Is there any reason to think we might see Scotland decide to stay with the
euro zone it leave the UK in that case? Or are the ties so strong that the UK
would probably stay together no matter what even if one of the member nations
has a strongly different opinion?

~~~
matthewmacleod
(Just a heads-up, the Eurozone and the EU are different – the former is the
currency union under the Euro, and membership of the latter is what the
referendum is about. Not all members of the EU are members of the Eurozone).

Scotland had an independence referendum less than two years ago, where the
outcome was a good 45%-55% in favour of remaining in the UK. However, the
majority of representatives in Scotland remain pro-Scottish independence.
Continued membership of the EU was an important argument during the
independence campaign – with the pro-independence side wanting to remain, and
the pro-UK side warning that Scotland would lose EU membership if it voted for
independence.

It's likely – but not certain – that there would be a second independence
referendum in Scotland on the basis of being 'forced' to exit the EU. But it's
not going to be pretty, and there have been a lot of elections in Scotland
recently – no doubt everyone is getting a bit fatigued. It's not clear at all
what the outcome would be, either, or if Scotland would even be able to
maintain EU membership.

~~~
MBCook
Thanks, thought I might be getting the "euro zone" part wrong but wasn't sure.

Honestly I was surprised when this whole issue came up because I assumed that
the EU and the Eurozone where the same thing. I know the UK never decided to
adopt the Euro so I just assumed that they weren't part of the EU.

~~~
matthewmacleod
It's not hard to get confused – there are a lot of overlapping groups involved
here! The Eurozone, the EU, the ECHR, the EEA… they all have different sets of
members and such.

The UK has been a bit frosty about the prospect of further EU integration,
possibly with good reason in some ways.

~~~
jballanc
Ah! This is where I get to pull out one of my all time favorite Wikipedia
graphics:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Supranational_European_Bo...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Supranational_European_Bodies-
en.svg)

...ya know, just in case you weren't confused enough already!

~~~
eru
This would be better, if it didn't rely on me knowing all the flags.

------
tptacek
I'm surprised "Leave" is doing as well as it is in Scotland, which is not only
more liberal than the UK as a whole, but also somewhat more European ---
"Leave" is essentially a solidarity vote with England, isn't it?

You might wonder, if "Leave" wins, whether Scotland's next independence
referendum won't succeed as well.

~~~
lsd5you
The apparent liberalness of Scotland is largely just rhetorical opposition to
the rest of the UK's policies. On actual policy issues (e.g. appropriate level
of welfare) Scotland polls much like the rest of the UK. Of course they to
some extent would prefer European masters to English ones. However they also
spent a long time convincing themselves of the feasability of a much deeper
divorce, so they probably did not buy into the economic doom stories.

Apparently the low oil price has banished the prospect of Scottish
independence for now at least.

------
cperciva
I'd suggest retitling this "Brexit referendum results", since I think "brexit"
is a term everybody understands.

dang?

~~~
TazeTSchnitzel
Well, it's not a referendum on Brexit or a Britain remain, it's a referendum
on EU membership with two options: Remain and Leave.

This is unlike the Scottish independence referendum which was a Yes/No vote on
if Scotland should to be independent. It's not specifically about either
option this time.

All that said, “Brexit referendum” is a name that's been used. (And if the
result goes a certain way, well…)

~~~
noobermin
>Brexit or a Britain remain

Bremain! Get the hip abbreviations right :)

~~~
TazeTSchnitzel
Oh, I did think of that, but it feels cringeworthy…

~~~
noobermin
Before you blame me, I didn't think of it either...and even if I didn't I
certainly wouldn't promote it.

------
orf
If you're in the UK, or have a proxy here, visit
[https://www.tvplayer.com](https://www.tvplayer.com) and watch BBC 1.

It's not looking good for remain, but it's really early.

------
triplesec
Follow the conversation live here: [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-
politics-36570120](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-36570120)

Also, the chances are the BBC world service radio is covering it in your area.

