Utter turmoil or a country which will strive forward, what will the future hold for the country after this coup?

I should imagine holidays there will come down in price

Loads of innocent people will die, loads of not so innocent people will die, someone will make a fortune by selling weapons.

Egypt is going to be a two-party system. The Facebook party and the Twitter Party. The winner of each debate is going to be who can gather the biggest demonstration making the most noise.

Instagram?

The BBC reporter the other day made the comment (in so many words), the Muslim Brotherhood were unable to organise anything while in government, but they can get a mob together.
That's the problem in a huge swathe of the world and the main issue in Egypt. They lost the point of government and why the people wanted change. What was needed was economic reform, what they got was the Muslim Brotherhood who wanted to set up an Islamic state.
I suspect the winners of the last election were planning on never giving up power, but we will never know now.

What worries me is that, although the army have said that there will be another election, what happens if the Muslim Brotherhood or someone aligned with them wins it again?
Do they keep having elections until a secular-based party wins?

I suggest the problem wasn't with them winning the election, but with what they did afterwards.

But if the next election is to be 'free and fair', they can't be prevented from standing again. I don't know what percentage of the Egyptian population are Muslim, but there's at least a chance they could get in again. What then? Another coup?

I think the issue is wider than Egypt. The Middle East demographics mean there is little prospect of meaningful employment opportunities being created for millions of young people over the next decade or so. That will inevitably mean instability, bloodshed, possibly terrorism, posssibly migation on a historically significant scale. At the same time Europe, with a different demograpic profile, has mass youth unemployment including among graduates. In previous generations, this would be a recipe for war. I suspect the Arab world will start fighting one another and maybe the "West" may get involved but only if other major powers are willing to accept such involvement by the "West".

Yay, Dally mentioned migration.

Everyone playing the Dally drinking game, sup up.

Migating vilderbeest

Military regimes are a bit like the old AOL browser.

They're ok, until you try and uninstall one.

Bugger, I drew the "declining morals because they're not Christian" card.

You're my f*cking best mate, you are. I f*cking love you. *hic*

Have you turned Welsh?

If he was Welsh, it would have been c*cking rather than f*cking, isn't it?

I know of no suggestion that they would or might be prevented. Their problem would be in getting enough people to vote for them, given how they performed post the last election.


91%

I think it is plain wrong to suggest that all Muslims will vote the same way. So far as I can tell, there is a fairly high level of political sophistication amongst the Egyptian electorate, which seems much more politically engaged than many places. Anyway the protests that directly led to Morsi's downfall involved, literally, millions of Egyptians taking to the streets, and so it's reasonably safe to assume that around 90% of the protesters are Muslims. I don't think that's the point at all.


I have consulted my crystal ball but sadly there is no reception. The pattern of leaves in my tea suggests however that, as now, it would perhaps not be the result of the election, but the subsequent conduct of the winners, that would determine what then.

Neither do I. But if they're not prevented, there's a risk that Egypt will return to exactly the same position it was in before the coup.



They wouldn't all have to vote the same way for the Muslim Brotherhood to get in again, though, would they? From what I gather, a fair number of people took to the streets in support of the President, so it's quite possible that they (or someone closely aligned to them) could be re-elected.



I honestly don't know why you have to adopt such a sneering tone in so many of your posts. Could we not just have a sensible discussion without resorting to this? Oh, and, I assume you have heard of a rhetorical question. I wasn't actually asking you to look into the future, I was making the point that, when El B said:



And you responded with:



...that there is little reason to think that, if the Muslim Brotherhood were re-elected, that they would do anything materially different afterwards to what they did previously. This would leave the army with a bit of a predicament.

It's unlikely if the MB vote collapsed they would get re-elected. They use a mix of PR and first past the post so even if the opposition split the vote allowing the MB to retain many first past the post seats it's still unlikely to mean the MB are returned to power. If the percentage vote against them is high enough they won't win power unlike here where a party with a minority of the popular vote can do so.

However that is the parliamentary elections. The presidential elections are separate and run on a preference voting system.

So it could be the MB win the parliamentary elections again as most people still want to vote for a Muslim based party but the idea Morsi would be re-elected president seems highly unlikely.

Provided the elections are fair and the Army give them an election under the same rules then if the Egyptian people want to kick out the MB and Morsi they can. If they want the MB but not Morsi that is their prerogative.

I don't get your point, if there are "elections", what sort of election "prevents" a party from standing? It simply doesn't arise.


I have no problem with anyone who was democratically elected.


I was being "funny". If you read it as "sneering" I'm surprised, but it's not. I was under the impression that a sensible discussion was being had, and as you seem quite a sensible sort of chap, I wouldn't have expected you to believe I really thought you were asking me to actually predict a hypothetical future consequence. Hey ho.

That's kinda the point I was making. If they are allowed to stand, which they ought to be if the elections are free and fair, there's a chance that they (or a party closely aligned with them) could be re-elected. This will leave the army in the position of having to oust yet another government, or accept that the coup was effectively a waste of time.

That being said, the BBC are currently reporting that [url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23176401arrest warrants have been issued for 300 members of the Muslim Brotherhood[/url. The report also states that 'the entire presidential team' have already been detained. It doesn't seem very likely, in light of this development, that the army will simply release them all and allow them to stand in new elections.



Neither so I. The Egyptian army seems to, though.



Well if you were being funny, I apologise. It didn't come across that way. Perhaps in future you could assist by making sure that your funny comments are actually funny.

But that's the point Ferocious old chap ... whilst Morsi was democratically elected, he then went off at a tangent, giving himself "temporary" powers to enact whatever law he chose, thereby somewhat undermining what I (and a significant bunch of people in Tahrir Square) think of as democracy and leading many to believe that he was misusing his mandate by heading towards a government run by Islam rather than by secular process.