The EU debate - Part III

You may be right as I'm not sure and can't be arsed to find out!!
I guess the point I'm making is that having a backbone should be top of a MP's role profile. If they are representing you and I, then they should be doing it all of the time, not when it suits them. Our anger (as remainers) should be directed at these arrogant sheep that did not think a leave vote was ever likely to happen.

 

The judges will say whether primary legislation is required or not

I'm assuming you both mean early day motion. In which case it is just a discussion in the house and no legislation is changed. Therefore if the supreme Court say parliament must pass law to enable A50 then an EDM is insufficient.

 

Why do you think I am confusing constitution law with criminal law? If you do something that doesn't comply with constitutional law then it is illegal.

 

If you watch it all, he also uses an example similar to the one I used. There are a lot of logicians that disagree with his interpretation, but he is someone who is well versed in logical argument. What you're arguing, is the fallacy of the mean. Basically, the claim there is, compared to the the claim there isn't a god is not a 50:50 proposition. Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence.

In the god example, even the video shows that, whilst I may well be expected to offer some more information, the burden of proof would fall to someone arguing against, as they would be making the positive assertion. There are exceptions, but this isn't one.

 

Oh, I've got plenty of anger to go around!

Cameron should bear the brunt of it, as he basically chucked it in there to ensure that his party wouldn't piss about and he'd get elected.
Then he ****ed off as soon as he didn't get the result that he wanted and left the idiots to screw their own careers up. The tosser.

The whole thing coming up in the first place is down the our rabid media and the arseholes that own it, though.
Crap like The Express, The Mail and The Sun diverting blame from our crappy government to the EU on everything was the cause.
People read that it was at fault for our ills for years, so of course they're going to dislike it.
The MPs didn't see that because they're all a bit sheltered and disconnected, which is the other reason people voted out.

 

I don't think that it's a 50:50 proposition and I'm not suggesting that.
The same would apply to a coin flip, though. If you say that it came up heads and I don't agree, then I'm not saying that it's tails.
I'm saying that you haven't established that it's heads. That's not the same thing.

Anything about the world and the way it works can be asserted and then assessed on the evidence.
Gravity? Germs? Evolution? All hypotheses that have been asserted and backed by evidence.
God is just another one of those claims, as far as I'm concerned.

This is drifting miles off topic, though.

 

I agree with the first bit, but not the second. The media and in particular the written press, can only capitalise on it if there is enough discontent to start with. For many years our political parties have been made up of "career politicians" whose only interest is their next career move.

 

There's always discontent, though. People are always unhappy about something.
The media have created this weird environment where people are pissed off about things that aren't true.
They're not looking at things that they genuinely should be angry about, but are focused on their perception, instead.

 

The argument wouldn't be heads or tails, it's heads or not heads. There would be a 50:50 shot as long as you exclude any bias like wind, weight etc.

Nearer to what you're struggling to argue, would be me holding my empty hand out and saying there's nothing in it. It's reasonable to assume the truth of my claim by the evidence of my empty hand. Anyone arguing against me is going to need a lot more evidence to disprove my claim to any thinking person, or argue the definition of empty.

 

The terminology being used is a 'resolution' rather than an early day motion, which I understand is simply a discussion. Whereas a resolution would need to be voted on by MPs.

To be honest, May would be better going for a proper parliamentary bill, that can be scrutinised by the house. That way, it would give her credibility to proceed after MPs have debated it. At the moment it just looks like she's trying to hide something (Having the UK taxpayer paying the EU tariffs for Nissan for example) or/and she hasn't got a clue and will just make it up as she goes along.

If it goes to a one day resolution without any of the MPs being able to scrutinise the 'plan' then I think more MPs are likely to vote against triggering A50.

 

It's not only the media though. Government are happy for us to be focusing on "these make believe issues", as long as the real issues are being pushed to one side.
I genuinely believe that without the initial "fear" the media cannot capitalise on it. I'm sorry, as distasteful as they are, I don't think the Mail and Express are entirely to blame.

 

The 50:50 on the coin toss is irrelevant, as is the heads/tails v heads/not heads part.
The claim is that it's heads. The logical answer, given no evidence as to the result, is that the claim is unproven.
That doesn't mean tails or not heads, just that it's not proven to be heads.

Your claim about having an empty hand assumes the burden of proof. The evidence is that your hand is empty.
You've still got the burden of proof. Someone saying that it wasn't would also have it.
Those are both claims.

 

Exactly right!.

You have to ask, what's she so afraid of? Why is she so keen to avoid taking this to parliament, as the courts have told her to do?

If she puts it in front of parliament, gets it validated, and then goes ahead, she's got firm ground and the agreement of parliament for her stance.

If not, then she's planning something she knows she can't sell to a parliamentary vote!

 

That's my issue with groups like black lives matter. They're angry at the Police for some debatable statistics on the deaths of a number of people, but ignore the much, much higher percentage of blacks killed in the same neighbourhood by other blacks. The focus should be on that larger number, and helping that community feel safer and help it grow rather than destroying their own neighbourhoods with riots.

Systemic racism is a rare phenomenon in the west, although their is a culture bias in some European Countries.

Poverty should be more the focus. Education and creating opportunities will help a lot more than the victim culture some promote, that increases the perception of a racial divide that in reality is income based.

 

They create the fear, though. They tell everyone that there's this massive problem and that it's the fault of whatever they don't like.
They suggest that there's a problem, then they solve that problem.

 

'Systemic racism is a rare phenomenon in the west, although their is a culture bias in some European Countries'

I think you'll find it exists all over the world....

 

Do you think it's democratic to vote to not trigger article 50 to come out of the EU when the country has voted to come out of the EU?

 

I largely agree with this and it feeds into my point about the media creating fear and scapegoats.
There is an issue with the police in the US, though. It's far less of one over here, but it's still a bit of a problem.
Up until this year I'd probably have been with you on the systematic racism thing, but that's gone to ****, unfortunately.

 

In some places it goes beyond cultural, I was merely picking them as an example of the difference, because I've experienced it in European Countries, and had I been treat with the same bias because of my colour, it would have been systemic racism. The point was more that we can all suffer discrimination on certain grounds like class etc, so to focus in on one element can actually be counter productive as it promotes a victim mentality.

 

When the details of the Nissan deal come out in the wash, then I think that will reveal why May wants to conduct all of this behind closed doors.

Her Govt have apparently guaranteed Nissan 'tariff free access' to the EU single market. That throws up a number of issues. (1) She can't guarantee that because that would be for the EU to also negotiate (2) So does that mean that she's said the Govt will pick up the tab for the tariffs ?, if she has then that breaks the rules on state aid to companies (3) She's hedged her bets on leaving the EU and promised Nissan that the UK taxpayer will pick up the tab for any EU tariffs.

Either way, it's a bad deal financially for the UK taxpayer. And if she's promised this to Nissan, then there will be literally hundreds if not thousands of other business that will want the same assurances, which could cost the taxpayer billions to ensure that businesses simply don't up sticks and move to a tariff free part of the EU.

It's no wonder May wants to do it all in secret, without any scrutiny from MPs and the press and public.