------
sandworm101
First the Brits, then in a couple months the Americans. There is only so much
room in Canada.

~~~
eru
Wouldn't the Brits move to France or Germany?

~~~
sandworm101
They'll move to Scotland, which will shortly seek to depart from the south. I
cannot wait to see the Queen going through passport control on her way to
Balmoral.

~~~
eru
Why would she need to? She can stay the head of state of all the countries the
UK might split into.

(She's also Queen of all Australian states individually.)

------
smcl
Since it's looking like a "Leave" right now I just wanted to share Limmy's
post-brexit masterplan.

[https://storify.com/576c9f3a3eb177be42c27c82](https://storify.com/576c9f3a3eb177be42c27c82)

------
evanpw
See also: betting odds
([https://electionbettingodds.com/brexit.html](https://electionbettingodds.com/brexit.html)).
Was at 85%+ for Remain earlier today, now down to 65%.

~~~
evanpw
Now 55% to leave!

~~~
christianmann
Now 73% Leave.

------
nodesocket
Wow, their tech is surprisingly good for government/news.

~~~
matthewmacleod
BBC isn't really government, and it's definitely an organisation that's often
been quite advanced in pushing new broadcasting technology.

~~~
xufi
Agreed and based on what I've read the funding package that the UK government
gives them plus the TV tax (that each UK citizen has to pay with the purchase
of a TV) sure helps them stay afloat

~~~
jdietrich
We pay a TV license annually, not a one-off tax. The BBC receives no
government funding, which helps ensure its impartiality.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licensing_in_the_Un...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licensing_in_the_United_Kingdom)

~~~
capote
I think many other countries have a TV 'tax' as well. I had to pay one living
in Germany just for owning a computer.

Makes for great public media in many cases.

~~~
xufi
Do you think taxes like this will go away at some point? or will it always be
there in some form?

~~~
d_j_b
Some right-wingers in the UK (e.g. the ones advocating withdrawing from the
EU) would like to see it abolished (and the BBC diminished)

~~~
capote
What a bummer considering the BBC is one of the greatest.

~~~
xufi
Yep, their world news coverage is pretty good but I especialy love their
documentaries. They just blow me away

~~~
eru
Yeah, but they are spending a lot on soap operas as well...

Those could very well be provided by the private market.

------
hackuser
If the polls immediately beforehand don't match the election results, why do
we assume the polls are wrong? Maybe it's the election that's wrong - maybe
it's been fixed.

To be clear: I have no other evidence of a fix, nor am I talking only about
this election. I'm saying, the question needs to be asked and the problem
needs to be dealt with proactively through security and other means.

But here are some thoughts:

* Security requires making an attack more costly than its worth. How much are the results of a major election worth? It's priceless, existential even to some. The fates of nations and billions to trillions of dollars could be on the line. State intelligence services have many motivations to control the outcome. Is it even possible to secure something that valuable?

* Elections have been fixed for generations - probably for as long as there have been elections; it's certainly plausible that someone would try and succeed.

* The systems that need securing are not in a locked room, but spread across a nation, with a large number of operators. Again, very hard to secure. Finally, at least in the U.S., election systems aren't know for their security.

* If it was fixed, would anyone investigate? Would they even want to know? It would undermine the fundamental mechanism of democracy. What if the U.S. presidential election was fixed, what would happen? A do-over?

* Other than smoking guns, what better evidence could we have of a fix than a mis-match between pre-election polls and the outcome?

In short, there's a very strong motive, long-established precedent, and
opportunity.

------
capote
Why are the numbers so microscopic compared to the population of the UK? Is it
not a direct vote?

~~~
cperciva
Numbers only get reported when an electoral district has finished counting.
Right now only 5 of 382 districts have reported (and they're mostly small
districts, which is why they finished counting so quickly).

~~~
capote
So are we expecting tens of millions to vote by the end?

