Has the no to Lisbon campaign in Ireland been terminally damaged?

[drkpower]

That would be a ridiculous argument and I have not made it. I have not equated Brian Cowan and Enda Kenny with SS Reichfurher Heinrich Himmler and Reinhard Heyrdrich. I do not believe they are evil people setting out to harm the people of Ireland. I also believe that whilst they do realize there is no democratic mandate for what the European Union is embarking on and whilst they do realize that the EU structure is essentially undemocratic, they feel that economically it will be in the best interests of Ireland to support this. I believe their confidence of Ireland deriving economic advantage from this project is seriously overly optimistic and I feel that they have majorly underestimated the possibility of the EU turning in to, a transnational terror state.

There is stuff that goes on in Europe, that Cowen and Kenny are completely out of their league getting involved in and Ireland has no business being part of.

Adrian, can you please try and be a bit ore consistent. I dont like to be suspicious but when you change your view from one post to another, it is hard to take you seriously.

You first say:

Anybody in my opinion that believes the likes of Fianna Fail, Fine Gael and Labour doesn't not have an agenda in supporting Lisbon II that is outside of what is in the best interests of Ireland, is not somebody who has a serious understanding of politics.

You now say that, in fact, they are acting in our best interests but they are wrong/misguided/out of their league.

....they feel that economically it will be in the best interests of Ireland to support this

While I appreciate the clarification in your above post, you really cant have it both ways; if you have a point to make, make it but stick to it. Dont tell us that almost the entire body politic actually has an agenda that is against our interests and then tell us that they are acting in our interests but have got it wrong. There is a massive difference between the two positions and I'd thank you to think about them before further engaging in this debate.

[Adrian Wainer]

I'll try to avoid a monster post in order to keep things relatively concise and clear.

Of course the pro-Lisbon politicians are the vast vast majority (approx 156-10....?) of our TDs, so even if you qualify the politicians to mean those ones, for all practical purposes you are saying they are all liars.

But just like Adrian, your views come down to a simple premise; the pro-Lisbon politicians are acting against the interests of the people in encouraging them to vote for the Lisbon Treaty.

Again, I pose the same question as I did to Adrian. Please provide a factual basis on which to show this assertion or, failing that, even a reasonable theory which makes some kind of sense.

I have not claimed that Irish politicians are acting against the best interests of the Irish people, in encouraging the Irish people to vote yes to Lisbon II in their own opinion of their actions, I am claiming that in my view they are not acting in the best interests of the Irish people in encouraging them to vote yes to Lisbon II. The opinion that Irish politicians have of their own actions and the opinion I have of their actions, have no requirement to be in conformity.

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

[Adrian Wainer]

Adrian, can you please try and be a bit ore consistent. I dont like to be suspicious but when you change your view from one post to another, it is hard to take you seriously.

You first say:



You now say that, in fact, they are acting in our best interests but they are wrong/misguided/out of their league.



While I appreciate the clarification in your above post, you really cant have it both ways; if you have a point to make, make it but stick to it. Dont tell us that almost the entire body politic actually has an agenda that is against our interests and then tell us that they are acting in our interests but have got it wrong. There is a massive difference between the two positions and I'd thank you to think about them before further engaging in this debate.

Sorry, you had just cause to be confused on this, as my position was unclear. Irish politicians do have agendas which are not the same as, what is in the best interests of Ireland. It is quite natural with politicians that they have such agendas, for example I do not feel a politician who opposes Lisbon II will be doing himself any favours by opposing Lisbon II, if he wants to secure directorships with large international companies. Will such politicians support Lisbon II, if they thought it was going to be an absolute catastrophe, no I do not believe there are many Irish politicians who are that corrupt they would, do I believe such issues would influence them towards supporting Lisbon, yes I would.

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

[drkpower]

I have not claimed that Irish politicians are acting against the best interests of the Irish people, in encouraging the Irish people to vote yes to Lisbon II in their own opinion of their actions, I am claiming that in my view they are not acting in the best interests of the Irish people in encouraging them to vote yes to Lisbon II. The opinion that Irish politicians have of their own actions and the opinion I have of their actions, have no requirement to be in conformity.

