Re: hague on bliar's dishonest attempt to replace the uk constitution with the rejected eu mess.....

On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 02:15:44 +0200, in uk.politics.misc abelard
<abelard3@xxxxxxxxxxx>, wrote

On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 01:57:19 +0200, abelard <abelard3@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:


http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=news.press.release.page&obj_id=137054
Commenting on reports today that Tony Blair and French President
Nicolas Sarkozy have agreed the framework of a new EU Treaty, William
Hague, Shadow Foreign Secretary, said:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml;jsessionid=TGOGB3EJUNATFQFIQMFCFF4AVCBQYIV0?xml=/opinion/2007/06/10/dl1001.xml

1.
"For the past two elections, Labour's manifesto has been admirably
clear on the issue of a constitution for the European Union: "We will
put it to the British people in a referendum and campaign
whole-heartedly for a Yes vote."

2.
Tony Blair's final act as Prime Minister is likely to be to break that
commitment. As we report today, he will sign the new European
constitution just before he leaves 10 Downing Street. There will be no
referendum. His signature alone will be enough to bind the United
Kingdom in perpetuity to the constitution's strictures.

3.
Mr Blair will justify this blatant perfidy by claiming that the
document is not a constitution: it is just a "treaty". This is utterly
false, as he and his Cabinet know very well."

regards...

I won't comment on the evil jackbooted EU here, just on what i see in the
writing.

Interesting because it is in the same manner as a lot of political writings
i have seen........usually in densely worded leftist pieces.
I am surprised to see it in the Telegraph........
I am sure there is a word to cover it, but i don't know it.........

Paragraph 1 gives a general non-committal description of the situation.
Paragraph 2 starts out opining that Bliar is "likely to" perform a specific
action. Oops...it suddenly uses "will sign", "will be no referendum", "will
be enough" in the 3 remaining sentences.
Paragraph 3 starts out with the original "likely to" action as a foregone
act, detailing consequences.........

Oh well..........I just see it as a manipulative manner of writing.........
Not uncommon, I guess, and of course if one reads carefully, they see the
original qualifier is that the action is "likely" but if they read lightly
they get the impression that it is a factual presentation.


FACE
.

Relevant Pages
Loading