The Debate on the Lisbon Debate

marco_polo

And we are off and running in the great Boards.ie Lisbon Debate, it has officially commenced with the first post by FT.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055695799

An Fear Aniar

Strong (and very lengthy:eek:) start from Future Teeshock of the NO side. It will be interesting to see how the debate works out on a practical level. Will it be Wall of Text v Wall of Text or will it be in-close point and counterpoint?

.

mikom

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

Strong (and very lengthy:eek:) start from Future Teeshock of the NO side. It will be interesting to see how the debate works out on a practical level. Will it be Wall of Text v Wall of Text or will it be in-close point and counterpoint?

.

I'm holding out for LoL cats.

turgon

A good start by FutureTaoiseach for sure, and he has really put the pressure on immediately. It will now be up to the Yes side campaign to seriously address the concerns he has raised and to see if they are concrete and relevant. In terms of debating he has certainly opened well by commenting not only on what Lisbon does do but also what it doesn't do, ie the widening of the "democratic-deficit" merely by non-action is an interesting thought.

gerTheGreat

I'm certainly most interested in seeing how the Yes side counters FT's interperatation of QMV, as this I feel, is the key aspect of the Threaty.

Red Sleeping Beauty

What's the process here ? Are both sides just going to be posting on the one thread with a topic of subject throwing points and quotes back and forth and having a discussion a la the Euro forum or will each team write their own threads ? Why did FT make a debating post on a thread introducing the debate ?

Red Sleeping Beauty

stevenmartin99 wrote: »

Dont WASTE YOUR VOTE!
If your unsure of what to vote look at http://www.coircampaign.org/index.ph...actsandfigures

If your unsure of what to vote - VOTE NO!

Dont vote YES if you are unsure of why you are doing so

Page not found

:rolleyes:

Daftendirekt

Interesting opening by FT.

He seems to have put a lot of emphasis on the COFR. Too many eggs in one basket? If this point is successfully refuted, his main objection (in FT's own words) goes out the window.

It'll be interesting to see how the Yes side tackle his points about the Justice opt-out too.

marco_polo

Prertty solid start in all fairness, make some good points overall. I think the arguments based on the COFR will be vunerable however.

Alan Rouge wrote: »

What's the process here ? Are both sides just going to be posting on that one thread throwing points and quotes back and forth and having a discussion a la the Euro forum or will each team write their own threads ? Why did FT make a debating post on a thread introducing the debate ?

One mega thread I think.

andrew

Something I don't get is that often reasons are given for voting No which the person voting No sees as self explanitory, but which aren't. At least not to me.

Future Taoiseach mentioned that "Irish democracy is also undermined by the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which cannot be changed by the Irish people and statm on their own if Lisbon comes into force." Given the track record the EU has of giving Irish people rights we didn't have under our own law (such as the law against homosexuality, which was appealed to Europe), I want an explanation as to why having the ECHR decide our rights is a bad thing.

Also, I want to know why people object to voting power going in line with a country's population. I guarentee that were the shoe on the other foot we'd be complaining a lot about how smaller countries get a disproportnate influence.

I also despise the way in which the word 'democracy' is thrown around as if it had a single agreed upon meaning in every situation.

turgon

Thats actually a very good point andrew. FT opens with "The Lisbon Treaty undermines Irish sovereignty." What is not explained is why Irish sovereignty is so precious.

I dont where the Yes side are?

Lockstep

A very good start to the debate (There seems to be a lot of Yes voters on Boards so I was worried that the debate would be a bit lopsided.

Am looking forward to seeing the response.

K-9

turgon wrote: »

Thats actually a very good point andrew. FT opens with "The Lisbon Treaty undermines Irish sovereignty." What is not explained is why Irish sovereignty is so precious.

I dont where the Yes side are?

I'd say that will be the counter point alright.

He mentions less control over immigration and asylum too, which usually go down well with a lot of No voters.

Daftendirekt

When do the yes side post their first response? Or do they just post whenever they're ready?

marco_polo

turgon wrote: »

I dont where the Yes side are?

Judging by how often the four of them have posted in the EU forum today, they have all either been site banned, or are very busy

Soul Winner

I'm waiting over 6 months to hear any positives for voting Yes to the Lisbon Treaty, so a couple more days won’t hurt. All we get are promises that what we already have in Europe we will get, if Lisbon is ratified. Is it just me or is there something seriously wrong with the reasoning of the Yes side? Me thinks that fear his made them loose their marbles, all common sense has been kicked to the curb in this country and the shadow of fear is eagerly awaiting to rule the masses. I have a motto I teach my kids about bullies and bullying: "Don't stand for bullying - Be brave and confront it head on."

Be Brave and Vote NO to Lisbon!!!

