This house would establish English as an official language in all EU member states - rebuttal speeches

Second proposing speech

Let me tell you a story from the Book of Genesis: the story of the Tower of Babel. The Bible says that there once existed a united humanity who spoke one single language and started to build a tower that would reach heaven. When God saw that, he decided to give each of them a different language so that they would not be able to finish the construction of the Babel Tower together. Why did He do so? Because for one people that have one common language, nothing is out of reach. [Continues below the fold.]

by MS

Second opposing speech
Ladies and gentlemen, it is such a foolish thing to state that English should be the official language in all EU member states. In fact, it is quite an unrealistic goal to achieve, mainly because it would take a complicated standardization process which would be hard, expansive and time-consuming on such a large scale. The problems currently faced by the European Union have hardly anything to do with English not being the official language in all member states, therefore carrying out such a project is not that relevant. [Continues below the fold.]

by MH

Second proposing speech
Let me tell you a story from the Book of Genesis: the story of the Tower of Babel. The Bible says that there once existed a united humanity who spoke one single language and started to build a tower that would reach heaven. When God saw that, he decided to give each of them a different language so that they would not be able to finish the construction of the Babel Tower together. Why did He do so? Because for one people that have one common language, nothing is out of reach. Opposition team, just think about it. In today’s world, Europe is not a major actor of the international scene anymore. But if all the countries work together, if we succeed in making up for the lack of solidarity between us, we will be able to ensure the long-term survival of the European Union. As our team already said, only a common language in the EU would be able to bind people together. The story of the Babel Tower shows that nothing is inaccessible to men who communicate with the same language. Of course this implies making concessions. We have to give up a bit of our identity to be part of the EU as a whole, so that the European Union counts on the international stage. This is not a question of betraying your nature, as the opposition team said, but a question of priorities. We don’t want the EU to be excluded from global trade!  We don’t want to be left behind! We want our voice to be heard on the international stage. This is the reason why we have to unify around the use of a common language, English, the language of trade, the language of business and the language of science. In a context of globalization of exchange, the use of an international language has become compulsory. How can you reject the idea of English as a common language, when debates involving 27 countries take place in the European Parliament? This is for sure a linguistic nightmare, which costs by the way 1.2 billion euros in translation fees. And that’s not all. Patents have to be translated in each of the 23 languages of the EU! As our team has already said, having a common language would cut down the costs.

Esperanto has already proven itself all over the world: it is said that there are two million people speaking that language. But adopting Esperanto as an official language in Europe is not feasible. However the idea of a common language to facilitate communication between Europeans is definitely a good one. From Greek islands up to the icy northern tip of Finland, from Portuguese coasts up to the Polish countryside, everybody should know how to speak English. And this is in no way a form of oppression, as the opposition says. If I may say so, you misunderstood our point: were English to be an official language in the EU, that doesn’t mean English has to supplant national languages. We don’t want the linguistic diversity in Europe to vanish, we don’t want the Americanization of Europe, and we don’t want to impose English as an exclusive and dominating language in EU member states. Our team advocates the use of English as a tool of communication between all Europeans, which is why everyone should speak it.

There are easy ways to impose English as an official language in the EU. First of all, everyone has to be able to speak English. We propose that English become compulsory at school for children from the age of six. But children should also learn English outside of school. This is why we would promote books and newspapers written by English-speaking writers in Europe, movies and tv-shows made with English-speaking actors, music sung by English-speaking singers. And all of them would be in their original language, without any translation or dubbing. This has already been instigated in Scandinavian countries, where the TV programs have been broadcast in their original language since the fifties. What’s more, according to official surveys in the European Union, English is the most spoken language in the EU: 51% of Europeans can speak English. We have to go up to 100%, because English is the language of the media, of inter-cultural exchanges and of political, economic and financial decision-makers.

Thank you for reading and don’t forget to vote for us!

MS

Second opposing speech

Ladies and gentlemen, it is such a foolish thing to state that English should be the official language in all EU member states. In fact, it is quite an unrealistic goal to achieve, mainly because it would take a complicated standardization process which would be hard, expansive and time-consuming on such a large scale. The problems currently faced by the European Union have hardly anything to do with English not being the official language in all member states, therefore carrying out such a project is not that relevant. Maybe it can smoothen the relations between all countries even more, but truth is that the EU has always managed to work well in that department for years now. Also, I personally believe the process of standardization to be highly unlikely on such a level. People can hardly agree on topical questions of social, political and/or economic regard (such a gay marriage, etc.) much less on which language to make the de facto global standard!

Aside from my personal and honest opinion, English should not be the European Union primary language because it would be synonymous to the end of culture. As a matter of fact, language is not only the most basic means of communication; it is so much more meaningful as it reflects how a culture has developed and how it has evolved throughout history. That is why some minority groups are fighting ferociously in order to try and save their language because it is a part of their identity.  In a country like Switzerland (who is not a member of the EU) it is natural for most people to learn many languages fluently. That same principle need to be taught in all Europe and mainly in language-shy countries such as the United Kingdom, instead of going the other way around and imposing one particular language over all countries. If people are able to master one or two more languages aside from their mother tongue, Europe will at least retain some of its diversity and maintain the evolution of languages.

To some extent, approving the motion goes with the negative side effects of globalization. We already live today in a world that is completely standardized. No more specificity. Originality, creativity and boldness are beginning to vanish all together, making places for a world where the same people are doing the same things everywhere. One of the main reasons of this cultural destruction is some kind of organized and systematized interbreeding. This statement may not be credible right now as it heavily implies some conspiracy theory. But let's look at the bigger picture. Languages are strongly tied to culture, so standardizing one in particular gives an upper hand to countries that are already in a powerful position such as the United States. So, in that regard, approving this motion goes hand in hand with the negativity surrounding globalization, which may be considered as the engine that improved this human catastrophe, as it implies the opening of local and nationalistic perspectives to a broader outlook of an interconnected world with free and almost chaotic transfer of capital, goods and services. It is therefore rather a worldwide movement towards an economic and financial trade that mostly benefits the multinational companies such as Nike or McDonalds that are rubbing their hands over this deliberated wrecking. Do we really want to witness the birth of some kind of ridiculously monotonous and exclusive hybrid race? Are we willing to watch our precious diversity being wiped out of the page of time? Because, let's set the record straight : diversity means beauty. Diversity means everybody is unique. Our differences are what make us unique and bound us all together. In a sense, at the end of the day, our specificities are our similarities. This is why we need to protect it from it s self-destruction. We need to take a stand in order to put an end to this harmful melting pot. We cannot allow the EU to lose the broad appeal that lies in its cultural diversity. Therefore, the motion has to be rejected ! And thank you for your attention

MH