D
Deleted member 13876
Unconfirmed Member
Maybe it's a feature, not a bug.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
The UK votes to leave the European Union |OUT2| Mayday, Mayday, I've lost an ARM
- Thread starter Hasney
- Start date
- Status
Maybe it's a feature, not a bug.
CyclopsRock
Member
This is a genuine question: Has there ever been a time when young people were even a proportionate chunk of a vote share, let alone larger than proportionate one?
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Between 1964 and 1994, the 18-30 bloc was larger than the 40-50, 50-65, and 65+ blocs, yes (I mean, not larger than all of them put together, but you get my point). If you're including adjusted for turnout, though, I think the answer is no, although I'm not absolutely sure, I'm just estimating.
EDIT: From some quick maths I threw together, it was quite close for the 1964, 1966, and both 1970 elections; although the young were never quite larger than any of the other rough blocs.
JonathanEx
Member
Of note - the figure that only 36% of young people voted is from Sky. LSE's work think it's 70%: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/02/brexit-referendum-voters-survey
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
That does sound more plausible to me, looking at the LSE's figures. Sky's seemed baffling, that's council election turnout levels.
For more than a decade Germany was called "the sick man of Europe". It's only fairly recently that they turned that around.
Also, the net mean wealth of a German is fairly low for Northern Europe, far behind citizens of the UK, France, Belgium and Italy. In other words, they are relatively working poor.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_wealth_per_adult
Following this thing does scare me a bit in how political games can potentially ruin a country (in many ways similar to my own country) to this extent in such a short matter of time. What makes matters even worse is that in the period that it should be of utmost importance to negotiate the best you can with the EU, the prime minister calls it quits and the people are left with three candidates with rather questionable track records. All the while other EU countries are (likely) looking to pick London clean of it's banks and companies, which is looking attractive given the huge amount of uncertainty.
On a personal sidenote, as my field of work (life sciences business/research) is extremely international, this is bound to affect many of my friends and colleages a great deal.
On a personal sidenote, as my field of work (life sciences business/research) is extremely international, this is bound to affect many of my friends and colleages a great deal.
KonradLaw
Member
I just bought an expensive new monitor.
Although confidence is still low... I just think it'll be more expensive in the future.
You're thinking right. OnePlus 3's price for Brits just got bumped by 20 pounds few days ago
Which is pretty fucking rich, considering the EU is about to sanction Spain and Portugal for not enacting ENOUGH austerity.
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/07/eu-commission-begins-deficit-sanction-procedure-for-spain-portugal.html
How fucking tone deaf can these people be? You just had a country decide to exit the EU because of supranational overreach, the UN is saying austerity is against human rights, and NOW you decide you are going to sanction EU members?
It's fucking ludicrous.
Camp Freddie
Member
I did wonder about this, since it seemed to be from some bullshit Sky poll that never revealed it's source data.
I've really hated how the blame for leave is being placed on lazy young people and stupid northerners.
It's generally the fault of people with no further education, nostalgic old people and non-city people. Pretty much all the big Northern cities voted remain (I think Sheffield is the main exception along with some small cities like Wakefield and Barnsley).
Surrey voted leave, but we don't get BBC reporters finding middle class posh-boys. It's always some sink estate in Sunderland or Hartlepool, because Northerners=thick is a convenient stereotype to push.
To go back to why white towns vote leave, I think it's because they see reports from cities with a Polish/Muslim/Chinese district and assume that this will somehow 'spread' to the whole city and that their town will be next.
I was quite surprised to read in the government report posted by Blackcrane that <15% of immigrants are from the EU non-15 countries. They are generally outnumbered by the EU-15 immigrants that no-one ever complains about. I thought they would be around 25-35% of the total. I guess living near some farms means I see a lot more Eastern EU labourers than your average Englishman.
KonradLaw
Member
Ehh..lowering your deficit isn't against human rights. Wtf?
Austerity is great it is only fair to share it about. /s
Depends how it is done:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...s-poor-food-banks-inequality-un-a7110066.html
Those countries that have been spending like crazy for years, like Spain and Portugal, need get their finances fixed. We're in a monetary union, meaning all Euro countries use the same valuta.
The southern countries are generating huge debts. They've always done that, and their solution has always been to print more money. But now that there's a common European currency, they can't simply print more money. Why not? Because that's incredibly harmful for the citizens of other European countries who don't have these enormous debts.
Tory confirmed Tory, in other news water is wet.
