The social risk

The problem with answered questions is that they disappear, I suggest the origins shape the answer and the performance is a distraction from the past. The division is social but the problem is performance. The difficulty is finding an approach to the origins. It is about timing and ideology and is therefore misread. The answer is not conflict it is balance as different forces play their part.

The origins of Syria lie in international negotiation, the performance is by Russia and the assessment social. The outcome is a togetherness amongst the rebels and a Russian interpretation of the outcome.  The western approach has been less sure and a direct approach of negotiation. Russian leaders want truth on their side. The difficulty is the west appears timid in its approach.

I argue the future of Syria is a division, between locality and centre. The image is of resolution and the ideology organised. An internationalist fake is an important part of the process and has been used to confuse the public. The legal goal is separatist, the political one is retraction. I ask how the public are fooled and why.

Terror in northern cities

The economic crisis has undermined cities of growth, the direction of terrorism is crisis and the rural has become a centre of derision. This division is social in terms of age and political in its framework. I suggest tailored goals require understanding that is undermined. Manchester's bomb is a religious risk and the point is it is not a political one. The economic question has also undermined the nature of the religious division, solutions are negative and causes traditional. The rural makes it social in communities as a movement and the urban is divisive.

The terror is in northern economic endeavours and the goals are generational. The politics is decentralisation and the opposition closely involved with identity. The solution a growing sense of frustration with the political pressure, but the economics is decentered and decentralisation is goal led. I suggest the solution needs to match a direction fit for goals not politics. This means social is interactive and solving is goal reverse. As in city politics solutions appear undermined and inertia and growing city economies is housing and immigration.

The two geographical areas are economically different and politically. The urban has housing problems similar to other cities and rural spaces are unitary because of their framework, such as schools. The direction is goals and the psychology political. The frameworks are solitary and the politics derision and terrorism is in a vacuum. The idea is goals are unifying and frameworks set. The  basis is politics and the goals unifying. The settings economic and solution development.

North Korea

The politics of North Korea is divided between north and south because of natural geography and South Korea. I argue the leaders are less significant for local conflicts than institutions and international pressures. The north relies on conflict as a division, and the south prefers the north to its border relations with Seoul. I prefer a simple government structure to explain, but the leader would like complication to mask the power of his position.

The international pressures are social, about race and geography, sociology and population changes. The army is divided between elderly retainers and social ideologies. The goals of leaders tend to be less understood in the south, and frameworks like population growth suggest the north no longer wants to be divided from Seoul. The direction of communist politics also has an ally in China. Russia has become less interested in North Korea of late.

The Americans sent a fleet to the region, the communists asked to use nuclear weapons, I suggest the American stood down. This is less important than might seem, the growth of identity in the south has destabilised the leadership. The leader is less trapped than motionless, he argues the risk is high. The communists demand a hearing, I suggest America could play a role.

The silence in Europe is a shock, growth of elderly power is becoming divided by superpower relations. National politics has become a sideline and writers like myself have made the grade. The problem with America is the Congress refuses to accept identity with North Korea. Legitimacy is in China and the relationships depend on battleships. North Korea has not lost face, and everyone is on a  direct bearing.

Tony Blair's return to solvency has raised an elderly approach to  government that is left and accepted. The Chinese fear this political objectivity. As we enter a general election, the left is bothered more by Trump than Blair's identity with the system. Similarly the conservatives must hire the media to find a political threat to Trump. The framework is goals and hierarchies and the west is confused by bipolar disorder. The social identity of openness is framework and growth old age.

Syria and foreign relations

The system of international bias is strongest on Syria, the permanence of Assad is irrelevant and certain. The power is isolation and the threat to its allies made chemical weapons inevitable, how did the west react. The government of Britain exacerbated religious tensions and social upheaval, the US attack was also like chemical weapons, a kind of persuasion by political solution. I argue Syria was also not a necessary target for Russia and a part of military analysis. The effect is political stalemate and the division a east and west affair.

The implications are social for Russia, the leadership has got it wrong and the American President is sending a notice that it will persuade Russia to solve its international dilemma. Russia needs its international politics and Britain is no longer a partner. I suggest American politics will make convulsive reading. As in the campaign leadership of Trump is superior. Does this matter? Russia is politically dependent on foreign relations and Europe is not. The question is how do we solve this puzzle.

