Third proposing speech
Ladies and Gentlemen, I am deeply honoured to have the opportunity to speak before you. I'm now raising my voice firstly to point out some absurdities in the opposer's speeches and secondly to summarise and conclude this debate.
As a matter of fact, W said CAP is a barrier which prevents GM crops from spreading in Europe. That's not true, Europe forbids GM crops, and CAP or not no one is allowed to raise GM plants. The thing is maybe GM will soon be allowed, and the CAP will still be there. It would prove your argument is false. A second example is the one of cannabis. Do you think cannabis plantation is forbidden in France because of CAP? No, obviously not: CAP is not related at all with laws that concerns agriculture. [...]
by LM
Third opposing speech
Two arguments have been given by the 2nd proposer. Today, protectionism is impossible because of globalisation. Liberalising trade would lead to lower prices for the European consumers and economic raise of developing counties.
The intentions of the proposers are still unclear. Do they want to abolish the CAP and replace it by another, better policy? Or the 2nd proposer’s approbation of free, globalised market means they simply want to open the market? In either case, they do not give any measure they would implement in order to either replace CAP or make transition toward a free market. [...]
by IP
The intentions of the proposers are still unclear. Do they want to abolish the CAP and replace it by another, better policy? Or the 2nd proposer’s approbation of free, globalised market means they simply want to open the market? In either case, they do not give any measure they would implement in order to either replace CAP or make transition toward a free market. [...]
by IP
Third proposing speech
Ladies and Gentlemen, I am deeply honoured to have the opportunity to speak before you. I'm now raising my voice firstly to point out some absurdities in the opposer's speeches and secondly to summarise and conclude this debate.
As a matter of fact, W said CAP is a barrier which prevents GM crops from spreading in Europe. That's not true, Europe forbids GM crops, and CAP or not no one is allowed to raise GM plants. The thing is maybe GM will soon be allowed, and the CAP will still be there. It would prove your argument is false. A second example is the one of cannabis. Do you think cannabis plantation is forbidden in France because of CAP? No, obviously not: CAP is not related at all with laws that concerns agriculture.
Then, W tells us we should prepare our country for a war!! My dear God! You plan to act like Hitler did in the thirties and try to conquer the world? This house won't conquer the world! This house intends to improve everyday life of every European citizens. This house wants to abolish CAP.
That being said, let's analyse what is left in this debate, and summarise it.Our side think that CAP was helpful by the past. However it is not only a waste but also an error to maintain CAP today.AF pointed out CAP was unfair, 20% of farmers profits 80% of this welfare. It's expensive for European citizens (48% of EU budget!) although farmers represents less than 1% of the population. AF showed that CAP is no more an investment for the future. Instead, it is a relic of the past.The opposers merely explain why CAP was essential for the Camembert to continue his being. But their arguments felt to the ground when VA brilliantly demonstrated that abolishing CAP is no threat to traditional and cultural food production and consumption. VA also showed how our measure will decrease food prices. By that time, let's have a look on what our opponents did... Oh well, they kept babbling about a dictionary definition.
I have nothing else to add. I think the judges can see clearly by themselves which house is right and which house presented a structured argumentation with precise examples and proofs while the other was gossipping about questions that none of us pay any interest. Thank you and vote for us.
LM
Third opposing speech
Two arguments have been given by the 2nd proposer. Today, protectionism is impossible because of globalisation. Liberalising trade would lead to lower prices for the European consumers and economic raise of developing counties.
The intentions of the proposers are still unclear. Do they want to abolish the CAP and replace it by another, better policy? Or the 2nd proposer’s approbation of free, globalised market means they simply want to open the market? In either case, they do not give any measure they would implement in order to either replace CAP or make transition toward a free market.
Let us suppose they want a free market. Then the 2nd proposer might be right when he says it would lead to lower food prices for the EU consumers. However, we would rather pay a little bit higher prices for food but in return get good quality products and the Europe that is self-sufficient as was explained by the 2nd opposer.
Of course, developing countries’ farmers could benefit from that free market. But, we should not forget about our own farmers. Indeed, without subsidies they would not make any profit so we would see a huge decrease of the number of our farmers. One of the reasons why this is dangerous is again self sufficiency: When it comes to food, the EU should not be too much dependent upon the others. The other reason is that fewer farmers mean less arable land and landscapes. Indeed, this land would be used for different proposes i.e. for expanding cities. Thus, we would lose landscapes which are though important part of the European culture.
Before summing up this debate, I would like to develop our team’s final point. A common agricultural policy is needed for the sake of the EU cohesion. First, without a common policy every country in the EU would put in place its own agricultural policy, intervening more or less on its national market. Thus the EU countries would not be equal when it comes to agricultural production. What is than the sense of the European Union? Second, common agriculture policy is needed for the EU to meet some common objectives such as food safety, environment, water management, biodiversity…Without harmonized approach to these targets it could be very difficult to meet them. For example, farmers in poorer EU countries might not be able to respect costly environment standards. Third, CAP generates a huge money transfer all across Europe redistributing money among the EU citizens. Thus it contributes to the cohesion of member states and the unique feeling of Europe’s unity. Having French paying taxes to subsidy Romanian agriculture, British the French one and so on creates real links between EU countries. Finally, a common policy gives the EU a better position while negotiating with global producers. We are stronger together!
To conclude, the proposer’s side does not clearly explain its intentions. Their main arguments for abolishing the CAP are that it is expensive (high taxes and food prices) and that it disadvantages developing countries’ farmers. On our side, we have shown why the common agricultural policy is needed. It contributes to food safety, EU self sufficiency towards food, environmental sustainability, landscape preservation and the EU unity.
For all these reasons we beg you to oppose the motion!
IP
>>>>The other reason is that fewer farmers mean less arable land and landscapes. Indeed, this land would be used for different proposes i.e. for expanding cities. Thus, we would lose landscapes which are though important part of the European culture.<<<<
ReplyDeleteHahaha! Nice Joke! Really fun! Maybe it could even be funnier by changing the word "important"(part of the European culture) by... Oh crap, it wasn't an attempt to be funny?
* There are at least 10 time less farmers now than in 1900. However, there is twice more cultivated land.
* There are many many many places where there are neither crops nor cities in Europe. Why are you so sure "free land" would be used for expanding cities?
* You like walking between crops? The view is wonderfull: at your left, you can see wheat, at your right, oh, wonderful, there is wheat! I let you guess what is this yellow thing before you. 3 meters high wheat plant so that you cannot see anything else.
Sure, the wheat landscape is amazing, we have to protect that essential piece of European culture.
Now that the vote is over, and as an opposer, I must say I'm a bit surprised that the opposing team didn't mentioned at all the environment protection aspect.
ReplyDeleteIs it healthy to burn tons of petrol to transport meat from Australia? Wheat from America? etc...
Léonard,
ReplyDeleteYou didn’t get my point about the landscapes we are losing. I would like to come back to it before challenging some of your arguments.
Landscapes I was referring to are lands in the countryside where farmers still cultivate land and animals in the old-fashioned way, in harmony with the nature and without hard industry. I didn’t say I like to walk in the middle of crops. What I do say is that I like to know that whenever I get fed up with the life in the city, I can go to my village, oasis where I can enjoy those beautiful landscapes. Besides, transforming those lands would mean that the way of live those farmers would eventually be forgotten forever. This is how losing those landscapes impact our culture.
The example of cities being expanded was just that, an example. I didn’t pretend that all of these lands would be transformed into cities. These lands would might be turned into giant fields cultivated using hard industry as those ones in North America. Would you like that?
Now, let’s move to your speech.
You misunderstood W. He doesn’t say that “CAP is a barrier which prevents GM crops from spreading in Europe” as you put it. What he says is that “thanks to the CAP, we aren’t invaded with GM food “. Indeed, he doesn’t speak about GM plants being allowed in EU or not. He refers here to the food we would have to import if we hadn’t CAP, the food that would probably be GM. Instead, we have the choice. We can cultivate ourselves good quality food with good standards for environmental protection.
Then when you write “W tells us we should prepare our country for a war,” you are wrong again. W. actually says that we should limit our dependence upon the others. Indeed, today, with so many potential conflicts, with so many countries trying to find the means of influence over others, with unpredictable natural catastrophes etc, it is out of question to rely too much on the others.
Finally, you are making a mockery of our demand to define the motion correctly. By doing this, aren’t you just trying to make readers forget that your side didn’t say at all what the measures you actually want to take(abolish CAP, reform CAP, replace CAP, how?). Finding some shortcomings of CAP is not particularly interesting unless you find better alternatives.