query: “Junk food” sales are an important source of funding for schools.  An important issue to consider in this topic is the constellation of incentives that actually got us to the place where we are at today.  With the environment designed to incentivize improving schools’ performance on standardized tests, there is absolutely nothing that would motivate them to invest their very limited resources into non-core programs or subjects, such as PE and sports and other activities. [1]  Ironically, schools turned to soda and snack vending companies in order to increase their discretionary funds. An example cited in the paper is one high school in Beltsville, MD, which made $72,438.53 in the 1999-2000 school year through a contract with a soft drink company and another $26,227.49 through a contract with a snack vending company. The almost $100,000 obtained was used for a variety of activities, including instructional uses such as purchasing computers, as well as extracurricular uses such as the yearbook, clubs and field trips.  Thus it becomes clear that the proposed ban is not only ineffective, but also demonstrably detrimental to schools and by extension their pupils.  [1] Anderson, P. M., 'Reading, Writing and Raisinets: Are School Finances Contributing to Children’s Obesity?', National Bureau of Economic Research, March 2005,  , accessed 9/11/2011

positive: health general weight house would ban junk food schools There is absolutely nothing stopping the schools from finding ventures that are just as profitable with companies that offer healthy drinks and snacks. In fact, most of the existing contracts could simply remain in place, since most of the firms are conglomerates that could just as easily offer healthy alternatives to soda pops and cookies.  Where that would prove impossible, it is simply a question of priorities: how many children afflicted by diabetes type 2 are worth a field trip? How many a new sports program or new equipment?

negative: health general weight house would ban junk food schools Targeting schools will be an ineffective strategy.  Schools may seem like a perfect place to effect behavioral change in youth, since 95% of young people are enrolled in schools. [1]  But what researchers find is that changing the choices we have available does not necessarily lead to any behavioral change. Penny Gordon-Larsen, one of the researchers, wrote: "Our findings suggest that no single approach, such as just having access to fresh fruits and veggies, might be effective in changing the way people eat. We really need to look at numerous ways of changing diet behaviors. There are likely more effective ways to influence what people eat.” [2]  In the case of school children is this point seems particularly salient. Given that high school students in the US average only 6 hours in school [3] and the widespread availability of fast and other forms of “junk food”, we can hardly expect that impacting this single environment of the school will lead to any lasting behavioral changes. Realistically, what we can expect is for school children to go outside the school to find their favorite snacks and dishes.  Even if, by some miracle, the ban would change the behavior of children in schools, there is still the matter of 10 hours (the ATUS suggests kids sleep an average of 8 hours per day) they will spend outside schools, where their meal choices will not be as tailored and limited.  [1] Wechsler, H., et al., 'The Role of Schools in Preventing Childhood Obesity', National Association of State Boards of Education, December 2004,  , accessed 9/11/2011  [2] Nordqvist, C., 'No Single Approach Will Solve America's Obesity Epidemic', Medical News Today, 11 June 2011,  , accessed 9/11/2011  [3] Bureau of Labor Statistics, 'American Time Use Survey', 22 May 2011,  , accessed 9/11/2011

negative: health general weight house would ban junk food schools Better nutrition leads to better students.  There is a growing body of evidence linking a healthy lifestyle, comprising of both adequate nutrition and physical exercise, with improved memory, concentration and general academic performance. [1] A study has shown that when primary school students consume three or more junk food meals a week literacy and numeracy scores dropped by up to 16% compared to the average. [2]  This is a clear incentive for governments to push forward for healthier meals in schools for two reasons. The first obvious benefit is to the student, whose better grades award her improved upward mobility – especially important for ethnic groups stuck worst by the obesity epidemic and a lower average socioeconomic status.  The second benefit is to the schools, who benefit on standardized testing scores and reduced absenteeism, as well as reduced staff time and attention devoted to students with low academic performance or behavior problems and other hidden costs of low concentration and performance of students. [3]  [1] CDC, 'Student Health and Academic Achievement', 19 October 2010,  , accessed 9/11/2011  [2] Paton, Graeme, ‘Too much fast food ‘harms children’s test scores’’, The Telegraph, 22 May 2009,  accessed 20 September 2011  [3] Society for the Advancement of Education, 'Overweight students cost schools plenty', December 2004,  , 9/11/2011

