PM Liz Truss came in as a new leader in the UK and said she will always act in the national interest. “Growing the economy remains our mission, ensuring people can get good jobs, new businesses can flourish and families can afford an even better life,” she tweeted a few days ago.
Liz Truss and the Conservative Party stand for low taxes, free markets, deregulation, privatization, and reduced government spending and government debt. Social conservatives see traditional social values, often rooted in familial, and religion.
PM Liz Truss cannot do what she was planning to do, and therefore she and her party had a U-turn and walked away from their agenda. Instead, we see the opposite of what she stands for, but now under Jeremy Hunt.
The opposite isn`t funny at all. Just ask people in Greece, and we know what they have gone thru. Austerity seems to be the next step in the UK. It also happened under PM David Cameron in 2009.
The term «age of austerity», which had previously been used to describe the years immediately following World War II, was popularised by Conservative Pary leader David Cameron.
High inflation, high taxation, and the removal of temporary COVID-era support measures culminated in a cost-of-living crisis late last year. Policies during late 2021 were referred to as the second era of austerity by some commentators.
The second austerity period took place during the premierships of Boris Johnson and Liz Truss, and the austerity program included reductions in welfare spending, the cancellation of school building programs, reductions in local government funding, and an increase in VAT.
Spending on the police, courts, and prisons was also reduced. A number of quangos were abolished, merged, or reduced as a result of the 2010 UK quango reforms.
Researchers have linked budget cuts and sanctions against benefit claimants to the increasing use of food banks. The use of food banks almost doubled between 2013 and 2017.
The UK`s government austerity program is a fiscal policy adopted in the early 21st century following the Great Recession. It started last year when the cost of the living crisis started.
The government claimed that it was a deficit reduction program consisting of sustained reductions in public spending and tax rises, intended to reduce the government budget deficit and the role of the welfare state in the UK.
Some observers accept this claim, but scholars have suggested that in fact its primary, largely unstated, aim, like most austerity policies, was to restore the rate of profit.
The Conservative government claimed that the National Health Service and education have been “ringfenced” and protected from direct spending cuts, but between 2010 and 2019 more than £30 billion in spending reductions have been made to welfare payments, housing subsidies, and social services.
The effects of United Kingdom austerity policies have proved controversial and the policies have received criticism from a variety of politicians and economists. Anti-austerity movements have been formed among citizens more generally.
This makes it very difficult for Liz Truss to continue as PM, and therefore, she resigned today.
In her speech today, she said that she was elected to change the UK`s low growth. Her vision was low taxes to make a high-growth economy take advantage of the freedoms of Brexit. But, she cannot deliver the mandate on which she was elected by the Conservative Party.
There will be a leadership election next week. This will ensure that they will remain on the path to deliver the fiscal plans, and maintain the UK`s stable economy, and national security. Liz Truss will remain as PM until a successor has been chosen.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and may not reflect those of Shinybull.com. The author has made every effort to ensure the accuracy of the information provided; however, neither Shinybull.com nor the author can guarantee such accuracy. This article is strictly for informational purposes only. It is not a solicitation to make any exchange in precious metal products, commodities, securities, or other financial instruments. Shinybull.com and the author of this article do not accept culpability for losses and/ or damages arising from the use of this publication.
Boris Johnson is out because he went too much on the left side. PM Liz Truss came in, but she`s also in trouble because Jeremy Hunt didn`t like her tax cuts. Farage believes he`s a globalist asset. Hunt is reversing most of PM`s flagship «mini-budget» tax cuts.
Jeremy Hunt was beaten by Boris Johnson in 2019. Hunt is also the man who was knocked out in the first round of the leadership contest this year. According to Farage, Hunt is not just a Chancellor. He`s running the country. He believes it`s a globalist coup.
Joe Biden like this a lot. He`s so delighted. The IMF, OECD, BOE, the treasury, and the Chancellor of Germany are all over the moon. They all want a bigger state, with more significant taxes, and that was the sin of what was proposed by Kwaseng. He wanted people to keep more of their own money, and perhaps in time reduce the size of the state.
The conservative party stands for lower taxes. Like the conservative party in the United States. It`s their main goal. Their agenda. Furthermore, they stand for individual freedom, limited government, peace through strength, and free markets to name a few.
This is a historic moment. I have never seen something like this before. What a mess. Political chaos. The United Kingdom is in trouble. Economically, but also socially. It will take some time to get out of this mess.
Hunt wants people to pay more taxes because he wants a bigger government. He wants small businesses to pay more tax, and they have declared war on the self-employed, according to Farage. Taxes on small companies will rise significantly. In addition, there will be a major rise in corporation taxes and dividend taxes.
Wall Street bank, Goldman Sachs came out with a note on Sunday, and they see a deeper UK recession after the tax U-turn.
Goldman Sachs downgraded Britain`s outlook, and revised its 2023 economic output forecast to a 1% contraction from an earlier forecast for a 0,4% output drop, with core inflation seen at 3,1% at the end of 2023, down from 3,3% previously.
«Folding in weaker growth momentum, significantly tighter financial conditions, and the higher corporation tax from next April, we downgrade our UK growth outlook further and now expect a more significantly recession,» Goldman analysts led by Sven Jari Stehn said in a note dated Sunday.
«The persistence of core inflation and the continued tightness in the labor market suggests that the BoE still needs to take more monetary policy into significantly contractionary territory,» Goldman analysts wrote.
«That said, following PM Truss`s policy reversal we think there is less pressure for the BoE to act aggressively in the coming meetings,» they added.
Experts believe Liz Truss will be out as Prime Minister within weeks. So, this is how a democracy is working? Who voted for Hunt with his left-wing policy?
The statement that was made by Hunt earlier today is just in line with the leftist Labor party. It seems like the Tory party is dead. So, what`s the point of a conservative right-wing party at all?
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and may not reflect those of Shinybull.com. The author has made every effort to ensure the accuracy of the information provided; however, neither Shinybull.com nor the author can guarantee such accuracy. This article is strictly for informational purposes only. It is not a solicitation to make any exchange in precious metal products, commodities, securities, or other financial instruments. Shinybull.com and the author of this article do not accept culpability for losses and/ or damages arising from the use of this publication.
Peaceful Buddhist monks without any weapons can demonstrate on the streets in Myanmar, but the military junta government with weapons can kill them if they want, and that have happened. What`s even worse is their systemic killings of the Rohingya minorities. That’s Genocide.
For most of its independent years, Myanmar has been engrossed in rampant ethnic strife and its myriad ethnic groups have been involved in one of the world`s longest-running ongoing civil wars. Myanmar is an ethnically diverse nation with 135 distinct ethnic groups officially recognized by the Burmese military Government.
The UN and several other organizations have reported consistent and systemic human rights violations in the country.
In 2011, the military junta was officially dissolved following a 2010 general election, and a nominally civilian government was installed. This, along with the release of Aung San Suu Kyi and political prisoners and successful elections in 2015, had improved the country`s human rights record and foreign relations and had led to the easing of trade and other economic sanctions, although the country`s treatment of its ethnic minorities, particularly in connection with the Rohingya conflict, continued to be condemned by international organizations and many nations.
Following the 2020 Myanmar general election, in which Aung San Suu Kyi`s won a clear majority in both houses, the Burmese military again seized power in a coup d’etat.
The coup, which was widely condemned, led to widespread protests in Myanmar and has been marked by a violent response by the military.
The military junta also arrested Aung San Suu Kyi and charged her with crimes ranging from corruption to the violation of Covid protocols, all of which have been labeled «politically motivated» by independent observers.
Aung San Suu Kyi is a Burmese politician, diplomat, author, and a 1991 Nobel Peace Prize laureate who served as State Counsellor of Myanmar and Minister of Foreign Affairs from 2016 to 2021.
The Rohingya people have consistently faced human rights abuses by the Burmese regime that has refused to acknowledge them as Burmese citizens, despite the fact that some of them have lived in Burma for over three generations.
The Rohingya have been denied Burmese citizenship since the enactment of a 1982 citizenship law.
The law created three categories of citizenship:
citizenship
associate citizenship, and
naturalised citizenship
Citizenship is given to those who belong to one of the national races such as Kachin, Kayah (Karenni), Karen, Chin, Burman, Mon, Rakhine, Shan, Kaman, or Zebedee.
Associate citizenship is given to those who cannot prove their ancestors settled in Myanmar before 1823 but can prove they have one grandparent, or pre-1823 ancestor, who was a citizen of another country, as well as people who applied for citizenship in 1948 and qualified then by those laws.
Naturalized citizenship is only given to those who have at least one parent with one of these types of Burmese citizenship or can provide «conclusive evidence» that their parents entered and resided in Burma prior to independence in 1948.