America is persuaded that foreign threats are best orchestrated and socially popular. The foreign impact needs to be light and the reception debatable. These cannot admit dialogue because this is a Russian problem. They can understand and attack those international pariahs. Syria is not in control and nor is an option of free will available, because togetherness is a negative response. The question is solutions are not a answer. Presidents cannot afford to undermine institutions and foreign relations are politically irregular, the answer is isolation.

The puzzle is independence and ideology is irregular, the wealth and potential of the Presidency is difficult to stop. Syria is in an impossible  position in foreign affairs. Russia is dependent on this kind of politics and must invoke the past. America must use money as. a solution. Britain is therefore isolated and a risk is Russian aggression. I argue Syria is a victim of foreign relations.

Brexit

The tool of wars is publicity and the background of globalisation is growth. Brexit appears to be a problem for Europe and Russia and its enemies are listening. The direction is framed by purpose, and the solution is identity. The global chapter is of a chance missed, and globalisation has a security network. I suggest European integration was a way out and only one man knew the cost.

China is part of this paradigm and so is Ukraine. The newspaper and the internet are opposites and like the paper ideologies require interpretation. The solution is division not nationalism and it means the direction could backfire. The integration is background reading and the news a political system with its images.

The social division is purchase and. politics is hierarchical, I suggest the context is identical to the politics and can't be hidden. Secrecy is the cause and solution in afterthought, l threaten identity with obviousness and system with ideology. The growth of globalisation is knowledge ideology and has achieved greatness.

The Economy of Risk

The governing elites undermine political issues, because the time is innocent of gender. The reason is social equality and the litmus test is inequality. The message is economies do not work on their own, and neither do governments. The risk social equality will be forgotten and politics remain a holy grail. The social is not a cause, it is a juggernaut and road signs are for the Police.

The solution is economic ethics, and the position is political equality, not the economic variant. The elite is not gender blind, and power a social reason. The internet is the economic tool and not a political example. I suggest writing will become economic satisfaction, meaning status. The ethics are reason and the power equality.

The growth of economic mechanisms is politically driven and the reason investment. Like the pension it is pay as you go. Like monetary union it is equal in class terms to organisation. I threaten social equality in my excuses, and politics is a client political relationship. The government is historical, not an actor and the Internet a role model like Julius Ceasar.

The ethics  are of organisation and equality, rent and plurality not suffering or growth. Nor are human rights, they are divisions of elitism and ethics dispel status. The rights fail to undermine status, and are ways of transposing law. Julius Caesar is a economic idol, not a social animal. He is politically contextualised and functionally inadequate.

Brexit

The power of Europe is its nearness, the threat can be through institutions and the influence can be organisational. I argue Europe can be traditional and economic. The problem is this is integrated and that is economic. I argue Europe will stay with us and other countries stay distant,we have voted for British nationalism.

The government is ideological with Brexit, there are different formulas, nations have protected themselves through Europe and the EU, I suggest there is now more threat without these avenues. The Single Market disablement is the end of globalisation. The future is a British nation and social dislocation based on a national economic model.

The threat is to avoid this reality for all parties and the politics is more openness not less. The threat is policy will retreat and politics radicalise. The system is political and the social idealistic, the government laughing and the authority enhanced. This means the right and enough acceptance for a social dislocation.

The right is disabled by Europe, and the left squeezed by the present. The future is not growth, as Europe is an uncomfortable reality. The economic system is framed by all of this and liberalism is the winner. The evidence is not there that the right have an argument. How much does this matter? Finance and regionalism are at stake, but investment may continue and the city. These statements suggest a continuity and this has messages for the small parties.

The left have miscalculated and the right are raising false hopes. The losers are government identity and the politics will have a foreign flavour. Brexit will recede and the Europeans stay distant. The finance is ideological and the future is identifiable. The system is liberal and financial institutions are identifiable. The politics remains Westminster and the social damaged by ideological risks.

The conclusion is ideological threat are social and economic division is political.  The growth depends on politics, but the mainstream institutions continue in the same direction. The difference is political and the change in employment in quality. The winners are the left and identity restraints are stronger. The economic ones are also.