Lisbon Treaty

I think I have expressed a composite view of the whole Lisbon Treaty farce which stands up well given the known facts. Whether historians will judge the affair, if successful, as I describe I cannot know, but I can be more precise. If my assessment of what has happened regarding the LT is more or less correct, it will be the greatest political scam ever - whether the historians judge it so or not. Which is not what you said. You said that you were sure that historians would judge in favour of your views. The most obvious reason you post on this forum is to add confusion to the debates to prevent them from developing in the healthy fashion I have described. You clearly are not here to help this process, so the assumption is that you have been delegated by your party to perform this role, because there is a genuine and realistic fear that a sizeable proportion of your members will decide to join the Liberals if an EU policy which is absolutely hostile to the undemocratic EU superstate that the LT aims to secure, is developed I accept your apology. In response to Mr bilbournemouth, I wish to point out that I am not and have never been employed in any capacity by any political party for any purpose. I am a party activist in my constituency, but this does not in any way affect anything I have said on this forum, in this thread or elsewhere. To him I would further add that the conclusion I must draw from his disinclination to participate in debate is that he is not, in fact, such a keen advocate of free debate as he suggests. You clearly have an able intellect so you must be capable of seeing that it would be far better to use your talents honing Lib/Dem policies rather than engaging in these spoiling tactics. By doing so both the Liberals and the Lib/Dems will be able to present the best possible policies for the electorate to choose from at the next GE. Such activity also produces a sense of well-being for you know that you have spent your energies creatively rather than destructively which always leaves an unpleasant taste. I do understand that you may have no choice but to act as you do because it is your paid employment. As we have (I hope) now agreed, it is no such thing. I find it extremely alarming that you feel a need to suggest that anyone who disagrees with you must be paid to do so. I further wish to point out that I spend a considerable amount of time on Liberal Democrat forums (both open and closed) both defending and picking holes in party policy. If anyone reading this thread cares to have a look at the Liberal Youth forums in any depth they will find that I spend a considerable amount of time attempting to convince fellow Liberal Democrats of my interpretation of liberalism. I post similarly on members-only forums, though obviously you cannot verify that. If attempting to engage in a debate on what you see as an important issue is seen by you as "spoiling" then you are clearly not people with whom I wish to debate or with whom debate could ever be productive. I am, frankly, shocked that people who claim to be liberally-minded would behave in such a way and I therefore will be closing my account on this forum as soon as I can work out how. If anyone does wish to engage in constructive debate then perhaps they should come to the open Liberal Youth forums (or one of the countless other political forums that exist on the Internet) where people are more interested in debating political issues in an open and welcoming manner. There are, of course, members of this forum who attempt to engage in debate on just those principles and none of the above is intended in any way as a criticism of them. I may not always (though often I do) agree with them but I respect their willingness to listen to my arguments, as indeed I listen to theirs in return. Alas, they are not the ones who shout loudest. Since I'm closing my account, bilbournemouth need not worry about anyone having to "waste any more effort" in such trivial things as debates about whether things are good or bad, right or wrong. I sincerely hope that that is not the dominant view in your party because if it is then I fail to see what purpose the party can have. I really do hope that that is not the case, but the evidence with which I am presented is that, barring some individuals, many party members are so focused on winning elections that they have no time to explain why they want to win them. Finally, some advice: political parties which do not engage with people who do not entirely agree with them do not grow. If you want to succeed as a party, you have to learn to debate (especially with people who have been specifically invited to a discussion forum by the organiser for that very purpose). This probably applies doubly to parties attempting to promote any kind of liberal (small l) agenda, which is based on a reasoned philosophical position. Goodbye - and good luck to those who honestly do want to engage with political debate.

I disagree with Appius on many points of politics, but I completely agree with his comments about the value of open debate. In fact, that's one of the reasons that I set up this forum, and is also one of the reasons that I am a Liberal. On reflection, the problem may arise because the forum has more than one purpose. One purpose is to provide a place where all liberal-minded people can chat about politics, and where people can find out more about the Liberal Party if they want. Another purpose is to provide a rallying point for the scattered Liberal Party activists, to discuss tactics and push forward the party's revival. Maybe the two functions don't sit quite as comfortably together as I had supposed. I've now set up a "Liberal Party activists only" section of this board. (If you aren't one, you probably can't even see it.) Might I suggest that activists who only want to discuss tactics with one another could simply ignore the rest of the forum and just post in that one area?

