The EU debate - Part III

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Referendum_Act_2015

The European Union Referendum Act 2015 (c 36) is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that made provision for a referendum to be held in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Gibraltar, on whether they should remain a member of the European Union.[1] The bill was introduced to the House of Commons by Philip Hammond, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on 28 May 2015.[2] The Act was subsequently passed by a ratio of six to one in the Commons,[3] approved by the House of Lords on 14 December 2015,[4] and given Royal Assent on 17 December 2015.

...the government advisory leaflet 'Why the Government believes that voting to remain in the European Union is the best decision for the UK' clearly states 'This is your decision. The government will implement what you decide.'

Obviously too democratic for some to swallow.

 

You're literally asserting something that you admit can't be proven. That should tell you your mistake.
The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. That's it.
If you can't prove something, then don't claim it.

Have an atheist video saying exactly what I've been saying:

 

There are cases where your guilty unless you prove otherwise, such as speeding. But in court, the burden of proof is not because they made the claim first, it's because they made the positive assertion.

It actually gets spun during the case by a good lawyer, as they'll end up getting you to make the positive assertion. If they claim you were in a particular location, you can't just claim, no I wasn't and expect them to prove it, you'd need to offer some justification as to why you were elsewhere. Then you have made the positive assertion and dispute it between you for the judge to decide.

 

I'm not talking about my views or the views of the leave voters.
The MPs themselves think that leaving is a bad idea, by quite a large majority, IIRC.
I'm sure that they did vote against it. Some people have suggested that Boris Johnson did!

 

Another example of your delightfully dishonest editing. I'm shocked.
"The bill neither contained any requirement for the UK Government to implement the results of the referendum (although the government advisory leaflet 'Why the Government believes that voting to remain in the European Union is the best decision for the UK' clearly states 'This is your decision. The government will implement what you decide.'), nor did it say explicitly that the referendum is only advisory. On November 3, 2016, the High Court in London ruled that the referendum is only advisory, also known as pre-legislative or consultative, which enables the electorate to voice an opinion which then influences the Government in its policy decisions."

 

The justification for agnosticism.

It cannot be proved conclusively either wayz

 

You're not assumed to be guilty of speeding. I'm not sure where you got that from.

The court makes an assertion, so they have to prove it. It's not about being positive or first.

 

I don't believe in agnostics...

 

The point I'm making is that there is always an element of risk, when it is a simple yes / no vote. If our forward thinking, trustworthy, beyond reproach MP's felt that remaining in the EU was a fundamental requirement for all of our futures, why did they vote overwhelmingly to allow the vote to take place? And please don't say that it was because it is advisory, it needed a high court deliberation to put that to bed!

 

Dishonest as in my failing to link the whole page? Dishonest because what I posted isn't taken from that page, word for word?

I highlighted the salient point, but as with all narcissistic sociopaths that refuse to accept defeat, you decide to try and deflect, yet again.

What's next, grammar & spelling corrections?

 

You said: “Anyway, I see May is now hoping to use a 1 day motion to push through with triggering article 50, instead of putting it before a proper parliamentary bill.
Expect to see the judges quash her again with this.”
Why should the judges get involved? Do you think a one day motion to trigger article 50 is illegal? If you do then can you provide evidence?

 

God's Tiddler owned again.

He'll be throwing windmills and insults in no time

 

It was part of the Tories campaign to have a referendum if they were elected, so MPs voted to back that pledge.

 

What's your ****ing problem, you mouthy ****wit!?

You whine and moan when insults are thrown at you or others. But you're more than happy to indulge in the exacttly that yourself.

You're a ****, and a mouthy hypocritical **** at that.

 

Dishonest because you edited out the important bit.

 

It was certainly Cameron's position. So this kind of answers my point then. Our concerned MP's were happy to back a referendum, if it got them re-elected, without any consideration to a "out" vote.

 

Didn't they have to back it because it was part of an elected party's manifesto or something?
I'm sure I remember something about that at the time, but maybe I'm thinking of something else?

 

13:52 onwards explains null hypothesis.

 

Yep. That doesn't actually back your point though and I've no idea why you think it does.

From 2 minutes on:
"Every single claim put forward carries with it a burden of proof.
Some god exists. That claim carries a burden of proof.
No god exists. That claim carries a burden of proof."

The default is that there are no god claims that have been sufficiently proven.
As he goes on to say with the gumball analogy, you don't assume either side if you don't have the required information.
You just say that both sides haven't met their burden of proof.
We don't know that any gods exist. We don't know that there are no gods. The existence of a god hasn't been proven, though.

 

I think you're confusing constitutional law with criminal law, but I'll let you off with that.
As for evidence, the former Attorney General has said that a one day resolution would be:
'insufficient in the face of the court ruling against the use of prerogative powers'