Gove tells a string of fibs in his "why we should leave the EU" statement

Another logical fallacy that doesn't attract enough respect to be replied to.




.

And that is partly because we are part of those EU institutions.

The economy.

What logical fallacy would that be?

The ECHR, or rather ECtHR to prevent confusion with the convention, specifically overruled the Supreme Court regarding the deportation of Abu Qatada.

I'm aware of that. What does the HRA specifically guarantee to British citizens that was not already guaranteed in law? The concept of human rights were not invented by the ECHR and they do not end at the ECHR either.

Pretty sure this is a massive logical fallacy right there. Half of the 'Out' brigade are Establishment too, if you haven't noticed, and even if they weren't, you're committing at the very least an ad hominem.

Some of the "Out" brigade are members of the Establishment, that is true. But they are not accepting the policy that the dominant part of it are attempting to persuade the voters to adopt.

Do you agree that a Government is part of the Establishment? A big big part? Maybe you don't, but I would argue that is is.

And the Government has a position that we should stay in the EU. Which it is encouraging other political parties to support. Cameron has explicitly and unapologetically stated that fact. So Gove and Johnson and the outers who are part of the Government will not get the (significant) help of the higher civil service in making their case. Unlike the "In" brigade.

My argument would be that for as long as this campaign lasts they are Establishment outcasts. Outside the tent pi$$ing in, rather inside the tent pi$$ing out. I don't know whether you agree with that or not, I expect you don't, but I don't see how it is logically fallacious.

And my comment was not an ad hominem, it was a personal attack. I wasn't attempting to disprove her argument by pointing out how she was supporting the Establishment view (as I argued). I was suggesting to her the irony of her position considering she is a rabid left wing head banger.

Well bully for them. That's one of the wonders of living in a free society.



'The Establishment' in this context is nothing but a perjorative term you find convenient to apply to your opponents. Being of 'The Establishment' is not bad, it's not wrong, and it doesn't imply some kind of conspiracy against the public. You're adding no light, and plenty of heat, by making it a basis of what passes for an argument.



Actually, there's years of conduct rules already in force that govern Civil Service work in this field. It's called purdah. It's simply an excuse Outers are making to make the Stayers look mean.



I already said why. I don't care if they're Establishment or rebels. You're trying to win an argument by listing the people who are in each camp. That's not an argument. This isn't a football match. It's a national debate. Debate.



That is an ad hominem!

The result of which was Jordan signed a legally binding treaty saying they could not use evidence obtained by torture. Surely a good thing.
Also their judgements aren't binding as with prisoner voting.
Posted from TSR Mobile

It gives domestic effect to convention rights. Ie you can now argue convention rights in British courts wheras previously you had to take the case to Strasbourg.

Posted from TSR Mobile

What you still fail to grasp (and this is the second time it has been pointed out to you!) is that the post you commented on was directed at a rabid left winger who regards the establishment not so much in a pejorative sense, but as the very devil incarnate. The apogee of evil.

Coming to more substantive issues is it still your position that my first post was a massive logical fallacy?

As for the ad hominem point, if you also accept that it wasn't an attempt to discredit her argument but an attack on her personally I am fine with that.

You pointed out that I personally attacked her. Whoopy do for you.

I saw that, and it's still utterly irrelevant. I don't care if they eat puppies in their spare time. Debate the subject, not the opponent.

You attacked personally, with the aim of discrediting their argument by associating pro-EU ideas with people of that sort. That's bad debate, and thoroughly bad form to boot.

Again, you have said absolutely nothing about the merits of leaving or staying in the EU, apart from some confused ramblings about how you hate the left, and how you arbitrarily label your opponents as with 'The Establishment', which I might add, is a convenient, amorphous term which absolutely anybody can define to suit whoever they dislike.

What convention rights are not found in British law?

Ha ha ha!

Who appointed YOU chief of the debate police?


Bad form? Oooh. Get you.

I'll let you into a little secret. We are not in some Pall Mall club but on the internet. If you think my post was bad form you ought to get out more.

No I haven't said anything about the merits of leaving or staying in my first post or our delightful little exchange. So what?

When I do in future, as I will, you will have your chance to argue the toss if you want.

Oh and you STILL don't seem to have grasped what was the animus behind the whole "Establishment" comment, in the first place.

Duh!

Is Gove right about EU regulation? Yes. The EU sets out boundaries at which laws are confined to. It creates the environment where EU-favoured laws only meet regulatory analysis.

What the hell are you talking about? This is word salad and literally means nothing.

Poor you. Let's have an example. A big fat basic one. The EU voted to regulate the use of plastic bags in member states. Under new EU rules released last year, member states will have to ban or resist use of lightweight plastic bags. Therefore, all laws related to this topic in Britain will have to meet these regulatory conditions. This is 1 of 1000s of examples.

I actually support this regulation anyway (in fact I don't think it goes far enough)

Now I await your response which says all this is bs

(10) To promote sustained reductions of the average consumption level of lightweight plastic carrier bags, Member States should take measures to significantly reduce the consumption of lightweight plastic carrier bags in line with the overall objectives of the Union's waste policy and the waste hierarchy as provided for in Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (5). Such reduction measures should take account of current consumption levels of plastic carrier bags in individual Member States, with higher levels requiring more ambitious efforts, and take account of reductions already achieved. To monitor progress in reducing the consumption of lightweight plastic carrier bags, it is necessary that national authorities provide data on their consumption in accordance with Article 12 of Directive 94/62/EC. (11) Measures to be taken by Member States may involve the use of economic instruments such as pricing, taxes and levies, which have proved particularly effective in reducing the consumption of plastic carrier bags, and marketing restrictions such as bans in derogation of Article 18 of Directive 94/62/EC provided that these restrictions are proportionate and non-discriminatory. (12) Those measures may vary depending on the environmental impact of lightweight plastic carrier bags when they are recovered or disposed of, their recycling and composting properties, their durability or the specific intended use of those bags, and taking into account any possible adverse substitution effects. (13) Member States may choose to exempt plastic carrier bags with a wall thickness below 15 microns (‘very lightweight plastic carrier bags’) provided as primary packaging for loose food when required for hygiene purposes or when their use helps prevent food wastage. (14) Member States may freely use revenues generated by measures that are taken under Directive 94/62/EC to achieve a sustained reduction in the consumption of lightweight plastic carrier bags.

Unless, of course, we simply do not implement it, or pass a law saying we don't want to implement it.

Things like article 8 'right to a family life'. Some convention rights overlap with common law rights, others don't.
The Human Rights Act also means that our courts must take Strausbourg decisions into account, whereas it was previously optional.

The main thing though being that you can go to a court in the UK and argue that the state has violated your convention right under the ECHR whereas previously you had to take your claim to the Strausbourg court.

Well, I'd *hate* for this important referendum to be decided on personalities clashes, mistruths, and accusations of 'establishment' rather than the merits of the case.