This house would establish English as an official language of all EU member states - closing speeches

Closing proposition speech

Ladies and Gentlemen, as many arguments were presented for and against the motion, I would like to comment on some of them. First let us get back to the issue of sovereignty. I hear that establishing a common language in the EU would threaten and diminish the identity of the nations. Worse, I hear that this would lead to mass demonstrations and in the end to the rejection of the very idea of a European Union. Those assumptions couldn’t be more wrong. (Continues below the fold.)

by YM

Closing opposition speech

It has become clear throughout this debate that the motion should be rejected. It is an artificial solution to a problem blown out of proportion, pandering to the interests of a select minority of people. The arguments given by the proposers are weak in the face of simple common sense, and they seem to be living in the fantasy land politicians usually inhabit, in which they lose touch with reality as they meddle with their affairs. (Continues below the fold.)

by AM

Closing proposition speech

Ladies and Gentlemen, as many arguments were presented for and against the motion, I would like to comment on some of them. First let us get back to the issue of sovereignty. I hear that establishing a common language in the EU would threaten and diminish the identity of the nations. Worse, I hear that this would lead to mass demonstrations and in the end to the rejection of the very idea of a European Union. Those assumptions couldn’t be more wrong. Indeed establishing English as an official language in the EU should not be done without explaining to everyone what would be the benefits of such a decision, and as it was shown by my proposing team, there are many of them. Let me give you the example of the Kabyle people who leave in the north of Algeria. They have their own language which they would give up for nothing in the world, but they have to learn Arabic as soon as they enter School. In the end, even if Arabic people have taken up the Maghreb for a very long time, the Kabyle culture is still alive, but now that they mastered another language they have opened to a wider world, the Arabic world, that has granted them access to more knowledge and a better way of life. Even if they didn’t have the choice, adopting a new language has come to be good for Kabyle people and the “big threat” of identity loss imagined by the opposers didn’t apply in that case. Furthermore, the democratic system of the EU should provide people a choice so that there would be no need for “mass demonstration” or “chaos”.

Second, I hear that according to a treaty written many years ago in a different context and for different people we should not do anything to strengthen the bounds between European countries. Indeed the treaty of Rome was written when European countries had a good situation. Now that we are in a very bad position and that we need to help one another out of this crisis, strengthening our bounds is not an option anymore. Why would we want to spend money on helping someone we have nothing in common with ? We currently help the Greeks because if they go down we go down. Not only does it highlight that if we understood each other better our helping the Greeks would be more efficient, but also it sheds light on the fact that our countries are already so connected that we can’t afford not to understand one another anymore. Sharing a language means sharing a culture, means sharing a philosophy, means sharing rules… About that, how are we to be a superpower if we can’t make any common decision because each member of the EU has its own legislation ?  How are we to put pressure on the Chinese or on the American if we can’t agree of a plan of action against them ?

Another issue that has been raised is the difficulty to implement such a reform in the whole EU. Well, let’s face it : more than 50% of the European people can already speak English and this number keeps increasing. English is being taught in every countries of the EU so that by the next generation, more than 80% of the European people will be able to speak English. The rest will follow since not being able to speak English will be abnormal. Given those figures and all the efforts made by the members of the EU to spread English it would be irrational not to establish it as an official language.

Thank you and vote for us !

YM

Closing opposition speech

It has become clear throughout this debate that the motion should be rejected. It is an artificial solution to a problem blown out of proportion, pandering to the interests of a select minority of people. The arguments given by the proposers are weak in the face of simple common sense, and they seem to be living in the fantasy land politicians usually inhabit, in which they lose touch with reality as they meddle with their affairs.

The infeasibility of the motion is such that the proposers lack an actual plan on how to push forward their ideal, simply because proficiency in a language isn’t something that politicians can decree to their people. The opposition seems to ignore how difficult it is to reach a high level in a language. These issues have been pointed out without response from the proposers. The enormous resources required would make the cons far outweigh any possible pros of the idea. Thus the motion could be rejected through impracticality alone.

As the debate has evolved we have also observed how infatuated the proposing speakers are with how standardization of language helps bureaucrats of the EU. No thought is put into how the people would react to such a measure as the imposition of English as the official language in the EU. As has been brilliantly pointed out, the motion goes against the whole purpose of the European Union, which is reinforcing the common ties of the different peoples while maintaining their differences. The language is one of these differences. We cannot pretend people wouldn’t be outraged at having their cultural roots damaged in the name of homogenization. To push English as an official language down the throats of the European population would be a tremendous misstep by contributing to the growing outrage and skepticism towards the EU.

Lastly we come to the problem the motion tries to address: communication. Is the source of the EU’s current problems the 3 working language scheme? Would having English as official language alleviate the current crisis? It is clearly not the case. We are arguing here about a Red Herring, unrelated to what causes disagreements and divergences in Brussels. Everyone speaking English would hardly help negotiations coming to agreements. The proposers have mentioned the Babel Tower, I would say that calling this analogy dated would be an understatement, it comes from biblical times where hardly anyone spoke more than one language and didn’t have the available resources for translations that we do now.

To conclude, I invite you to ponder these points I have identified through the debate, and you will come to the same conclusion as I: by ignoring the difficulties and superficiality of making English the official language of the EU and focusing on marginal benefits, the motion could only come from people more worried with protecting the interest of bankers and politicians than the European people.

Stop this from further hurting the European Union, vote for us.

AM