EU playing austerity police again
S¡mon;209471893 said:
Then these countries never should have been in the Euro in the first place. Half of my family is from Spain and I've seen the direct results of that in the half-built developments over half of Spain. It wasn't Spanish money that drove the market into an insane frenzy, but the influx of European money from wealthier countries which stoked that insanity.
The fact that Spain couldn't take steps outside of kowtowing before the EU commission in Brussels, who instead of fixing the issue demanded austerity, is what's crippling Europe.
Linkstrikesback
Member
In Sheffields defense we voted 49:51 and if a large percentage of the student population of the city hadn't buggered off for the summer holidays, the result would have certainly been remain here. Wouldn't change the final result because anyone who voted would have just done it elsewhere, but still.
Geez.
And on top of that, the upcoming elections will probably only stoke that fire. Hooray.
Yeah, I dont know what to think about this. There are some "devastating" areas in Eastern Germany. (compared to the rest of Germany) surely some places in Mecklenburg or Brandenburg are poorer than those 9 UK areas
Following this thing does scare me a bit in how political games can potentially ruin a country (in many ways similar to my own country) to this extent in such a short matter of time. What makes matters even worse is that in the period that it should be of utmost importance to negotiate the best you can with the EU, the prime minister calls it quits and the people are left with three candidates with rather questionable track records. All the while other EU countries are (likely) looking to pick London clean of it's banks and companies, which is looking attractive given the huge amount of uncertainty.
On a personal sidenote, as my field of work (life sciences business/research) is extremely international, this is bound to affect many of my friends and colleages a great deal.
Yeah, what I was thinking this is the worse possible circumstances to get a new Prime Minister and thats not mentioning how bad these candidates are.
They're just getting to know the job, they're probably going to be hyped and feel validated that the people have voted for them to do whatever they want. They're going to go into this with so much false confidence.
We're basically fucked.
Monty Mole
Member
And this is why the EU doesn't work in its current state. I'm a Bremainer. The EU works for the UK, especially when the exemptions including the Euro. But as a bigger picture, outside of the U.K., it is messy.S¡mon;209471893 said:
PdotMichael
Banned
EU is not the Eurozone etc...
What you've done here is included the running costs and averaged the whole cost out over the lifetime of the project to make the figure less relevant, rather than focus on the 'purchase price' as I did which is more important to the short-medium term finances of the UK/Scotland.
Also, assigning chunks of deficit based on a hard population share isn't how these things work on an accounting basis, which is why I tried to stick to rough numbers rather than getting bogged down in unknowable detail.
I was very careful to say that this wasn't a budget saving, but an example of how different the budgets of an independent Scotland would be compared to the Scotland within the UK figures we have available.
I assume you mean 'has to join the Euro if they join the EU', and no, that's not true either. Assuming Scotland didn't get to carry over the UK's Euro opt-out (which it probably won't, but who knows) it would only have to agree to join the Eurozone in the future, with no definite time limit for actually switching currencies.
Hmmm... what figures are you using for 7%?
As you point out a Scotland in charge of its own finances could alter tax rates to balance the books (the powers it has at the moment are still limited in this respect). Also, George Osborne's austerity isn't 'real' austerity. The poor and vulnerable are being made to suffer to protect the wealthy.
The way I see it, the next 5-10 years is fucked up anyway whether independent or as part of the UK. This is a good time for Scotland to make the break and build its place in the EU for future growth, rather than only having a diminishing UK market to trade into for the foreseeable future. The first desperate trade deals negotiated by the Tories in Westminster are unlikely to favour Scotland any more than the rest of their policies do.
Audioboxer
Member
Such a nice lady.
What a shit show.
Camp Freddie
Member
You are right, and it is important to note that the difference between Leave and Remain was often so slight that it's taking things a bit too far to claim that a region is Leave or Remain. I don't think many places were beyond a 60:40 split. Even Scotland has quite a lot of Leave voters.
Leeds voted remain by 50.3 to 49.7 and while it gives me joy to claim us as a 'Remain' city and a bastion of good and decent people, it's little more than a rounding error away from some 'Leave' areas like Sheffield.
Makes me proud to be in Oxford, with a very healthy 70:30 split.
Of course, despite being a city, we're rather small, so that only worked out as a net gain of 30k votes...
You have female assholes too you know?
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
...you mean, I accurately represented what the savings would be? Gosh, what a terrible thing to do.
You can't even get rough numbers without having considered population. What you did was called "making number up based on nothing".
Okay, sure, in which case the answer is "not very different".
