"They received the Word with all readiness of mind and searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so.  Therefore many believed."--Acts 17:11

Berean Christadelphians

Index

For Further Information Contact:  Jim Phillips

 
Berean Christadelphians
Register Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment  
JimPhillips

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 924
Reply with quote  #1 
Tomorrow (May 7) marks a big day in the future of Britain.  It is notable that both principle candidates claim it is the most important election in Britain's history.  Yet neither candidate appears (and I stress "appears" as only God knows) to have any chance of winning a majority, both probably being able to claim about 33% of the electorate.

The election is interesting to us on several fronts.  First and foremost, we all look for Britain to be out of the European Union prior to the return of Christ.  The incumbent Prime Minister and Conservative (and that term must not be understood in the American way, a we would consider a British Conservative to be a Fascist) candidate David Cameron has promised an election to the British people on what over there is called Brixit. or the British exit from the European Union, in 2017. 

A victory by the Labour (Socialist) Party Candidate Ed Miliband would appear to have a devastating effect on Britain and Bible Prophesy.  Miliband is dedicated to keeping Britain in the EU, and is opposed to strengthening her military, desiring to retreat even further from the world's stage.  The British government under Mr. Cameron recognize the need to update the Trident Submarine force, and Mr. Miliband opposes this, and is dedicated to removing Britain's nuclear capability altogether.

The paradox is that if Mr. Miliband is to put together a government, he will have to join with SNP, the Scottish National Party, which calls itself liberal Democrat, which in America, we would consider Socialist.  So they would have an economic kinship with Labour.  But the SNP has been very dedicated to the secession of Scotland from the UK.  So the UK would end up in the odd position of having a governing coalition, where one party is dedicated to destroying the status quo of the government.  Indeed Mr. Miliband joined with Mr. Cameron to sweeten the pot for those wishing to continue Scotland in the UK, (called "Better Together" campaign) and drew the anger of the SNP in the last secession election.  Indeed the principle face of the "Better Together" campaign which defeated SNP was Alistair Darling, a principle in the Labour Party.  So that relationship will be strained at best.

Meanwhile, if Mr. Cameron is to put together a government, he will have to do so with UKIP, (United Kingdom Independence Party) which is probably the party that most closely resembles America's Republicans, and Mr. Cameron has spoken of UKIP with all the affection that moderate (Crony Capitalists) Republican's have for the true Constitutional Conservatives, like Ted Cruz.  A UKIP alliance will force Mr. Cameron's hand on the European Union, as UKIP is unwavering in their opposition to British participation in the EU.  But UKIP will push Mr. Cameron much farther towards liberty, than Mr. Cameron will want to go.

This will likely not be settled tomorrow, as the various entities will need much time to try to figure out how to make the potential alliances work. 

 

JimPhillips

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 924
Reply with quote  #2 
I just noticed an article bro. Steve sent by email, which is discussing the British election, that:
Quote:
According to Israel-based newspaper Haaretz, the consensus among Israeli diplomats in London is that “we have never had such a pro-Israel prime minister.


This is obviously an attempt by Israel to encourage the Jewish population to vote for the Conservatives, as they are likely to do, anyhow.  Ed Miliband, a "Jew hating Jew" as we call them in this country, would be devastating for Israel. 

But it does create an interesting question.  Who was the best British PM for Israel.  Note:  It is definitely not Mr. Cameron.

My vote would go to "the Welch Wizard,"  from the old Liberal Party, Prime Minister David Lloyd George.  It was George who approved the Balfour Declaration, and whose consistent and unwavering testimony to various courts of inquiry, years after he left office, left no doubt that the intent of the Balfour Declaration was to establish the Nation of Israel. 

I think Maggie Thatcher may have been a greater friend to Israel, apart from Jimmy Carter.  I think she feared the seriousness of American's commitment to Israel, due to this anti Semitic President, and thus Israel's viability.  She then took steps, too many steps in my opinion, to ingratiate herself to the "moderate" Arabs.  (Is there any such thing?)  Her insistence that Israel recognize Fatah, was the last straw for Begin.  But she clearly did not approve of Menachem Begin and his government, and actively worked against Israel during his rule.  (Begin, as a leader in the Irgun was the bomber of the King David Hotel, when it was Britain's headquarters, (taking 91 lives) following Black Sabbath, the British invasion of Israel.  So the lack of affection was somewhat understandable.)

Still, she was a greater friend than Mr. Cameron. 

