Pro BrExit voters - how do you feel now?

Stanley Road said:
How long has the new runway been under discussion? think we have 5 now at Schiphol, we'll probably have 10 before Heathrow gets 3. This is solely a UK issue, how much money has already been wasted? HS2, anyone desperate for that?

I feel like other countries in Europe just get on and do it where as the uk just wastes time and all this discussion took place before any vote.
Click to expand...
It's always been that way Stan, we had our house in Bredbury blighted by the planned route for the M60 motorway when I was 5 and we lost over half it's value when we had to move rather than wait for compulsory purchase. I'd graduated with 2 degrees in Civil Engineering, spent a year manual labouring whilst struggling to find graduate work and finally landed a job in a small design and build contractor when I was 24; the second job I bid on was the bridge abutments and revetment structures going through my old living room. Blame the environmentalists, blame the lack of skills, blame the EU, just never shine the light on successive governments both blue and red who have taken the taxes to build essential infrastructure every year but typically deliver less than 20% of it whilst the rest crumbles around us.

It's why I've spent most of my career working overseas and even now, the bulk of the big money work across my desk is overseas. I was happy when I came back home in that the family that is still here needed us to be closer and fortunate to find a UK based role that is still global enough to keep me interested and pay well, we'll have to wait and see what happens here yet just glad 90% of my pension is offshore.
 
M18CTID said:
Not really much of an excuse that though. You can vote 3 ways - in person, by post, or even by proxy. That's enough to cover everyone's individual circumstances.
Click to expand...

Can you please do some research about what you're actually talking about please.
 
NinjaFletch said:
Can you please do some research about what you're actually talking about please.
Click to expand...

You've lost me. I was just responding to a poster who was trying to explain why younger people don't turn out as much to vote and one of the implications for that was that those at university are constantly on the move so might find it difficult to cast their vote, to which I replied that there are 3 ways you can vote. Is that clear?
 
M18CTID said:
You've lost me. I was just responding to a poster who was trying to explain why younger people don't turn out as much to vote and one of the implications for that was that those at university are constantly on the move so might find it difficult to cast their vote, to which I replied that there are 3 ways you can vote. Is that clear?
Click to expand...

You're pushing a false narrative that young people didn't turn out to vote. It's incorrect.
 
Classical Mechanic said:
The vote turnout for young people would be classed as 'poor' in the grand scheme of thing I would have said.
Click to expand...

70% is very poor?

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/02/brexit-referendum-voters-survey

As far as I'm aware, this has been the only poll on voter turnout conducted after the referendum actually took place. But sure, lets believe a Sky Data tweet based on pre-referendum polling and penalising youth voters even if they said they voted because it fits the narrative.
 
NinjaFletch said:
You're pushing a false narrative that young people didn't turn out to vote. It's incorrect.
Click to expand...

No, I'm pushing a narrative that of all the age groups it was amongst the 18-24 year-olds where the turnout was by far the lowest. That's what I said - I didn't say that no young people at all voted so I've no idea where you're getting that from.
 
M18CTID said:
No, I'm pushing a narrative that of all the age groups it was amongst the 18-24 year-olds where the turnout was by far the lowest. That's what I said - I didn't say that no young people at all voted so I've no idea where you're getting that from.
Click to expand...

So the only poll actually conducted after the referendum and not penalising young voters for unrelated things puts 18-24 turnout higher than 24-29, but sure, it was the damn kids fault.
 
NinjaFletch said:
70% is very poor?

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/02/brexit-referendum-voters-survey

As far as I'm aware, this has been the only poll on voter turnout conducted after the referendum actually took place. But sure, lets believe a Sky Data tweet based on pre-referendum polling and penalising youth voters even if they said they voted because it fits the narrative.
Click to expand...

Just out of interest, did you see the deliberate mistake at the bottom of that article?

More than 46.5 million people voted in the referendum on 23 June
Click to expand...
 
M18CTID said:
This FT article suggests turnout was lowest among 18-24 year olds than any other age group which contradicts that Guardian article you put up so who knows?:confused:

http://blogs.ft.com/ftdata/2016/07/...ow-about-turnout-by-age-at-the-eu-referendum/
Click to expand...

Because this is what Sky Data (who this claim comes from) did.
'Are you going to vote on a scale of 1-10'
'10'
'How old are you?'
'18-24'
'Well because you didn't vote in the general election, we don't believe that you're going to vote in the EU referendum'

It's not a secret, they specify that in their follow up tweet, but of course it was ignored.

Seriously, the 36% turnout number would put 18-24 turnout lower than in the last general. That alone should raise ridiculously large alarm bells, even if they didn't state their methodology and show the problems with it.

M18CTID said:
Just out of interest, did you see the deliberate mistake at the bottom of that article?
Click to expand...

You'll have to forgive me, its not jumping out at me?
 
NinjaFletch said:
Because this is what Sky Data (who this claim comes from) did.
'Are you going to vote on a scale of 1-10'
'10'
'How old are you?'
'18-24'
'Well because you didn't vote in the general election, we don't believe that you're going to vote in the EU referendum'

It's not a secret, they specify that in their follow up tweet, but of course it was ignored.

Seriously, the 36% turnout number would put 18-24 turnout lower than in the last general. That alone should raise ridiculously large alarm bells, even if they didn't state their methodology and show the problems with it.
Click to expand...

I must admit that I thought it was low when I first heard it. Seems that was rolled out across the media and even the more trusted publications ran with it. On the other hand, I'm not convinced that nearly 70% of that age group voted either and just going off one opinion poll is probably not the best indicator. I guess we'll never know for sure what the turnout was.
 
NinjaFletch said:
Because this is what Sky Data (who this claim comes from) did.
'Are you going to vote on a scale of 1-10'
'10'
'How old are you?'
'18-24'
'Well because you didn't vote in the general election, we don't believe that you're going to vote in the EU referendum'

It's not a secret, they specify that in their follow up tweet, but of course it was ignored.

Seriously, the 36% turnout number would put 18-24 turnout lower than in the last general. That alone should raise ridiculously large alarm bells, even if they didn't state their methodology and show the problems with it.
Click to expand...
Preach!
 
M18CTID said:
I must admit that I thought it was low when I first heard it. Seems that was rolled out across the media and even the more trusted publications ran with it. On the other hand, I'm not convinced that nearly 70% of that age group voted either and just going off one opinion poll is probably not the best indicator. I guess we'll never know for sure what the turnout was.
Click to expand...

Yeah of course, I'm not saying the 70% figure is inarguably correct. But, based on anecdotal experience if nothing else, its a hell of a lot closer to the truth and the methodology (i.e. actually conducting the survey after rather than before the vote) definitely seems better to me.
 
Javi said:
The UK is part of a globalised world, so there is no point in just narrowing the view on the UK alone. In theory there is no problem with having an economy that consists of 90% financial services and only 10% industry because they don't just offer their services in said country but in the world (there are of course problems with having a undiversified economy f.e. when the sector is in crisis).
Click to expand...
I agree, but in the process of international competition all the different countries help out their financial sectors as much as they can to in fact import money by exporting financial services. But that makes the financial sectors grow in each country, so they have to squeeze the money out of eachothers and their own economies. The London City is still way ahead, so the Brexit is an opportunity for the EU to either curb the financial sector, the UK was always in the way of less financial sector serving legislation, or let their share take over by Frankfurt and Paris.

If it's 12% so there really is no problem with that (as long as the country participates in the world market of course) and your comparsion with paying 12% of your earning to the middlemen and the country is downright absurd because there is no connection between the prices for a specific service and it's percentage share of the economy alone.
Click to expand...
No, but there is the global problem, the European problem, the American problem and the British problem of an industry that offers little service to the economy, but takes an awful lot of money from it. That this industry is globalized is one of the main causes of this problem, not a solution or an excuse.

Javi said:
There is nothing difficult about the government implementating anti-monopoly regulation upon the press, it's not like they tell them what to write and whatnot. It ensures a diversified media that is especially important if you rely on them being the 4th power of checks and balances.

Besides, I wouldn't agree that people generally know that it's bad for them. Some undeniably do but there is a significant part that appears to think that the world is in fact that simple.
Click to expand...
I doubt it would ensure a diversified media. Media who are in it for the money tend to spread the same idea's and the same shit. If people keep buying it and keep tuning in, there's not much you can do about it.
 
Dr. Funkenstein said:
I agree, but in the process of international competition all the different countries help out their financial sectors as much as they can to in fact import money by exporting financial services. But that makes the financial sectors grow in each country, so they have to squeeze the money out of eachothers and their own economies. The London City is still way ahead, so the Brexit is an opportunity for the EU to either curb the financial sector, the UK was always in the way of less financial sector serving legislation, or let their share take over by Frankfurt and Paris.
Click to expand...

Then we're on the same page. Concerning the bold part: I always thought of the UK to be one of the deregulation drivers within the financial sector - is it in fact the other way around?


Dr. Funkenstein said:
No, but there is the global problem, the European problem, the American problem and the British problem of an industry that offers little service to the economy, but takes an awful lot of money from it. That this industry is globalized is one of the main causes of this problem, not a solution or an excuse.
Click to expand...

I don't really follow here. The prices are evaluated by the market so what are you suggesting is done here and what are your ground to say it's overpriced? Globalisation is another question altogether (not that I wouldn't be happy to discuss it but I don't think that it's best dealt with by focusing on one specific topic like finance; but if you like you could elaborate on why it's a problem here).

Dr. Funkenstein said:
I doubt it would ensure a diversified media. Media who are in it for the money tend to spread the same idea's and the same shit. If people keep buying it and keep tuning in, there's not much you can do about it.
Click to expand...

That is obviously not the case. In principal every media outlet out there is in it for the money (bar BBC of course) as is reflected on their legal organization as a corporation. I'm not exactly familiar with business law in the UK but I suspect that all media companies are organised as Ltd. and are therefore obliged to make money for shareholders; and they don't all spread the same ideas, do they?

Besides, I meant diversified media by having different ownership not by having a broader range of views.
 
Javi said:
Then we're on the same page. Concerning the bold part: I always thought of the UK to be one of the deregulation drivers within the financial sector - is it in fact the other way around?
Click to expand...
No, I think deregulation is a euphemism for favourable regulation. The financial industry can't exist without regulation, I'm sure they don't want governments to take their hands off, they just want less of the regulation that protects us against them and more regulation that protects them.

I don't really follow here. The prices are evaluated by the market so what are you suggesting is done here and what are your ground to say it's overpriced? Globalisation is another question altogether (not that I wouldn't be happy to discuss it but I don't think that it's best dealt with by focusing on one specific topic like finance; but if you like you could elaborate on why it's a problem here).
Click to expand...
Basically all the money that is made in the City is paid for by us, civilians working, companies making money, savers, loaners etc. Then the question is, what do we pay for and what do we get in return?

It's not just a market, it's a market within regulations that exists through regulations. I'm fine with those regulations and the industry that is has created, as long as those regulations, which come from our governments, are designed and have the effect to be benificial to all of us, i.e. benifical to the economy as a whole and the wealth. Since Reagan and Thatcher, we have been paying a lot more to the City, Wall Street, Frankfurt etc (and I'm not counting in the bail outs), but have we gotten more back in return? I don't think so, so I guess the regulations aren't good and we should pay a lot less. Then the financial industry will shrink. This size of the industry is created by regulation.

That is obviously not the case. In principal every media outlet out there is in it for the money (bar BBC of course) as is reflected on their legal organization as a corporation. I'm not exactly familiar with business law in the UK but I suspect that all media companies are organised as Ltd. and are therefore obliged to make money for shareholders; and they don't all spread the same ideas, do they?

Besides, I meant diversified media by having different ownership not by having a broader range of views.
Click to expand...
What's the point of having a diversified media then? I wouldn't expect much diversification in views if they have all the same goal in life, i.e. money for shareholders. If you want to sell you have to write what people want to hear, if you want to attract advertisers, you'll have to spread a message that is tolerated by these advertisers.
 
Dr. Funkenstein said:
No, I think deregulation is a euphemism for favourable regulation.
Click to expand...

Or just a term to describe the process of erasing regulation laws. I get where you are coming from though and agree with that.

Dr. Funkenstein said:
The financial industry can't exist without regulation, I'm sure they don't want governments to take their hands off, they just want less of the regulation that protects us against them and more regulation that protects them.
Click to expand...

Agree.

Dr. Funkenstein said:
Basically all the money that is made in the City is paid for by us, civilians working, companies making money, savers, loaners etc. Then the question is, what do we pay for and what do we get in return?

It's not just a market, it's a market within regulations that exists through regulations. I'm fine with those regulations and the industry that is has created, as long as those regulations, which come from our governments, are designed and have the effect to be benificial to all of us, i.e. benifical to the economy as a whole and the wealth. Since Reagan and Thatcher, we have been paying a lot more to the City, Wall Street, Frankfurt etc (and I'm not counting in the bail outs), but have we gotten more back in return? I don't think so, so I guess the regulations aren't good and we should pay a lot less. Then the financial industry will shrink. This size of the industry is created by regulation.
Click to expand...

So let me get this straight: You think that financial services are overpaid because of failed regulation by Reagan, Thatcher and co? They actually introduced neoliberalism and did the exact opposite: they killed regulation (as in de-regulation). Anyway: if those regulations you target here would in fact have caused prices to increase, then it shouldn't be to hard to recognize them, would it? Do you have such examples to back up your viewpoint?

I don't really see the impact of regulation here and also don't see where financial services are overpriced when you agree on the concept of the free market to evaluate prices. If it was indeed regulation, then it could be explained, but as I don't think that is the case, competition should in theory (don't work in finance) enable firms to make more money by offering cheaper services, so if that would be possible I don't see why they would not do it. Meaning that e contrario the pay for the services are fair on the basis of the concept of free market.

Dr. Funkenstein said:
What's the point of having a diversified media then? I wouldn't expect much diversification in views if they have all the same goal in life, i.e. money for shareholders. If you want to sell you have to write what people want to hear, if you want to attract advertisers, you'll have to spread a message that is tolerated by these advertisers.
Click to expand...

