European Youth Parliament

EYP 2009 - AWS Debate Notes - Version 1 (Sunday, 22 February 2009)

AWS

European Youth Parliament Notes - Akeley Wood School (AWS)

Themes Valley Regional Forum 2009 March 7th - St Hugh's College, Oxford Click to view map & directions via public transportation Document Authors: Felix Fennell & Lewis Gudgeon

Page 1/17

Document Creator: Felix Fennell

(CC) BY - NC - SA

EYP 2009 - AWS Debate Notes - Version 1 (Sunday, 22 February 2009)

Debate Information The following information has been adapted from the schoolʼs briefing produced by the European Youth Parliament for the United Kingdom.

Why? The debate is one of a series of regional qualifiers whereby one school team is selected to take part in EYPUK National Selection Conference taking place in September 2009. Two teams from this event will be chosen to represent the UK at the International Session of the EYP.

Who? The parties taking part are all secondary schools, and each will be randomly allocated a position (attack or defend) for any of the motions listed further in this document. Each school or team is referred to as a committee in the EYP. Upon arrival each committee is assigned the name of one of the actual committeeʼs in the European Parliament, (This is NOT known before hand and is NOT the same as the subject we are debating - e.g. Climate Change or Energy & Environment) each committee is thenceforth referred to by this name only! (Do not address the school, address the committee).

What? There are SIX (6) scheduled debates (each lasting approx. 45 minutes), with the possibility of a final debate in French (the second official language of the EU), if anyone going is taking French A-Level of GCSE please try to have a rough idea what they are talking about. For each of the main debates one committee officially proposes something (defence), whilst another opposes it (attack).

We are Opposing [Attacking] the points listed in the Climate Change Debate (#5). However each committee is expected to participate in each debate after being opened to the floor. The six debates are discussed in much more detail later in this document.

Page 2/17

(CC) BY - NC - SA

EYP 2009 - AWS Debate Notes - Version 1 (Sunday, 22 February 2009)

How? The structure of each debate is the same, the table below outlines the debate format. (if any part of this is unclear please read the following sections, if your still unsure ask me (Felix) or Lewis for help.) Time (Sequence)

Event

Description

1

Defence Speech [3 min]

One member @ the podium - Pre-Prepared

2

Attack Speech [3 min]

One member @ the podium - Pre-Prepared

3

Floor Debate

Any committee can speak using placard and waiting for the chair to acknowledge them. Points of information are taken at the beginning, and take priority over other points. The chair will regularly return to both active committees (attack & defence) to respond to the points raised by the floor. Chair dictates length of debate.

4

Defence Summary [3 min]

One member @ the podium - Pre-Prepared

5

Attack Summary [3 min]

One member @ the podium - Pre-Prepared

6

Voting

Collected by Chair, each committee is called by name, one member stands to report vote. Used for general interest only!

The Chair The Chair is a person (usually seated on... ....a chair) who controls the debate making sure the rules are followed and everyone who wants to is allowed to speak. As such any member of any committee must be acknowledged by the chair before making a point of information, debate, or making a speech. This is done by rising your placard and waiting for the Chair to acknowledge you.

Page 3/17

(CC) BY - NC - SA

EYP 2009 - AWS Debate Notes - Version 1 (Sunday, 22 February 2009)