negative: health general weight house would ban junk food schools First of all, such loop holes can be fixed and are just a problem of practicalities, if it helps to educate the pupils, we should do it. For example, there can be an agreement that parents should not buy candy for children to take to school or just restrict stores in the neighborhood to only selling junk food during school hours as they did in Tower Hamlets (UK).  In one school surveyed, all 1,700 pupils were obliged to follow strict rules stating 'no chips, fatty foods, sweets, fizzy drinks' can be sold at the school.  A nearby fast food shop was initially allowed to sell to pupils, but parents and teachers objected, fearing it would jeopardize the school's healthy-eating policy. One resident, Edward Copeland, was so angry that he brought the case to the High Court, where the court decided, that junk food stores are not be opened during school [1] hours to support the schools strict rules.  [1] Borland S., 'Judges declare fast food takeaway near school is »unlawful«', The Daily Mail, 6 December 2010  , accessed 09/10/2011

negative: health general weight house would ban junk food schools Media sensationalism is a poor justification for any state intervention of any kind. What histrionic television documentaries usually provide nothing more than a warning that our kids are in danger, along with a list of all the diseases obesity might cause. But there is absolutely nothing that would explain how exactly something as drastic as a ban would do anything to begin solving this problem.  These observations highlight a distressing truth about contemporary western society – we are unable to accept that the state is unable to solve problems without the assistance and support of civil society. We have a hard time accepting the fact that responsibility will have to fall on the shoulders of parents to enforce (or, more likely, to adopt in the first place) a healthy and active lifestyle in their families.  Advice provided by the Mayo Clinic explains that just talking isn’t effective. Kids and parents should go together for a brisk walk, ride on the bike or any other activity. It is important for a healthy lifestyle that parents present exercise as an opportunity to take care for the body, rather than a punishment or chore [1] .  Finally, there is absolutely nothing stopping schools from offering healthier options alongside existing ones. In fact, many schools are choosing a healthier path already, without being forced by governments or regulatory bodies.  [1] MayoClinic.com, 'Fitness for kids: Getting children off the couch',  , accessed 09/10/2011

negative: health general weight house would ban junk food schools We would be truly hard pressed to find a student, who isn’t very well aware of all the reasons we call certain food “junk food” and what the consumption of those does to the human body.  We already have fantastic mechanism of nutritional education in place and many very publicized campaigns stressing the importance of a healthy lifestyle. Yet what we don’t have are the results – obviously educating the public is not enough.  When we are faced with an epidemic that has such an immense destructive potential, we truly must face it head on and forget about well-intended yet extremely impractical principled arguments – such as the one proposed by the opposition.  What we need is results, and armed with the knowledge won from the war on tobacco, we now know that limiting access is a key mechanism of taking on childhood obesity.

negative: health general weight house would ban junk food schools Even if students spend a small fraction of their time in schools – and 6 hours is by no means an insignificant amount of time – it is still an incredible opportunity for intervention for a very important reason.  The reason is the incredible potential for homogeneity of experience. at least in the aspect of food offered. We are able, to certain extent, control the school environment in such a way as to promote healthy choices and eliminate bad ones. When students return to their homes, we have lost that opportunity. In a nutshell, one healthy meal per day is much better than none.  It can also be contended that children often share experiences from school with their parents and siblings back home. Thus a healthy environment in school could, potentially, find its way into homes we couldn’t otherwise reach by any other means.

negative: The ban is ineffective in addressing the problem of obesity.  Studies have shown that only a very small amount of the calories consumed by children come from foods like the Happy Meal. And while kids are eating at fast food restaurants at an alarming rate, it is their parents who make the decision to take them there 93% of the time. Of the kids who do want to go to McDonald’s, only 8% cite the toy as the primary reason. Therefore, this piece of legislation seems to tackle a perceived problem rather than a real one. Legislators would be better off focusing their attention where it matters: providing information to parents about making better choices for their kids, and improving the quality of school lunches, which are actually provided by the government and are eaten by kids every single day, often as their main meal [1] .  [1] Eskenazi, Joe, and Wachs, Benjamin. “How the Happy Meal ban explains San Francisco.” San Francisco Weekly. January 19, 2011.