The chance Scotland will carry over the UK's Euro opt-out is precisely 0; there's a reason no new entrants have ever been granted this and only original accessions could negotiate such a thing. Scotland can, technically, delay joining the Euro by deliberately avoiding meeting the convergence criteria (as per Sweden). I'm not convinced that would be an economically good idea, though. Four of the five convergence criteria are just general good economic principles. The fifth is exchange rate stability with respect to the Euro; if Scotland pegged their currency to the pound they could probably avoid this, but then the question becomes why even leave the UK if you're going to continue to use the currency of the UK's currency, but now with no control over monetary policy?
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_national_deficit_analysis
I'm talking about the structural deficit, so that excludes countercyclical elements like reduced tax revenue/increased unemployment spending from the fact we were in a recession.
Something the SNP have very visibly not done; their main plan was to *lower* corporation tax until it was pointed out how silly this would be.
I agree; but the SNP's track record on soaking the wealthy is not very good either.
The best time for Scotland to become independent is probably actually relatively independent of what happens in the UK per se; it'd be whenever the rest of the EU stops giving fucks. If Catalonia left, then Spain's veto would be much less likely to be wielded. Higher oil prices would also help. As it is, right now is probably the worst time to leave the UK. You don't respond to a self-made recession by making another self-made recession.
As for "building its place in the EU", just from geography, Scotland is always going to have the UK as by far the biggest exporter. Saying "we'll trade more with the rest of the EU" is not really any different to Brexiteers saying "we'll trade more with Australia". If anything, the UK leaving the EU made independence a worse prospect for Scotland; if Scotland had left the UK in 2020, Spain had decided not to veto Euro re-entry, then Scotland and UK would still have free trade between one another. If the UK leaves the EU, and Scotland is in the EU, and the US-EU trade deal is not a good one, it will devastate the Scottish economy. You'd be no better than the Brexiteers if you want to ignore that.
The Scoxit argument is not one on economics because the economics does not support one. It's one about national identity - we're willing to bear the costs because we're Scottish and they're English/Welsh/Nirish and the ties between us are not enough for us to achieve the outcomes that both of us can abide by. That's a fine argument, and it's a persuasive one, so make that one. I think an independent Scotland could be more open, more democratic, have a greater support for human rights, all of those things, definitely. But economics? Don't bullshit around by economically saying "it won't be that bad"; don't be like the Leave campaign.
31GhostsIV
Banned
Evenin',
Not sure if this has been published here yet, but I just received an email response to the second referendum petition
"The European Union Referendum Act received Royal Assent in December 2015, receiving overwhelming support from Parliament. The Act did not set a threshold for the result or for minimum turnout.
The EU Referendum Act received Royal Assent in December 2015. The Act was scrutinised and debated in Parliament during its passage and agreed by both the House of Commons and the House of Lords. The Act set out the terms under which the referendum would take place, including provisions for setting the date, franchise and the question that would appear on the ballot paper. The Act did not set a threshold for the result or for minimum turnout.
As the Prime Minister made clear in his statement to the House of Commons on 27 June, the referendum was one of the biggest democratic exercises in British history with over 33 million people having their say. The Prime Minister and Government have been clear that this was a once in a generation vote and, as the Prime Minister has said, the decision must be respected. We must now prepare for the process to exit the EU and the Government is committed to ensuring the best possible outcome for the British people in the negotiations."
Not sure if this has been published here yet, but I just received an email response to the second referendum petition
"The European Union Referendum Act received Royal Assent in December 2015, receiving overwhelming support from Parliament. The Act did not set a threshold for the result or for minimum turnout.
The EU Referendum Act received Royal Assent in December 2015. The Act was scrutinised and debated in Parliament during its passage and agreed by both the House of Commons and the House of Lords. The Act set out the terms under which the referendum would take place, including provisions for setting the date, franchise and the question that would appear on the ballot paper. The Act did not set a threshold for the result or for minimum turnout.
As the Prime Minister made clear in his statement to the House of Commons on 27 June, the referendum was one of the biggest democratic exercises in British history with over 33 million people having their say. The Prime Minister and Government have been clear that this was a once in a generation vote and, as the Prime Minister has said, the decision must be respected. We must now prepare for the process to exit the EU and the Government is committed to ensuring the best possible outcome for the British people in the negotiations."
I believe the final tally was that only 23% of 18-24 year olds voted on the referendum.
chancellor
Member
Such a nice lady.
With the exception of the equal rights votes is she not just following the Tory whip. In any event she is to the right of the Tory party and that voting record shows it.
I hope we get May purely because she is a known quantity, I'm not happy with any Tory really and she is the least bad option as far as I can tell.
UcchedavÄda
Member
Would you happen to have a source for that?
