This house would abolish the Common Agricultural Policy - Rebuttal speeches

Second proposing speech

Ladies and gentlemen good evening. After Mr A. wrote about the problems met by both the farmers and the governments from inside the ACP [sic! "CAP" - FDB] zone, and before Mr L. shares with us his brilliant summary, I would like to write a few words about, the extent to which the ACP is a disastrous policy on an international scale.  [...]

by VA

Second opposing speech

AMi pointed out that abolishing the CAP would destroy our “terroir”, very dear to us French people so it is already clear that abolishing the CAP would undoubtedly be a mistake. Let me go further but before that, some points from the proposing opening speech have startled me. First of all, the fact that for the government abolishing the CAP wouldn't mean completely suppressing this when it's the definition of the Oxford Dictionary. Stating the CAP needs "big reform" is merely saying it doesn't need to be abolished, just upgraded which in the end means opposing the motion.  [...] 

by W

Second proposing speech

Ladies and gentlemen good evening. After Mr A. wrote about the problems met by both the farmers and the governments from inside the ACP zone, and before Mr L. shares with us his brilliant summary, I would like to write a few words about, the extent to which the ACP is a disastrous policy on an international scale. 

But first I would like to come back on the word "abolish" which seems to have raised so many debates in the audience. First I would like to thank our first opponent for quoting every single british dictionary. We found that very instructive. I would also like to confirm what my partner wrote about this word : our intention is indeed to abolish the ACP as it is today, which obviously doesn't mean that we do not want to have it replaced by anything.

Now that this point has been clarified, I would like to move on to the key point of my argumentation : The ACP problem is only a part of a much larger issue, the one involved by free trade and deregulation. After all, meat and beans are goods like any other. Today's globalization is a reality and even though many people, even in our developed countries are suffering from it, I doubt that hiding behind the barriers of protectionism might be a solution. Besides agricultural free trade has many advantages.

As far as consumers are concerned, opening up to African or Asian countries would mean raising the offer, which according to the basic market laws would lead to a decrease of the prices. My honorable opponent was arguing about the danger of agricultural crisis. Once again let us leave the market do his job : multiplying the suppliers would protect us from these crisis. If there is a tornado in Malaysia, we'll go get our corn in Mozambique or Chile.

Let us move on to the producers. My still honorable opponent claimed that we would loose our food specialities. However he should know that what would happen would be just the opposite ! Indeed globalization always leads to a specialization of countries in what they do best. For instance China is good at textile, Japan at high quality technologies… So I would like my opponent to be reassured : he won't lose his so precious camembert, just like Italians will not lose their olive oil and Germans their beer. We may even become bio food specialists !!

To go even further let us think about developing countries whose farmers will eventually be on an equal footing with the Europeans. They will finally be able to export their corps which will inevitably lead to their economic development, and who knows, in a few years they may turn out to be the ones buying our bio camembert.

So I am asking you, dear judges, please, think about all those poor vietnamese who crave for some bio French cheese, and vote for us...

VA

Second opposing speech

AMi pointed out that abolishing the CAP would destroy our “terroir”, very dear to us French people so it is already clear that abolishing the CAP would undoublty be a mistake. Let me go further but before that, some points from the proposing opening speech have startled me. First of all, the fact that for the government abolishing the CAP wouldn't mean completely suppressing this when it's the definition of the Oxford Dictionary. Stating the CAP needs "big reform" is merely saying it doesn't need to be abolished, just upgraded which in the end means opposing the motion.

Now, why is it important to keep the CAP? The CAP allows our agriculture to remain strong against adversity and particularly America with its GM crops. The Prime Minister just said it is unfair to countries such as Africa but in fact even without the CAP, Europe would rather buy food from America because it is cheaper and of a better quality so their point isn’t valid. Thanks to the CAP, Europe gains two things: independence and self-sufficiency. For example, thanks to the CAP, France isn't invaded with GM food when their effects on our health aren’t known yet. We can choose to grow and eat the vegetables the way we want. It gives us the chance to choose whether or not to be polluted by GMOs. It is necessary for the government to provide a healthy environment for its citizens. Food quality is one of the main criteria. 

Another point is that even though it costs us some money, it is essential to preserve our self-sufficiency. Some people may wonder why but it is quite simple. Our world feels quite unsafe and we don’t know when the next war may break. What would happen if we lost our self-sufficiency to save a bit of money?  The answer is that we would be in deep trouble my friends. Europe would rely on other to supply us which constitutes a great risk at time of war. Bin Laden was recently killed and we don’t know what chain reaction it might create. So let us be safe and keep our self-sufficiency concerning food. It truly is necessary in our world. And it is the CAP that allows us to produce enough food for our people because the cost of productions are much higher than the price it is sold. 

My last point comes from the need to preserve the environment. Recently, a last point which nowadays constitutes a pillar of the CAP has been added:  to grow crops in a green way. Of course it is expensive to grow food that way, but let me remind you that the budget of the CAP has not followed the inflation for a few years, which means it has been stable. Ensuring the protection of the environment is as you all know a duty. The USA do not respect this duty with their agriculture policy so it would be immoral to rely on them. 

We must grow our own food and not rely on other because it would be dangerous and immoral in a certain way. For these reasons, I beg you to oppose this motion. 

W