The EU and UK budget

The EU built our motorways and our bridges and money was paid from the EU in structural funds to accomplish it. An approach of integration and a resort to blackmail, but also a way of getting around British budget discipline. The British budget did similar things for the EU and the recent events show  that separation is not easy and can last a minimum number of years. The problem is building and decay and the future is construction and surplus. The budget has always been observed publicly and the the moeny from our pensions was earmarked for Britain, not other EU countries. The new budget will have to raise taxes and the direction will be left not right, because money is flowing outwards.

The integration of the UK is not regarded in a EU method, but Scotland is mindful of British taxes spent on their position. The south is less interested, the City is going down with disintegration and the investment is going into a split method of location. More money will go European because of enlargement and adjustment to British localism. The money for the English has to be reallocated to pension support and employment creation, in the the Thatcher years money fled. Hence the UK  is reallocated taxes that are not there, and the EU  is finding it a bad future portfolio.

I argue Boris. Johnson has a foreign perspective on disintegration as did the UK on Scotland. The EU budget is not a social budget, it is political and economic, so Britain with its expansive social policy will loose out when disintegration takes place. The money on agriculture is political, as is new kinds of industrial organisation. The EU has no city, but inhibits identity that suggests this is the case, Britain will hang its head in shame if it is a city depression. The future of employment needs to change to overcome these obstacles, and only this will be enough. Hardly monetarism, and suggests reliance on social issues.

The global picture is also unsettling, the power of the institutions is directed domestically and towards Europe, and the profit is ideological and top heavy, dependent on foreign bonus culture and it suggests domestic policy sillier than in the 1930s. The democracy has been an ideological tool in Europe and undermined economic principles. The sustainability of ideology against neighbours that can't access your markets is hopeless. The critical juncture is economic, not political and is not being understood. No oil, no domestic industry and taxation hss a low turnout position that is enough to sink the policy.

British taxes

The EU tax regime is obviously at stake in Brexit, higher taxes on the working class and lower organisational levels in national insurance, the tax threshold is getting higher. The future of tax is important without EU dangers, not just publicity but means of collection and decision-making procedures. These are VAT and interest rates and the income tax is difficult to change in this environment. Local businesses are fearing the worst and likely to hit by low trade levels. Industry requires networks and the City organised dealing, none of these are any easier with a fixed income tax. The reason is political as well as social, its not support for the EU, but ideological ambitions which shape taxes and without these institutions taxes must rise.

In the long term the structure is robust and only mistakes will shatter this critical juncture's legacy. Pensions require a sound investment portfolio and war is not helpful other than starting the revolution. Economically several avenues are available. Low investment. high taxes or structural deficits, the reason the structure of EU trade, it unlike Kondratiev is rising and this means a shortfall. The tax also requires investment, something not heard these days in the City. The tax is equal risk and universal benefit, hardly the beginning of growth. Changes require solid money and this means external investment, unfortunately this is not a tax plan. No security, no solution doesn't work in the medium term, because of income tax and degrees of redistribution like small businesses.

New taxes are less likely to work, the poll tax was directed towards high receivers of the national cake, it fell because of the crash and only organised resistance prevented an insurgency. We hear the barricades of tax resistance, do we hear political planning for EU taxes. The economy is not a support system for taxation, but is a social leveller and taxation can become an important issue. The Lloyds of London is a investment vehicle,  the tax should besprent on an equal basis. Private equity is balanced and political in distribution, slightly political in legitimacy and a fall in the predictive value of institutions is penalty accruing.

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.