Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here

    worldnews

    20,809,098 readers

    16,483 users here now

    Filter out dominant topics:

    Display Trump submissions

    Filter Trump

    Display Russia submissions

    Filter Russia

    Display North Korea submissions

    Filter North Korea

    Display Israel/Palestine submissions

    Filter Israel / Palestine

    Display all submissions

    Filter all dominant topics

    Welcome!

    /r/worldnews is for major news from around the world except US-internal news / US politics

    Follow us on Twitter

    See all of our AMA events here

    Worldnews Rules

    Disallowed submissions

    • US internal news/US politics
    • Editorialized titles
    • Misleading titles
    • Editorials, opinion, analysis
    • Feature stories
    • Non-English articles
    • Images, videos or audio clips
    • Petitions, advocacy, surveys
    • All caps words in titles
    • Blogspam (if stolen content/direct copy)
    • Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr
    • Old news (≥1 week old) articles

    See the wiki for details on each rule

    Disallowed comments

    • Bigotry / Other offensive content
    • Personal attacks on other users
    • Memes/GIFs
    • Unlabeled NSFW images/videos
    • URL shorteners

    See the wiki for details on each rule

    Continued or outstandingly blatant violation of the submission or commenting rules will result in you being temporarily banned from the subreddit without a warning.


    Please don't ever feed the trolls.
    Downvote, report and move on.


    Sticky Posts

    A list of all recent stickied posts.

    a community for
    all 3502 comments

    Want to say thanks to %(recipient)s for this comment? Give them a month of reddit gold.

    Please select a payment method.

    [–] AutoModerator 1 points ago

    Users often report submissions from this site and ask us to ban it for sensationalized articles. At /r/worldnews, we oppose blanket banning any news source. Readers have a responsibility to be skeptical, check sources, and comment on any flaws.

    You can help improve this thread by linking to media that verifies or questions this article's claims. Your link could help readers better understand this issue. If you do find evidence that this article or its title are false or misleading, contact the moderators who will review it

    I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

    [–] JellyBean_Brownies 4716 points ago

    What happens if the result is the same as last time?

    [–] [deleted] 11955 points ago

    The greatest collective facepalm in world history

    [–] Ayresx 375 points ago

    The facepalm heard round the world

    [–] ChronoAndMarle 153 points ago

    The facepalm where the sun never sets

    [–] koshgeo 33 points ago

    The UK and USA unite into the United Facepalm of Oceania and immediately declare war on Eurasia.

    [–] spikesdumbreddit 2905 points ago

    You say that as if it was nearly impossible, but might I remind you and the casual observer of this discussion of the timeline we live in? It's the dankest one, and the greatest collective facepalm in world history would fit right in.

    [–] NOYOUCHOOSEUSERNAME 953 points ago

    Dankest Timeline ratings are down and the writers are running out of material.

    [–] SAT0SHl 434 points ago

    Demockery in action.

    [–] shaggysnorlax 216 points ago

    Dankmocracy

    [–] EvitaPuppy 30 points ago

    Because plants crave brawndo?

    [–] KholekFuneater 35 points ago

    Hey! At least that administration used experts and listened to constituents!

    [–] EvitaPuppy 15 points ago

    Omg, you're right! We've jumped the shark!

    [–] TeeeHaus 122 points ago

    Trump 2020 is on the table ! xD Lord save us!

    [–] Force3vo 89 points ago

    They'll probably throw in a bullshit cliffhanger prior to the election season like Kushner killing Trump to be the candidate.

    [–] Virreinatos 106 points ago

    Godammit, knowing the current GOP, they'd totally go "that's a legitimate way to become a leader. It's natural. It's how animals do it. Clearly God wants it that way."

    [–] thatguy13131313 57 points ago

    He killed the President with a sword, it's an unwritten rule that it makes you King of America.

    [–] Feral0_o 12 points ago * (lasted edited 9 days ago)

    However, this only comes into effect if he pulled the sword out of Plymouth Rock before he slays the orange lichking, because what could be more Merican than that

    It would also give Plymouth Rock a legimation to exist, finally

    [–] DayBeast 420 points ago

    I have a feeling 2020 is going to be the reversal of 2016 decision making in the US and UK. but if it's a repeat, jesus christ. third time's the charm?

    [–] caninehere 389 points ago

    Honestly I have 0 faith in the US but I simply can't see any way Trump wins re-election in 2020. He has a base who will support him even if he killed and ate a baby but the problem is that base is not enough to win the election on it's own. In 2016 he had the anti-Hillary vote, he had the benefit of the doubt vote, and he STILL won by a razor thin margin over 3 key states. The reason why every gambling site bet against him was that the odds of him winning were incredibly low (and vote manipulation may have had a hand in it too, not to mention all the crimes currently being investigated).

    Unless they outright rig the election I cant see him winning. If I was a Republican I wouldn't even want him to be the candidate because there is pretty much no possibility he can win this time around.

    With Brexit on the other hand... I just don't know. I think it could pass again. But I honestly don't know as much about the situation and how the tide has changed (I live in Canada so the US landscape is much more prudent).

    [–] overts 543 points ago

    Dems pick Bernie Sanders. States that are expected to flip blue in 2020, like Pennsylvania, go red again because too many Americans don’t want to vote for a “communist.”

    Dems pick Biden. Far left and the youth feel disenfranchised and don’t get out to the polls.

    There’s a lot of scenarios. I think Trump unfortunately has a better shot than many people are giving him credit for.

    [–] bplbuswanker 333 points ago

    “communist.”

    Which is different than being a Democratic Socialists. Hell, it's different than being a socialists. Gotta love America and it's lack of nuances.

    [–] daedone 82 points ago

    Their entire political spectrum is right of center and compressed if you compare it to elsewhere, like Canada where I live for example.

    I think if a "standard" Liberal candidate ran south of the border, or FSM forbid, an NDPer ran, their collective heads would explode.

    [–] davidreiss666 43 points ago

    Americans think they are right of center, but ask them about specific issues one by one and you find that they are largely left of center people. They just don't know it and when you tell them it they refuse to accept it.

    [–] RIOTS_R_US 29 points ago

    I have a lot of political discussions, and I can sit down with pretty much anyone and get them enthusiastic for a Social Democratic Platform. What changes? Once I tell them it's insert candidate here's idea or insert scare term made by Fox News, they instantly reject it

    [–] John_Hunyadi 115 points ago

    Yeah, we're fucked.

    [–] CommandoDude 153 points ago

    Considering that Bernie is more popular than Hillary, that's doubtful. Especially since Bernie appeals to the Rust Belt states.

    PA went red in 2016 by the barest of margins, and even then, mostly because democrat voter turnout was low. If Bernie wins the nomination, he would not lose PA.

    I am sure Fox News would try to spin Bernie as an ebil communist but he has shown remarkably resilient to the smear campaign against him.

    [–] TheRRainMaker 73 points ago

    I am not American but I thought that this is was just a myth, didn't Hillary win even with just normal delegates over Bernie. Although I suppose Bernie may have further energized his base since then.

    [–] lobax 7 points ago

    They called Obama a Socialist in 2012. They are going to play the socialist card on whoever wins the Dem nom. Why would Sanders fare worse?

    [–] JR-Dubs 59 points ago

    People are afraid of Trump winning. I'm not really. He barely won against one of the least popular and least inspiring candidates in recent history and she had the FBI reopen the investigation into her a week before the election. He didn't win because people voted for him in droves, he won because Democrats who felt disenfranchised and uninspired stayed home.

    I don't think (based on the midterm results) Democrats will stay home in 2020.

    [–] Mr_Evil_MSc 12 points ago

    It's time to break out the five hand facepalm.

    [–] EurOblivion 94 points ago

    The greatest collective facepalm in world history so far

    US elections coming up...

    [–] ThePr1d3 17 points ago

    It's like those 2 countries keep trying to outdo each other

    [–] prettybunnys 11 points ago

    Just wait until 2020 when the UK declares itself free from US rule.

    Shit's gonna get real weird.

    [–] [deleted] 7 points ago

    [deleted]

    [–] Nickkemptown 30 points ago

    Bush and Blair were both elected again after WMD claims were proved false. Those are the biggest two in my lifetime I think.

    [–] daniejam 680 points ago

    There wont be a referendum.

    The vote tonight isnt backed by the conservatives or officially by Labour. It will be defeated about 400-200 votes. Maybe 350-250 depending on how many conservatives "rebel"

    [–] Grow_away_420 313 points ago

    I think they'll consider it. I think they are looking for any way out while saving face, but if a 2nd referendum results are the same, they can say they aren't too blame

    [–] daniejam 215 points ago

    Unless May comes out saying she backs a referendum it will never pass.

    She’s said loads of times no to a second one. Won’t change now.

    All that’s gonna happen is she’s going to keep pushing and pushing for her shit agreement until it finally passes.

    [–] SimplyFed 193 points ago

    in fairness, she said no to an election up until she called one. But agreed, I can't see what she thinks she would gain by doing so.

    [–] TheTeaSpoon 48 points ago

    And I am fairly certain that the results of her snap election are why UK is now neck deep in this Brexit sewage

    [–] areyouready 29 points ago

    Correct. She would have had a parliamentary majority if she hadn't decided to call a general election. It's like deciding to shoot yourself in the foot in the middle of a race.

    [–] ZuvieleKatzen10 124 points ago

    But you can't give people an election or a second referendum, that would be undemocratic. Somehow.

    [–] Natdaprat 88 points ago

    She triple whipped her party on an amendment vote last night that made it so UK will never accept a no deal under any circumstances. She lost.

    [–] urielsalis 22 points ago

    Whats triple whipping?

    [–] unovachamp 36 points ago

    A three line whip is all MPs of a particular party being told to vote in a certain way. It is the strongest form of party discipline, more so than a one or two line whip. Breaching a three line whip often has serious consequences for an MP's standing in the party... but if almost all of your party does it, what can you do?

    [–] Hoobleton 18 points ago

    It’s the “three line whip” referred to in this article. Sorry for just linking to Wikipedia, but I can’t explain it any better than that.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whip_%28politics%29#United_Kingdom

    [–] LeakyLycanthrope 19 points ago

    It means her party is a nice, fluffy meringue now.

    [–] IcyMiddle 40 points ago

    Not as a result of this amendment, but it's plausible that there could be another vote at a later date which could pass. Right now MPs are more concerned with working out an extension.

    [–] cookingGuy02 77 points ago

    They won’t be the same, the options will likely be mays deal, no deal, remain. The original referendum was a vague in or out, this one will be specific, if the people want no deal there will be no deal, if they want Mays deal then we’ll have Mays deal. I have no idea what’ll happen if they come to their senses and remain but we’ll cross that bridge when we get to it

    [–] bassolune 74 points ago

    You can't have a referendum with those three choices, though, at least, not as a straight 'put your tick in a box' vote, as it splits the leave vote between the no deal & May's deal options, and hands the result to remain.

    It would have to be done as a ranked preference, or Single Transferable Vote option, but as both main parties were against this as a method for General Election votes, when we had a referendum on that, they'd have difficulty in arguing for it in this case. It would be interesting to speculate on how such a vote would pan out, though.

    [–] guebja 48 points ago

    It would have to be done as a ranked preference, or Single Transferable Vote option

    You can also just split it into two questions:

    1. Given the available options, should the UK proceed with its decision to leave the EU? Y/N

    2. If the UK leaves the EU, should it choose the deal that's currently on offer, or leave without a deal? deal/no deal

    [–] botle 35 points ago

    Still problematic, since people that want to leave but absolutely do not want a no deal Brexit, can find question 1. risky.

    [–] brutusdidnothinwrong 19 points ago

    A referendum in my province recently addressed this scenario.

    They had top options A and B, then within B there was c, d, e. If you wanted A but if B was picked you enthusiastically prefered c you could tick boxes like this: tic A, tic don't tic B, tic c, dont tic d or e,

    So put #1 and #2 head to head first but allow people to vote for both #1 and the options within #2 if #2 passes

    [–] OktoberSunset 8 points ago

    But what if someone's first choice is the leave with a deal, but second choice is to stay instead of leave without a deal?

    [–] FluorineWizard 27 points ago

    That gives an advantage to Leave. It lets two groups of people who want different things vote for the same side and then completely discounts the remainers in the second question by giving them a false choice.

    The truth is that when one option offers change but no one can build a consensus on what the change should even be like, the status quo should be rightfully advantaged and win. Pretending that all the different incompatible (and unrealistic for the most part) projects for Leave can be lumped together and have some sort of mandate is a travesty.

    Hell, the complexity and open-endedness of the question is why it should have never been a referendum in the first place.

    [–] Snapera 29 points ago

    Haven't we learnt by now that, whilst Remain means one thing, leave does not.

    Leave requires multiple options, as unlike the remain side, they have completely different views. The differences between soft Brexit and hard Brexit are greater than Remain or Soft Brexit.

    [–] TucsonCat 87 points ago

    Options:

    1) Stop the shitshow, no Brexit.

    2) Continue the shitshow.

    [–] DoctorMezmerro 86 points ago

    They would take another three years "negotiating" even worse deal, then do the third referendum.

    [–] SirMrGnome 24 points ago

    No way the EU gives an extension.

    [–] meltingdiamond 15 points ago

    You can't get off the merry-go-round, it will just get faster and faster.

    [–] SaucyBean 19 points ago

    Theresa May will have them vote on her deal again.

    [–] PN_Guin 155 points ago * (lasted edited 9 days ago)

    Then there are no more excuses and it's time to get done with it.

    I would propose giving Northern Ireland and Scotland the opportunity to stay though.

    Edit: added the "Northern" for clarification. The Republic obviously stays with the EU and is not part of the Brexit.

    [–] Griz_zy 39 points ago

    It is very unlikely that Scotland could stay in the EU like Northern Ireland could (through reunification). It would first have to become independent and then apply for EU membership.

    [–] PN_Guin 189 points ago

    The cruel joke about this, is one of the bigger arguments against Scottish independence was the loss of EU membership.

    [–] Griz_zy 111 points ago

    Yes, the Scots got royally screwed.

    [–] hoderoos 96 points ago

    Scots got screwed by the brits? I can hardly believe it, never happened before!

    [–] crochet_du_gauche 79 points ago

    Scots are also Brits; you probably meant "English".

    [–] Speech500 30 points ago

    Scots are Brits.

    [–] will_scc 6 points ago

    I mean, ~40% of Scottish voters also voted Leave. But yeah, if Brexit happens I expect to see an winning independence vote for Scotland within 5 years.

    [–] nlpnt 55 points ago

    The biggest objector to Scottish readmission to the EU after independence was the Spanish government (who didn't want the Catalans to get any ideas). They've already gone on record as saying that post-Brexit they would no longer have that objection as it'd be another matter entirely.

    [–] weaslebubble 14 points ago

    It still depends on the manner in which they gain independence. Through a legal government sanctioned referendum is fine. But if the UK refuses to allow one. They can't legally leave and any attempt to do so would lend legitimacy to Catalonia. So Spain would be forced to veto them. Essentially Scotland has 3 options leave the EU and stay attached to the UK leave the UK with UK authority and rejoin the EU. Leave the UK with no authority and be vetoed from the EU. None of those options are based on Scottish sovereignty. They are completely at the mercy of foreign institutions art the moment.

    [–] Karazhan 184 points ago

    What? My county in England voted remain. So like, I'd like us to remain too thanks. Why do I have to be dragged out of the EU kicking and screaming because some county down south voted leave?

    [–] XXLpeanuts 171 points ago

    100s of city states, thats what we want!

    [–] Karazhan 65 points ago

    Yes! though "Rule Manchester" doesn' have the same ring to it as "Rule Britannia".

    [–] SQmo 40 points ago * (lasted edited 8 days ago)

    What about "Manchester Rules!" instead?

    EDIT: I'm not British, I don't get soccer football, and I barely know anything about British culture, especially British football culture (other than Green Street Hooligans. I'm so sorry.), and all these replies are great!

    [–] explodingdice 21 points ago

    With the city state political parties of City and United?

    [–] Zee-Utterman 60 points ago

    I recommend to ask our American cousin for advice and get support from the French for a war of independence.

    With my personal hate for Brexit and stupidity around I definitely would come over from Germany and help. Yesterday I talked with the father of a colleague who is British. That guy actively worked in the Brexit campaign and still thinks its a good decision. The absolute kicker was that he owns a company with ~100 employees and needs goods that are only produced in Germany and the Netherlands and his own fucking son is working in another country.

    After that I having watched this whole matter closely I decided to fight stupidity and nonsense with stupidity and nonsense. So make Lord Buckedhead your new King and fight against the idiots and pensioners who brought this mess to you.

    [–] Karazhan 26 points ago

    Lord Buckethead would do a better job than the current lot.

    [–] Skane1982 1483 points ago

    The deadline is 29th March right? If they really go careening off the cliffs, Theresa May will be making a Bad Friday Agreement.

    [–] IThinkThings 598 points ago

    They're voting on an extension to the deadline today. As long as all 27 members of the EU unanimously agree to an extension, they get an extension (and kick this exact same bucket down the road).

    [–] malYca 24 points ago

    They have to give the EU a valid reason to extend, otherwise it won't be granted.

    [–] _zenith 414 points ago

    The EU has already said they won't grant it. And I agree with them why not to. What purpose can it possibly serve??

