• 2 Posts
  • 24 Comments
Joined 7 months ago
cake
Cake day: October 9th, 2025

help-circle


  • I definitely prefer my card wherever possible. Just tap it on the card reader and you’re done. No change jangling around in your pocket. And you can see all your transactions in your banking app later on to see exactly where you’ve spent money. I want cash to stick around though because some people don’t like using cards.


  • Russia and China are not going to give up nukes any time soon. If the US under a future president decided to try and negotiate disarmament to eliminate all nukes then that might work. I think that’s the only way Russia or China would give up nukes. Until then I think Europe should keep nukes as a deterrent.

    So yes, multilateral disarmament could work, and could prevent lots more countries from building nukes. I don’t think unilateral disarmament is a good idea though.


  • If you want all countries to give up their nukes then I would agree with that. Perhaps the US could theoretically achieve a world without nukes if they threatened sanctions against countries who keep nukes.

    But in reality, if the UK gives up its nukes, no other country will do so. I think Europe should possess nukes for the foreseeable future. Like I said before, if Europe dismantles its nukes, all it would mean is that the US, China, and Russia would suddenly have a lot of leverage over Europe.



  • I think the sad reality is that countries without nuclear weapons are at the mercy of nations with nuclear weapons. What would be gained if the UK and France, for example, were to get rid of their nukes? There’s absolutely no chance that the US/Russia/China will get rid of theirs. So then those countries would have a massive amount of leverage over Europe.

    kill millions at the push of a button

    I definitely hope nukes are not used. But the threat of vast destruction might be the only threat that the world’s authoritarian leaders are afraid of. If those leaders are afraid of nothing then they could launch their own terrible weapons at civilians across the world.







  • I see okay, thanks for your view. Yes Sweden and Poland don’t use the euro but that’s due to a loophole, whereas Denmark has a legal exception to joining the euro. Maybe the UK could use the Sweden/Poland loophole but the EU might try to close it, I don’t know.

    Anyway, I expect the UK will just slowly get closer to the EU over the coming years. Rejoining probably won’t be a possibility for at least a few years. At that point, maybe the euro will be less controversial among Brits.



  • Good point, my mistake. Russia does have a larger population than any European country though of course, I guess I was thinking of that.

    Actually I have a question if you don’t mind, since you’re from a Danish Lemmy instance. How do you view the euro? Because Denmark is the only EU country with a legal opt-out from the euro, right? I guess if I were Danish I would think it’s pretty nice to enjoy the benefits of the EU without being obliged to join the euro.

    If the UK were to rejoin the EU (possible in the coming decades) then I bet the euro would be a sticky issue, because I think it has traditionally been unpopular in the UK, while the EU would probably require at least a nominal promise to adopt the euro.


  • My impression of the Tories and Reform is that they want the UK to forever be a lapdog of the US. Perhaps it would be better for the UK to reduce our dependence on the US and instead increase our ties with our European allies. A friendship between the UK and any European country - even Germany, the largest European economy - is more of a partnership of equals, which can obviously not be said about UK-US relations (I wouldn’t count Russia as the largest European economy because Russia is Eurasian).





  • As I said previously, I definitely prefer secular states with full freedom of religion and freedom of belief. On the question of ethnicity, I hope all countries will treat people as individuals (regardless of ethnicity), rather than discriminate on the basis of ethnicity.

    But I just think that if you assume that all supporters of “a country for Jewish people” are scum then surely you’d also have to say that all supporters of “a country for Muslim people” are scum too. I think quite a lot of people in the world support the existence of explicitly Muslim states, but I don’t think all those people are “scum”.

    It might be fair to call Netanyahu scum though, as well as Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich.


  • Judaism can be converted to, right? So it’s not just an ethnicity.

    Therefore if you think “a country for Jewish people” is very bad then what about “a country for Muslim people”? Is everyone who supports the existence of Saudi Arabia or Iran “scum”, for example?

    My position is that supporting the existence of a religious country doesn’t necessarily make a person “scum”. I wouldn’t fully agree with the views of such people (since I prefer secular countries with full freedom of religion and belief) but I’m not going to regard them all as “scum”.