this post was submitted on 12 Aug 2023
476 points (98.0% liked)

Europe

8484 readers
2 users here now

News/Interesting Stories/Beautiful Pictures from Europe 🇪🇺

(Current banner: Thunder mountain, Germany, 🇩🇪 ) Feel free to post submissions for banner pictures

Rules

(This list is obviously incomplete, but it will get expanded when necessary)

  1. Be nice to each other (e.g. No direct insults against each other);
  2. No racism, antisemitism, dehumanisation of minorities or glorification of National Socialism allowed;
  3. No posts linking to mis-information funded by foreign states or billionaires.

Also check out !yurop@lemm.ee

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] rah@feddit.uk 109 points 2 years ago (8 children)

Wow, 40% are happy with the UK staying outside the EU. That's a lot of people, especially given the continuous stream of newspaper articles crying how terrible and disasterous brexit has allegedly been.

[–] Blamemeta@lemm.ee 23 points 2 years ago (1 children)

You forget not everyone bothers with the news.

[–] doctorfinlay@feddit.uk 30 points 2 years ago (4 children)

Yep, reading facts gets in the way of good old fashioned jingoism!

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] EnderMB@lemmy.world 22 points 2 years ago (5 children)

A lot of people don't give a shit about anything but themselves.

It's easy to live in a posh Tory area and not feel the effects, or to be blissfully ignorant that some of the negatives in your life wouldn't be there if we had EU backing.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] Rakust@kbin.social 98 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Still can't believe we voted to leave. Madness.

[–] paddirn@lemmy.world 63 points 2 years ago (4 children)

And on a non-binding, simple majority vote. The results were like what, 52-48% for such a momentous decision? Should’ve required something like a 60% minimum, though they’d just have kept calling for the same vote every year.

[–] Sigmatics@lemmy.ca 46 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

This is what gets me. Require 2/3 for constitution changes, but 1/2 to leave EU?

[–] tal@kbin.social 21 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

The UK doesn't have a referendum procedure for constitutional amendment, or a 2/3 supermajority in the legislature. It's basically simple majority in the legislature for anything that might be called constitutional, as any act of Parliament can do anything other than binding future Parliaments.

There are other countries which do have 2/3 supermajority.

looks

Finland has a 2/3 requirement of legislators, for example.

[–] Sigmatics@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 years ago (1 children)

That makes it worse, to be honest

[–] tal@kbin.social 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

Why? I mean, if you're saying that the bar was set lower for specifically Brexit then for similar actions, I could understand taking issue with it in that one might feel that the higher bar should be used.

But why would there not being a supermajority constitutional amendment bar make not using one on Brexit more objectionable?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 16 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The problem is that no one knew what leaving like like, in part because the Leave camp danced around it.

If Leave had to campaign against the actual terms, the vote would have failed.

[–] Syndic@feddit.de 12 points 2 years ago (1 children)

No one knew? I'm sorry but pretty much every single repercussion the UK is feeling right now was rather obvious when you take the time to think on it and consider the EU's point of view as well. The only people who are surprised about stuff like being treated like every other outside country by the EU were the ones who didn't think one second about it and wanted to believe the lies.

That it would be shitty was obvious. But exactly how shitty was impossible to nail down, and hence impossible to argue against effectively. Every different Brexiteer had a different idea of the outcome, which changed under any kind of pressure. They hid behind non-statements like "Brexit means Brexit".

Why do you think it took so long and so much arguing to get to any kind of agreement afterwards? We knew they were going to trash a load of laws and retain some, but couldn't know which because the Leave camp didn't have a plan or a manifesto.

They had a bus, but we know how accurate that was. Or are you arguing that they should be allowed to blatantly lie in political campaigns and we should expect the populace to know in advance which ones are false? People are not that smart.

[–] tal@kbin.social 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Should’ve required something like a 60% minimum, though they’d just have kept calling for the same vote every year.

This discussion came up back around Brexit.

While I can understand an argument in favor of stability -- you don't want to sit at 50% and have things waver back and forth -- there are a couple issues.

First, for better or for worse, this is not really the international convention. In the referendums I've dug up for independence, the norm is plurality of votes. This isn't quite independence, but it's probably most analogous to it, especially given that one expects ongoing integration.

Second, it seems to me that to bias towards the status quo, one would have also needed to have also met that bar to join. In fact, there was no referendum at the time of joining, an issue which had its own controversy. If a 60% supermajority is required to leave, it seems to me that the same should be true of joining.

[–] Tagger@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago

I think there is a strong argument for considering people who didn't vote as accepting of the status quo, at. which point leave voters only accounted for about 30% of eligible voters.

[–] noyou@lemm.ee 4 points 2 years ago

It's insanity

[–] feedum_sneedson@lemmy.world 13 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

My theory is a group motivated to change the status quo is far more likely to be mobilised to vote on that issue than a group in favour of maintaining the status quo, i.e. being forced to respond to that group. Because you're trying mobilise a group to do nothing, there's no impetus to the counter-movement. I think any vote like that is naturally biased towards the group seeking to change something, though it would be hard to quantify the extent of the effect and would only apply to specific single issue votes. I said this during the lead up to the Brexit vote, that more people in the country would prefer to stay, but the "leave" voter base would be over-represented at the ballot. I think the whole democratic system fails to function unless everyone is compelled to vote, because of weird effects like this.

[–] paddirn@lemmy.world 63 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Good luck getting the same generous terms as before.

[–] amorpheus@lemmy.world 22 points 2 years ago

No amount of luck will make that happen.

[–] Syndic@feddit.de 13 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

That's what's baffles me the most. Leavers were painting the whole situation as if they had the worst terms with the EU and were exploited at every corner when in fact the UK had one of the most favourable terms in the whole union. So many idiots ...

[–] Styxie@feddit.nl 55 points 2 years ago (1 children)

It could be 90% in favour of rejoining, but it wouldn't make much of a difference. The EU would need to see strong, long term cross-party support in Westminster before they'd consider it. The EU know that otherwise the issue is just going to keep re-emerging in UK politics so long as the Tories are ideologically opposed to the EU. I think the best chance the UK has is if the modern Tory party stopped being relevant electorally, because their membership's views aren't likely to change, and everyone in the EU institutions hates them for the damage their governments have done over the last 7 years.

[–] Syndic@feddit.de 8 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I also would be really surprised if the EU would offer the same favourable terms the UK had before. Most likely they would need to show their willingness to integrate more in the union than they did before.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] FarraigePlaisteach@kbin.social 40 points 2 years ago (1 children)
  • They might not be willing to rejoin as equals though.

  • If the trashy newspapers start doing their thing again, they’ll reduce that percentage successfully.

[–] Jaccident@lemm.ee 21 points 2 years ago
  1. True.
  2. When did they stop!?
[–] Hallainzil@lemmy.world 38 points 2 years ago (1 children)

6 in 10... in the UK. You'd be lucky to find that level of support in the EU for the UK rejoining.

[–] nomadjoanne@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago

Yeah they'll have to wait a couple decades before they'd have a chance of being let back in.

[–] CoolSouthpaw@lemmy.world 31 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Aw yep. So 4 in 10 people are absolute morons. No surprises there haha

[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 8 points 2 years ago (1 children)

At least some percentage are just lying to themselves / the pollsters. We've seen enough bad-faith rejection of fact on this side of the pond to know that it's fairly common with shitheads who refuse to admit they're wrong.

[–] bilboswaggings@sopuli.xyz 4 points 2 years ago

It's the same why so many people support rich folk and in politics side with them

They either think they also will become mega rich or they think the rich people deserve their money (even though almost all the richest men have broken laws to make that money)

[–] nightwatch_admin@feddit.nl 22 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I don’t think the EU is very keen to accept the British back in the warm nest… they’d probably leave again in 2 weeks’ time.

[–] TenderfootGungi@lemmy.world 35 points 2 years ago (2 children)

They would likely not get all of the previous special allowances back. Especially having a separate currency.

[–] Opafi@feddit.de 16 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Having your own currency is not a special treatment at all - instead, the Eurozone is kind of an elitist club inside the EU that won't let everyone in.

The "British Rebate" (or whatever it was called) that guaranteed 66% of the British payments to be sent back to the UK on the other hand should be gone for good. Same for not being a member of the Schengen area or adhering to the rules concerning fiscal stability.

[–] manucode 8 points 2 years ago

British Schengen membership would probably depend on whether Ireland wants to remain outside Schengen or join. If the UK wants to rejoin the EU, Ireland will be able to choose.

[–] tal@kbin.social 6 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

instead, the Eurozone is kind of an elitist club inside the EU that won’t let everyone in.

Historically maybe, but it kind of changed in that all new EU members are supposed to commit to eventually also adopting the euro.

[–] bappity@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago

I'm from the UK and I would much rather we join back and switch currencies.

brexit was built on lies from the beginning it was painful watching people campaign to leave when the votes were happening.

[–] thefartographer@lemm.ee 17 points 2 years ago
[–] TwoGems@lemmy.ml 12 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

God there are too many stupid people. A lot more than that should want to re-join.

[–] figaro@lemdro.id 11 points 2 years ago

Ooo they can vote to leave again in 8 years

[–] 018118055@sopuli.xyz 5 points 2 years ago

We can wait for 10/10... of all EU.

load more comments
view more: next ›