This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Saxo Bank CEO: "The Election Outcome In Britain Is Our One Chance To Say Stop To Brussels"
Saxo Bank CEO Lars Seier Christensen reacts to the Conservative landslide victory in the UK.
- Spectacular victory for David Cameron's Conservatives confounds expectations
- Cameron needs to hold true to his pledge to hold the EU to account
- Disillusion with Brussels and its stranglehold on Europe growing
- Brussels needs to start listening but that would go against type
The election result in Great Britain is amazing in many ways.
Labour has been appropriately punished, even humiliated for the lack of a coherent economic policy and the wipe out in Scotland is plain embarrassing. But again, the SNP sends a message that prime minister David Cameron will also have to listen to.
The reaction in financial markets have been understandably positive with a strong rally in the pound, as it would appear the UK is in for a period of stable and responsible economic policy.
It is great to see that some voters in Europe recognize leadership that addresses economic prudence and I believe that Mr Cameron deserves his victory. His containment strategy towards UKIP has worked very well, but he now needs to heed to the message that the British public expects an in/out referendum on Europe.
When you, like me, are used to a proportional representation system, it feels bizarre that the third largest party hardly gains a seat, but still, Nigel Farage has had a lot of beneficial influence on Britain's EU policy.
Hopefully, Brussels also gets the message but I doubt it. The EU never rolls anything back. It continues to amass more and more control in all areas.
The bureaucracy in Brussels has no self-criticism. No regrets. No matter how much and how often it fails. It just continues the roll out of its powers, and it will continue unabated, until someone says enough is enough. Until someone says stop.
The election outcome in Britain is our one chance to say stop!
Last year, we celebrated the 25 year anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. Back then, in 1989, who could have imagined that just 25 years later, we would have forgotten about capitalism’s victory, about the dangers and failure of supranational government and control, forgotten socialism's absolute bankruptcy and the importance of competition, efficient capital allocation and specialisation. Yet, here we are, with the EU repeating the failed experiments of the past.
Enough is enough.
I hope that Mr. Cameron, with this astonishing victory on his hands, keeps the promise he gave in his inspiring Bloomberg speech in January 2013, calling for deep reform of EU institutions.
He rightly put forward that public disillusionment with the EU is at an all-time high because people feel that the EU is heading in a direction that they never signed up to. He spoke the voice of most Europeans - at least the British and the Danish - that, put simply, many ask: “Why can’t we just have what we voted to join – a common market?”
We know that the British people agree with their re-elected prime minister that any ideology that claims to be bigger than the nation-state denies human nature. We should hold Mr. Cameron to that.
An EU referendum in Britain is the biggest hope for the real Europe. I will do everything I can to make sure that Denmark follows Britain whatever route she chooses to restore the Europa of history and diverse cultures, skills, competitive spirit and freedom.
»
- 18208 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
I hope we have not heard the last of Nigel Farage. What a breath of fresh air!
All Four Wheels Come Off The Anglo-American Juggernaut
Elections are rigged , politicians are liars and don't care about you
you dont get elected without the blessing of the elite
elections are just a shit show for the so called " Democracy"
.. and the sheeple go right back to sleep
Nigel Farage is 7 feet tall, and flames shoot out of his ass - William Wallice
He can crush a mans skull with his bare hands. Wait, a mans, no, a boys?
Perhaps you're thinking of Hillary Clinton.
I know she's famous for doing something. I could just never come up with anything.
Didn't we try this whole thing a couple times before? Catalonia, Scotland, maybe a couple others I'm forgetting.
They will NEVER leave the EU, so let's just cut the crap right now. If they were serious about leaving the LAST thing they would ever do is hold a vote/referendum on it.
I see nothing in this result to sugest that anything has fundamentally shifted. The same system is in place. Window dressing.
lying
Nigel Farage is now history in UK politics just like Chuck Norris for Texas and martial arts.
As an artist I always preferred Bruce Lee to Chuck. But thats like saying I prefer Federer to Nadal.
Nigel Farage is still an MEP (Member of the European Parliament) for another 4 years at least.
The instant I hit the words "religiously bankrupt" I stop reading. Religion is part of the problem, not the solution.