From what I read, there weren't any actual (exit)polls done, so there are only projections based on other measures (with estimates ranging from 30 - 70%).
Shocking - will they learn?
I'm a remainer but in some ways I really won't miss the EU
Sigh.
This was a fairly moot point anyway, as the Euro might well be the best currency option if the Pound keeps tanking, the only point was that you insisted Scotland HAD to join the Euro. You now admit they could find away around it if they wanted to, even if it wasn't actually a good idea.
Most of this bit is just speculative fluff based on nothing, or Telegraph headlines, again.
I agree the 'Scoxit' argument, as you call it, is not one of economics, but that does not mean the economics are so fundamentally buggered as to make such a thing an impossibility or even undesirable, which was/is the 'Project Fear' campaign narrative.
There really isn't any point drilling into the financial detail yet and stating as fact that an independent Scotland won't get into X or Y because we have no idea what the heck is going on.
Only the 'political', 'moral' or 'democratic' case for Scotland gaining independence with the intention of remaining within the EU is worth debating at the moment, or at least, worth debating in this thread about the repercussions of the UK EU referendum result.
No. You took the big initial number and made it look smaller by adding it in with a smaller number so you could stretch it out over a number of years. The conversation was about the initial fiscal deficit of an independent Scotland's. I don't think projecting numbers out to 2060 is particularly helpful for that discussion.
Again, I did consider the population, but then acknowledged the inherent inaccuracies and gave a round figure of 1bn for discussion purposes. You argued down to "415 million" which is a level of accuracy far outwith the information available. Call it 0.4bn if you like.
The answer was clearly 'very different' when just one example can change things by 2.7%(your figure) to 6.7%(my figure) and there are hundreds of possible spending changes both big and small an independent Scottish government could choose to make which might reduce (or increase) the deficit further and get it to 'acceptable' levels for the international debt markets which were the point at the discussion. I don;t remember us trying to turn the Scottish deficit into a profit overnight.
We have literally no idea by what mechanism an independent Scotland might join the EU, so the chance is higher than zero.
This was a fairly moot point anyway, as the Euro might well be the best currency option if the Pound keeps tanking, the only point was that you insisted Scotland HAD to join the Euro. You now admit they could find away around it if they wanted to, even if it wasn't actually a good idea.
I'll stick to the ONS, thanks.
Again, even with the new powers, the Scottish Government doesn't have anything like the controls on tax and revenue collection that the UK government does. Also, any reference to tax behaviour by the SNP government at Holyrood has no relevance to tax behaviour of an independent Scotland (which may or may not have an SNP majority in its parliament.)
Most of this bit is just speculative fluff based on nothing, or Telegraph headlines, again.
I agree the 'Scoxit' argument, as you call it, is not one of economics, but that does not mean the economics are so fundamentally buggered as to make such a thing an impossibility or even undesirable, which was/is the 'Project Fear' campaign narrative.
There really isn't any point drilling into the financial detail yet and stating as fact that an independent Scotland won't get into X or Y because we have no idea what the heck is going on.
Only the 'political', 'moral' or 'democratic' case for Scotland gaining independence with the intention of remaining within the EU is worth debating at the moment, or at least, worth debating in this thread about the repercussions of the UK EU referendum result.
No such final tally actually exists, though - the only actual numerics we have is on overall turnout. The only numbers that can exist on voter turn-out by age can come only via exit-polling (which is going to be skewed massively by the fact that the 18-24 bracket are, proportionally, more likely to use postal votes than turn up at polling stations), or via other post-referendum polling information.
Whilst I'm sure someone is crunching on more detailed information on the matter still, I wouldn't actually trust any of the numbers released so far - and certainly not any which suggests the turn-out is as low as 23%.
Well, was out in a bar in France tonight and some guy started swearing at my friends and I (we're English), shouting about Brexit and telling us to go home.
We all voted in. I plan to work in France from next summer for a year or so after I graduate. Spent the last six months learning the language, love the culture. So it was sad to see, but most people I've met here have been very nice and understanding about the whole ordeal.
Still, can't believe it's come to this.
We all voted in. I plan to work in France from next summer for a year or so after I graduate. Spent the last six months learning the language, love the culture. So it was sad to see, but most people I've met here have been very nice and understanding about the whole ordeal.
Still, can't believe it's come to this.
IdreamofHIME
Member
Can only find this.
Without a public vote? Since when did the public choose the Prime Minister?
Never, but since they continually called out Gordon Brown for becoming PM without winning a GE, they're going to reap what they sow.
AHA-Lambda
Member
Can only find this.
And that doesn't even mention the snooper's charter >_>
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked