Today’s Brexit Likelihood Score | Hacker News Reader

Today’s Brexit Likelihood Score

bloomberg.com

36 pointsyread60 comments

I love Bloomberg's flair and talent when it comes to producing rich articles that feel like true web-based projects. In this story, for example, the way a single star falls from the EU crest at the top, and also how the cursor X-axis position acts as a guide for the marker on all charts on the page.

However, one chart I take a (small) issue with is their "Today’s Brexit Likelihood Score" chart — surely it is much more intuitive to have the blue ('remain') bar filling up the inverse of what they're currently drawing? I.e. 76.27% filled

I came here to say this. It's incredibly confusing to the point where I wonder if it's a mistake or bug.

Yeah, but what makes me think it is a mistake is that they are focussing on a '23% chance of Brexit' figure, using the same blue as the chart line. So perhaps what they really ought to do is just swap the line around.

They should use the same 3 colours as in the line chart below, and not add undecided to remain.

Maybe the color is supposed to reflect the result? It's blue now; if the polls were reversed it'd be red. It'd be much less confusing if they dropped the two dog icons and their labels.

I'm more inclined to trust bookmakers than polls. http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/eu-refe...

Currently, the best odds you can get for 'stay' are 4:9, and the best odds for 'leave' are 21:10, which suggests odds of about 2:1 for staying, i.e. Bloomberg is overconfident.

Sure, after last year we definitely don't want to be too eager to assume that pollsters know what's coming in the UK, and if they fail as spectacularly as in the GE then certainly the bookies may prove to have been more accurate, but then so could me picking chance percentages out of the air and telling people they're my predictions.

What makes you think either the bookies or the punters have any clue what accurate pricing would be for that market?

As a counterpoint, referendums should be a lot easier to poll than a general election where FPTP makes things much more complicated. I would think comparing this referendum to the Scottish referendum would be the better comparison.

You're right in theory, and for sure I wouldn't be shocked if the polls nail this one, but I also wouldn't be shocked if we saw that even without fptp and constituencies there's still enough of a problem with the quality of political polling in the UK to cause big mistakes. Time will tell, I guess.

The bookies' entire business model is to have a better clue than anyone else about what the accurate pricing would be. If they fail at that, they don't stay in business for very long.

Only to an extent, ask anyone who's actually worked setting odds for a major bookies (not an area I'm massively familiar with but I've given odds makers the info they used to create prices for markets a few times) and they'll tell you that the company doesn't require them to be bang on every time.

Once a market is getting enough action, all they need to do is algorithmically adjust the odds to fit around the bets, and let the house edge do the rest. So essentially if everyone is betting big money on Britain leaving, they will adjust the odds such that that becomes the favourite.

Having accurate pricing means that there'll be less margin of error to compensate for in odds changing, and means they (the bookies) are safer against big losses that could have been avoided, so for sure they do their best, but in this case I'd be shocked if doing their best wasn't just taking a combination of what the polls say and what their own betting stats show and merging them together (and while merging in their betting stats will help them set odds that make sense for them, it doesn't help improve the polls' chances of being accurate).

Isn't a bookie's business model based around laying off one side of a bet against the other rather than predicting the future?

When you win at long odds, in a perfect system, it's not the bookie's money you're taking it's a share of money collected from the punters who bet on the favourite (minus the bookmaker's margin).

The bookie shouldn't care what's likely to happen or not, their pricing should be based on the collective opinions of the punters, right or wrong.

  > So how does a bookmaker set his original odds? We mentioned before that most of
  > the early bookmakers will have a number of experts in each sport and they will
  > come to a decision as to the opening prices. However, it is important to note
  > that the odds they set are not based on the true probability of the teams
  > winning, but rather what the general betting public perceive the true
  > probability to be.

https://betting.betfair.com/the-art-of-bookmaking.html

I really wish Intrade.com was still active...It was very flawed in many ways but for some big events (like US elections and its management) it was often extremely accurate.

But the betting odds are not a mere representation of a probability or of the popular perception of one? They also involve the bookmaker trying to attract money on both sides of the line, at least that's my understanding of how they work.

This approach should be taken by both camps. By that I mean, use actual real data to drive their point. At the moment all we get from both sides us emotional opinions and speculation without a single data point to back it up. I am on the fence regarding the eu (and I'm both British and European nationality wise). I want to be persuaded this way or the other but not by emotions. I want cold hard facts and analysis. And I'm getting none of that.

But the interesting argument is whether Britian would benefit in the long term from leaving the EU. This is not addressed by the chance of brexit happening, polling, or currency value over a couple of months.

This whole "we looked at the data and what we found surprised us" almost never answers any interesting questions or generates lasting insights.

Absolutely. It's a head vs heart debate. I understand the heart bit. But the head bit seems open-and-shut to me (remain). I've yet to see a convincing argument to leave that doesn't lead with heart (immigration and the UK innate supremacy over Europe).

There is a distinct lack of facts from both camps.

For me its the opposite. My heart wants to stay, my head resists. To (maybe badly) put it in code, its like a great interface provided by this wonderful company people like to love, but the practical implementations of that interface are so lacking it looks bad on the interface itself.

There aren't any, it all depends on what kind of deal we'd get after we left and the EU isn't going to pre-negotiate something like that for a host of reasons. I am pro leaving, but I certainly expect a period of turbulence after we leave that'll likely last at least 2-5 years and will probably dampen growth somewhat, but I'm sure we will adapt.

What if it is intrinsically a value-based choice?

The empirical evidence is all weak and marginal, this kind of thing doesn't happen often. What will happen to trade? Nobody knows, but if we leave certainly trade agreements will be struck, so it might remain similar.

What will it do to immigration? Nobody knows, but there probably won't be a massive change either way.

I want to stay in the EU, because I like European ideals, and because in the long run, I think the only way for Britain to defend its geopolitical interests is to coordinate with Europe. I think remaining in the EU is a step toward that, though not necessary or sufficient. I think it's also a diffusion of power, away from Britain's elite controlled media and financial sector.

If you are more to the political right, I guess you'll think exactly the opposite.

I don't think any empirical evidence is likely to be produced that will inform these types of concerns.

You're not getting cold hard facts because nobody has any, because nobody can predict the future.

That said: the Americans want them to stay in, and that's not out of a sense of nostalgia or jingoism. That's a fact, and it's one worth pondering.

We might not have facts, but like Bloomberg could magic those numbers out of some form of data collection, polling, modelling etc, both camps can produce models of their own. At this point I'll take anything that qualifies as some form of science-based-approach to the question. If I want emotions - I have plenty of my own regarding then matter and they are still conflicting even within me.

There are no cold, hard facts, no-one has ever left the EU before. We literally have no way of knowing what will happen if we leave.

The only hard fact we have is that we know what we've got now and how it works.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMk6aVsl8Rs#t=66

If you're interested in this topic, I recommend this discussion with (pragmatic) economist Mark Blyth and Yanis Varoufakis. They talk about brexit, Greece, and what it will take to fix the economic mess in the EU.

Given the British' press ability to predict the last elections and political outcomes, I remind everyone that nothing is set until the votes are tallied. This article really gives us nothing but a snapshot that is probably already outdated.

nice

It's funny how one might think that being in the EU is voluntary, but as it seems, a country cannot get out, or really, regain any sovereignty, for fear of economic problems. That is like saying "I cannot leave this abusive relationship because I will be lonely and heartbroken." and continue to get punched and scratched every day.

Not really - I mean we always have the option to e.g. set all the country's hospitals on fire. It would just be a bad idea. Doesn't mean we "don't control our own hospitals"

If you are in a relationship with someone and you share rent for a flat, breaking up with them would mean that now you live on your own and have to pay 2x as much. It's a serious economic concern, because it might cripple you financially, at least until you find another roommate or move.

But, that doesn't mean that you are not free to break up with someone. You just have to be an adult about it and live with the consequences.

I mean, there is a more subtle point right there.

In actual abusive relationships this interdependency is one of the important factors that keeps the abused in the relationship. It’s one of the things that makes abusive relationships so hard to escape and consequently so horrific.

That said, interdependency is also just as much a part of non-abusive and completely healthy relationships, i.e. the mere existence of interdependency doesn’t decide whether a relationship is abusive or not.

To me the EU and UK relationship is a clearly non-abusive one. I wouldn’t call it healthy, but mostly because the UK is frequently completely disengaged from the process and disinterested in actually being part of the relationship. They could have so much say and power … but they don’t want to. Rather they want to spend all their time worrying and drawing up horror scenarios.

I do not want the UK to leave, but I also don’t think that a UK this disengaged is not very productive to have inside the EU.

It's a relative situation though. The countries that exit would have worse economy than before the exit. But that's simply because they would likely have a worse economy if they never joined in the first place. Also, some temporary extra issues have to be expected - there's a lot of changes that will take some time after the exit. (at least rebalancing import-export partners)

> The countries that exit would have worse economy than before the exit.

Why is that guaranteed? I'd imagine that the argument can be made in both directions.

General uncertainty, new tax rules, companies folding due to extra regulations on international business, reduced travel (business and holiday), less available workforce to choose from, current employees forced to leave, other EU countries dropping some existing arrangements because fuck it, changes in internal politics depending on people liking the government more/less, ...

Not all of that has to happen (depends on the terms of leaving). I'm not even saying that it's going to last long. But I'd bet on at least 6 months of uncertainty and chaos which is going to affect the economy in a bad way.

Just to play devil's advocate, none of those things are assured (apart from increased volatility due to the uncertainty for sure, as you mention). Perhaps Britain would even have the chance to actually to make itself more attractive to business by competing more favourably with Europe.

Regarding your point about current employees being forced to leave, this is one of the things that worry me most - with friends, colleagues etc. Luckily, most sources indicate that anyone already legally working in Britain would be granted permanent settlement rights. It would be a shame if good people in future are unable to migrate though!

It is a voluntary relationship, but both parties have stakes in it and provide certain benefits and possibly some negatives to each other. That's how every relationship works and that doesn't make it abusive.

Should we stay or should we go? No one seems to have a clear idea. But the UK is full of middle aged and the older generation who are scared shitless of change. The younger generation (18 - 35) aren't in a position where the EU membership effects them in any tangible way. So we'll end up staying for the wrong reason. Fear.

Where I live we get a metric shit tonne of EU funding, but I assume that if we left, the funding would just come from the government. Or we'd get none. Who knows? Who knows if the EU funding will dry up if we stay? We are so powerless it is unreal.

I get the exact opposite impression. The older generation doesn't give a crap about EU, it's not affecting them or their jobs in any way. They are the ones influenced most by the scaremongering of the media. It's the younger people who know that they will lose friends and jobs if Britain leaves, they are connected in the world and understand that implications for the people around them.

Maybe it's different in cities? I can't talk for those people, but in the smaller towns and villages no one really cares much about our government, let alone the EU. Hackernews audience is a different set of people to those Sun and Daily Mail readers.

From speaking to people both 18-35 and in older age brackets, I've actually found it's the opposite - the younger generation is relatively impassioned about staying (or mostly indifferent but can't really see why we would leave), and older generations are much more on the fence. In fact, I don't know anyone under 35 who is in favour of Brexit. The older generations, however, start talking about their distrust of Europe, of Germany in particular, and seem to have some vestigial jingoistic pride and feel that Britain is still, or at least can be again, a great nation which can manage perfectly well by itself, thank you very much.

(Obviously I've not canvassed everyone in Britain - just about ten or fifteen people I know reasonably well.)

I've observed the same, it's mostly the late-middle-aged xenophobes who are in favour of leaving.

This is an exact mirror of my experience. I know one person under 35 wishes to leave.

Anyone I speak to over 50 is desperate to leave because they perceive the shared sovereignty as redline that should never be crossed irrespective of the consequences.

Nuances between EU, EEC, Council of Europe, European Court of Human Rights and how leaving the EU does not mean extraditing ourselves from the others, thus stymieing the sovereignty issue so that it is mute is completely lost. We may leave the EU and still be subordinate to the other bodies (including most EU rules to maintain trade compatibility) making the entire exercise a dangerous experiment.

One of the things I hate about the "leave" campaign is how it keeps repeating that European Court of Human Rights is a problem for the UK and how somehow leaving EU is going to help.

Guess what, leaving EU has no effect on the membership in the European Court of Human Rights, all countries which are part of the Council of Europe, which UK is the member of, will remain in it regardless of their EU membership.

Our membership of the ECHR is a condition of being part of the EU. Without the latter the former becomes optional and we can apply or overrule their findings as necessary. Ultimately the British courts should have final ruling in Britain not the ECHR.

"Ultimately the British courts should have final ruling in Britain not the ECHR."

I disagree. ECHR should have the authority to rule against human rights violations in member countries, this extra level of protection is absolutely necessary.

> The younger generation (18 - 35) aren't in a position where the EU membership effects them in any tangible way

You mean the age group which actually travels, studies abroad, looks for new jobs which right now they can choose from all over the EU, has more international contacts than previous generations, etc. ? I'm sure they're more affected in very practical ways than older generations.

I'm affected in at least 3 ways, and I'm not even in Europe anymore.

Or the group that doesn't remember life before the EU.

That's a good point. I wonder if it matters though. I mean, 1) depending on how you count it, it could be either Schengen ('85), late '90s, or early '00s; 2) world was completely different before the EU - Europe was still dealing with WWII results / USSR issues - whatever happens, UK is not going to what was the pre-EU reality.

its also the generation with the lowest cost of travel and highest disposable income. their ability to travel won't be affected by leaving the eu.

Is it already certain that all benefits of Schengen remain? (likely) Visa-less work in the rest of EU? Visa-less study? Are travel costs going to remain the same? Will the UK have to renegotiate tourist visits with countries which had deals with EU, rather than separate countries? These are factors that could change as far as I know.

i would be surprised if we didnt get visa-less travel to shengen and visa-versa. visa requirements for study are generally pretty easy (can you afford it) and for work are a good thing. most eu countries already require some form of work permit (for tax purposes), they are easy to obtain and amount to the same thing as a visa. travel costs are based on market forces and government policy, we could make travel even cheaper if we left by reducing taxes if we chose to. the costs of operation are otherwise the same

I'd be surprised too. But right now it's an unknown, right? Also, there are multiple EU-related programs for scholarships which could go away for the UK people. Work... we'll see.

But why would they choose to make things easy for us if we are essentially giving them the middle finger? We can't pick and choose what we fancy from the EU while simultaneously walking away..

> the age group which actually travels, studies abroad, looks for new jobs which right now they can choose from all over the EU, has more international contacts than previous generations

Oh yeah, rich people stuff.

I don't know many people who've done that. I know one guy who left for the USA, I know one or two older people who go on a regular holiday out of the UK each year. 90% of my friends have been abroad once or twice, but it's not an influence on their current EU debate.

Not only rich people. 8 people from my first university class did a year abroad on EU programs. (some couldn't afford it otherwise) At my last university, most of the year was not from the UK, which was funny when a GCHQ guy tried to recruit people - most of them not the right nationality to hire.

Or from another side, I expect most people from Poland are not going to work in the UK because they're rich and can afford it. They move where the work is and suddenly two parts of the family have a reason to travel internationally. Exactly because they're not rich.

bang on - I often ask my friends who are going through hard times with work or life, if they would consider moving to europe or further afield, among the poorer ones (aka 93% of the UK population) it's not even an option they would consider

I've done 4 year course at UK university and very few of the EU students were from rich families. For most it was their first time in UK and maybe 2-3rd time on a plane. My own circle of friends includes a lot of people from all over EU who now live in UK and every single one of them would be negatively affected by Brexit, and again, they are by no means rich.

"[Older] Scared shitless of change"? Evidence? Judging by the Observer's online poll - April 2016, results show that those aged 55 years old and over were more in favour of a Brexit with 54%, compared to 30% that wanted to remain part of the EU.

It seems your post symbolizes everything that's wrong with most people, they don't know crap about EU 101 and pretty much don't want to

> The younger generation (18 - 35) aren't in a position where the EU membership effects them in any tangible way

I'll take that as a joke or as proof that a lot of people have no idea on what they're talking about.

Hackernews has a different audience to 99% of real people. Talk to a plumber or an electrician under 35 and ask them about the EU. No clue.

Yeah, what they probably know is that some Polish electrician is "taking his job" (probably by doing it better) because that's what they said on the Daily Mail or something

Reply on news.ycombinator.com