The Debate on the Lisbon Debate

passive

Pride Fighter wrote: »

No side ahead so far. Good points to blitzkrieg but FutureTaoiseach was just a bit better, my opinion though.

Blitzkriegs points consisted primarily of pointing out the falsehood of FutureTaoiseachs ones. How exactly were FT's "better," by any measure, excepting the foregone conclusion that you're against the EU treaty?

BlitzKrieg

hmm whats the policy on editing posts?

fightforfreedom

Brussels promised us to stay more independent then other countries but it`s obvious the exeptions will be cancelled sooner then you can imagine. All acts will be voted by European Parliament and 60% will be enough to change it without veto power. And how you think, are the other countries let us be over the common law?

turgon

FT's point about 4 big states having the power to block is ridiculous. The alternative is the veto, where 1 state can block. I dont understand how one can criticise a system that gives less power to each individual country for being suceptable to certain states interests.

Secondly, I am fully contented with BlitzKriegs retort on the COFR. Notice how FT used in his opinion a few times, BK only reffered to the Treaty. His quoting of the inability of the CoFR to expand competencies really made it. A great example of how to back up ones points.

Saying that, I still rank FT as second at the moment. The other No debaters didnt really speak about Lisbon in specifics, and nesf's post lacked the "ruthlessness" and accuracy of FTs and BTs in my opinion.

Daftendirekt

Yeah, it's incredibly inconsistent to argue the loss of the veto is a bad thing, while at the same time that the blocking minority makes it too easy to block legislation. One point seems to refute the other.

I'd like to see more positive points from the Yes side, too. Not just rebuttals of posts from the No side.

I'll have go back and read Nesf's response now.

The Recliner

Glad to see the Debate forum getting a bit of a work out although I am disappointed that the public forum is a little quiet, I thought this place would explode with a Lisbon debate but it seems the general population of Boards are apathetic to it, maybe they are Lisboned out

Perhaps a few more posts per day by both sides in the debate would provoke more discussion in here

So far FutureTaoiseach has put up a good argument for his position and there has been some equally good rebuttel

Personally I would like to see the Yes side justify their stance a little more rather than just rebutting the No side, although I did like Nesf's post

K-9

Excellent post by FT though a little OTT in places, straight at the main weakness of the EU, the democratic deficit.

Stainless_Steel

Excellent latest post by Future Taoiseach.

The YES side constantly go on about the EU being a collective calloboration of 'elected representatives'. Future Taoiseach clearly shows that the elect do not represent the will of the people with regard the Lisbon Treaty, and that the elite's have personal agendas in pushing it through.

So far for me:
NO Side 2 - 0 YES Side

RedPlanet

Great work FT.
At this point it is all one-way traffic.
I would point out one thing FT, it's strikes me as a little reckless to quote Proinsias de Rossa regarding the Lisbon Treaty is the EU Constitution; because later you rubbish him in a quote about immigration.

While yes they are 2 completely different things, the 2nd quoting of him is a character assassination (well deserved) but it retropsectively undermines using him as a reference in the 1st instance.

FunnyStuff

Very good debate so far, great opening by FT, and great response by Blitz. Think both sides are making their points particularly well and looking forward to see how it goes. Wouldn it be great if our elected rep's could debate as efficiently as the guys here are?!?!?

Euro_Kraut

Not sure Blitzkreig should have described FT opening post as 'impressive'. He conceded unnecessary ground early on his rebuttal

BlitzKrieg

I always stride to be polite and fair. Compared to other posts when it comes to lisbon (take the one on the eu president that popped up last night) FT is at least somewhat coherent.

I'm just posting i here that I was up all night due to work so I'm going unconcious now, So I'll put my bit in for today around 5 or 6 am when I get back up and have had time to give a proper read to all the posts since last night. (*seriously f*cked right now sadly*)

turgon

To say that the No side is winning outright is clearly to let your position on this Treaty distort your objective evaluation of this particular debate. BlitzKriegs retort was more factually and less based on "in my opinion" compared to FutureTaoseachs.

Hopefully the judges whoever they are will not let their Lisbon bias impede their evaluation of the debate. Ive been judging it objectively enough so far I think, its not that hard you know. Its ok to admit the side you dont agree with is doing better.

turgon

Ok Ive read FT's latest point. From a debating point of view the first 2/3rds is irrelevant to the matter at hand - the Treaty. All he goes on about is the state of democracy in a few select member states. His last third is moderately good at dispelling the Yes to Jobs argument which is as irrelevant as the talk on French Democracy. However as it was not provoked by a Yes sider is relevance is also questionable.