All men are religious. But religion is part of the problem in that men (especially Americans) worship debt, hate, and war instead of forgiveness, love, and peace.
Religion is another scam to suck in 10% of your income. Ask the Pope.
Or Heinz.
As long as the 10% is not taken away from you using the threat of violence and imprisonment (i.e. how governments collect taxes), I'm okay with it. In the end, under the current system, the 10% religious tithe is voluntary. The second you don't get to choose whether to "give" it or not (I'm guessing there were periods in Catholic history where this was the case), that's where the line is crossed for me.
Yeah, it's OK if they just baffle you with bullshit. I guess that's OK because everybody does it.
"Believe nothing of what you hear and only half of what you see." ~ Somesmart Fucker.
The atheists have had their chance. Lots of chances in fact, from Stalin to Mao to Pol Pot. The results have been an unprecedented tidal wave of human bloodshed and misery as politics becomes everything and there is no higher restraint on whoever holds the reigns of power. Human sin is part of the problem, or rather is THE problem. True religion, when its not co-opted by the state, can mitigate the problem. That it does not always do so is a failure of humanity, not true religion.
Good thing that the Crusades, Spanish Inquisition, and Salem witch trials, etc had nothing to do with organized religion, because that would undermine your contention.
The Crusades of the Middle Ages, the Spanish Inquisition, and the burning of witches- totaling over 264,000 killed, are thought to be the largest atrocities perpetrated by one or another form of Christendom.
The single largest killer in all of human history is, by far, atheistic Communism with a total of 110,000,000 … over 1/3 of all people ever killed! If we add to that number just two other regimes where religion of any sort was strongly discouraged, Nazi Germany and Nationalist China, the number rises to 141,160,000.
Almost 50% of all the killings in human history were committed in the past 100 years by
regimes that either actively promoted atheism or strongly discouraged religion.
https://peschken.wordpress.com/2013/08/25/christianity-has-not-killed-mo...
The greatest killer of all is natural death or microbes etc. Nature is God's will if you are a believer.
So lay it all at his doorstep. God made us and God kills us for the believer. Now why nail it at anybody else's door step?
For a believer, the eternal power, all seeing all knowing, timeless and matterless, makes us in his image with a time line and exit strategy all scripted by Him.
So what's the big deal? Even the Commies are his servants in the greater order of things.
Thy will be done. Stop looking for the four stooges behind the tinsel curtain of man made intelligence and "free will".
'Cos then I have doubts about your faith in Eternal all seeing and all enacting God!
Why doesn't God heal stupidity?
http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2006/05/why-dosnt-god-heal-stupidity.html
"Nature is God's will if you are a believer." from bad theology spring erroneous conclusions. God has all power, in this life, He restrains Himself from using it unless we want it. That is why Jesus said we are to pray "Thy Kingdom come, Thy Will be done, on earth as it is in Heaven." Those things don't exist in heaven, where His will is done. Once it is done here, they won't exist here either. This creation is a bubble, a place where, temporarily, the impossible happens- God's will is not done. Once it sorts itself out, the bubble will burst and it will be done again.
Good answer. Add to it that if we are talking "true relgion" and not "the religion of peace" then the Crusades were a response to Islamic Aggression. Treating "religion" as if all faiths were the same, from Jesus worshippers to Devil Worshippers, obscures the real truth about how much better for mankind a prevelance of Christianity has been over a prevelance of atheism.
You're right that there are differences, but they are mostly differences in degree rather than kind.
My problem with "faith" is that it is far too often blind. The only relatively commonly known philosophy that I know of which directly argues against blind faith is Buddhism. The Buddha was quite clear that people should accept only those ideas which were in harmony with their personal experience. If what a person was told sounded 'off', then the Buddha suggested the person reject that advice, from wherever it came.
Faith is not automatically a problem. But blindly following a leader in the name of faith? Yes, that has been a disaster countless times, whether that faith has been religious or secular (i.e. the faith in Communism/Capitalism and its leaders to create a new more just world).
Individuals must be encouraged to exercise their own judgment when dealing with ideas. This goes against many threads of our society, but unless it happens, we will eventually destroy ourselves, and I can guarantee that that destruction will be done in the "faith" that some leaders' ideas were the way forward, either religious or secular. Stop blindly following! It leads to destruction. Every time, no exceptions.
