The EU debate - Part III

[Tiddler]

The referendum was non-binding and the campaign was a load of demonstrable nonsense.
The MPs have a vote on it and they should do what they've been elected to do, which is to make the right choice for the country.
If the people disagree with that, then they can vote them out at the next election.

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.

 

[PleaseNotPoll]

You haven't. You've shown that you've tried to shift the burden of proof.

In the example, you could have argued that I'd claimed something is true unless proved otherwise. What I did is make a claim that is logically unproveable, which is why in such cases, the burden falls on the one making the positive assertion.

It's impossible to prove god doesn't exist, but that doesn't prove he does, so the burden of proof falls on the one making the positive claim.

Yours is a variation on argumentum ad ignorantium.

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:

You must log in or register to see media

 

[DMD]

Which is why you don't have guilty and innocent as the verdicts, unless you're Scottish and there's three, I believe.
You're demonstrating my point for me. The state claims that you're guilty, so they have to prove it.
You don't even have to show that you're innocent, just that they haven't demonstrated their claim.

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.

 

[PleaseNotPoll]

Again that's your view, which suits your argument. Why are there views any less relevant than yours?
MP's like the rest of us went into this with their eyes wide open (they voted to allow the referendum by a 6-1 majority). If they believed the referendum was folly, why did they not vote against it when they had the chance?

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!

 

[PleaseNotPoll]

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.

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."

 

[NSIS]

That's why you don't claim things that you can't prove.
Could gods possibly exist and avoid being detectable to humans or our current technology?
Of course they could, so you don't say that there definitely aren't any gods.
You say that there's no reliable evidence that they exist and that leaves the burden of proof with those claiming otherwise.

The justification for agnosticism.

It cannot be proved conclusively either wayz

 

[PleaseNotPoll]

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.

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.

 

[PleaseNotPoll]

The justification for agnosticism.

It cannot be proved conclusively either wayz

I don't believe in agnostics...

 

[pieguts]

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!

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!

 

[Tiddler]

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."

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?

 

[petersaxton]

That's not what you said. You said that I think 'Judges can do whatever they want'.
You were wrong, I was saying that the Judiciary hold the Govt accountable to the law of the land.

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?

 

[Stan]

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."

God's Tiddler owned again.

He'll be throwing windmills and insults in no time

 

[PleaseNotPoll]

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!

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

 

[NSIS]

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?

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.

 

[PleaseNotPoll]

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?

Dishonest because you edited out the important bit.

 

[pieguts]

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

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.

 

[PleaseNotPoll]

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?

 

[DMD]

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:

You must log in or register to see media

13:52 onwards explains null hypothesis.

 

[PleaseNotPoll]

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.

 

[PINKIE]

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?

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'