On July 24, 2014, the United Nations Human Rights Council voted on a heavily one-sided resolution condemning “in the strongest terms the widespread, systematic and gross violations of international human rights and fundamental freedoms arising from the Israeli military operations” in Gaza. The Geneva-based council, which has a long history of anti-Israel bias, also declared a new “international commission of inquiry” into the events currently unfolding in Israel and Gaza, in what observers are calling a new Goldstone report.

The US vetoed the resolution.  the UK abstained.

Yes, even in November 2012  when the UN voted on granting the Palestinians nonmember state status at the UN, Mr. Cameron did not vote against a resolution that denounces Israel for “disproportionate and indiscriminate attacks, including aerial bombardment of civilian areas, the targeting of civilians and civilian properties in collective punishment contrary to international law, and other actions, including the targeting of medical and humanitarian personnel, that may amount to international crimes.”

But people will say strange things during elections.
JimPhillips

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 924
Reply with quote  #3 
Once again, Yahweh shows that He rules in the kingdoms of men.  While prior to the election, the pundits all suggested that the Conservatives would gain only 33% of the vote, and have trouble establishing a government, (therefore struggle with the intended vote of Britain in the EU) we now see the Conservatives gaining at lest 50% of the vote, and Mr. Cameron says his first priority will be to draft an In/out resolution as regards the EU.

Quote:
Cameron has promised that the referendum on Britain’s membership will take place by 2017 with the vote taking place after an attempt has been made to renegotiate the terms, including restricting access of EU migrants to welfare benefits for their first four years, and on elements of free movement.

Cameron will want to get on with the legislation to avoid the kind of endless internal party warfare over Europe suffered by John Major at the hands of the Eurosceptics. “We will legislate in the first session of the next parliament for an in/out referendum to be held on Britain’s membership of the EU before the end of 2017,” says the manifesto on this crucial point.
 
I'm not sure Mr. Cameron will like the results of an election on Brixit.  He will use the threat of a vote to pressure Europe to grant Britain more favorable terms within the EU, making the EU more palatable to the British citizens.  Mr. Cameron's goal appears to be aimed at keeping Britain in the EU, only in a more favorable position.  But if Greece is the example, the EU has not been open to costly changes to the EU charter.  And, if Mr. Cameron fails to get more favorable treatment for Britain from the EU, it might make Britain's exit even more sure. 

And the talk out of Germany has been critical of Britain's refusal to fully participate in the EU, particularly in regards to the Pound.  She sounds like she wants a less favorable status for Britain, not a more favorable one. But of course, this is all in God's hands.  He may  have ways of accomplishing His goals, that we cannot imagine.
Christadelphos

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 62
Reply with quote  #4 

Excerpt BBC:
Election 2015: Cameron Win.

No pollster, no pundit, no political leader saw it coming - not even David Cameron himself.

Governing parties don't gain seats. Parties that have implemented painful cuts and are promising more certainly don't. Until that is the Conservative Party did - achieving what had seemed to be Mission Impossible - a Tory majority.

Until that is David Cameron's personal triumph which triggered the near simultaneous resignation of his three principal opponents - Messrs Miliband, Clegg and Farage.

They did so in part because they helped to crush their partners in coalition these last five years - reducing the Liberal Democrat parliamentary party to a size when it can fit into two London taxis and still have two seats to spare.

In part because the extraordinary tidal wave of support for the SNP swept dozens of once safe Labour seats away.

In part because Nigel Farage persuaded millions to vote for him but secured just one seat - not, though, the one he was standing in.

But - and this is critical - because Labour performed worse overall than it had under Gordon Brown in the immediate aftermath of the worst financial crisis of modern times.

The result - the men who thought that today or sometime soon they'd be running this country's economic and foreign policies have now joined the unemployment register.

JimPhillips

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 924
Reply with quote  #5 
I don't think Nigel should have resigned.  His party (UKIP) took 4.2 million votes, which is the largest ever for a party in his position.

Lots of debate over who these are.  I read an article today that suggested that Labour voters went towards UKIP.  That seems unlikely to me, unless some of the working class are starting to realize the true problems with Immigration, and voted anti-immigration.  I'd like to think so, but Nah!

Of course, I'm a single issue watcher.  Brixit!
JimPhillips

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 924
Reply with quote  #6 

 

The following has nothing to do with British elections, but rather shows the intransigent attitude of the EU towards the changes Greece is demanding.  If Mr. Cameron runs into the same inflexible attitude from the EU as Greece has, it will be a victory for Brixit, for sure.

