A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
Referendums don't always work, so instead we should throw Nigel Farage into the sea.
If he drowns, we apply to join the EU.
If he floats, we fish him out of the sea and try and set him on fire. If he burns, we apply to join the EU. If he doesn't burn, we "nexit" him with a guillotine and apply to join the EU.
neckxit
What if he does a Harold Holt and mysteriously vanishes, never to be seen again?
That's a very good question. I think in that case we have to assume "drowned: apply to join the EU". If he turns up mysteriously alive at a later date, we can set fire to him etc "in arrears".
Weren't such sacrifices traditionally done into volcanoes?
: p
By some traditions, yes. Volcanic sacrifice was particularly popular in the Victorian Era, for example. Unfortunately for fans of the method (and fortunately for those who live in these areas) most of the best volcanoes were in the outer territories of the former British Empire, which are now independent.
I'm sure Ben Nevis is due another pop any time now, but until then "1, 2, 3, into the sea!" :)
Yes, let's go!
We’ll forgive you, UK.
But hopefully not enough to give them a ton of privileges if they join the union again
One of us, but for real this time.
Bingo, make the message very clear
If you leave you're in for a bad time (for a while, no one can tell the long term effect)
If you come back you're not getting the same privileges you had in the past
They should be given the best of privileges, but on the EU's terms: everything that is beneficial for the people in the UK and their economy, unless that's harmful for the union (such as exemptions from fishing quota or whatever). A stronger member leads to a strong whole, generally speaking.
They already had tons of privileges that other countries didn't get the last time they joined, see how that went.
I now see you meant we shouldn't give them privileges other countries don't have either, I do agree with that. I most of all meant we should create the conditions that make it as attractive as possible to rejoin the EU. In some articles about a multi-speed EU they say the UK could join at the lowest speed in a similar way Norway and Switzerland are 'members' of the economic area, I think it's more realistic the UK will first have an agreement like those two countries before they become a full/regular member again.
The Breturn?
Not mine but one I really like is The Breversal. Although technically not as correct as breunification, breintegration, the brejoing or the brestoration.
You had me at brest...oration.
Oi mate, come and rest yer head on our European bosom hehe
Brenter? Brundo? Brtl-Z? I know there's a gem of a name for this out there somewhere...
I like Brtl-Z written, but probably no longer once I hear a brit talk about Bontrol-Z lol
Burtle zed.
Great Breturnia.
if trump gets the uk back in the eu at least something good would have come of it.
Literally the only good thing that could come out of this shit show.
Even digital goods like games via UK are taxed I just checked.
Any significantly stronger ties required Freedom Of Movement (basically to be inside the Single Market, even as a non-EU-member, means having all rules necessary for it to be a free and open market, which includes Freedom Of Movement), which was one of the main reasons the Brexiters won - like in the US now, Britain's very own rise of the Far-Right by taking over their mainstream conservative party some years ago was also mainly anchored on racism.
I'm quite curious how many of those 66% of Britons would still be alright with stronger EU ties if that meant that Poles could once again immigrate to Britain at will.
The percentage of Brits that voted leave was much smaller than 66, but besides that a lot of them feel lied to, because none of the promises the leave campaign made were held up. For example when it comes to foreign workers, there was a huge shortage of lorry drivers and medical staff after Brexit because most of the eastern-Europeans left the country. So to mitigate that problem there are now a lot of south-east Asians and Nigerians immigrants doing those jobs and so the Britons that voted leave now live in a country with more immigrants rather than less. Thats not the only reason leave voters are disappointed, and I believe the fear of immigrants moving in is now much smaller than the fear of isolation and impoverishment.
Also the conservatives have lost a lot of credibility (and votes) because of how they got Brexit done, and the far-right lost a lot of credibility (and votes) because of their ties with Trump and Putin.
Polls show a serious majority wanting closer ties with the EU, militarily and economically.
I don't see them coming back if they can't keep the Pound
Tbf we almost certainly can, just play the Swedish game of perpetually slightly not complying with euro requirements.
There are ways to be part of the Single Market and all that goes with it without becoming an EU member, for example by becoming a member of the EEA like Norway.
They would be able to keep the Pound that way, as well as a number of other things such as controlling the fishing rights in their own waters.
They would however have to accept Freedom Of Movement, which was one of the main arguments for Leave during a Referendum which was very much a mix of racism and fantastical expectations of keeping most of the rights even after leaving the EU (Britain has major problems with widespread nationalistic delusions of grandeurs, so lots of people believed all the fantasies about "they will give us all we want")