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

That post really is not very clearly put; try and put sme thought into how your posts read before typing them.

However, after some furrowing of brows I think I might have cracked it: you are saying that you believe that politicians are acting against Irleand's interests but that you do not think that they believe that they are acting against Ireland's interests.

Assuming that I am correct in my translation, what did you mean by the word "agenda" when you said:

Originally Posted by Adrian Wainer
Anybody in my opinion that believes the likes of Fianna Fail, Fine Gael and Labour doesn't not have an agenda in supporting Lisbon II that is outside of what is in the best interests of Ireland, is not somebody who has a serious understanding of politics.

Does the word "agenda" not suggest an amount of planning or pre-meditation...?

Is it fair to say that you are shifting your position a tad, Adrian.....?

[Chuck de Mawl]

Of course the pro-Lisbon politicians are the vast vast majority (approx 156-10....?) of our TDs, so even if you qualify the politicians to mean those ones, for all practical purposes you are saying they are all liars.

By that rational, that almost all = all , then you have made the same assertion in your own post

The truth is that some are completely corrupt, some are liars, some lie some of the time, some only tell white lies, and one or two dont tell any lies

So where do you get off trying to paint me as unreasonable? We're agreed then that for arguments sake that they are all liars.

Other points:

When dealing with a liar, one does not have to know the details of his vested interest to know not to trust him as an advisor on any other topic. I did not make the same assertion as Adrian, and I do notice that you have misrepresented some of his assertions. I think you're more interested in point scoring than discovering anything in this debate.
These polticians, who have MEPS in various blocks, and know about all the horsetrading that goes on with the commissioners, influence peddling etc, cannot be trusted as objective.

Now, your counter argument, that they are indeed honest brokers is based on?

[drkpower]

When dealing with a liar, one does not have to know the details of his vested interest to know not to trust him as an advisor on any other topic. I did not make the same assertion as Adrian, and I do notice that you have misrepresented some of his assertions. I think you're more interested in point scoring than discovering anything in this debate.

Now, your counter argument, that they are indeed honest brokers is based on?

Chuck, you have missed so many points here it's hard to believe.

First, Adrian has thankfully clarified his position and admitted that his position, a expressed, may have led to confusion.

Second, the line above in bold is utter balderdash. Almost everyone lies. It is part of the human condition. You have to separate the lie from the liar. Not trusting a liar on any other topic is the undeveloped logic of a child.

Thirdly, I did not say that they are all honest brokers. I have said (and you quote me above!!) that they are like everyone else; some are corrupt liars, some are paragon's of virtue, most are somewhere in between - but they are, by and large, acting in our best interests. They sometimes (more often lately) get it wrong - just like your doc, your teacher or your lawyer. But most of them, I take at face value.

Fourthly, if you dont want to appear unreasonable, please provide the explanation requested earlier as to why the vast majority of the body politic are knowingly acting against our best interests.

[Adrian Wainer]

That post really is not very clearly put; try and put sme thought into how your posts read before typing them.

However, after some furrowing of brows I think I might have cracked it: you are saying that you believe that politicians are acting against Irleand's interests but that you do not think that they believe that they are acting against Ireland's interests.

Assuming that I am correct in my translation, what did you mean by the word "agenda" when you said:

Originally Posted by Adrian Wainer
Anybody in my opinion that believes the likes of Fianna Fail, Fine Gael and Labour doesn't not have an agenda in supporting Lisbon II that is outside of what is in the best interests of Ireland, is not somebody who has a serious understanding of politics.

Does the word "agenda" not suggest an amount of planning or pre-meditation...?

Is it fair to say that you are shifting your position a tad, Adrian.....?