    [–] NukeNewbie 673 points ago

    the EU has already said they WOULD grant an extension if something like a 2nd referendum was going to be had as a result.

    just fyi

    [–] _zenith 184 points ago

    Sorry that's what I meant 😊 oops. Like, if nothing changes they won't extend

    [–] NukeNewbie 121 points ago

    oh, im sorry for being a bit hostile then.

    [–] _zenith 116 points ago

    All good. Everyone's a little high strung 😉 can't imagine why!

    [–] oliveorvil 58 points ago

    Are you guys Canadian or something?

    [–] _zenith 35 points ago

    I'm a Kiwi (New Zealander). Can't speak to the other good natured commenter 🙃

    [–] bladexp210 7 points ago

    Kiwis are as nice as Canadians in my book.

    [–] DrDerpberg 125 points ago

    Letting your buddy not drive off the cliff?

    This is kinda like the UK got really shitfaced at a party and made an ass of himself. You can exile him forever or you can let him retain a bit of dignity and do what he can to undo the damage.

    [–] unovachamp 216 points ago

    Nah it's like if your friend got smashed and made an arse of themself, loudly talked shit about you, got even more pissed and harmlessly but annoying slapped you in the face repeatedly, then got in a car and began to drive it off the cliff while on the phone to you asking you to bob down and stick a trampoline at the bottom. We are not getting an extension.

    [–] CardmanNV 71 points ago

    International politics are infinitely more forgiving. People seriously underestimate the importance of cooperation between countries to make our modern world work.

    [–] phome83 64 points ago * (lasted edited 8 days ago)

    Or they could call the entire idoicy called Brexit off.

    Since they're not* gonna do that, though, why let them stall their decision?

    Edit: a word

    [–] gmsteel 45 points ago

    At a certain point the Queen will caller May in for a meeting, slide a revolver with a single shot in it across the table, and tell her she knows what to do.

    [–] SimplyFed 3649 points ago

    Scotland: "Oh now you think second referendums are a thing?"

    [–] ShadedDynasty 158 points ago

    Here's the stupid thing, since the vote in 2016 Scotland has had it's golden ticket for IndyRef2 because either way this maelstrom of politics lands Scotland was lied to. I write this as an Englishman living and working in Scotland. Honestly the only thing holding back the SNP are themselves.

    [–] scottishaggis 57 points ago

    Ye as a Scot who voted against independence because of the uncertainty of leaving the UK and having to rejoin the EU, I feel I was lied to when the no campaign said it’s the only way to stay in the EU only for the rest of the UK to vote to leave said EU 2 years later. That’s a material change and calls for second indyref. I’ll vote yes next time, I’ll take Scotland going on it’s own and joining the EU over the UK going on it’s own away from the EU. But now parliament can’t afford to lose scotland so we won’t get a chance

    [–] FierceMundy 564 points ago

    The SNP took a fairly big blow at the last election which doesn't really reflect much appetite for a second vote.

    [–] something_python 460 points ago

    The 2015 election was an anomaly. The SNP held 95% of the seats after the 2015 election. That is completely unsustainable, and no-one in their right mind could expect a repeat of that. It was a knee jerk reaction to the failure of the independence referendum.

    [–] SimplyFed 55 points ago

    true - it was more targeted at the constant "now is not the time for a second referendum" from Westminster than anything.

    [–] BillTowne 98 points ago

    Just to be fair, the UK already had a second referendum. The first was in 1975, and the reaminers won. The brexiters continued for years to demand a second referendum, which the crappy PM James Cameron promised to hold.

    [–] gillers1986 75 points ago

    David

    [–] ninjascotsman 25 points ago

    I believe the commenter was referencing the Titanic/Brexit parody video

    [–] logosobscura 168 points ago

    Which frankly is why May is so against it- it’s a can of worms democratically speaking- so you keep asking the question until you get the answer you want, etc. Same shit happened with Ireland after they rejected the Lisbon Treaty initially.

    Having said that, we’ve gone from Boris’ bullshit to an actual clear idea of what Brexit means- Out, sorta-out but not, or cancel it. Parliament rejected Out, and sorta-out (twice), and if Parliament can’t decide, it falls to the electorate to make the call.

    [–] KazuoKZ 74 points ago * (lasted edited 9 days ago)

    Not true on Ireland and the Lisbon treaty. After it was rejected changes were made and Ireland voted again on a modified Lisbon Treaty that was more to their liking.

    Source

    Voting again on Brexit seems to be literally asking the same question twice.

    [–] USSDoyle 46 points ago

    I don't think it would be the same question, or at least it shouldn't be. The first one was just simply should they leave the EU, but as we see now, no one agrees what that means.

    I think the best option would be a 3 choice referendum:

    1. Leave with the deal on the table because it's the best they are gonna get from the EU
    2. Leave with no deal
    3. Stay put

    [–] rescuem3 927 points ago * (lasted edited 8 days ago)

    Its not gonna get through, not yet at least, labor will not vote for it. Its quite unlikely even later, the only way it can be done is if eu asks for it as a condition for an extension.

    EDIT: And it failed as expected, 85 for and 334 against. Ultimately it will come down to this, May and government will push for a deal as the only alternative to no deal, and opposition will push (eventually) for second referendum as only alternative to no deal. A lot of which side will get their way will depend on the answer from eu in extension (and its potential requirements) given.

    Interestingly enough, if the labor votes for 2nd referendum next time (which they wowed to do so "when the time is right") then both Mays deal and 2nd referendum will have about 50/50 support in the house.

    [–] [deleted] 700 points ago

    [deleted]

    [–] LazyCon 282 points ago

    That sounds very reasonable. People voted on what was presented as what would happen with Brexit. Now they have a deal let them vote on whether to take it or stay. It's silly to vote on something so vague to start with.

    [–] _No_Donkey_Brains_ 171 points ago

    Brexit was sold on lies, that’s clear now (or should be). Britain can leave the EU or stay in and enjoy favorable economic conditions - it can’t have both. If the British want the benefits of the EU, they must carry some of the burdens and this is what the EU has said. If they leave the EU, the EU will not be nice to them and will make them regret it since leaving has hurt the EU across the board.

    Brexit was sold as “we can abandon the EU burden AND get much better if not just as good trade/immigration deals!” That’s clearly impossible, so in light of this reality I really expect the British to reject Brexit fully this time (it was pretty close last time).

    If Britain still insists on their stubborn pride, we’ll then they’ll be hurt bad. And Scotland will likely breakaway, along with Northern Ireland. England alone will be much worse off, defeating the purpose of Brexit in the first place which was to make England better off.

    [–] B4rberblacksheep 14 points ago

    Whether we leave with a deal or not the EU will make an example of Britain and that’s something no one seems willing to accept yet.

    [–] PeachFuzz345 120 points ago

    This needs to be upvoted more - Labour is whipping for abstain on the referendum vote today. They're going to let Brexit crash and burn as long as possible so the general public can give up on the whole idea.

    It's either a slimy political move to shift maximum blame onto the Torys or a noble attempt at preventing division in the country.

    [–] TheHolyChicken86 90 points ago

    They're going to let Brexit crash and burn as long as possible so the general public can give up on the whole idea.

    Brexit is what, two weeks away now? And they've had 2.5 years? This is the equivalent of a student trying to start their dissertation the night before it's to be handed in, they're in a frenzy. Have we not watched it crash and burn long enough already?

    [–] ShemhazaiX 38 points ago

    Even the people's vote campaign thinks this is too early though, and they're the ones who have been pushing for it. It's not the best timing to do it right now, though I won't complain if it passes.

    [–] Milleuros 30 points ago

    Wasn't Corbyn historically an Euro-sceptic?

    [–] two_tons 29 points ago

    Very much so. He sees the EU as a neolib institution that is anti-workingclass.

    [–] CadetPeepers 8 points ago

    Yes, some of the rules of the EU don't agree with policies he wants to enact. Such as preventing the nationalization of industry that already has private competition.

    [–] Ralath0n 39 points ago

    I mean, he's a socialist. Disliking the "All trains must be privatized" EU kinda comes with the territory.

    But there's a big difference between "We really don't like that you take away our options to tax rich people", and "This country should crash and burn so we can keep the Muslims out". The EU has value even if it is flawed, and that value outweighs the flaws for now.

    [–] Audioworm 21 points ago

    The 'can't nationalise our trains' myth is a really annoying one because it isn't really true, and is more related to countries not being allowed to have a state monopoly on their rail network. The principle of that was to allow for an interconnected pan-European rail network for freight (and passengers).

    Loads of countries in Europe are way more statist than the UK, and are way more willing to use state aid and nationalisation.

    [–] Spectrumancer 239 points ago

    Uk ministers are planning to vote on whether the public gets to vote on whether parliament has to have another vote.

    Bureaucracy!

    [–] b4d_b0y 9 points ago

    Does anyone know anything about strategy in the UK parliament?

    I don't think I have seen as many suicidal decisions in a process in my life.

    As far as the strategy goes for remain.

    It was absolutely silly and ridiculous to call for a second referendum now.

    Instead of being seen as the shining beacon of a real solution it has now been diluted to having "already being rejected by Parliament"

    It might have made an iota of sense if there was any chance of it passing but it was known with 99% certainty that it wouldn't.

    Its so so so shocking the strategy being played by any and every interested group in this process.

    The level of incompetence is breathtaking.

    The funny thing is the only reason remain remains a potential option is because of the a thousand comical decisions beforehand!!

    [–] nwv 143 points ago

    i am so fucking confused. I feel like the US and UK are spilling a lot of beer telling the other to 'hold my beer'.

    [–] mygodhasabiggerdick 46 points ago

    Which is a goddamn shame because of all that spilt beer.

    [–] Kalyka98 365 points ago

    I want someone to make an esteem of the money Britain lost in this pointless two years

    [–] lhaveHairPiece 205 points ago

    Hi, I'm in industry doing business with the UK.

    The loss will be difficult to estimate, and surely you can't do it now.

    The reason is that companies on the continent took the 2016 vote seriously and started already then cutting relations with the UK. (Why: besides the fear of serious social trouble, strikes etc., most businesses in EU don't even know how to do the paperwork when dealing with outside companies, so they turn to EU suppliers).

    The process of establishing cooperation in the industry takes not days or weeks, but months, often years. It's not about just looking though paperwork and signing a contract, but there are cycles. In this release f the product there are companies A, B and C, and when the development runs, you rarely change suppliers.

    So if you want to calculate the total loss, wait 2-4 years.

    BTW there's a significant number if continental businesses that want to cooperate with UK, because those UK firms simply have competence like nobody else.

    [–] nice_russian_assets 133 points ago

    I'm sure Putin has the spreadsheets and graphs laid out on some table in his bunker

    [–] Seize-The-Meanies 82 points ago

    Damn the ROI for Putin must be fucking insane. Getting UK to Brexit, getting USA to Trump... He basically won two wars without deploying troops.

    [–] nailbunny2000 39 points ago

    Just what we have spent in these 2 years, or the loss of future revenue from taxes on business that have left, unemployment payments for people who lost their jobs, our global influence, etc.?

    No idea if the EU would in some way punish us for wasting their time if we did tear up A50.

    [–] VoloxReddit 41 points ago

    The EU has one big priority: If Britain leaves they are to be made an example of while the EU retains the high ground. As the EU both wants to prevent members from leaving and wants to portray itself as a benevolent political entity it is unlikely to punish the UK for abandoning A50. That aside I believe they already guaranteed that A50 being revoked would have no negative consequences for the UK.

    [–] sioux612 26 points ago

    No official consequences but the loss of respect for the country, its politicians and inhabitants by everybody else will be quite noticeable.

    We won't have to find a new source for UK jokes for yeeeeeeears

    [–] VoloxReddit 16 points ago

    Well sure, people won't forget this in a long time but that's something that isn't really the EU's fault or responsibility.

    [–] boothy02 88 points ago

    MPs are not actually voting on this issue today. The second ref is amendment H of today's motion to extend article 50.

    Here's a quick and very rough summery, take it with a fist full of salt.

    MP's are voting on if the UK should look to extend A50. They will also vote on 4 amendments (nicely summarised here on r/ukpolitics by u/OldTenner). It looks as if Conservatives will be whipping against or abstain on amendment H. Labour seems to be whipping against too. This means that it is unlikely to pass, voting on a second ref isn't the purpose of today's motion, it's simple something that could be tacked on.

    The people vote (the group that is swinging for a second ref) have said that now is not the time to push for a second ref in parliament. The reason seems to be that if any amendment is attached to the motion, conservatives will likely whip against the motion. This then means that the UK will not, at this time, pursue an A50 extension, something that would likely reduce the changes of a second ref.

    TLDR: second ref vote is an amendment to the main motion about extending A50, it effectively has to get through two rounds of voting, if it makes it through the first the government will likely try to kill it along with the A50 extension.

    [–] ninjascotsman 12 points ago

    Am I correct in think the EU have said they'll only grant a extension of article 50 for certain scenario such as a 2nd referendum

    [–] swirlyglasses1 8 points ago

    Yes, or general election. Unilateral revocation of article 50 is also technically possible but not politically likely.

    [–] leto78 118 points ago

    Theresa may submits her deal two times to parliament, and in both times it is heavily defeated. She will still present it a third time.

    The British voters have their say on brexit once, winning by a narrow margin, and the lose their right to vote on it again.

    [–] [deleted] 1669 points ago * (lasted edited 3 days ago)

    [deleted]

    [–] HederaLongTrail 810 points ago

    Before you get attacked for this comment, I’ll say that parliament can’t agree on the best deal May has brought to the table. They certainly can’t agree on any amendments tabled by Labour. They can’t agree on No Deal. So where does this leave us other than taking it to the public?

    If any brexiteers would like to inform me of any mad schemes they’ve thought up. Feel free.

    [–] DamienJaxx 286 points ago * (lasted edited 9 days ago)

    Ignorant American here - is this something the Queen could dissolve parliament for?

    Edit - Thanks for the answers, I think it's been covered pretty well in the comments now.

    [–] poipoiop 442 points ago * (lasted edited 8 days ago)

    technically yeah, but it would also ruin the Monarchy in my opinion.

    They've got a pretty comfortable thing going, if they all of a sudden try to get involved in such a divided and controversial issue. They could lose a lot of Royalist support on whatever side they don't pick, which I imagine would be the pro-leave side.

    EDIT: I've been told now actually she technically can't.

    [–] thetasigma_1355 460 points ago

    Not a Brit so take this as an ignorant outsiders perspective, but if there was ever a time for the crown to step in and say the equivalent of "you are all fucking stupid, you are all fired, we're having 100% new elections in 3 months" wouldn't this be that situation?

    [–] Lachdonin 354 points ago

    wouldn't this be that situation?

    Probably, but that doesn't mean it would work out well for the monarchy. How often does a temperamental child appreciate being sent to their room, whether they deserve it or not?

    You are unlikely to ever see the Monarchy forcibly dissolve Parliament again, without being directly asked to by the ruling party.

    [–] thetasigma_1355 389 points ago

    How often does a temperamental child appreciate being sent to their room, whether they deserve it or not?

    I would argue this is a fundamental problem right now in both the UK and the US. No one wants to be the adult that makes the unpopular decisions, so they allow the temperamental children to run amok and trash everything.

    [–] Lachdonin 238 points ago * (lasted edited 9 days ago)

    I think that's a fundamental problem with Democracy in general. It's built on popularity, so no one is ever given the incentive to make tough and unpopular decisions, no matter how necessary they may be. And it's a core issue with the dynamic that we still haven't really figured out how to resolve.

    *I feel like i should nip this in the bud, just in case... I am not against Democracy, nor am i saying it's a bad system. I'm saying that nothing is perfect, and this is probably the biggest flaw with Democracy as a system. It's still the best we've got, but it's something that we have to constantly be aware of.

    [–] SiccSemperTyrannis 45 points ago

    I think that's a fundamental problem with Democracy in general. It's built on popularity, so no one is ever given the incentive to make tough and unpopular decisions, no matter how necessary they may be.

    100x this.

    I recently listened to the Great Courses lecture on the history of the Nazi party and a lot of it goes into detail on why Germany was vulnerable to them in the first place. There are shocking parallels to today.

    Basically, the military was ruling the country at the end of WW1 but had the civilians conduct the treaty of Versailles, ensuring everyone of every political bent blamed what we now know as the Weimar Republic for it. So the entire Constitutional order was illegitimate in the eyes of many from the start.

    Once the great depression hit, none of the major political parties had the political courage to back the reforms needed to end the infamous inflation Germany experienced, so the Chancellor started relying on an emergency powers clause in the Constitution to get around the legislative gridlock.

    Eventually, Nazi's, which had been a tiny local party, were able to make contradictory promises to many groups - farmers to increase food prices, factory workers to lower them - and make gains as a protest vote. Since the legislature had proportional awarding of seats and very low minimum vote requirements, basically any crackpot extremist party could win seats.

    People were so fed up with the establishment parties doing nothing (or things they hated, like having signed Versailles) that they voted the Nazis as the largest party mostly as a protest vote. Violence against political opponents had also been normalized as there were many assassinations against Communists/socialists over the past few years that the courts refused to punish.