Well one point would clearly be to limit rich individuals in influencing the population by buying an awful lot of newspapers and tell them what to write. They might still be rich and have the same base of interests but it would at least ensure some pluralism.

Of course you have to write what people want to hear but 'people' are not just 'people' - a homogenous group. In reality people want to hear very different things, there is the liberal academic that wants solid background information, there is the so called "little englander" that wants simplistic world views. The former group might contain fewer individual but could be willing to pay more etc.
 
Last edited:
Javi said:
Or just a term to describe the process of erasing regulation laws. I get where you are coming from though and agree with that.
Click to expand...
Let's erase the regulation and the regulators that suspended the trading in Aviva today, I'm sure the City and the Tories like a free falling market just as much as any free market.

So let me get this straight: You think that financial services are overpaid because of failed regulation by Reagan, Thatcher and co? They actually introduced neoliberalism and did the exact opposite: they killed regulation (as in de-regulation). Anyway: if those regulations you target here would in fact have caused prices to increase, then it shouldn't be to hard to recognize them, would it? Do you have such examples to back up your viewpoint?

I don't really see the impact of regulation here and also don't see where financial services are overpriced when you agree on the concept of the free market to evaluate prices. If it was indeed regulation, then it could be explained, but as I don't think that is the case, competition should in theory (don't work in finance) enable firms to make more money by offering cheaper services, so if that would be possible I don't see why they would not do it. Meaning that e contrario the pay for the services are fair on the basis of the concept of free market.
Click to expand...
I didn't mean that individual financial services are overpriced, I meant that in general the whole financial industry costs us all money. What they earn is what we pay. That's a lot because they earn a lot, there are lots of people providing financial services of some kind and making good money doing it. I'm fine with that as long as we get good value in return, but I really don't see that value.

I don't think the financial industry makes this much money because it's the free market and they deliver value in return, I think they make this much money because regulations put them in a position of power that allows them to make this much money off other industries and off citizens. Within those regulations they have their own little market that does only a help a bit to get a good price within margins. We all pay them through inflation caused by them having the right to create money for example. If I get a mortgage from a bank, with a push on a key on the keyboard, they have just created 500.000 euro's out of thin air, and it's theirs, and I have to pay interest to that bank for lending me the money they just got for free, from all of us. That's the way it's regulated, banks can do that, I can't. And it's not free, because all savers are paying for it through inflation, it's free money only for the bank.

My guess is that if the financial industry is regulated in a sensible way, by people who want it to serve the economy as a whole and don't get millions a year to do a few speaches at their events, it would be a much smaller industry. The size of a financial sector used to be about 1% GDP, and back then people also could save (and even recieve decent interest), loan, mortgage, transfer money, get cash, and getting money to invest in a business was a lot easier. So since the 'deregulations' of Reagan, Thatcher and the rest of the world. the total service of the industry to society as in the economy as a whole has gone down while the price society pays for financial services went through the roof. With an industry that's so highly regulated and exists through regulations as a seperate industry, you can't just say that's the free market. In a free market I wouldn't accept such a bad deal.

Well one point would clearly be to limit rich individuals in influencing the population by buying an awful lot of newspapers and tell them what to write. They might still be rich and have the same base of interests but it would at least ensure some pluralism.

Of course you have to write what people want to hear but 'people' are not just 'people' - a homogenous group. In reality people want to hear very different things, there is the liberal academic that wants solid background information, there is the so called "little englander" that wants simplistic world views. The former group might contain fewer individual but could be willing to pay more etc.
Click to expand...
That's not different for a rich individual, he can also tell them to write the same for liberal academics and little Englanders in a different way.

My experience from a country with no Murdochs is that only the media with a lot of subscribers tend to hold on to some kind of identity, but quite artificially and only in background articles. In the basic news reports and the selection of what is news and what's important news, they all let it happen, they don't really make choices, they just report what's easy to report, and if one big paper reports something, then it's news so they have to follow, the biggest papers are setting the agenda, and others and television have a free item. It's a kind of of the shelf journalism, it's more cost efficient, so we get an awful lot of American news, not because it's important, but because it's easy access. We hardly get any news from our German neighbours, because they write in difficult sentences and most journalists can't translate that without help. If choices are dictated by costs, you don't get much pluralism in reporting.

We used to have television made by about 10 non profit member associations with different religious or non-religious backgrounds, then you have pluriformity. I guess these days you have to get pluriformity from the internet.
 
What can one say to someone who thinks it was the correct decision, and refuse to accept that businesses have been affected as 'they can't have been affected so quickly so they must've already been fecked'?

Accepting their opinion is an option, but a rubbish one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.