One of my pet peeves is when people cannot present a logical argument and use fallacies – as, indeed, we see in parliament and in the media. My attention has been brought to this piece of excrescence written by a QC no less. God help anyone relying on this twat to defend them in court if this is an example of his ability to present a logical case.
The whole thing is disingenuous in the extreme. Firstly, the 2017 general election was called because Theresa May decided to go to the country to get her own mandate, having taken over mid-term. When PMs do not do this, we get screaming and foot stamping from the usual suspects about unelected PMs. Now we get this fatuous fuckwit complaining because she did so – well, make your mind up. She did not, however, do it because she didn’t like the result of the 2015 election. Given that it resulted in a Conservative majority, I would presume that she was perfectly content with the result, so McParland is flat out lying.
Also, worth pointing out here, is that 17.4 million people did not vote the way Boris Johnson told them to. No one told me how to vote. Indeed, no one told anyone how to vote. There was a campaign and one side won, the other side lost. To suggest otherwise is flat out lying.
Is Boris Johnson calling an election because he is “unhappy” with the 2107 result? Doubtless he is unhappy with it. However, that is not why he is calling this election. He is doing so because he is unable to govern with a minority government and a zombie parliament is blocking him at every turn and an election is the only way out of this particular conundrum. In claiming otherwise, McParland is flat out lying.
In drawing an equivalence between this and the refusal to rerun the 2016 referendum, he is being disingenuous (a polite way of saying that he is flat out lying). At no time has the 2016 referendum been acted upon. Therefore there is no need to rerun it. That said, the argument that we have learned more since then does hold some merit. We have learned that the EU is even more nasty than we realised. We have also learned that there are some deeply undemocratic creatures lurking in our own country who despise the demos should they dare to vote the wrong way.
The twisted logic of these people in attempting to make their argument “right” is beyond belief. And this clown is standing up in court and making arguments on a daily basis. With this grasp of a logical argument, all I know is that I will never call upon his services should I ever find myself in need of a barrister.
I think your 2107 typo was probably an unconscious prediction that Parliament will still be blocking any attempt at resolution..
Ha! Good one.
None of the 30.8 million voted specifically for a five-year, fixed-term parliament, those were the rules at the time, but the politicians chose to use the ‘get-out clauses’.
Everyone in the 2016 Referendum voted to either leave or remain in the EU. I doubt if anyone had in mind being half-in, half-out, but the politicians used those ‘get-out clauses’ that they love so much.
Aren’t QCs professionals at mendacity & sophistry?
Good point.
Yet another example of “Why is this lying bastard lying to me? The bastard!”.
Regardless of the numbers voting one way or the other in the 2016 EU Referendum, it is a very different beast than any general election, which is purely about the formation of a Parliament and subsequently a new government. They are not equivelent at any level and barely related, but this lying bastard knows that and is essentially using a form of “The Chewbacca Defence”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewbacca_defense
The only point of a second referendum is to try and overturn or repudiate the result of the first referendum. To which, the only response is “You lost. Get fucked”.