My advise to FT is to return to the methods he had in the first post: addressing Treaty issues with relevant Treaty proof which was very effective and convincing.

Stainless_Steel

turgon wrote: »

Ok Ive read FT's latest point. From a debating point of view the first 2/3rds is irrelevant to the matter at hand - the Treaty. All he goes on about is the state of democracy in a few select member states. His last third is moderately good at dispelling the Yes to Jobs argument which is as irrelevant as the talk on French Democracy. However as it was not provoked by a Yes sider is relevance is also questionable.

My advise to FT is to return to the methods he had in the first post: addressing Treaty issues with relevant Treaty proof which was very effective and convincing.

I disagree. The YES side used an argument that the EU countries created the Lisbon treaty. FT merely pointed out that the governments did and also proved that the governement's view doesn't represent the Irish, French and Dutch public opinion. Very very valid argument against the Lisbon Treaty.

turgon

Stainless_Steel wrote: »

I disagree. The YES side used an argument that the EU countries created the Lisbon treaty. FT merely pointed out that the governments did and also proved that the governement's view doesn't represent the Irish, French and Dutch public opinion. Very very valid argument against the Lisbon Treaty.

Valid point. However this doesnt relate to the French and Dutch as the Constitution is different to Lisbon, despite how much the No side want them to be the same.

K-9

turgon wrote: »

Valid point. However this doesnt relate to the French and Dutch as the Constitution is different to Lisbon, despite how much the No side want them to be the same.

I would add we never got to vote on the EU Constitution.

nesf

Stainless_Steel wrote: »

I disagree. The YES side used an argument that the EU countries created the Lisbon treaty. FT merely pointed out that the governments did and also proved that the governement's view doesn't represent the Irish, French and Dutch public opinion. Very very valid argument against the Lisbon Treaty.

It doesn't address my point though, that what he's trying to convince people is that all these Governments all voted to reduce the power of small countries in the EU to next to nothing (if one believes his analysis). He's attacking a straw man rather than addressing my points.

hmmm

The Recliner wrote: »

Glad to see the Debate forum getting a bit of a work out although I am disappointed that the public forum is a little quiet, I thought this place would explode with a Lisbon debate but it seems the general population of Boards are apathetic to it, maybe they are Lisboned out

Sorry to be negative but many of the posts so far have been unstructured, excessively lengthy and jumble so many arguments together as to make them painful to wade through.

FT particularly seems to confuse verbiage with quality - his most recent post starts off with arguing that the Treaty equals the old Constitution (ok then, tell me why I should care), wanders off into a diatribe on the democracies of other countries (again I haven't been told why should I care), segues into something about QMV, next gives us a lecture on the meaning of democracy, then starts throwing around pejorative terms like "elites", follows with something about the charter of fundamental rights and more stuff about elites, something about some French lad, something about the abuse of expenses by MEPs, goes off on another tangent into immigration policies then throws out a huge long quote about something to do with the economics of Lisbon, off we go with another paragraph about our recession being construction based and then finishes on another tangent about the WTO negotiations. Maybe it's just me but I don't have the time to wade through this searching for a coherent argument.

Personally I'd prefer if debaters would state their argument, justify it without excessive detail and round off their posts with a restatement of their original argument.

Stainless_Steel

nesf wrote: »

He's attacking a straw man rather than addressing my points.

Dont fully agree, he addressed blitzkrieg's points very well IMO.

hmmm wrote: »

FT particularly seems to confuse verbiage with quality - his most recent post starts off with arguing that the Treaty equals the old Constitution (ok then, tell me why I should care), wanders off into a diatribe on the democracies of other countries (again I haven't been told why should I care), segues into something about QMV, next gives us a lecture on the meaning of democracy, then starts throwing around pejorative terms like "elites", follows with something about the charter of fundamental rights and more stuff about elites, something about some French lad, something about the abuse of expenses by MEPs, goes off on another tangent into immigration policies then throws out a huge long quote about something to do with the economics of Lisbon, off we go with another paragraph about our recession being construction based and then finishes on another tangent about the WTO negotiations. Maybe it's just me but I don't have the time to wade through this searching for a coherent argument.

You really don't see the relevance of all the above to the Lisbon debate?

hmmm

Stainless_Steel wrote: »

You really don't see the relevance of all the above to the Lisbon debate?

It's supposed to be a debate, not a mind-dump of everything you have in your head. Blitzkriegs first reply was an excellent example of how to debate - he layed out the point he was debating, he explained why it was important, he justified his position and he summed it up at the end. Posts like that can be debated because there is a central point to be argued. Sparks43 also laid out his point and supporting argument but I would argue had a weakness in not explaining why his particular point should be of relevance to the votes of the wider population (as it was a relatively technical issue).