Placards To attract the attention of the Chair there are number of placards any member of any committee can rise. 1.Committee Placard - (Has our name on it) used when wanting to make a point of debate or speech. 2. Point of Privilege - If you missed or donʼt understand something that is said. The chair will ask for the point to be repeated. 3. Point of Information - Raised only when querying a fact or piece of language, for a given point. This can NEVER be used to make a debating point (as it carries priority). Voting At the end of each debate a member from each committee is invited by the Chair to report the vote of their committee. This vote can be one the following; • For • Against • Abstain (formally decline to vote either for or against a proposal or motion) Debating Points Each motion or debate consists of a topic heading (shown oblique in this document), a number of pre-written introductory clauses (A,B,C,D) followed by Operative clauses (1,2,3,4). Introductory Clauses introduce the topic area, and are treated as facts/opinion. Operative Clauses state what actions the resolution proposes to take. In is crucial that at all agreements are made in terms of the resolution, either the resolution is passed or it is failed. Speeches • Speakers should always refer to someone by their committee name, never their school. • All speeches are made from the podium. • The Chair will insist the 3 minute time limit is kept to, a warning of T-30 seconds will be given. Floor debates • Speakers should always refer to someone by their committee name, never their school. • Points are made where you are whilst standing. • Points should be short and to the point.

Page 4/17

(CC) BY - NC - SA

EYP 2009 - AWS Debate Notes - Version 1 (Sunday, 22 February 2009)

This section will be greatly expanded soon.

EU Background Information

Page 5/17

(CC) BY - NC - SA

EYP 2009 - AWS Debate Notes - Version 1 (Sunday, 22 February 2009)

Summary of debates The Committee on Employment and Social Affairs The Committee on Constitutional Affairs The Committee on Security and Defence The Committee on International Trade The Committee on Climate Change The Committee on Foreign Affairs Motion pour une Resolution

Page 6/17

(CC) BY - NC - SA

EYP 2009 - AWS Debate Notes - Version 1 (Sunday, 22 February 2009)

The Committee on Employment and Social Affairs On the question of a European Healthcare System; What steps should Member States take to ensure that healthcare is a right available to all citizens?

Introductory Clauses A. Aware that the European Convention on Human Rights guarantees access to the preventative healthcare and treatment. B. Recognising that future demographic changes in the EU will necessitate reform of the: B.1. Training of healthcare professionals B.2.Funding of healthcare systems C. Believing that the EUʼs high levels of population mobility requires coordinator in healthcare policies between Member states in order to provide an equitable level of healthcare across the union. D. Noting that the European Health Insurance Card (EHIC) already demonstrates the successful coordination healthcare on an EU level;

Operative Clauses 1.Calls upon Member States to develop healthcare systems which are free at the point of use for all European Union Citizens. ✓Promotes the idea of moving freely around the EU - as in you might be more inclined to visit other countries if you know that you can receive a good/ uniform standard of Healthcare treatment. ✖ Not all countries would be able to afford Healthcare for all of their citizens, E.G. Latvia (27,165 vs. UK = 2,804,437 GNP [$millions] ✖ What is meant by Healthcare? Scope of asking - how feasible is it to actually implement a system where countries may simply be intolerable expense? ✖ If a particular aspect of Healthcare is unavailable, for example plastic surgery or perhaps other operations that are deemed unnecessary, then people in the EU will be inclined to travel to other countries seeking certain procedures unavailable in their own country. This will subsequently put pressure on existing Healthcare systems (expertise) in other countries and be to the detriment of the peoples of that country. ✖ Quality - your country has a bad Healthcare system, but your neighbour a good one - which are you likely to go to?

Source: IMF 2007

2.Recommends that all Member States adopt a nationally centralised healthcare system. ✓Primary care trusts have come under fire, especially in regards to resource allocation and the "post code lottery" where differences in policy between trusts can effect the levels or availability of care between residents. (e.g. cancer treatments) Page 7/17

(CC) BY - NC - SA

EYP 2009 - AWS Debate Notes - Version 1 (Sunday, 22 February 2009)

✖ This was tried in the UK but didn't work, policies became too general, didn't effect the needs of local people, the solution was the creation of national care trusts. These are able to target more specific problems for their local patients, government oversight still continued but in a more resource driven rather than policy driven focus. requires completion

3.Urges Member States to fully fund the studies and training of healthcare processionals. ✓For ✖ Against

requires completion

4.Recommends the creation of a Communal Healthcare Fund into which wealthier Member States will contribute funds to be used by other Member States for the development of their own healthcare systems. ✓For ✖ Against

Page 8/17

(CC) BY - NC - SA

EYP 2009 - AWS Debate Notes - Version 1 (Sunday, 22 February 2009)

The Committee on Constitutional Affairs 50 years, 27 Member States and 500 million citizens later; is it time for the EU to review the status of Member and Accession states in order to ensure it remains a stable and efficient entity?

Introductory Clauses A. Noting with regret that certain member States have not made the positive domestic reforms expected upon accession. B. Concerned that Bulgaria and Romania have failed to take sufficient action against corruption. C. Deeply concerned that progress among the EU15 has been hindered by the burden of new members. D. Believing that structural and regional development funds are inequitably distributed among Member States.

Operative Clauses 1. Urges the EU to tighten Accession criteria for candidate countries; ✓ No longer strongly benefits the original countries in terms of trade, and causes a majority of funds to be spent of LEDC (within a European context). ✓I f this continues then more important functions and decisions about the EU may be too heavily influenced by these new members in order to benefit themselves without benefiting the original countries. ✖ Increased (unfair/ disproportionate) tax burden ✖ EU becomes diluted, looses standards. What then is the point in having it? ✖ Might be considered protectionism due to the fact that implementing these changes would benefit "us" not "them" (where "them" are those countries that are currently benefiting in order to improve their own very basic infrastructure.) ✖ Soviets? (in the sense it was them who got them into this mess in the first place, shouldn't Russia be the ones to [partly] help them to recover 2. Mandates the European Commission to provide stringent guidance and targets to those states whose current membership is considered detrimental to political and economic progress of the EU; ✓ This point was a bit stupid, why should we waste time, energy, money on something that will in the short and medium time damage the existing union? ✖ It is unfair for us in a position of economic success to expect countries with much less resources to match the contributions of us. (its easy for us to say) ✖ As well have already developed we are able to focus more on helping others, where as developing countries are not able to spare any resources as they need them all to help develop themselves. (a resource in this sense is time, money, expertise, or physical / intellectual resource) Page 9/17

(CC) BY - NC - SA

EYP 2009 - AWS Debate Notes - Version 1 (Sunday, 22 February 2009)

3.Recommends the creation of a more robust system of financial and political penalties for Member States that fail to meet targets; ✓ Clear advantages in so much as ensuring both sustainability and security there is a necessity for a punishments system otherwise the system could become unfair. ✖ Some countries - given the economic climate especially - may have no choice but to fail to meet targets. Additionally not all targets will be universally accepted, e.g. American Kyoto (not EU though). In hard financial times health etc. will be of prevailing importance. ✖ By taking away money they risk the reduction in further improvements, leading to the failing of future targets, leading to reductions in funding, etc. 4.Encourages the EU to reduce funds available to accession countries unless they are directly related to the adoption of the “acquis communitaire;” ✓Obvious advantages, mainly that of fair treatment of all states and ensuring that some countries are not funding things that they would not necessarily agree with in the first place on the basis that other countries have not complied with the EU body of law. ✖ Who would decide what was "directly" related, this is very subjective, and their is no clear guidelines that could be drawn up. ✖ Some things may not appear to be directly related but in actual fact they are far more beneficial to the country, and allows it to more easily comply with existing legislation. This type of flexibility would be removed if accepted.

Page 10/17

(CC) BY - NC - SA

EYP 2009 - AWS Debate Notes - Version 1 (Sunday, 22 February 2009)

The Committee on Security and Defence On the question of Maritime piracy; what action should the EU take to safeguard European interests, and work for an international response to this problem?

Introductory Clauses A. Concerned by the lack of a coherent international response to recent increases in maritime piracy off the coast of non-EU countries, including Somalia, India and Nigeria. B. Recognising the importance of secure shipping routes in sourcing products from around the world, and the duty of the EU to protect its vessels and citizens working on board. C. Noting the minimal maritime security support given to vessels operating outside of EU waters. D. Assesses that unless the EU takes pre-emptive actin the frequency and violent nature of these crimes will continue to increase;

Operative Clauses 1. Calls upon Member States to take action to ensure international maritime law is enforced in third (world or party ?) countries where shipping channels are used by European vessels; ✓ allows the promotion of global security, ✓ would demonstrate the ability of a combined EU presence ✖ Should it be our responsibility to maintain other peoples shipping routes through waters external to the EU? IS this just an unnecessary cost that all the EU members could incur? ✖ A support role, and international co-operation regarding intelligence (interpol?) would be better suited and more effective. ✖ Non-workable due to a lack of existing powers for the EU to control member states, (the red lines, the failed EU treaty), decision is actually regarding forgien policy, and area where the EU has no control or jurisdiction. 2.Strongly encourages the pooling of Member States naval resources for the protection of EU interests against piracy in foreign waters; ✓ A greater force than an individual country could achieve by itself meaning that not only is the problem likely to be dealt with with more clout but also that the piracy is likely to remain country unspecified. ✓Less miscommunication between states since all the states will be working towards the same goal. ✓Shared military technology, (better tracking system than Poland etc....?)

what?

✖ EU has no authority to force member states to use naval recourses, the EU has no such powers and command structure to do so (who is the commander in chief of such a force?) Page 11/17

(CC) BY - NC - SA

EYP 2009 - AWS Debate Notes - Version 1 (Sunday, 22 February 2009)

✖ Possible conflicts with member states existing treaties, for example if a country has a treaty stating it will help defend one country and another state has a treaty saying it defend a country that is attacking the first country how would the EU cope? or decide which state to support (or would both be excluded from an EU force)? 3.Urges Member States to undertake capacity building programmes in nations known to be strong-holds for maritime piracy, in order to improve cooperation and capability on the ground level to recover stolen goods, recuse hostages and bring pirates to justice; ✓ Clear advantages if countries have existing infrastructure to deal with piracy, for instance a state will be able to deal with the problem immediately. ✖ isn't this a bit forceful? (invading) ✖ treaty or access issue (past disputes) etc. ✖ How effective would these bases be? (who would do what?) 4.Suggests the use of joint military interventions in piracy hotspots; ✓unified, strong front, some countries may be better suited to do this (having dealt with similar problems). ✓Allows EU countries that haven't done much (Sweden, France) to pretend to do something and therefore justify themselves as a military power. ✓Advantages of a specialist reactionary force, e.g. the SBS British forces. ✖ Lack of jurisdiction? ✖Who would control the force - might ultimately only be one country affected by a particular act of piracy - but they should not have control of the British force (etc.) - there is essentially a control issue here. ✖Would require the ratification of the failed EU treaty (to allow control of defence and foreign policy)

Page 12/17

(CC) BY - NC - SA

EYP 2009 - AWS Debate Notes - Version 1 (Sunday, 22 February 2009) Not complete - lack of knowledge - requires completion

The Committee on International Trade The Anti-American Revolution? A new Bolivarian bloc in South American: how should the EU shape its relations with leftist regimes in South American?

Introductory Clauses A. Deeply concerned about the fragility of democratic rule under some South American regimes, B. Recognising that trade, particularly of natural resources, is key to the economic wellbeing of many “Bolivarian” regimes, C. Asserting the nataionalisation of western business interests by certain Latin American governments, such as that Hugo Chavezʼ PSUV Party in Venezuela, is detrimental to economic growth and foreign direct investment. D. Disappointed by the stagnation of the integration process between MERCOSUR and the Andean Community into a single south American trading bloc (SAFTA)

Operative Clauses 1. Encourages the EU to make a joint stand with the USA to demand genuine democratic government across South America. ✓For ✖ Against 2. Demands that privileged access to EU markets under the Generalised System of Preferences be denied to South American countries with non liberal, democratic regimes. ✓For ✖ Against 3.Recommends that EU companies do not invest in operations in countries which have a track record of seizing private assets. ✓For ✖ Against 4.Supports the increased use of bilateral agreements between the EU as a whole and individual South American countries. ✓For ✖ Against Page 13/17

(CC) BY - NC - SA

EYP 2009 - AWS Debate Notes - Version 1 (Sunday, 22 February 2009) Not complete! - Urgent

The Committee on Climate Change On the question of cutting global carbon dioxide emissions; How can the EU best remain firm to its climate change commitments, and encourage the signaling and ratification of a renewable to the Kyoto Protocol at the 2009 Copenhagen UNFCCC Conference?

Introductory Clauses A. Recognising the position of the EU as a world wide leader in tackling climate change. B. Disturbed by the lack of commitment to climate change objectives during a time of economic uncertainty. C. Recognising the large costs associated with compliance with the Kyoto protocol faced by both developed (MEDC)

Operative Clauses 1.Urges the EU to recognise their commitment to cutting down carbon dioxide emissions during a period of economic uncertainty. ✓For ✖ Against 2.Requests the re-evaluation of the requirement that any future EU Climate bill must first be deemed cost-effective to all sectors of the EU economy. ✓For ✖ Against 3.Advises that Member States should remain legally bound to their 20/20/20 EU emissions targets, and that failure to do so will result in economic sanctions. ✓For ✖ Against 4.Calls for a greater use of ʻʻCap & Trade” polices through the expansion of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS), and the introduction of an EU lead emissions scheme beyond EU borders. ✓For ✖ Against

Page 14/17

(CC) BY - NC - SA

EYP 2009 - AWS Debate Notes - Version 1 (Sunday, 22 February 2009)

The Committee on Foreign Affairs From Aceh to Kurdistan; In the light of Kosovoʼs declaration of independence and the conflict in Georgia, how should the EU react to separatist claims outside of the Union?

Introductory Clauses A. Recognising the pre-eminence of national governments in decisions over recognition of independent states, B. Believing that conflicts arising from separatist claims, such as those from South Ossetia and Abkhazia, often serve as proxies for wider geopolitical conflicts. C. Acknowledging that support for independence within separatist regions often falls down over racial or ethical lines. D. Concerned by the potential for long-term conflict after the resolution of separatist claims.

Operative Clauses 1. Calls upon the Council to reach joint decisions other the political response to de facto separatist states outside the EU, ✓Would produce a very strong, unified front, which is much more powerful than an individual country, (i.e, all your trade partners if in Europe) ✖ Recognising states is a fundamental right of any sovereign state, by removing this right (as a committee would decide) a countries own integrity and power would be severely reduced. (IE. shouldn't the EU just become a mega country instead?) 2.Requests that the legitimacy of separatist claims by regions outside the EU be evaluated on their own merits rather than on the ground of their global impact. ✓For

Missed?

✖ Major problems with looking at a dispute in isolation!!! ✖By ignoring other countries decisions regarding an issue (the geopolitics) you risk confusing the issue, or risk criticising your allies and other international instructions, (the UN). Inconsistencies would appear as a weakness of control and therefore allows some scrupulous countries to undermine the international community over important issues. 3.Demands that the EU use its economic leverage to backup separatist claims deemed legitimate by the council by; a.Imposing economic sanctions on states blocking legitimate claims b.Offering favorable trading privileges to recognised separatist regions. ✓For

No points from here onwards

Page 15/17

(CC) BY - NC - SA

EYP 2009 - AWS Debate Notes - Version 1 (Sunday, 22 February 2009)

✖ Against 4.Suggests the EU take a leading role in the establishment of programmes for reconciliation in the aftermath of separatist conflicts. ✓For ✖ Against

Page 16/17

(CC) BY - NC - SA

EYP 2009 - AWS Debate Notes - Version 1 (Sunday, 22 February 2009)

Notes:

Page 17/17

(CC) BY - NC - SA