Dinner

Soul Winner wrote: »

I'm waiting over 6 months to hear any positives for voting Yes to the Lisbon Treaty, so a couple more days won’t hurt. All we get are promises that what we already have in Europe we will get, if Lisbon is ratified. Is it just me or is there something seriously wrong with the reasoning of the Yes side? Me thinks that fear his made them loose their marbles, all common sense has been kicked to the curb in this country and the shadow of fear is eagerly awaiting to rule the masses. I have a motto I teach my kids about bullies and bullying: "Don't stand for bullying - Be brave and confront it head on."

Be Brave and Vote NO to Lisbon!!!

Seriously? You're going to turn the debating forum into soapboxing. If you want to have a debate on Lisbon go over to the EU forum this forum is to discuss the debate.

bonkey

K-9 wrote: »

I'd say that will be the counter point alright.

I expect the counter-point will also include how the potrayal of the QMV changes is inaccurate and incomplete....that it is a misrepresentation of what will happen that casts the changes in an unfavourable-but-inaccurate light.

He mentions less control over immigration and asylum too, which usually go down well with a lot of No voters.

Absolutely...they'll go down a storm with people who've already made their minds up to agree with FT's conclusions.

As an argument, though, I found the immigration/asylum slant unconvincing.

Soul Winner

Dinner wrote: »

Seriously? You're going to turn the debating forum into soapboxing. If you want to have a debate on Lisbon go over to the EU forum this forum is to discuss the debate.

Hey? You're not the boss of me! Just kidding. Sorry for the soapboaxing. I gets carried away sometimes. I think FT has made too strong an opening statement and the Yes siders are still like deers caught in the headlights. :pac:

Pride Fighter

Excellent opening by FutureTaoiseach. There are many reasons to vote no and he has not even used all of them.

ztoical

andrew wrote: »

Something I don't get is that often reasons are given for voting No which the person voting No sees as self explanitory, but which aren't. At least not to me.

Future Taoiseach mentioned that "Irish democracy is also undermined by the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which cannot be changed by the Irish people and statm on their own if Lisbon comes into force." Given the track record the EU has of giving Irish people rights we didn't have under our own law (such as the law against homosexuality, which was appealed to Europe), I want an explanation as to why having the ECHR decide our rights is a bad thing.

+ 1 I'd like an explanation as well...from womens rights to gay rights the EU has been better for us then our own government.

marco_polo

bonkey wrote: »

As an argument, though, I found the immigration/asylum slant unconvincing.

It seems clear that the British Protocols are unequivocal clarifications that the scope of the charter does not extend to the level of national law, rather than opt ouots and weakens its use as the foundation for the argument that it is does apply for Ireland.

Sully

FT generally says the same thing on repeat - a lot of which is not correct. Pinch of salt tbh. Yes side should easily shoot back and get the upper hand.

K-9

bonkey wrote: »

I expect the counter-point will also include how the potrayal of the QMV changes is inaccurate and incomplete....that it is a misrepresentation of what will happen that casts the changes in an unfavourable-but-inaccurate light.


Absolutely...they'll go down a storm with people who've already made their minds up to agree with FT's conclusions.

As an argument, though, I found the immigration/asylum slant unconvincing.

Indeed, very true. For all the talk about QMV we get no, or very poor examples of it affecting us.

While that will be a positive in the points for QMV, it will be a positive for FT's immigration and asylum points, regardless of how the EU had nothing to do with decisions on the derogation. People see that as the EU interfering in their lives, whether that is true or not.

BlitzKrieg

briefly done. I'm in the middle of drawing 30 storyboards and will be up all night so I shall keep picking at things until my post limit is empty.

(are debators allowed to post here?)

Daftendirekt

Good response to FT's opening, BlitzKrieg.

That takes care of the two most important points anyway.

K-9

Good post from Random Name bringing up the democracy point.

Ireland has arrived where we are at by Referenda.

SEA, Maastricht, Amsterdam, Nice 1 and Nice 2. They have been accepted by Referenda.

marco_polo

K-9 wrote: »

Good post from Random Name bringing up the democracy point.

Ireland has arrived where we are at by Referenda.

SEA, Maastricht, Amsterdam, Nice 1 and Nice 2. They have been accepted by Referenda.

I thought that this point was weak because the member states are the sole authorities on what powers are conferred upon the Union via the treaties, always have, and always will be. The Union does not get to choose anything in this process.

"We have pooled our individual sovereignty to create a single state, but now that single state is choosing to pool the sovereignty which we have granted it with like-minded governments"

Pride Fighter

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

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

K-9

The QMV could be crucial.

Even after FT's post, it still looks like 4 states is the normal blocking minority and not the 35%. This is a key point and seeing as nearly everybody was referring to the 35% blocking population as a big state power grab, could be crucial.

Is one of the No sides central points, not true or not as important as made out?

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?