FT's post have no coherent argument running through them. E.g. he could have started by saying he had 2 fundamental arguments to make about the functioning of the EU as a whole and 4 technical arguments relating to aspects of the treaty which are sufficiently negative for Ireland as to warrant rejection. Instead we get a big splurge of words and his points are lost - not only that but as a debate it becomes pointless when your opponents don't seem to have a central argument.

Stainless_Steel

hmmm wrote: »

It's supposed to be a debate, not a mind-dump of everything you have in your head. Blitzkriegs first reply was an excellent example of how to debate - he layed out the point he was debating, he explained why it was important, he justified his position and he summed it up at the end. Posts like that can be debated because there is a central point to be argued. Sparks43 also laid out his point and supporting argument.

FT's post have no coherent argument running through them. E.g. he could have started by saying he had 2 fundamental arguments to make about the functioning of the EU as a whole and 4 technical arguments relating to aspects of the treaty which are sufficiently negative for Ireland as to warrant rejection. Instead we get a big splurge of words and his points are lost - not only that but as a debate it becomes pointless when your opponents don't seem to have a central argument.

Apologies, I thought you were implying that FT's points had nothing to do with the Lisbon topic as a whole.

Point noted - but bear in mind the YES side have only refuted a small number of his points, and have given no reason for voting YES. In my eyes, they are losing.

K-9

Stainless_Steel wrote: »

Dont fully agree, he addressed blitzkrieg's points very well IMO.



You really don't see the relevance of all the above to the Lisbon debate?

No, he addressed the weightings in QMV and just states it is a bad thing. No examples of big countries over ruling us.

Basically, it is the sovereignty is sacrosanct principle, without giving examples of how shared sovereignty Has affected us for the worse.

Immigration had nothing to do with that. We could have availed of a 7 year derogation, but only 3 Govts. didn't, us included. His economy points are weak too.

Blitzkrieger

nesf is talking about conspiracy theroies now, but I genuinely do think we should question anything so heartily endorsed by our politicians. The same ****wits who led us into the current economic crisis now want us to vote yes as if our lives depended on it?

I also question why so many big corporations are endorsing it and none seem to be telling us why. Their interests are seldom the same as ours...

nesf

Blitzkrieger wrote: »

nesf is talking about conspiracy theroies now, but I genuinely do think we should question anything so heartily endorsed by our politicians. The same ****wits who led us into the current economic crisis now want us to vote yes as if our lives depended on it?

I'd 100% agree with you if only the Government parties supported this but it's broader than that and mainstream parties in other EU countries are also endorsing this.

Blitzkrieger wrote: »

I also question why so many big corporations are endorsing it and none seem to be telling us why. Their interests are seldom the same as ours...

Again, I'd agree if it was only businesses that were endorsing this but the Irish Congress of Trade Unions is also endorsing this and you can be damn sure they'd not support anything that wasn't in the interests of their members.

RandomName2

hmmm wrote: »

It's supposed to be a debate, not a mind-dump of everything you have in your head. Blitzkriegs first reply was an excellent example of how to debate - he layed out the point he was debating, he explained why it was important, he justified his position and he summed it up at the end. Posts like that can be debated because there is a central point to be argued. Sparks43 also laid out his point and supporting argument but I would argue had a weakness in not explaining why his particular point should be of relevance to the votes of the wider population (as it was a relatively technical issue).

FT's post have no coherent argument running through them. E.g. he could have started by saying he had 2 fundamental arguments to make about the functioning of the EU as a whole and 4 technical arguments relating to aspects of the treaty which are sufficiently negative for Ireland as to warrant rejection. Instead we get a big splurge of words and his points are lost - not only that but as a debate it becomes pointless when your opponents don't seem to have a central argument.

Oh well... guess you're just going to love my post in that case .

Any chance of getting a link to the debate in the Politics forum?

claireloopy

Hope this isnt a stupid Question but what will the lisbon treaty do for animals in this country?

ei.sdraob

claireloopy wrote: »

Hope this isnt a stupid Question but what will the lisbon treaty do for animals in this country?

not much directly, indirectly

It helps ensure their habitats dont get flooded or disappear due to other climate change events

as fighting climate change is one of the main parts of Lisbon

ei.sdraob

a little observation about the debate so far

* using
* bullet
* points
* would
* surely
* improve
* readability

Permabear

This post has been deleted.