My positions have been consistent. What I mean by "agenda" is I believe entirely ordinary and I believe it is not necessary to go in to great detail to describe it to anybody who has a basic understanding of how politics operates. For example, some TDs and Ministers may be looking at how their own actions in the political sphere in relation to Lisbon II will effect their possibilities of obtaining positions with private industry or European Union agencies. Other TDs and Ministers might be looking at what effect opposing Lisbon II would have on their careers within the political parties, if they were to voice opposition to Lisbon II. All this and other issues too come together to create, what might reasonably be described as an "agenda".

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

[Chuck de Mawl]

First, Adrian has thankfully clarified his position and admitted that his position, a expressed, may have led to confusion.

Actually, I understood him the first time, and I don't see how you misread him. I think he was overly polite in his clarification.

Not trusting a liar on any other topic is the undeveloped logic of a child.

(insert sound water off ducks back at the comparison to a child)

Wow, that's an interesting life philosophy if you take it as an absolute, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. I won't assume from something you did not say. And you should do likewise. I did not make the general statement that a liar lies all the time about everything, nor did I say that not trusting = automatically judging it to be a lie. I do not take politicians at face value. There is nothing undeveloped, illogical or childish about that.
Are you trying to say, that questioning the truth of their assertions, investigating the claims and doing research is not only preferrable to just trusting them, but also childish and illogical?

Fourthly, if you dont want to appear unreasonable

Appear unreasonable to whom? You? I'm rapidly losing interest in this correspondence, in proportion to any belief that it's actually aimed at informing or persuading anybody of anything, other than who can be 'smarter' at debating.

Fourthly, if you dont want to appear unreasonable, please provide the explanation requested earlier as to why the vast majority of the body politic are knowingly acting against our best interests.

Who said 'knowingly? False argument.
are acting again, false assertion. I said cannot be trusted, which is not the same thing as knowing they are in any given case knowingly acting against our interest.

I believe we have already exhausted the vein of argument about whether or not one should trust some one knows to be a liar. (Unless you have a novel argument)

I believe most people do not need to be reminded that our parties operate a hierachical whip system. That most backbench TDs are not terribly well informed or briefed on the details and implications of major decisions. That in and of itself lends itself to the 'vast majority' of them voting on something that was decided by others (be it Cabinet, part leadership etc)

Do you really require an academic paper on this? I am not inclined to give that type of time, in a thread which probably just consists now of posts between us two.

[drkpower]

My positions have been consistent. What I mean by "agenda" is believe entirely ordinary and it is not necessary to go in to detail to describe it to anybody who has a basic understanding of how politics operates. For example some TD and Ministers may be looking at how their own actions in the political sphere will effect their possibilities of obtaining positions with Private industry or European Union agencies. Other TDs and Ministers might be looking at what effect opposing Lisbon II would have on their careers within the political parties, if they were to voice opposition to Lisbon II. All thisand other issues too come together to create what might reasonably be described as an "agenda".

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

On your own argument, voting yes to Lisbon will lead to people being shot on the street without trial.

Is this what private Industry wants?
Is this what European Union agencies want?

Ridciulous.

And considering that most senior Irish politicians are "career politicians" who dont end up getting significant jobs in private industry or in European Union agencies, that argument doesnt really cut it either.

Your arguments are getting weaker and weaker.

[drkpower]

I did not make the general statement that a liar lies all the time about everything, nor did I say that not trusting = automatically judging it to be a lie. I do not take politicians at face value. There is nothing undeveloped, illogical or childish about that.
Are you trying to say, that questioning the truth of their assertions, investigating the claims and doing research is not only preferrable to just trusting them, but also childish and illogical?

And of course it is appropriate to "question the truth of their assertions" etc.. and is better than just trusting them. But equally, just because someone lies is no reason to no longer "trust them as an advisor on any other topic". As I said, that is the underdeveloped logic of a child (ducks or no ducks....).

I dont particularly want to labour on these minor points but I find that when one's logic is based on such silliness, it takes way massively from their substantive points. I think you are a good example of this.

"When dealing with a liar, one does not have to know the details of his vested interest to know not to trust him as an advisor on any other topic".