arden forester

I think that sums it up precisely!

I would not for one minute believe the nonsense that Frau Merkel "instructed" Brown not to hold an election. That's a fantasist's view!

It is one thing in being opposed to the legalistic strictures and bureaucratic meddling of the EU in matters which should not concern it and it is quite another to believe that individual leaders of other nations have "control" over our Prime Minister. We can be for or against treaties but a leader usurping the law? Forget it!

__________________
www.westminster-whispers.blogspot.com

Alex McKee

In the minds of some, everything comes back down to the EU. Brown's bluff was called by the Tories and he bottled it, with economic uncertanties and even a mildly resurgant opposition he fears he may lose. That's really all there is to it.

Britannist

Thank you for your agreement, Arden.

Frau Merkel's priority is to hang on to power in Germany where, of course, she and her Christian Democrat Party rely on the support of the rival Social Democrats to stay in office. Gordon Brown's electoral prospects will not be a matter high up on her list of immediate concerns.

youcanhandlethetruth

BY "tangent" I mean that it doesn't matter whether he was "being told" to cancel the election, because of course he is the one in power, and ultimately says yes or no whether he is a puppet or not.
What I mean is that whose interests is he serving ? The British people or the EU superstate ? Given the fact that that he has agreed to the EU reform treaty, I think the answer is quite clear ?

So again, you are wasting time focusing on whether he was "instructed". Even I don't believe that he was "forced" to, but he was told what the EU wanted and given his previous record, there is a very good chance he followed the EU line...

If you believe that Brown follows the interest of the British people, why did he agree to the reform treaty ?
And if he wanted to be a servant of the people then he would surely hold an EU referendum as he promised ?

Furthermore, if you believe the 2 party system is anything but a charade, then you are very badly fooled, and because of people like you who are fooled so easily, there will never be any change in policy in England - the baton has always passed from one bad party to the other - just look at America now, 80% of people are anti-war but Hilary will be elected and go into Iran......

I fear David may be right and there is a real danger that once EU have taken complete power over our laws, parliament will be redundant, be dissolved and there will never be another "British" general election.
Or maybe we will carry on with another foney political charade where parliament has the powers of a county council....

Please don't patronize me about the "conspiracy theory wonderland" - you're the victim of propaganda, highly crafted mind control techniques and the 2/3 party system charade......

I understand you want to believe our politicians "care" about the people and not about their own interests - that's why you view these sites as being of "dubious veracity". Actually why exactly do you say that ? What do you think is not true on that site ? I'd be interested to know what you think is incorrect......
Maybe just because it's not the "mainstream" view ? well carry on being lied to, you obviously like that....

What exactly are the "understandable truths of the EU project" that you refer to ? The fact that is takes over our sovereignty and costs us a fortune to be in it ?

youcanhandlethetruth

BY "tangent" I mean that it doesn't matter whether he was "being told" to cancel the election, because of course he is the one in power, and ultimately says yes or no whether he is a puppet or not.
What I mean is that whose interests is he serving ? The British people or the EU superstate ? Given the fact that that he has agreed to the EU reform treaty, I think the answer is quite clear ?

So again, you are wasting time focusing on whether he was "instructed". Even I don't believe that he was "forced" to, but he was told what the EU wanted and given his previous record, there is a very good chance he followed the EU line...

If you believe that Brown follows the interest of the British people, why did he agree to the reform treaty ?
And if he wanted to be a servant of the people then he would surely hold an EU referendum as he promised ?

Furthermore, if you believe the 2 party system is anything but a charade, then you are very badly fooled, and because of people like you who are fooled so easily, there will never be any change in policy in England - the baton has always passed from one bad party to the other - just look at America now, 80% of people are anti-war but Hilary will be elected and go into Iran......

I fear David may be right and there is a real danger that once EU have taken complete power over our laws, parliament will be redundant, be dissolved and there will never be another "British" general election.
Or maybe we will carry on with another foney political charade where parliament has the powers of a county council....

Please don't patronize me about the "conspiracy theory wonderland" - you're the victim of propaganda, highly crafted mind control techniques and the 2/3 party system charade......

I understand you want to believe our politicians "care" about the people and not about their own interests - that's why you view these sites as being of "dubious veracity". Actually why exactly do you say that ? What do you think is not true on that site ? I'd be interested to know what you think is incorrect......
Maybe just because it's not the "mainstream" view ? well carry on being lied to, you obviously like that....

What exactly are the "understandable truths of the EU project" that you refer to ? The fact that is takes over our sovereignty and costs us a fortune to be in it ?

Aardvark

ychtt, I am not brainwashed by anybody.

I know it's not a game.

The battle, however, will only be won by people concentrating on the real issues rather than being diverted by insinuations of peccadilloes, which I am certain are enjoyed by some UKIP members as well. If it's legal then there is no problem with people's sexual morality as far as I am concerned. UKIP is not the religious right and we're not here to moralise.

You might be surprised to know that I have also looked,with concern, at a large part of the constitution/treaty. I trust my own instincts over those of David Noakes.

__________________
When in Woking do as the Wokes do.

"I do not wish to form my opinions by thoughtlessly quoting others; I wish others to support their opinions by sensibly quoting me." Paul Wesson (Aardvark) 13th April 2008

C_steam

My point exactly, hence the title of the thread is, simply, nonsense.

...not quite, because i am trained in the workings of the brain and I now choose to question everything, particularly the media and particularly internet sites.

...no, you do not 'understand' - you 'presume'. There is a difference.

...i didn't say it was 'incorrect' - I said it has dubious veracity, again, there is a difference. in other words, some of the content is misleading, based on little evidence whilst other points are accurate - however as a rule the informationis not cross referenced or substantiated by the views of others.
...D'ya know, isn't it odd that you seem to implicitly believe these internet sites but also seem to believe that those who appear to believe other sources are 'brainwashed'. think that one through!


Instead, why not learn to question everything? smoke and mirrors everywhere, and internet sites are as tangled up in this as any other source.

do you really think the CiA, mossad, gorbachev at al are ignoring the power of the internet to add disinformation and confusion?

__________________
--------------------------------------------------

Users on ignore list: None. I've got to have people to laugh at.
Cowardly Posters* list: BobFM, Bellatrix.*People who post personal insults then refuse to reply

.

Aardvark

Private Eye suggested that it was actually Murdoch who was leaning on Brown. Knowing the press in our country that is a more likely scenario,IMHO.

__________________
When in Woking do as the Wokes do.

"I do not wish to form my opinions by thoughtlessly quoting others; I wish others to support their opinions by sensibly quoting me." Paul Wesson (Aardvark) 13th April 2008

youcanhandlethetruth

I still think you're getting too caught up in the exact meaning of words.
I personally think there are much bigger issues to worry about.

I respect your opinion, though I disagree with you.
I think these websites are the most honest you will ever find.

You will always find some innacururacy in the exact meaning of words used, when you apply a certain definition to it.
These articles do not contain any downright lies that you find in many mainstream media articles.
You say "however as a rule the informationis not cross referenced or substantiated by the views of others" - I don't know how you can say that when most of the articles have links to other articles and are backed up by people in authority and scientific study.
In fact, articles in the mainstream media have more of a liscence to say what they want, without the need to back up any of it with actual fact, though of course they mentions who says what as if that means it must be true.....

I recently got criticized for the headline "disabled men seized at gunpoint by cops".
Though they had a gun pointed at them, I was told that it was incorrect and they were not "seized" because the article stated the police "asked them" to accompany them to the police station, whilst at the same time, admitting they were concerened they would try to escape. In addition to the fact that they were treated like terrorist suspects, taken in separate cars, and probably scared to death.
So I waste my time arguing over the exact meaning of "seized" and the fact that they were under immense pressure to comply with the police request.

The whole point of the article seems not to matter to some people.
People are too interested in applying their own rationale to prove themselves right - it is called ego.
In doing so they fool themselves that every article needs to be 100% squeaky clean and accurate for ANY of it to be believed - this is how we have all been trined to think for years by the mainstream media, whether we realise it or not.
When I put up "40 reasons to doubt the official story of 9/11" I always get some know it all pick me up on the meaining of one particular point, as if that defeats the whole argument.
Yet they never admit they cannot refute any of the 98% of other evidence.

I suppose at least that is better than just shouting "conspiracy theory" - that is just ignorance......

C_steam

But you never know, that's the point. We live in a world where the media is manipulating the populace, and where the media is slowly but succesfully changing people minds about what is important - Jordans jugs are important, Beckhams wifes new hairstyle is important, who is wearing what is important but real issues are taking a back seat. hence the apathy with voting, no-one views governance and democracy as an issue.

Giving people simple easy truths is what is required, anything tha even whiffs of what may be seen (by them) as 'conspiracy' will be rejected.

Yes, there is a lot going on below the surface, but I'm afraid that Joe and Joan public are just not ready for that level of understanding, not when a simple matter like the whole concept of walkinginto an EU superstate - so obvious, so clear - seems to be beyond them.

Telling them that Merkel stopped the election (even if true) is a step far too far.

I think you should also appreciate that one weapon used hugely and very succesfully again the 'anti-eu' groups is that of self-parody and ridicule. Be very wary of being a pawn in that game.

The antics of senior members of UKIP, and the rantings of David, no matter how well intentioned, really do not help the case.

__________________
--------------------------------------------------

Users on ignore list: None. I've got to have people to laugh at.
Cowardly Posters* list: BobFM, Bellatrix.*People who post personal insults then refuse to reply

.