The vlogger sees “non-Brexit Brexit” as the most likely outcome, where the UK exits the EU in name only, still subject to the EU’s laws, open borders, and taxes, but without a voice in EU policy, which would suck for the UK’s citizens but be good for business and save face for politicians.
Another outcome: Full Brexit, which would lead to the breakup of the UK as Northern Ireland and Scotland secede to stay in the EU. Also seceding from the UK: The City of London (!) which would join the EU as an independent city-state.
The next prime minister of the UK will have a no-win job: Option A is pull the trigger on Brexit, in which case you’re leading the country on a disastrous policy that even its erstwhile supporters aren’t enthusiastic about anymore, and which could lead to the UK going the way of the USSR.
Option B is defy the will of the electorate and reject Brexit.
I wonder whether Boris Johnson saw the odds and said screw it I’ll be the Prime Minister AFTER the unlucky bastard who presides over that train wreck.
Having started this mess, Cameron had an obligation to see it through, and his resignation was — as we dignified journalist types say — a dick move.
[Griff Witte – The Washington Post]
My colleague Iain Morris analyzes the impact on two British telcos, but some of his insights in the second half of the article seem generally applicable.
Brezit will not accomplish its main goal of controlling immigration. And Britain will be required to abide by EU regulations to continue doing business with Europe, but it won’t get a say in how those rules are written.
‘Brexit’ Vote Hits BT, Vodafone [Iain Morris/Light Reading]
Internet users overwhelmingly voted to name the research vessel “Boaty McBoatface,” according to Josh Hafner on USA Today. Says the British government: Nope.
BBC host Nicky Campbell exclaimed that the government would “ride roughshod over democracy” if it did not go through with naming the ship “Boaty McBoatface,” which garnered 120,000 votes — four times that of the next closest choice.
An artist has been threatened with a lawsuit if she sells a painting of Donald Trump nude with a small penis. [Patrick Greenfield – The Guardian]
An infamous nude of Donald Trump has attracted bids of over £100,000 after it went on display at the Maddox Gallery in Mayfair, London, last week, but the artist is being anonymously threatened with legal action if she sells it, due to its resemblance to the Republican presidential hopeful.
The piece by Illma Gore, titled Make America Great Again, depicts Trump with a small penis. It went viral in February after the artist published it on her Facebook page and has since been censored on social media sites and delisted from eBay after the anonymous filing of a Digital Millennium Copyright Act notice threatening to sue Gore.
The Maddox Gallery in London offered to exhibit the painting after galleries in the US refused to host the piece due to security concerns following threats of violence from Trump’s supporters.
There’s a reproduction of the painting at the link above. I haven’t put it here because nobody wants to see a picture of Donald Trump with his Carlos Danger hanging out unless they’ve been warned first.
Trump is abusing the law, with no apparent grounds for a DMCA claim. And sending thugs out to threaten people who criticize or ridicule the candidate is not how we’re supposed to do things in the USA.
ISPs are required by law to offer the filters and have them switched on by default. More than six out of seven households opt to have the filters switched off.
Internet filters have a poor performance record. They fail to block problem sites and censor legitimate sites.
Censorship, pure and simple. It has no place in a free, open society. If individual ISPs want to use filters, that’s fine, but it absolutely should not be required by government.
The government officials who impose this ban are either scoundrels looking for an excuse to block any speech they don’t like, or fools who don’t understand the value of free speech.