On 12 May, 00:12, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > A rather naive interpretation of the British Constitution Orn. I'll > be able to explain once someone works out whatever that is! It looks > as though we will have a Lib/Con coalition now, subject to votes > within the Liberal Democratic Party.
I prefer to think of it as "Living in a Con-Dem-Nation". At least they chose Hague for Foreign Sec.; that was a decent choice. >All the pundits are claiming to > know what the British voters have said, but none actually ask us. > Lizzie is a procedural phenomenon with no actual power to do > anything. Apparently we need strong, lasting government to satisfy > the "markets" and we never have any vote about them. > Whilst our electoral farce trundled on, Europe got round to > quantitative easing to catch up with the US and UK in buying up its > debt electronically. This puts power in the hands of the European > Commission and Central Bank, and we don't get a vote for them either. > Are you suggesting that WWII isn't really over and that we're now fighting on the 'economic front'? After all, we recently had another Dunkirk evacuation, albeit due to the ash cloud from the Icelandic volcano. If this IS the case, then, so far...score one for the Holy Roman Empire--you remember them? They weren't holy, nor Roman, nor an empire. That was clearly an early exercise in political correctness for the naming of an area. Actually, Lizzie DOES have some power left, although if she ever used it, that would be the last time any monarch in the UK ever did. Except for the odd monarch butterfly. First on the Con-Dem list of things to do is a bit of gerrymandering. Once that's done, it may end up assuring another hung parliament, as the gerrymandering would have to satisfy both the Conservatives AND the Lib-Dems. Unless, of course, the UK decides to 'save' the Republic of Ireland from the European 'economic killing fields' by declaring it a protectorate with the right to vote Conservative. Then, the country's, once again, safe in Tory hands. And, yes, that IS sarcastic. ;-) Alternatively, there's the chance that Cameron could offer payments to New Labour (which is practically Conservative) MPs and get them to change parties, thus affording the Conservatives the majority they require. Much like the buying of the Roman Empire...back in the good ol' days. ;-) > On 11 May, 16:28, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/05/07/uk.election.queen/- Hide > >quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