Thank g0d the religious ones didn't spill no blood, you moron. Think before you post.
Cue two years of press, radio, tv, and web - the media, all of them - convincing the British to vote to stay in the European Union. Right up to the day of the referendum.
Lemme see... same people got elected. Hmmm... and people are expecting change. Now THAT is funny.
This seems sketchy. We've been saved?? Seems like an Acme Anvil should be crushing skulls soon.
Why doesn't Die Bold operate their voting machines?
This is all wrong. Get out of the major cities!!!
Dream on Saxo Bank CEO, dream on.
UKIP got absolutely shafted in that election. They outpolled Labour in the percentage of the overall vote taken. How that doesn't turn into MPs (so, essentially, how the UK electoral system works) is beyond this Aussie to comprehend.
You might also like to consider that the SNP overall received fewer votes that UKIP but way more MPs.
The people in England have seen sense and voted for a party that didn't promise the way more than could be delivered.
Similar thing happened in the Netherlands. Something's rotten in Europe.
Four years ago we in the UK at the insistance of the Liberals had a referendum on Proportional Representation and two thirds of those who voted voted against.
The voice of the people was heard and it is now in the ashcan of history.
First past the post rules OK!
Somehow, it seems that government is all you Europeans can think about. It's all government all the time. And it has infected this country as well. What is it about people and their worship of government? Learn to be half assed independent, and you won't have to depend on someone else all of the time.
At the end of the day there's always the Government who should step in (austerity, reforms, etc..). If you listen to an european economist it's always the same. The Government should do this and that....PPl still believe in the power, that's probably the bigger issue ;)
hogwash. if Cameron was really about "deep reform of EU institutions", he would have brought feasible proposals
nope, this megabank CEO writing here is being completely disingenous. he does not want a "common market", he wants the EU to completely open up to globalization
hence is call for less EU powers and controls. both he and Cameron want markets, not common markets. open, naked, completely exploitable markets
the EU means freedom of movement of capital, labour, wares and services inside the common borders... and a common trade policy for the outside
all... watch for it, the dirty, dirty word... regulated with common regulations. and yes, this means that the EU org has something to say about... how
but this megabank CEO is of that pseudo-anarcho-liberal breed that hates all kind of regulations... except those that favour Big Biz, of course. or the private tribunals envisioned by TTIP
globalization, btw, is too just that: freedom of movement of capital, labour, wares and services. in the whole world. without restrictions or regulations or anything that protects the small from the big
thanks, but no, thanks. I'm not the only one here that thinks that we do need sensible regulations, for example in food safety. and I am also not the only one that wants to have food grown here, not on the other side of the world, for example
so don't make the waters around you murkier with "...any ideology that claims to be bigger than the nation-state denies human nature...", Mr. Saxo-Bank CEO
it's several nation states that have banded together in order to keep some core nation-state policies up, that are the core of what the EU is, and ought to be
you... are on the other side of this conflict, as Cameron is. you favour full globalization, no regulation, no nation-states ever getting in the way of business. nice trick of you, to clad it under the "sovereignty mantle", but it does not wash down with me and the majority of continentals
many ask: “Why can’t we just have what we voted to join – a common market?”. Yes, that's what we have. A common market with common regulations. And this includes - funny enough - the idea, in it's embrionic stage, that banks ought to be... facilities. Which resulted in that strange EU law which I believe is the main reason for your weaselly words: the Banker Bonus Cap
don't waste our time. neither Germany nor France nor Italy - just to mention the three big founders - are ever going to agree with your ultra-liberal vision of markets, of "whatever goes" and "whatever makes a buck". we are seeing all around us to what it really leads
in the long run, you'd be better advised to just try to get Denmark out of the EU. for the greater glory of one of the smallest megabanks of the world... Saxo Bank
Gordy's right.
Europe won't be safe unless the 83 regulations on cucumbers are met.
Brussels will save you from unhealthy crooked cucumbers.
I was talking with an Auzzie today.
We weren't talking about the EUR, but real estate investment in Europe.
He told me a lot of Auzzie funds are using Real Estate in Germany as a short against the EUR. His exact words were;
"We think its a great play. The EUR will end, and property in Germany will skyrocket, I think we'll make a fortune. Its too damn bad so many people here are just zealots about the EUR. No logic, or rational rational thought. Just pure emotion. Its as if I am taking with religious fanatics. They are essentially the IS supporters of the financial industry."
I thought about Ghordo. I shook his hand, took his card, and we're gonna stay in contect.
Haus, you are writing here in a thread that is purely about the EU (Written by a Dane, where Denmark's currency is half-pegged to the EUR). two clubs. different memberships. both complex. and I am writing here about the one... while you come here with the other. just saying
I know.
Subsequently this guy dismembered a co-worker of mine trying to defend the EUR. When he pulled out the "well it prevents a war with France card" I noted that Austria-Hungry and Frances shared a currency within the LMU in the 19th century and into the 20th.
He thereafter had to take a "phone call."
For the non-Germans in the group is was a bit uncomfortable, for the Germans in the group it was a little uncomfortable. It did illustrate Juncker's point though.
The Anglo-Saxon world will rip the EUR and EU apart -- why? Two reasons; 1) they can -- its a flawed structure and 2) they'll make a fortune in the process.
Haus, I would not put it in those terms: "The Anglo-Saxon world will rip the EUR and EU apart". The Great Casino bets on whatever looks good to bet on, and it's global
nevertheless, I vastly prefer those forces to try to rip our shared, "synthetic" institutions apart then our national institutions. both EU and EUR are ultimately... expendable. and even easy to replace
in essence they are both confederations. as alliances of sovereigns
my question is: would that Aussie refrain from betting on the D-Mark, if it was around? and what would you think about it?
Yeah, he said that the DMark would eat most other currencies alive.
meaning he would bet on the D-Mark going up, up, up. well, that problem is one that the BundesBank had several times. similar to the mostly Russian and Chinese run on the CHF that led the SNB to peg to the nearest anchor... which was the EUR. or still intervene
without EUR, which would be the nearest anchor? don't say gold, that anchor does not work that way. and also it would not calm down the business side of Germany, that part that wants to export... or the other one, that wants to keep jobs in Germany
a stable currency is one thing. a currency that eats most others alive... a different thing. as I wrote often: pricelists and price calculation matter
are you looking for a monetary policy that drives towards price stability... or for something to bet on, yourself?
I counter your "EU cocumber regulation" quip with: unrestricted use of GMO, AgroMegaBiz, dependency from food grown overseas and, lastly, the Banker Bonus Cap just to have a good joke
if the attacks on Brussels weren't so... on the lowest denominator of understanding of what the EU really does, I'd be here attacking the EU
do you really think a Danish megabank CEO cares about the cocumber size regulation? it's his "cocumbers" that he does not want to see regulated
Ghordy, I respect your opinion and have quoted you (still do, I stole your theory on the relationship between weather and cultural biases towards saving or spending). And I do understand that, as a born/educated European you would have certain "captive" biases similar to those suffered by battered spouses. Yet, I don't understand how someone as clearly intelligent as you are insists that in order to prevent power hungry CEOs and corporatists from taking over the planet and destroying us all in search of power and profit, we must "elect" (obey) power hungry bureaucrats in search of power and profit (taxes).
It does not compute. A bureaucrat is NOT some uber/meta human, incapable of deceit, error and above reproach. We have long standing evidence, to the point that it has become a cliche, as to the inefficiency and incompetence of bureaucrats and the psychopathy of politicians. Yet you advocate, again and again, that they have to be given the extra human right to use violence against the rest of us, regulate, catalog, incarcerate and tax, in order to keep "evil" corporations from producing bad products or becoming monopolies.
Any monopoly whether corporate or gubernatorial can be evil (we can leave the discussion as to how you require government in order to have a sustainable monopoly for some other time, the free market rejects evil monopolies). But only a monopoly that can and does uses violence in order to control can be truly evil.
No corporation, by itself, can do the damage governments do on a daily basis. DOW corporation, on its worst day, releasing pesticide into the atmosphere can not kill as many people as the US has killed in Iraq. Monsanto, the most evil of the bunch, can not kill as many as Pol Pot. Exxon and BP combined couldn't even approach the suffering that Lenin caused.
Yet, you habitually show a preference towards centralized violent power in the hands of bureaucrats as a shield against the evil of corporations.
It does not matter how bad a GMO cucumber is to me, I can always grow my own unpolluted cucumbers. I can not OTOH, stop a government from jailing me for doing so.
Thanks goldsaver this is what I was thinking when I read the above comment. When lashing out at market liberals the EU continentals that value a lot EU regulations and ideas often like to overlook the bureaucratic monster that is the EU. Is a free deregulated market desirable? Probably not from what we all know here. Does it help if it's replaced with some big bureaucracy? Probably neither or almost worse. Unfortunately the EU has proven time and again that it is pretty good at creating inefficient bueaucracy and not much else. I wouldn't maybe compare it with numbers of fatalities as such but when looking at human suffering in the European periphery which at least in part can be blamed on the EU then I'm sure it's as bada s suffering from corporations these days....
careful, the "human suffering in the EU periphery" is attributed - rightly or wrongly - to the EUR, not the EU. the EU uses the EUR, but it's really two separate clubs, where all the 19 EUR countries (aka eurozone) are members of the EU, which has a total of 28 country being members
Ok I agree with you. Since the Euro is a EU construct it is easy to mix both up, but one shouldn't.
I was also careful in pointing out that it was only part of the problem of the periphery they have plenty of 'self-made' issues to deal with...
goldsaver, thanks for the courtesy of your question. which is not that easy to answer in few words, anyway not for me
the EU has this bureaucracy that draws - often rightly - a lot of indignation, particularly from the anti-EU Britons like Nigel Farage (damn, I really hoped he'd get a seat in the Commons)
in total, 30'000 bureaucrats. the administration for a common market regulative effort over an area containing 500'000'000 citizens
to put it in perspective, bigger countries in the EU have millions of bureaucrats. compare to the bureaucrats that the US has, and you'll see that in comparison it's... a puny department
but they follow rules and laws, that ultimately have to be approved by the elected EU Parliament
I write ultimately because the drafts are written by the EU Commission, on the express and clear wishes of the EU Council... aka the EuroCrats... which are our national governments
so it's Cameron and Hollande and Merkel and Tsipras and so on that really steer the EU... org, as I prefer to write. and they decide the seven-year budget of the EU, btw
the EU does not tax. does not police. does not incarcerate. this is all in the hands of our national governments, our national tax services, our national police forces, our national prisons
in short, the european "monopoly of violence" is still national. I hope this helps you to see some of my points under a different light
-------------
(I stole your theory...) leaves me confused, I wrote about this using several "tacks", could you link me to the one you liked? thanks
So you have 30,000 bureaucrats making up regulations based on laws approved by several hundred politicians that are ultimately controlled by "national" politicians who claim to "represent" their several million human slice of this tax farm called the European Union. All of it so they can control/regulate/dominate and make decisions for all of you tax cattle within their self declared geographical borders.
WHY?
According to you previous arguments, such a monster is a necessary evil in order to prevent corporations from becoming massive monsters who determine what products you can consume/purchase/etc....
I am sorry, whether is 1 bureaucrat (a king) or a million, there is no logical reason for any of it to exist. If nations must exist, and I would argue they do not, the European Union is an superfluous layer imposed above the unnecessary national governments in order to provide, at the very minimum, power and employment to 30,000 bureaucrats and at worst an excuse for centralized corruption and evil.
You say that Cameron, et al can "steer" the EU... why is that even needed? Without the EU Cameron can only rule over those in his geographical area he pretends to represent. With the EU, Cameron can "steer" the lives of cattle outside of his "electorate". Why in the hell would anyone see the need of an organization that is designed to give Germans power over Brits is beyond me. Even if that power can be "steered" the best you can hope is to nudge it. SO now, you are not only ruled by psychopaths in your "nation", you have a second layer of psychopaths outside your "nation" to contend with.
The theory I refer to is that cultures in colder climes tend to overproduce and save because of the short growing seasons while cultures of warmer climes, where the growing season extends year long, tend to produce only for current consumption and disregard overproduction and saving.
We need inthemix96's insight on the election.
We need LongSoupLine's insight
I think inthemix96 is on his way down from the North East to Downing Street to take Cameron out single handedly.
lol
I'm sure that "cunts" would be a major portion of his insight...
Hey, socialist euro scum tranny midgets .... eat your Brussel Sprouts Saur Kraut !
With Greece endangering the Euro and the UK endangering the EU, time to rethink the European project may have come at last.
The slimper and most probable solution unfortunately is that the bureaucrats of Brussels will do nothing and Europe will explode with each country fending for itself. In this case we plunge in a deep depression.
But there is another solution: It is to recognize that there are fundamentally two Europe: A Nordic and a Mediterrannean one and to restructure the project along this fault line.
The two Europe would have two Euros, A strong one and a weaker one with a higher inflation rate. Different rules to accommodate different cultures but would still be able to trade with each other. This solution may sound "exotic" but it did work before when these countries where still independant economically. The smaller difference would give more time to the protagonists the iron out their differences "within" each blocks. It would not be a panacea but it most probably would work... Provided France accepts to be the leader of the weaker group to which it squarely belongs.
But let's not fool ourselves, this outcome is unlikely and time is running out. Democracies are weak when facing adversity and the S**storm is approaching fast.
why must there be ANY Europe's? what was wrong with Germany, Greece, Italy, Spain, etc...? Fuck the globalist collective bullshit!
you could as well ask why Putin is copying the EU, with his EurAsian Union. A trade and a currency union, btw
Then why should there be any United States for that matter? What was wrong with the colonies?
Probably the fact of British tyranny and no representation, among other grievances. Democracy is also a problem (mob rule, as in ancient history and current events). Representative republicanism is preferable so long as secession is a viable option. When a majoritarian sectional faction decides to depart from constitutional principles to impose some "holy" agenda without legitimately amending the constitution, well, then it's the devil to pay. You will need to fill your hands with iron.
Tyranny without representation? That would be Eastern Ukraine? So they deserve independance? Departing from constitutional principles? No, not the US? I look forward to an independant Texas! As for California, in a couple of years, they will be too busy digging for water to think about independance.
Wait, WHAT????
The question was in comparison to Europe. Why must there be a United States instead of a North Carolina, Texas, New Mexico....
Not some propagandized version of what the US.
To respond to the initial question. There does not need to be a United States. The original Federation was sold under the premise of limited powers ceded by independent States to a federation in order to facilitate commerce between the States and provide common defense. Of course, it has failed at both missions in a grand scale.
Accordingly, there does not need to be a EU. It is a superfluous power hungry organization that serves as the royalty of old. There is nothing preventing Germany and Italy from conducting trade pacts without an EU standing in its way.
Why does Putin want a trans European alliance? Because he is a power hungry psychopath.
It does not matter. It is all the same.
Cameron only responds to popular sentiment and plays this shit as Nobel Prize Moron Obama did. Remember "Change you Can Believe In"?
Everything will stay the same.
I challenge you. Nothing will change. Europe is a given.
Be cynical. Be very cynical
P.S. I think the 13% showing of UKIP, while not earth-shaking is a step in the right direction, no pun intended.
I like to stay positive, and from that perspective having Cameron is better than the alternative, because at least he has taken a position to fight the EU, and it will cost him some political capital to renege. The other major candidate hasn't even done that.
However, I also have to admit that Britain suffers from the same political defect that my home country of America suffers from.
Both nations are sort of trapped in a false dichotomy of conservative vs. liberal, where neither the conservatives nor the liberals truly advocate what the nations need to extricate themselves from the big government chokehold of the cabal.
In America, every candidate, regardless of party, needs to get the kosher seal of approval before they have any chance of making it onto a ballot. If they don't get this approval the cabal-controlled media will simply crush them with negative press - and they know it. Without throwing out the cabal there is no real chance to improve the country because none of the best candidates will ever run.
Our free speech, as preserved by the internet (at least so far), remains our primary weapon against the cabal-controlled MSM.
No Lars! Cameron definitely wants to stay in the EU, just re-negtiate the terms. Something which is ridiculous because he cannot possibly hope to renegotiate a treaty which will require the agreement of 26 other countries. That doesn't mean Cameron won't try and sell the stupid Brits some BS that he's managed to achieve some radical treaty changes.
http://market-guru.co.uk/uk-election-state-of-play/
Conservative Party 10,893,030 - 36.6% (Seats 317)
UKIP 3,736,717 - 12.6% (Seats 1)
When the establishment write the rules......................
As said above, we had a referendum 4 years ago, 66% said stay with first pass the post.
holy shit
Don't reform, remove ya ninnys!
can't wait for the election in 2016 here in USA..diebolt has already run the results wonder who the machines voted in?
I wonder if the algo's will be allowed to vote. After all, they are an extremely important part of the country's future.
The EU is dead
I hope so, but I think you're early.
"I hope that Mr. Cameron..." - there aren't enough shooting stars in this galaxy buddy, he is bought and paid for, which couldn't be any more obvious. He will impose what he is instructed to do.
The Fletcher Memorial Home can't come soon enough...
Let's be clear here, David Cameron has "promised" a referendum based on re-negotiated terms with the EU.
The EU has said they will not re-negotiate terms of membership.
No negotiations, no referendum. The negotiations part is and always was David Cameron's get out clause.
Just my view, the EU is an undemocratic economic and political madhouse.
Trust me on this: There will be no meaningful Referendum on EU exit.
I haven't followed any of this election or cared. I've long stopped believing that right or left 'government' matters, as they are just tools.
So, with no knowledge of this election, I will conclude that these promises are empty. After all, it would be the ONLY time in human history that a polotician has come through on his promises, or is not a pawn of their central bank policies.
Bureacracies are increasingly a "closed system" as they enlarge in size and power; the EU is nearing a complete closed system, which means it has nearly lost its original purposes as a representative entity.
"An isolated system that has no interaction with its external environment. Closed systems with outputs are knowable only thorough their outputs which are not dependent on the system being a closed or open system. Closed systems without any output are knowable only from within."
Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/closed-system.html#ixzz3ZYiTEI7w
The real Europe will now finally allow itself to enthusiastically welcome a departure of England from EU...the English regard themselves as more exceptional and elite than even the US does. EU is weary of Anglo-American exceptionalism and spying and warmongering and Russia-baiting and neoliberal CB worship and City of London led bankster fraud and plunder. Brexit (with Scottish breakaway and EU entry) cant come too soon
The Tory victory will change nothing. Why should it? Same people in charge. The only hope was Ukip but they badly disappointed.
The Labour Party must now learn its lesson and reform. Especially consequential to its defeat in Scotland which could not have been any more painfully obvious.
If the Labour Party is to regain its roots and its votes then it needs to change to be a lot more like the national (UK-wide, as contrasted with Scotland-specific) policies of the SNP (Scots National Party)
To be more like the SNP Labour will have to move more to the left, spend more and sod the consequences.
The SNP did well in this election, as opposed to elections to Holyrood that actually matter to the people of Scotland, because they could promise the earth without having to deliver. The electorates are not stupid.
Look how well UKIP did in the EU elections last year, winners, now reality has intruded so even Farage couldn't win and he was not close, UKIP did not win a single extra seat.
Labour has a deep problem, how to move to the centre ground when the Trade Unions control the money! Plus, expect the Conservatives to go ahead with the boundary changes that the Liberals broke their promise (give us PR vote and we will support it) on 4 years ago. Also expect English MP votes only on English matters.
No, the voters sent a clear message - they want the things in the SNP manifesto, not the things in the Labour Party manifesto.
The Labour Party needs to make its peace with the SNP and adopt most SNP policies - starting with Trident.
The voters in Scotland did not vote against the Labour Party because the Labour Party was insufficiently centrist.
Moving more to the centre - they might as well just give up and tell their members to join the Tory party. Not what the voters want, obviously. The lessons of yestersday's election could not be more obvious.
It seems that "economic prudence" means millions needing foodbanks, energy poverty, growing numbers of suicides, doubling of the wealth of the 1% since 2009, mass privatisation, and total subservience to US corporatism.
The great British public have demonstrated their complete lack of empathy, and growing selfishness, which is exactly what the globalist agenda has been designed to instill. They are going to live to regret it.
That's an absurdly low number you've come up with that barely scratches the surface of the damage done by the God bother contingent.