Quote:
Athens has been locked in negotiations with the European Union, the European Central Bank and the IMF, seeking to unlock 7.2 billion euros worth of remaining bailout funds that the creditors are refusing to release unless Greece signs up to certain economic reforms.

With the two sides standing firm on their positions and the loan servicing payment to the IMF due, the government was informed last week by Greece's top central banker Yannis Stournaras that it could draw 660 million euros from the bank's special account that is meant to be used only in cases of "extraordinary need".



No one really knows what a collapse by the financial system in Greece will do to Greece, Europe, and the Euro.  Everyone is just guessing.  Including the Greeks.  Their agreeing to dip into this emergency fund to keep Greece solvent with the EU, may tip their hand, that in the end, they really won't risk their financial system, and will ultimately give in to the EU demands.  A complete victory by the EU in Greece would further strengthen the EU's position in their up coming negotiations with Britain.

 

JimPhillips

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 924
Reply with quote  #7 
Bro. Steve's email yesterday brought a wonderful article about France and Germany planning to cooperate in resisting any changes to the EU, such as are being demanded by Mr. Cameron in Britain.  The article from the Daily Mail read"

 

Quote:

David Cameron's hopes of securing changes to the EU's treaties within the next two years were left in tatters this morning after France and Germany stitched up a secret deal bypassing the UK to tighten their grip on Europe.

The Prime Minister held talks with the European Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker at Chequers last night – pushing his plan to overhaul Britain's relationship with Brussels before holding an in/our referendum in 2017.

But he was left humiliated after a pact between French President Francois Hollande and German Chancellor Angela Merkel was leaked ruling out the need for EU treaty change – a key plank of Mr Cameron's planned renegotiation.

 

As we have been discussing, Mr. Cameron has some difficult hurdles to clear to block Brixit, and if France and Germany are telling him that the EU will be fine without them, then the hurdles have become that much higher.

Perhaps Mr. Cameron's biggest hurdle, though, will be getting the vote he has promised.  The House of Lords appears opposed to separation from EU, and will place some hurdles of their own, in Mr. Cameron's way.

But the treaty between Germany and France, which is being called the "No Thanks, Mr. Cameron Treaty" is fascinating in itself.  What is the thinking of Europe?  Do they believe Britain cannot achieve a successful Brixit vote, so they see no reason to budge?  Do they feel Britain is not a significant force within the EU, that they don't really need them?  Or it is simply that the frogs are croaking so loudly now, that the principle supporters of socialism will not allow their amphibious song to be modified or altered, or in any way drowned out? 

I believe the answer is number three, and the noise from that smelly swamp is world wide.  The socialists of the world are emboldened in such a way, as I have never seen.  I'll give one American example, which we will be watching for the upcoming 2016 elections.

Prior to the 2014 elections, the American socialists were all saying that if the free immigration from Mexico was not permitted, then the Republicans would lose terribly in the 2014 elections.  Open borders is one of the foundation socialist requirements for a world wide government.  It is fundamental to their goal of a central government.  Relief from this is one of the changes Mr. Cameron is demanding of the EU.  The Republican candidates leading up to the election were all told how hopeless their plight, if they refused to allow unlimited immigration, and citizenship to immigrants.

But as the elections got closer, all the Republican candidates realized that if they supported open immigration, then they would lose miserably among the electorate.  And prior to the election, they came out overwhelmingly in favor of strict immigration policy, and had a remarkable nationwide victory over Obama's socialists supporters. 

Did the socialists learn anything from this?  Not at all.  I think the time, as given by God, is past that they could learn.  Mrs. Clinton, who appears to be the Democratic Candidate for 2016 (though I still don't believe that) is already declaring that she supports both open immigration and citizenship for basically, anyone who can reach America somehow.  And her Democratic challengers think she has not gone far enough!  Has the West really changed that much in two years, that these policies which crushed socialists in 2014, will somehow carry them in 2016?  Not likely.  It is far more likely to continue to draw the distinction harder between the socialist Europeans and the capitalist West which leads them to contest for the world at Jerusalem.

It is the workings of the frogs which bring the world to Armageddon.  They are working now, like they never have before.  As opposition to the frog spirits in the West mounts, (the next great sign of this may be the Brixit vote) the frogs themselves are becoming more intransigent, as evidenced by this "No Thanks" treaty coming out of the mouth of the Beast. 
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation: