World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
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.
Lemmy World Partners
News [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
So did we, the other 48%.
Wasn't it a non-binding referendum? I still don't get why they still 'had to do it' when it was clearly going to be a bad idea in fore and hindsight.
Taxes. The EU introduced rules of tax transparency. The UK left the EU the day before the rules kicked in.
To give you a less conspiratorial answer than other, because those that stood against it were labelled as being against "the will of the people". Basically even though it was non-binding, those that were pro-brexit clothed themselves as following democracy, and those who opposed them as anti-democratic.
There were several problems with the referendum:
-
It was called to try to quell a split within the conservative party. Not because of any real movement in the country.
-
It never specified what "leaving the EU" meant. When, how fast, what remaining relationship? So the debate was nebulous. Positives were extremely optimistic and negatives were dismissed as pessimistic (despite being true).
-
The non-binding nature meant that no margin of certainty was set. It should have needed a majority of the voting public, or > ⅔ to be taken as something we really wanted to do. It was too major a change to enact on 52-48.
-
We don't govern by referenda in the UK. They go against the principle that parliament is sovereign because they place the people's voice above parliament's. We're a representative democracy and not a direct one. The only other ones we've had are
- 2011: The Alternative Vote voting system held a few year before. Also called by David Cameron and also a complete sham of a process.
- 1975: Continued membership of the European Community. Called by Edward Heath to quell the same split in the conservative party.
Hence the rules that surround referenda are poorly specified.
This is a good and thorough answer, and it is likely entirely correct.
I still think traitorous cunts made a ton of money off it though :)
It definitely shouldn’t have been decided with a 52% majority on a 72% turnout.
Because some people stood to become personally very rich off the back of it, and were willing to damage a whole nation for their own benefit, because they're traitorous cunts.
Because the people who organised it didn't like the new financial laws being implemented by the EU. Billions of pounds worth of dodgy money is laundered through the UK every year. I can't recall the exact details but the EU were implementing laws that made money transfer more transparent. So this would have meant that all this dirty money would be traceable, and Tories didn't want this being exposed because it was their mates and families all in it up to their ears.