The Burmese regime has attempted to forcibly expel Rohingya and bring in non-Rohingya to replace them.
This policy has resulted in the expulsion of approximately half of the 800,000 Rohingya from Burma, while the Rohingya people have been described as «among the world`s least wanted», and «one of the world`s most persecuted minorities».
But the origin of the «most persecuted minority» statement is unclear.
Rohingya are not allowed to travel without official permission, are banned from owning land, and are required to sign a commitment to have no more than two children.
As of July 2012, the Myanmar government does not include the Rohingya minority group, classified as stateless Bengali Muslims from Bangladesh since 1982, on the government`s list of more than 130 ethnic races and, therefore, the government states that they have no claim to Myanmar citizenship.
In 2007, German professor Bassam Tibi suggested that the Rohingya conflict may be driven by an Islamist political agenda to impose religious laws, while non-religious causes have also been raised, such as a lingering resentment over the violence that occurred during the Japanese occupation of Burma in World War II.
During this time period, the British allied themselves with the Rohingya and fought against the puppet government of Burma (composed mostly by Bamar Japanese) that helped to establish the Tatmadaw military organization that remains in power for a 5-year lapse in 2016 – 2021.
Since the democratic transition began in 2011, there has been continuous violence in Myanmar. A UN envoy reported in March 2013 that unrest had re-emerged between Myanmar`s Buddhist and Muslim communities.
Yesterday, the Biden administration declared that the military junta in Myanmar has committed genocide against the Rohingya minority. The Biden administration has enough evidence to say that the junta has a clear intent to destroy the Rohingya.
The evidence of killings is mass rape and arson, Secretary of State Antony Blinken said on Monday.
Antony Blinken had a speech at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington DC, and he said that the killings of the Rohingya minority were «widespread and systematic». Hundreds of thousands of Rohingya Muslims have fled Myanmar since the military crackdown that began in 2017.
Mr. Blinken announced the US would provide $1 million in new funding for the Independent Investigative Mechanism for Myanmar, which continues to examine atrocities. A case against Myanmar, also called Burma, was opened at the International Court of Justice in 2019.
«The day will come when those responsible for these appalling acts will have to answer for them», Mr. Blinken said.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and may not reflect those of Shinybull.com. The author has made every effort to ensure the accuracy of the information provided; however, neither Shinybull.com nor the author can guarantee such accuracy. This article is strictly for informational purposes only. It is not a solicitation to make any exchange in precious metal products, commodities, securities, or other financial instruments. Shinybull.com and the author of this article do not accept culpability for losses and/ or damages arising from the use of this publication.
What president or prime minister won`t protect its own country and its own citizens? Most of the countries around the world have their own foreign policy, which is their activities in relation to their interactions with other states, unions, and other political entities.
Diplomacy has been practiced for a very long time. The idea of long-term management of relationships followed the development of professional diplomatic corps that managed diplomacy. Since 1711, the term diplomacy has been taken to mean the art and practice of conducting negotiations between representatives of groups or nations.
In the 18th century, due to extreme turbulence in European diplomacy and ongoing conflicts, the practice of diplomacy was often fragmented by the necessity to deal with isolated issues, termed «affairs».
Organizations such as the Council of Foreign Relations in the United States are sometimes employed by government foreign relations organizations to develop foreign policy proposals as alternatives to an existing policy, or to provide analytical assessments of evolving relationships.
There are several objectives that may motivate a government`s foreign policy. Among other reasons, foreign policy may be directed for defense and security, for economic benefit, or to provide assistance to states that need it.
All foreign policy objectives are interconnected and contribute to a single, comprehensive foreign policy for each state. Unlike domestic policy, foreign policy issues tend to arise suddenly in response to developments and major events in foreign countries.
Foreign policy is often directed for the purpose of ensuring national security.
Governments have historically formed military alliances with foreign states in order to deter and show stronger resistance to attack. Foreign policy also focuses on combating adversarial states through soft power, international isolation, or war.
In the 21st century, defensive foreign policy has expanded to address the threat of global terrorism. Foreign measures such as foreign aid and financial sanctions are believed to decrease terrorist activity, while military intervention and military aid risk increase terrorist activity.
Foreign policy is central to a country`s role within the world economy and international trade. Economic foreign policy issues may include the establishment of trade agreements, the distribution of foreign aid, and the management of imports and exports. The World Trade Organization facilitates the economic foreign policies of most countries.
Superpowers are able to project power and exercise their influence across the world, while great powers and middle powers have moderate influence in global affairs.
Small powers have less ability to exercise influence unilaterally, as they have fewer economic and military resources to leverage. As a result, they are more likely to support international and multilateral organizations.
The diplomatic bureaucracies of smaller states are also smaller, which limits their capacity to engage in complex diplomacy. Smaller states may seek to ally themselves with larger countries for economic and defensive benefits, or they may avoid involvement in international disputes so as to remain on friendly terms with all countries.
The political institutions and forms of government play a role in a country`s foreign policy. In a democracy, public opinion and the methods of political representation both affect a country`s foreign policy.
Democratic countries are also believed to be less likely to resort to military conflict with one another.
Autocratic states are less likely to use legalism in their foreign policies. Under a dictatorship, a state`s foreign policy may depend heavily on the preferences of the dictator. Dictators that interfere significantly with their foreign policy apparatus may be less predictable and more likely to make foreign policy blunders.
The Monroe Doctrine was a United States foreign policy position that opposed European colonialism in the Western Hemisphere. It held that any intervention in the political affairs of the Americas by foreign powers was a potentially hostile act against the U.S.
The doctrine was central to U.S foreign policy for much of the 19th and early 20th centuries.
President James Monroe first articulated the doctrine on December 2, 1823, during his seventh annual State of the Union Address to Congress. At the time, nearly all Spanish colonies in the Americas had either achieved or were close to independence.
Monroe asserted that the New World and the Old World were to remain distinctly separate spheres of influence, and thus further efforts by European powers to control or influence sovereign states in the region would be viewed as a threat to U.S security.
In turn, the U.S would recognize and not interfere with existing European colonies nor meddle in the internal affairs of European countries.
By the end of the 19th century, Monroe`s declaration was seen as a defining moment in the foreign policy of the United States and one of its longest-standing tenets. The intent and effect of the doctrine persisted for over a century, with only small variations, and would be invoked by many U.S statesmen and several U.S presidents, including Ulysses S. Grant, Theodore Roosevelt, John F. Kenndy, and Ronald Reagan.
After 1898, the Monroe Doctrine was reinterpreted by Latin American lawyers and intellectuals as promoting multilateralism (an alliance of multiple countries pursuing a common goal) and non-intervention.
Despite the United States’ beginnings as an isolationist country, the foundation of the Monroe Doctrine was already laid even during George Washington`s presidency. According to S.E. Morison, «as early as 1783, then, the United States adopted the policy of isolation and announced its intention to keep out of Europe.
Alexander Hamilton wanted to establish the United States as a world power and hoped that it would suddenly become strong enough to keep the European powers outside of the Americas, despite the fact that the European countries controlled much more of the Americas than the U.S herself.
Hamilton expected that the United States would become the dominant power in the New World and would, in the future, act as an intermediary between the European powers and any new countries blossoming near the U.S.
Great Britain shared the general objective of the Monroe Doctrine and even wanted to declare a joint statement to keep other European powers from further colonizing the New World.
The U.S government feared the victorious European powers that emerged from the Congress of Vienna (1814 – 1815) would revive monarchical government. France had already agreed to restore the Spanish monarchy in exchange for Cuba.
As the revolutionary Napoleonic Wars (1803 – 1815) ended, Prussia, Austria, and Russia formed the Holy Alliance to defend monarchism. In particular, the Holy Alliance authorized military incursions to re-establish Bourbon rule over Spain and its colonies, which were establishing their independence.
(The Holy Alliance was a coalition linking the monarchist great powers of Austria, Prussia, and Russia. It was created after the final defeat of Napoleon at the behest of Emperor (Tsar) Alexander I of Russia and signed in Paris on 26 September 1815. The alliance aimed to restrain liberalism and secularism in Europe in the wake of the devastating French Revolutionary Wars and the Napoleonic Wars, and it nominally succeeded in this until the Crimean War).
About three months after the Final Act of the Congress of Vianna, the monarchs of Catholic (Austria), Protestant (Prussia), and Orthodox (Russia) confession promised to act on the basis of «justice, love, and peace», both in internal and foreign affairs, for «consolidating human institutions and remedying their imperfections».
The British feared their trade with the New World would be harmed if the other European powers further colonized it. In fact, for many years after the doctrine took effect, Britain, through the Royal Navy, was the sole nation enforcing it, the U.S lacking sufficient naval capability.
The U.S resisted a joint statement because of the recent memory of the War of 1812, however, the immediate provocation was the Russian Ukase of 1821 asserting rights to the Pacific Northwest and forbidding non-Russian ships from approaching the coast.
In 1902, Canadian Prime Minister Wilfrid Laurier acknowledged that the Monroe Doctrine was essential to his country`s protection.
The doctrine provided Canada with a de facto security guarantee by the United States, the US Navy in the Pacific, and the British Navy in the Atlantic, making invading North America almost impossible. Because of the peaceful relations between the two countries, Canada could assist Britain in a European war without having to defend itself at home.
Scholars such as Neil Smith have written that Woodrow Wilson effectively proposed a «Global Monroe Doctrine» expanding US supremacy over the entire world. Some analysts assert that this prerogative for indirect control and sporadic invasions and occupations across the planet has largely come to fruition with the American superpower role since World War II.
Such an expansion of the doctrine is premised on the «normal equality» of independent states. Such superficial equality is often undermined by material inequality, making the US a de facto global empire.
Smith argued that the founding of the United Nations played a role in the establishing of this global protectorate situation.
After World War II began, a majority of Americans supported defending the entire Western Hemisphere against foreign invasion. A 1940 national survey found that 81% supported defending Canada, 75% Mexico and Central America, 69% South America, 66% West Indies, and 59% Greenland.
In 1954, Secretary of State John Foster Dulles invoked the Monroe Doctrine at the 10th Pan-American Conference in Caracas, Venezuela, denouncing the intervention of Soviet Communism in Guatemala. President John F. Kennedy said at an August 29, 1962 news conference:
The Monroe Doctrine means what it has meant since President Monroe and John Quincy Adams enunciated it, and that is that we would oppose a foreign power extending its power to the Western Hemisphere, and that is why we oppose what is happening in Cuba today.
That is why we have cut off our trade. That is why we worked in the OAS (Organization of American States) and in other ways to isolate the Communist menace in Cuba. That is why we will continue to give a good deal of our effort and attention to it.
During the Cold War, the Monroe Doctrine was applied to Latin America by the farmers of US foreign policy. When the Cuban Revolution (1953 – 1959) established a Communist government with ties to the Soviet Union, it was argued that the Monroe Doctrine should be invoked to present the spread of Soviet-backed Communism in Latin America.
Under this rationale, the U.S provided intelligence and military aid to Latin and South American governments that claimed or appeared to be threatened by Communist subversion (as in the case of Operation Condor).
In the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, President John F. Kennedy cited the Monroe Doctrine as grounds of the United States’ confrontation with the Soviet Union over the installation of Soviet ballistic on Cuban soil.
The debate over this new interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine burgeoned in reaction to the Iran-Contra affair. It was revealed that the U.S CIA had been covertly training «Contra» guerrilla soldiers in Honduras in an attempt to destabilize and overthrow the Sandinista revolutionary government of Nicaragua and its president, Daniel Ortega.
CIA director Robert Gates vigorously defended the Contra operation in 1984, arguing that eschewing U.S intervention in Nicaragua would be «totally to abandon the Monroe Doctrine».
President Barack Obama`s Secretary of State John Kerry told the OAS in November 2013 that the «era of the Monroe Doctrine is over».
Several commentators have noted that Kerry`s call for a mutual partnership with the other countries in the Americas is more in keeping with Monroe`s intentions than the policies enacted after his death.
President Donald Trump implied potential use of the doctrine in August 2017 when he mentioned the possibility of military intervention in Venezuela after his CIA Director Mike Pompeo declared that the nation`s deterioration was the result of interference from Iranian- and Russian-backed groups.
In February 2018, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson praised the Monroe Doctrine as «clearly…..a success», warning of «imperial» Chinese trade ambitions and touting the United States as the region`s preferred trade partner.
Trump reiterated his commitment to the implementation of the Monroe Doctrine at the 73rd UN General Assembly in 2018. Vasily Nebenzya criticized the US for what the Russian Federation perceives as an implementation of the Monroe Doctrine at the 8452nd emergency meeting of the United Nations Security Council on January 26, 2019.
Venezuela`s representative listed 27 interventions in Latin America that Venezuela considers to be implementations of the Monroe Doctrine, and stated that, in the context of the statements, they consider it «a direct military threat to the Bolivian Republic of Venezuela».
Cuba`s representative formulated a similar opinion, «The current Administration of the United States of America has declared the Monroe Doctrine to be in effect…..».
On March 3, 2019, National Security Advisor John Bolton invoked the Monroe Doctrine in describing the Trump administration`s policy in the Americas, saying «In this administration, we`re not afraid to use the word Monroe Doctrine….. It`s been the objective of American presidents going back to President Ronald Reagan to have a completely democratic hemisphere.
Noam Chomsky argues that in practice the Monroe Doctrine has been used by the U.S government as a declaration of hegemony and a right of unilateral intervention over the Americas.
When we talk about great power politics, rights in the final analysis just don`t matter. Might makes right, according to John Mearsheimer
In international politics, states usually pay attention to international law. They also pay attention to moral precepts as long as they`re in their strategic interests. But if there is a conflict between international law and a country`s strategic interests, the country will always privilege its strategic interests, and international law and human rights will be pushed off the table.
This is why Mearsheimer thinks it`s not very helpful to talk about rights. When you talk about whether Russia has the right to have a buffer state, or Ukraine has the right to have its own foreign policy. These are concepts that get you into all sorts of trouble.
In the international system; «MIGHT MAKES RIGHT».
For example; the United States would never tolerate a situation where Canada or Mexico invited in a legal way, China to bring military forces into Toronto or Mexico City.
The U.S has the Monroe Doctrine which is in the U.S’ strategic interest, and the Monroe Doctrine says; no distant great power is allowed to put military forces in the Western Hemisphere. Period. End of story.
What the Russians are doing is they`re basically articulating their own version of the Monroe Doctrine. They`re saying you cannot turn Ukraine into a Western bastion on our border. That has nothing to do with rights.
It doesn`t matter whether Ukraine has the right to do this or that. Putin and Russia are saying they can`t do it. Just like the U.S is saying that Cuba can`t invite the Soviets to bring military forces into the Western Hemisphere.
Rights just don`t matter. MIGHT MAKES RIGHT.
Those who can`t put themselves in Putin`s shoes have a huge problem.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and may not reflect those of Shinybull.com. The author has made every effort to ensure the accuracy of the information provided; however, neither Shinybull.com nor the author can guarantee such accuracy. This article is strictly for informational purposes only. It is not a solicitation to make any exchange in precious metal products, commodities, securities, or other financial instruments. Shinybull.com and the author of this article do not accept culpability for losses and/ or damages arising from the use of this publication.
It`s funny to watch Great Britain and the United States at the moment. In the U.S, the conservatives lost the election and Biden and his left wing democrat administration won. In the U.K, Boris Johnson and his conservative friends won in a landslide. The same can not be said about Biden.
They are both outside of the EU and Trump and Johnson was considered to be a win against socialism. Take a look at the slogan Johnson has; Build back better. They are leaving the business club EU and want to build back better.
But take a look at Biden and his slogan; Build back better. Biden and the democrats wants to build back what Trump did. They are on two different planets, with two different world views.
Everything has been great with the Labour Party for years, but they have been in trouble before. One of the most deprived areas of the UK, the blue-collar port saws its steel industry collapse in the 1970s and 80s and the unemployment rate remains among the highest in the century.
Politically, it`s backed the Labour Party at every UK election for almost half a century, but then came Brexit.
As of April 12, Boris Johnson`s approval rating remain very high at 70%. Not only that. Brexit has also a 70% approval rating, so there is not doubt that the people in Great Britain support the conservatives and Brexit.
According to Nigel Farage, the Labour Party is finish in England. The country is about the change rapidly. Queen Elizabeth said in the Parliament a few days ago that the UK will strengthen the borders. Legislation will also be introduced to ensure the integrity of elections.
They saw what happened in Georgia during the U.S election and learned from the mistakes in the U.S. Dead voters will have problems to vote if they have to show up personally with a picture on the voting day.
Freedom of speech will also be protected. This is very similar to whats happening the U.S. They are both about the change rapidly. What a interesting world we are living in.
To contact the author: post@shinybull.com
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and may not reflect those of Shinybull.com. The author has made every effort to ensure the accuracy of the information provided; however, neither Shinybull.com nor the author can guarantee such accuracy. This article is strictly for informational purposes only. It is not a solicitation to make any exchange in precious metal products, commodities, securities, or other financial instruments. Shinybull.com and the author of this article do not accept culpability for losses and/ or damages arising from the use of this publication.
Ket Garden
Shiny bull 