Edit: I did some math and figured it out. Thanks for the help, hehehe

~~~
cperciva
Somewhere around 25-30 million, I think.

------
Scirra_Tom
GBP USD bouncing from 1.40 to 1.50, insane amounts of volatility:
[https://www.dailyfx.com/gbp-usd](https://www.dailyfx.com/gbp-usd)

Amateur guestimate, remain will see 1.55, leave will see 1.30

------
kirrent
Is the vote for a simple majority? In my country, Australia, a referendum must
achieve a double majority which means a nationwide majority and a majority in
a majority of states. Are there any similar provisions for this referendum?

~~~
sievebrain
The referendum is not legally binding anyway. It's just a big fancy opinion
poll. Albeit, the shit would hit the fan if the government ignored a leave
result.

~~~
gutnor
The shit will hit the fan if there is no strong majority. And all the polls
suggest that it is not going to be a strong majority. 50% of the population is
going to be pissed. Too many bridges between both side have been burned.

United will only be in the name of the country after today. This is the
beginning of years of trouble ahead.

~~~
toyg
Shit had already hit the fan with the Scottish referendum and the SNP wipeout
at last election. The country is split between haves and have-nots, the
globalization winners in cities and South and losers elsewhere; the have-nots
are easy prey for nationalisms, as it's always the case.

------
selectron
Here is a good site which converts betting odds to probabilities:
[https://electionbettingodds.com/brexit.html](https://electionbettingodds.com/brexit.html)

------
xufi
If this goes with "REMAIN", Does this still leave the possibility of Scotland
wanting to "Leave" ? I've read a few articles about it and it seems the Scots
were contemplating leaving

~~~
pbae
You have it backwards. The English are on the fence about it, but the Scots
want to remain by a huge margin. If the UK votes to leave, it's very likely
that it will trigger a re-referendum for Scotland to leave the UK and rejoin
the EU.

~~~
xufi
I see intersting, must've got those mixed. We'll see how it goes

------
dewiz
Sky news is now projecting OUT, ie given the trend looks like UK will leave
EU. Anyway, still many votes to come, margin is around 800k votes so far.

~~~
dewiz
1M votes margin, many news channels are giving it for granted. It woukd be fun
to see reporters react to a sudden reversal though

------
adrenalinelol
I think this is a dire inditement for neoliberalism; nearly everyone expected
this to go the other way: the markets, the media, the polls... When the stats
are analyzed, I assume the people who suffer from globalization will be the
ones who made up a bulk of the leave vote. The question is why wouldn't they
vote the way they did? Free trade is a lose lose for them, damned if they do,
damned if they don't.

------
xentronium
Having a "tie" key for the region map is a cute detail, but how necessary is
it really?

------
bane
Prediction? UK will stay, but it will be uncomfortably close.

~~~
Anderkent
Seems pretty much impossible for remain to win at this point

------
artursapek
I'm looking forward to seeing what the web does with the presidential
election. The last election I remember paying attention to was Obama's win in
2008, and that was basically just telecast on TV.

------
calsy
Can someone give me 3 good reasons why the UK should stay in the EU? Thanks.

~~~
calsy
I just like some well explained answers that's all. Why do people care so much
if there are no reasons to stay? Is it the stock market? Is it immigration?

I'm not after an argument, i'm an average joe who works and has a family.
Explain to me why important to vote remain, thats all.

~~~
raphman_
Requesting exactly three reasons sounds quite trollish...

A Leave vote would probably negatively affect many European research projects.
The EU's framework programmes [1] are funding many collaborations and exchange
programs. If the UK leaves, non-British researchers might need to to leave the
UK, British universities would get isolated from the rest of European
academia, long-term projects would have their funding canceled, etc. Even if
EU and UK somehow would find a way to continue research cooperations, the
uncertainty will have negative consequences right now. While this might not
directly affect the average joe, it would negatively affect quite a few people
I know.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framework_Programmes_for_Resea...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framework_Programmes_for_Research_and_Technological_Development)

~~~
_delirium
I think it's also unlikely that the UK will end up neutral on scientific
funding overall. There's no fundamental reason it couldn't, of course: as
Leave campaigners have argued, leaving the EU research programmes doesn't
require a net reduction in funding for UK researchers, since the UK could
simply put an equivalent amount of money into its own scientific funding
programmes. Those of us in computing, for example, currently get a good
portion of our funding from the EU's framework programmes, and another good
portion from the UK's own EPSRC. The UK could keep the total level of funding
for science/engineering research constant by setting the EPSRC's new funding
level to an amount equal to the sum of previous EPSRC funding, plus the funds
previously received by UK-based science/engineering researchers from the EU
framework programmes. But will the government actually do so? I predict they
will not, and that it won't even be close.

------
StavrosK
Shouldn't the title here be "UK referendum results"?

~~~
aidos
Within the uk it's being referred to as the EU referendum, since we're having
a referendum to decide about our fate in the EU. I can see how that's
confusing for the rest of the world!

~~~
StavrosK
Yes, that makes sense in the context of the BBC/UK, but I was confused on HN
because I was thinking the EU was holding some referendum today as well.

~~~
aidos
Agreed. It's probably worth having as something like "UK Referendum on the EU"

------
MichaelGG
With anti-Jewish sentiment, from Mein Kampf and other sources I see, is mainly
about some shadowy conspiracy. Anti-Islam sentiment seems to be based on
concrete actions (though with fearful, only somewhat-justified extrapolation
perhaps) by people identifying with Islam, as well as Islam-majority
countries' actions.

EU and US leaders seem to keep on stating there's nothing wrong with Islam,
while e.g. Islamic countries still have the death penalty for non-straight or
non-cis people. It seems like doublespeak to say it's great, yet not admit the
obvious problems. Anyone speaking up and pointing this "emperor's clothing"
situation out is going to resonate well with people. I've considered myself
very left and liberal for most of my life, yet I'm now viewing these right-
wing parties favorably. Maybe I'm getting older (34) and losing my grip, or
maybe there's some serious issues.

If I'm getting this wrong, please tell me. I have a hard time seeing how
rational people can come to a different result on this matter. Note I'm not
saying anything about individual Muslims, just that no one seems to want to
recognize the obvious problems that many people's beliefs seem to have.

No offense intended; please let me know what I'm missing. (FWIW I'm against
all religion.)

~~~
sawthat
"The reason this bath water is so dirty is that there is a baby in it"

Policy matters. The right wing proposal is religious discrimination. In the US
we don't make exceptions for religions we don't like. You don't have to like
Islam. You can believe that Islam is fundamentally incompatible with western
pluralism. If you are American the moment you decide that's a good reason to
start getting ok with religious discrimination is when you've given up on the
very ideals this country was founded on.

~~~
kiba
It is indeed precisely the wrong response.

By reinforcing the idea that Islam is a threat to the pluralism of Western
society, we're also reinforcing extremists' narrative about a clash of
civilization.

Really, the only winning move is not to play. That is, treat terrorist attacks
as normal crimes and let the police handle it.

~~~
hackuser
> By reinforcing the idea that Islam is a threat to the pluralism of Western
> society, we're also reinforcing extremists' narrative about a clash of
> civilization.

> the only winning move is not to play. That is, treat terrorist attacks as
> normal crimes and let the police handle it.

Generally I agree, but I think it needs to be portrayed as peace-loving people
of all religions against homicidal maniacs of all religions.

~~~
MichaelGG
>peace-loving people of all religions against homicidal maniacs of all
religions

I completely agree! But it's not as if every religion is equal. It'd be
strange to say that, for instance, Jainism, has (or had) anywhere near the
violence (even proportionally) that, say, Christianity or Judaism has (or
had).

It reminds me of programming or tooling debates, where someone jumps in with
"well pick the right tool for the right job" or "all software has bugs". It
feels somewhat dishonest to imply that no group has a larger problem. And I
don't mean terrorism -- that's small enough in raw numbers to not matter -- I
mean overall social views like what's described here[1]. Reading those
numbers, am I wrong to think it's a clash of civilization?

1: [http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-
religi...](http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-
politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/)

Again, I'm asking in all honesty, no intention to offend, troll or provoke. I
thank you all for your responses.

~~~
hackuser
> it's not as if every religion is equal. It'd be strange to say that, for
> instance, Jainism, has (or had) anywhere near the violence (even
> proportionally) that, say, Christianity or Judaism has (or had).

Lacking data, I'd guess that violence is proportional to power and not to the
religious teachings. Janists don't control any large armies (yet). But if a
Janist PM of India nuked Pakistan, would you be shocked?

> It feels somewhat dishonest to imply that no group has a larger problem. And
> I don't mean terrorism -- that's small enough in raw numbers to not matter
> -- I mean overall social views ...

It's impossible that every group has equal problems, of course, but many other
factors may determine the social views, as an example: Is the group
concentrated in a certain region? I'll bet Mormons have a stronger belief in
democracy and civil rights than (pick some religion concentrated in a non-
democratic country). Is the group disproportionately poor or rich? Old or
young? Well or poorly educated? Does it have a political structure that lends
itself to certain types of behavior (for example, I don't know about
religions, but for nations democratic structures generally yield more peaceful
behavior)? etc.

Think of it from a scientific basis: Can we control for other factors and
isolate behavior down to religion? It seems almost impossible. And what is
religion? Scripture? Teachings? The local clergy? Family? Personal beliefs -
even those change. Within religions, there is enormous variety in observance
and belief; very few if any blindly accept all their religion's teachings. It
seems impossible to paint the individuals with a broad brush.

And regardless, I think it's unjust to judge any individual based on anything
but their own actions. It's not right to guess what they might do and condemn
them for it.

~~~
MichaelGG
>unjust to judge any individual based on anything but their own actions. It's
not right to guess what they might do and condemn them for it.

I'm not suggesting condemning anyone. Just condemning their views and making
it publicly unacceptable, and perhaps letting that provide some advice to
immigration policy. Similar to how the Mormon church was let know in no
uncertain terms that racial discrimination was not OK, despite their
religion.[1]

A blanket ban (based on what, like you say, professed religion?) is extremely
uncomfortable for exactly the reasons you lay out. But so is pretending
there's nothing objectionable and that there's just a few people here and
there that have "extreme" views.

My only point in this whole thread is that the reason a lot of people might be
leaning right is that the left politicians I've seen don't seem to be willing
to admit there might be belief issues. No need to condemn anyone, just condemn
certain views. Note some ideas are not OK, and that the US or EU's values need
to win out.

1:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_people_and_Mormonism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_people_and_Mormonism)

~~~
hackuser
> But so is pretending there's nothing objectionable and that there's just a
> few people here and there that have "extreme" views.

I'm not pretending; it's just a few. Just because I disagree doesn't mean I'm
pretending - maybe you're wrong.

Can you point to one U.S. immigrant who has stoned another American for
adultery (referring to your other post)? Do you have any data of such problems
actually existing? It's obviously absurd to claim these things will happen.

I think you are wrong about "belief issues"; it's just an alarmist response to
normal human behavior based on a very simplistic model. People in poor,
undemocratic countries have less understanding of these things than people
brought up in the West. But the U.S. has been integrating those people for
hundreds of years - Europe wasn't always a bastion of liberty and democracy -
and almost all Americans descend from immigrants from (then) non-democratic
countries. I would guess.

Have some faith in the values of democracy, liberty, and tolerance: They do
have very broad appeal and are adopted by nations world-wide, from Japan to
Indonesia to India to Botswana to Brazil. You might recall many Mideast
countries recently had revolts pushing for those things. Finally, most
immigrants know the U.S. stands for freedom and choose it.

~~~
MichaelGG
FWIW I don't entirely disagree with your conclusion. But:

>it's just a few

Going off the percentage numbers from Pew and the demos from Wikipedia, I get
these numbers for those in favour of death for apostasy: 50M in Egypt. 53M in
Bangladesh. Around 110M in Pakistan. That's 200M people right there -- how can
that be a "few" in any meaning of the word?

Egypt was one of those countries with revolutions, wasn't it? Jordan is rated
the most free or democratic among Arab countries, yet over half the population
is in favour of death for leaving a religion.

Unless these numbers are totally wrong (and I'd love to hear that), I'm not
sure this is just alarmist. But at any right, it should explain why these
right wing politicians are getting support. Someone looks at these surveys,
sees these numbers. Then a leader gets on the TV says there's zero problem
with Islam, that it's all peaceful people, and only a few extremists. So are
the surveys/research simply and utterly wrong?

Maybe it does not matter, and people that migrate will drop those views, or
the ones without those views are the only ones that want to come. But I think
plenty of people view it dishonest to claim there's no issue with those
beliefs in the first place.

Again, thank you for explaining. This thread has given me some points to
consider even if I don't agree.

~~~
kiba
So what?

If they want to come to our countries, they have to respect our laws.

They want to stone people? Jail them.

Those nations aren't a threat to our civilization precisely because of how
their society works. They distrust themselves far too much to wage a jihad
against our civilization.

------
chris_wot
Complete and utter madness. I think it's time for Australia to become a
Republic, I'm not sure why we'd want to stick with the U.K. at this point.

~~~
owenversteeg
At least the Australian dollar isn't taking as much of a beating; it's only
down to $0.73 from $0.77 - only 5% loss.

~~~
chris_wot
I think our exporters must be feeling pretty chuffed :-)

------
EGreg
So we are on the brink of trade wars. If the UK leaves the EU it will start a
trade war with the Continent. Meanwhile, if Trump gets elected he'll spur a
trade war with Mexico and China. Interesting what that will lead to. Loss of
jobs, for one. But what else?

~~~
hiram112
Why are you assuming a trade war with Mexico or China would necessarily lead
to a loss of jobs as if it were some universal law of physics. Cause the
specific media that you watch says it would?

I've never seen a coherent argument explaining how free trade deals have
helped anyone but small groups at the expense of larger ones.

In fact, the actual direct evidence of trade deals are this:

1\. Massive job loss for American workers. 2\. Tax losses for the communities
whose factories move across borders. 3.No actual job creation in its place
based on the labor participation rate (lowest since these deals became
common). 4\. Corporate profits at highest level since before these deals. 5\.
Wealth inequality approaching depression level era. Interestingly, our gini
coefficient tends to approach that of Mexico and China the more we trade with
them.

~~~
meowface
I don't agree with you, but you don't deserve to be downvoted just for
presenting an argument that's unpopular here. Upvoted for visibility.

------
duncan_bayne
Not many people know that the explicit goal of the early founders of the EU
was to institute federalisation by stealth. They distrusted democracy (Hitler
was voted into power), and chose to disguise massive political reform as
economic.

Monnet - one of the original drivers behind the formation of the EU - had this
to say:

"Europe's nations should be guided towards the Super-state without their
people understanding what is happening. This can be accomplished by successive
steps, each disguised as having an economic purpose, but which will eventually
and irreversibly lead to federation."

To be clear, these weren't some sort of evil oligarchs at work: they wanted
there to never be another WW2, another Hitler, etc.

But the nature of the EU, from the outset, was much as its critics today
contend.

More at [http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/679277/History-EU-
how...](http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/679277/History-EU-how-
bureaucrats-seized-power).

 _Correction_ : that is not a quote from Monnet but a summary by a
contemporary of his. He actually said:

"Via money Europe could become political in five years" and "… the current
communities should be completed by a Finance Common Market which would lead us
to European economic unity. Only then would … the mutual commitments make it
fairly easy to produce the political union which is the goal.

~~~
tow21
Probably worth noting that the Daily Express is decidedly opinionated on the
question of EU membership; not exactly an unbiased opinion.

Not that I'm disputing the quote (I have no idea) - but Monnet was not the
only person driving the formation of the ECSC, and I'm not sure any of the
others involved had the same views.

~~~
wsc981
Current EU president Juncker certainly shares the same views. Many of his
quotes are very anti-democratic:
[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/10967168...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/10967168/Jean-
Claude-Junckers-most-outrageous-political-quotations.html)