Liberal Activists - Great idea Tom
Yes Tom great idea of yours and find this very useful. Appius Stuartus Tacitus I am not in the least illiberal I am pointing out to other members that ( In my view) it is pointless debating with you in this forum on the Lisbon Treaty. And yes I know I have contradicted myself somewhat :shock:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripSM

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripSM Yes exactly! :lol:

While any debate would remain unresolved there is a point to debating stuff like the Lisbon Treaty so that it enhances the skills and arguments for whenever you get into a debate when it really matters like at hustings. Consider this as practice and it is a shame that AST would feel the need to withdraw from the forum. Yes, it is a great shame. Of course it can be irritating when a particular discussion seems to go round and round with no sign of progress, but politics is just like that sometimes and that isn't a reflection on any of the people involved. As I said, I would like this forum to be a friendly and interesting place where all liberal-minded people can meet to discuss the views we have in common and also the areas where we differ. I think this would be a good thing in itself and also a great advertisment for the continuing Liberal Party, which has plenty to contribute to political life in this country but is very little known. The fact that our most frequent poster from another party has now left the forum because he felt unwelcome is a setback. If I am the host of this forum (as I suppose I am) then I also feel I have failed in my duty of hospitality. :(

Tom, I am sorry that I have undermined your purpose for this forum. It seemed to me, that AST had no grounds to maintain that the LT is of any significant difference to the old Constitution - this has been confirmed by so many sources, to continue with that argument prevents the debate moving onto the next level which is whether the LT does establish an undemocratic superstate which will merge the 27 countries into one. Here there was cause for debate and he had raised some good points which need addressing, but it is impossible to debate with someone who will never concede anything - even if, to any reasonable man, a stance has been thoroughly defeated. Given this approach to a debate, what choice is there? Either you spend hours debating each and every point to the nth degree and still get nowhere or you retreat, which implies that you have ceded the argument. Neither solutions are satisfactory, for I, like most others, are not prepared to spend such time for little or no purpose, but the alternative is that every debate could be brought to a halt by using these tactics which, I would have thought, would discourage others from using the forum. I challenged him on his purpose as I thought this would resolve the issue, however, it is your forum - if you would be happier for me to treat such tactics with respect and give them free reign - I will. As you know I am used to a forum where forthright comment is the norm.

Tom, I am sorry that I have undermined your purpose for this forum. John, don't lose sleep over it! I thought your post accusing him of being paid to post here was out of order, but you did apologise for that and he accepted your apology. I've already suggested to him that therefore he really has no reason to leave this forum, but I think he wants to go anyway. It isn't just you - he generally felt a bit unwelcome now. It seemed to me, that AST had no grounds to maintain that the LT is of any significant difference to the old Constitution - this has been confirmed by so many sources, to continue with that argument prevents the debate moving onto the next level which is whether the LT does establish an undemocratic superstate which will merge the 27 countries into one. If you look back at the earlier threads on this forum, you'll see that AST and I also had unending debates on exactly this subject. I learned a few interesting things but basically we made no progress and eventually I just disengaged from that discussion. Yes, I do agree that it is frustrating. He convinced me that there are a few minor differences in substance (not just style) between the Lisbon Treaty and the Constitution, but like you, I couldn't see how he could maintain his position that the Treaty was so different from the Constitution as to make a referendum unnecessary. Still, I'm convinced that he was perfectly sincere about it, and it was probably just as frustrating for him! Here there was cause for debate and he had raised some good points which need addressing, but it is impossible to debate with someone who will never concede anything - even if, to any reasonable man, a stance has been thoroughly defeated. On the Lisbon Treaty he wouldn't concede an inch. However, in fairness on other issues he was willing change his position when confronted by the hard facts. For example, he started off defending the LibDem ruling group on Liverpool City Council, but did come to agree that they were a bit useless and needed a change of leadership. Given this approach to a debate, what choice is there? Either you spend hours debating each and every point to the nth degree and still get nowhere or you retreat, which implies that you have ceded the argument. Neither solutions are satisfactory, for I, like most others, are not prepared to spend such time for little or no purpose, but the alternative is that every debate could be brought to a halt by using these tactics which, I would have thought, would discourage others from using the forum. That's an interesting point, but maybe it's also a question of personal taste, which differs. Some new visitors, coming across such a debate, might indeed find it offputting but others might feel inspired to pitch in with points of their own. It is hard to generalise. When somebody is as stubborn as AST on a point which seems to us to be so easily provable, it does at least encourage us to be clearer in our arguments. Some things seem to me to be "obviously" right, and that makes me lazy in how I think about them, so it is useful to be endlessly contradicted sometimes! As you know I am used to a forum where forthright comment is the norm. You can say that again, squire! :) It would be nice if folk here could be a bit more patient with one another than on that other forum (I take it you mean democracyforum.co.uk), and assume that everyone here is posting in good faith, which so far I think is completely the case. Still, on any forum it is always going to be occasionally useful to have thick skin, and I wouldn't want you to be so careful about hurting people's feelings that you were afraid to put forward your strongest arguments.

View Full Version: Lisbon Treaty