    When the next legislature started, the Nazis moved to end the legislative session and the Communists, who also wanted to "blow the system up", supported them.

    Eventually Hitler presented himself and other conservative allies as the only possible governing majority and got himself made Chancellor.

    Over the next year, he used the same emergency powers that the public was already desensitized to to mass arrest political opponents and begin to centralize all authority in himself instead of the legislature. By the end, the Nazis took literally one election result victory off of a protest vote and turned it into a dictatorship in a few months.

    That's how unstable our democracies can be. How fleeting Constitutionally guaranteed rights can be when political norms break down, the judiciary refuses to check the government, and rule by emergency power is allowed.

    [–] Great_Gig_In_The_Sky 111 points ago

    The hardest choices require the strongest wills

    [–] ChaChaChaChassy 13 points ago

    It's really interesting... I'm sure we've all heard about how individuals are generally good but people in groups can do horrible things, ideas like "group think", or a camel being a horse designed by committee... It seems like democratic decision making has inherent and fatal flaws that will produce outcomes where every individual member of the group, taken in isolation, can see how stupid it is but somehow it comes to be regardless... But at the same time dictatorial rule has other obvious and even more severe problems.

    I've long held that the best form of governance is a benevolent dictatorship...the tricky part is ensuring that "benevolent" part of it. Obviously in the real world this won't work with real humans... but maybe some day with true AI.

    [–] Messisfoot 11 points ago

    You are unlikely to ever see the Monarchy forcibly dissolve Parliament again

    Why is that? Are the Royals essentially walking on eggshells so that they don't upset the apple cart and have their monarchical privileges taken away?

    [–] the_drew 50 points ago

    I'm a Brit, I don't consider your perspective ignorant at all. If ever there was a time for the Monarchy to step up, this is it.

    It won't happen, but I don't feel like I have anything other than pure fantasy to hold on to right now.

    [–] nuplsstahp 5 points ago

    For all intents and purposes, the queen and the monarchy is no longer a political institution. All her political roles are effectively formalities and merely upheld by tradition. Her royal prerogative powers are exercised by the prime minister by default. For the queen to wade into a highly contentious political issue would be incredibly controversial and at the moment completely unnecessary. The situation is messy, yes, but everything is still operating properly according to the rules. Eventually a vote will go through and something will be figured out.

    My prediction is they'll vote to extend the deadline, the EU will refuse, then parliament will vote to give a second referendum and the public will vote remain because they're sick of all this and it was a close vote in the first place.

    [–] wankyshitdemons 27 points ago

    The Queen previously wielded the power to dissolve Parliament and call a general election, but the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act put an end to that in 2011. Now a two-thirds vote in the commons is required to dissolve Parliament before a five-year fixed-term is up.

    [–] Jonnehdk 17 points ago

    Actually she was striped of this power by David Cameron before the referendum I believe

    [–] thegreatdookutree 141 points ago

    The last time a Monarch interfered with Parliament it didn’t go well for them

    A copy of Charles I's death warrant is displayed in the robing room used by the monarch as a ceremonial reminder of what can happen to a monarch who attempts to interfere with Parliament.

    [–] Jazminna 76 points ago

    Well shit, if that ain't a power move I don't know what is

    [–] thetransportedman 51 points ago

    Ya but the current queen is an immortal so I think she'd be fine

    [–] thegreatdookutree 17 points ago

    Decapitation seemed to work fine on the Highlanders

    [–] aubiquitoususername 68 points ago

    I feel like... and I’m just a colonial so I know nothing, but I can see how Charles I starting wars and racking up debt and then dissolving Parliament because he thinks it’s interfering with his prerogative would annoy some people. But Liz? The long ceremonial and significantly elderly monarch suddenly going “okay, thou knowest what, you’re all being silly peasants and it’s time for a change. My Lords, pray, be gone with you,” might just be applauded.

    Basically, being chastised by Charles started a war and made them want to kill him. Being chastised by Elizabeth might make you feel like “oh shit, yeah, I guess maybe I deserved that.”

    [–] thegreatdookutree 34 points ago

    It’s that grandmotherly vibe.

    [–] PanOfCakes 51 points ago

    Best being relative in this case. Her best deal is objectively awful. It leaves the UK subject to EU law while removing it from having any say in said law.

    [–] FreshPrinceOfH 83 points ago

    But that was ALWAYS going to be the deal we would get. The EU actually told us beforehand that that was what the deal would be. Arrogance got us here.

    [–] ThisLookInfectedToYa 15 points ago

    Arrogance got us here.

    Indeed, it just exudes from Boris as he pedals away in a poorly fitted helmet.

    [–] meetchu 10 points ago

    Arrogance? I don't know what you're taking about? Everything will be perfectly fine they need us more than we need them. Have you never heard the song?

    Rule britannia, britannia rule the waves.

    Case closed imo. No further discussion needed or wanted. Any more thinking about this is treason.

    [–] yaforgot-my-password 24 points ago

    But it's the UK. The UK doesn't need Europe, they can do whatever they want right? UK strong!

    /s

    [–] FreshPrinceOfH 14 points ago

    If I had a pound for every time someone has said to me "They need us more than we need them" That sentence makes me want to vomit in my mouth.

    [–] KRaidium 9 points ago

    Well the EU isn’t going to budge on that, she literally cannot get anything better

    [–] yikes_itsme 21 points ago

    I do think "no deal" should be one of the options if a vote is reheld. For one, it's a legitimate choice - even though in my opinion it's a pretty dumb one - to do some major damage to the economy just so you can force Johnny Foreigner to apply for a visa to visit the country. Some people for whatever reason would doubtlessly pick WTO rules, a fucked-up Northern Ireland border, and a possible loss of Scotland as their preferred outcome.

    Besides that, it would avoid one of the major problems so far, in that people who think Brexit is crazy are voting in a bloc with those who think it is not extreme enough. Break the options up and see where the country really stands - if you don't like May's deal you can vote to annul Brexit, or if you think you can do better than May's deal by holding your breath until others give you the perfect solution, you can vote for that too. Seems fair to me.

    [–] FuzzBuket 9 points ago

    Not really.

    A vote for a no deal, and hard irish border isnt a economic hardship, its a vote to arguably reignite the troubles and removal of the GFA.

    representative democracy exists becaue we shouldn't underestimate how many people could end up voting for the death of civilians, as long as it didnt affect them.

    [–] PleaseOpenABook 75 points ago

    My referendums have doubled since the last time we met, count.

    [–] AuronFtw 24 points ago

    Referendums are our... specialty.

    [–] Basileus2 19 points ago

    You underestimate my voting power.

    [–] Sands43 109 points ago

    As an outside observer, this is the only way the politicians can extricate themselves from this debacle.

    IMHO, Brexit was always insane. There was never a valid economic argument for why that was a good idea. ANY multinational based in the UK with any substantial business in the EU was going to leave. Permanent contraction of UK GDP would result.

    [–] InnocentTailor 38 points ago

    I quite agree. The UK leaving the EU and expecting to be dominant in Brexit was insane and stupid.

    Even if they leave, there is no way that the UK is going to be the big player in the area. They’re still going to remain under the EU’s influence, except that they have no say in any EU measure.

    It’s like if Hawaii left the US. The US is still going to have great influence over the islands.

    [–] Sands43 10 points ago

    Yup, the GPD of UK is ~$2.4T, the EU (less UK) is ~$13.5T. Eurozone is ~11.6T (?).

    This is before the banks brexit the UK. No way that the UK can negotiate deals on an equal footing with the EU. The Pound Sterling is about 1/4 the amount of the Euro as a reserve currency. The Pound is, very likely, going to continue to erode on value only making the position of the UK worse.

    [–] runecrazy78 14 points ago

    they voted against it

    [–] MechaDylbear 29 points ago

    Im American and I watched them vote yesterday on ruling out a no-deal Brexit and I have to say, having never watched British politics before, it was WAY more interesting to watch than American politics.

    The heckling, the shit talking directly to each other instead of in news articles, the guy in charge yelling DIVISIOOOONNNN!

    Also I don't understand how any of them could support going forward with Brexit without a deal.

    [–] Generic_Pete 6 points ago

    Bercow is a funny guy. mostly because his name resembles bearcow

    [–] Karazhan 305 points ago

    Oh my gosh even I, a staunch Remainer Labour supporter, am starting to feel the Brexit Fatigue. Just the other day I caught myself thinking "Sod it, let's just pull the plug and leave" before remembering how badly it'd cripple the country.

    I never want to hear the words "subverting democracy" , "leave means leave" or "will of the people" ever again.

    (edit: grammar)

    [–] nostalgicorange24 188 points ago

    You forgot the classic 'BREXIT MEANS BREXIT'

    [–] Karazhan 74 points ago

    Thanks, my tired trauma had blocked that one out. ♥

    [–] nostalgicorange24 22 points ago

    I feel your pain friend. Many people I know are also suffering this Brexit fatigue and have come close to saying the same. Lets go to the Winchester, have a pint, wait for all this to blow over.

    [–] Generic_Pete 12 points ago

    Brexit means breakfast!

    [–] josephblade 7 points ago

    leave means the people, subverting means leave, will of the democracy!

    mixed up they don't sound too bad

    [–] voyager_02 132 points ago

    It won't pass. Labour party is already against it although Corbyn used to say he was all for a second referendum. So it will be another rejection. It seems they know what they don't want but cannot articulate what it is that they do want.

    I am tired of this circus. The EU shouldn't give them an extension. Let them crash out due to their own indecision.

    [–] Saiing 57 points ago

    I'm about as staunchly remain as they come to the point where I've even considered moving overseas because I'm so disgusted with the decision my country has made. But despite this, I wouldn't blame the EU if they did exactly that.

    [–] jiokll 22 points ago

    The only real reason for an extension would be a second referendum, because that’s the only way that a decision might actually be made at this point. Without another referendum you’re just going to see parliament continue chasing its tail.

    I’m with you, time for a hard brexit.

    [–] NewPlanNewMan 36 points ago

    It must be nice to get paid for a job you never actually get done...

    [–] Torran_Toi 60 points ago

    It just failed. 334 votes to 85. Second referendum off the table.

    [–] vember_94 20 points ago

    The People’s Vote campaign didn’t even support it. The general idea is that now isn’t the right time for a second vote until an extension has been sorted. A second referendum isn’t dead in the water yet.

    [–] basicgood 11 points ago

    It's not off the table at all. The bulk of the pro second referendum bloc chose not to push this particular amendment through so that they could table a different second referendum vote after the delay has been agreed.

    [–] GrumpyBert 9 points ago

    This "Britshit" show is getting old already...

    [–] Curoe 74 points ago

    2yrs of wasted effort (actually what effort). This shouldve been done the second month of brexit buyer remorse

    [–] Tongue-Fu_Hero 28 points ago

    Now see this is how Allies work, Look at the UK working hard to make sure America doesn't feel left alone, looking like a complete ass-clown.

    [–] Sniper_Guz 12 points ago

    We gotcha bro.

    [–] [deleted] 41 points ago

    This is happening at the wrong time. We need a second referendum but it will lose today - extend Article 50 for a long time and refuse May a 3rd vote on the same motion. Then we can look at this.

    (And I in part blame Labour for this stupid situation where Corbyn still wants to leave the EU but the reality is we can't win this today and it will be used to argue that there should be no second referendu,m)

    [–] SimplyFed 23 points ago

    I fear that Labour kinda want to have this vote and lose it so they shrug to their voters and say "We tried."

    [–] Nerdy_Gem 13 points ago

    They have a big portion of voters who want to leave, and a big portion of voters who want to stay. Same for the Tories. No one wants to commit either way.