negative: x education education general secondary house would fund education using Only well-off families will benefit from increased freedom of choice  Under the current system, many schools that are “failing” are struggling as a result of factors such as deprivation in their area, or high levels of children for whom English is not their native tongue.  There will be no incentive for companies to set up schools in such areas: the voucher scheme dictates that each child gets the same amount of funding, and thus in schools where a lot of extra facilities (like extra teachers, specialist language tutors etc.) are needed the potential profit to be made will be lower. On the other hand, children in well-to-do middle class areas will be highly profitable (it is not difficult to make children with a wealth of parental support do well in their exams). Thus rich children will have a range of subsidised schools from which to choose, whilst the poorest in society are still failed.

negative: Requiring school attendance allows welfare to be the hand-up that it is meant to be, and keep children out of crime.  In the US, girls who grow up in families receiving welfare handouts are 3 times more likely to receive welfare themselves within three years of having their first child than girls who's families were never on welfare1. Children living in poverty were 2 times more likely to have grade repetition and drop out of high school and 3.1 times more likely to have children out of wedlock as teenagers2. They are 2.2 times more likely to experience violent crimes. Children of welfare recipients are more likely to end up on welfare themselves. Welfare should be a hand up, not a handout that leads to dependency on the state. It is the latter if we are only leading people to fall into the same trap as their parents. Education is the way to break the vicious cycle. Through education, children will acquire the skills and qualifications they need in order to obtain gainful employment once they reach adulthood, and overcome their condition. In the developing world, primary education has proven to reduce AIDS incidences, improve health, increase productivity and contribute to economic growth3. School can empower children, and give them guidance and hope that they may not receive at home. Getting kids in school is the first step to equipping them with the skills to better their situations, and if encouraged by their parents they might consider scholarships to college or vocational school. The program does not guarantee this for all, but it is likely more effective than the leaving parents with no incentive to push their children. Benefits are supposed to promote the welfare of both parents and children. One of the best ways to ensure that welfare payments are actually benefiting children is to make sure they're going to school. This is simply providing parents with an extra incentive to do the right thing for their children and become more vested in their kids' education. 1 Family Facts, "A Closer Look at Welfare", [Accessed July 21, 2011]. 2 Duncan , Greg and Brooks-Gunn, Jeanne (2000), "Family Poverty, Welfare Reform, and Child Development", Child Development, [Accessed July 21, 2011] 3http World Bank, "Facts about Primary Education",[Accessed July 21, 2011].

negative: Parents on welfare are more likely to need the incentives to take on the costs of sending children to school.  Parents on welfare benefits are the most likely to need the extra inducements. They generally tend to be less educated and oftentimes be less appreciative of the long-term value of education. In the late 90's, 42% of people on welfare had less than a high school education, and another 42% had finished high school, but had not attended college in the US. Therefore they need the additional and more tangible, financial reasons to send their children to school. Children living in poverty in the US are 6.8 times more likely to have experienced child abuse and neglect1. While attendance might not be a sufficient condition for academic success, it is certainly a necessary one, and the very first step toward it. Some parents might be tempted to look at the short-term costs and benefits. Sending a child to school might be an opportunity cost for the parents as lost labor inside or outside the homes (especially in the third world) the household, or as an actual cost, as paying for things like supplies, uniforms or transportation can be expensive. Around the world there are an estimated 158 million working children, who often need to work to contribute to their family's livelihood2. In the UK it is estimated that sending a child to public school costs up to 1,200 pounds a year. If they lose money by not sending children to school, this would tilt the cost-benefits balance in favor of school attendance. 1 Duncan, Greg and Brooks-Gunn, Jeanne (2000), "Family Poverty, Welfare Reform, and Child Development", Child Development, [Accessed July 21, 2011] 2  [Accessed July 13, 2011].

negative: Abolishing private schools will not bring to an end to inequality between pupils as this is illustrated every day in state schools. For example, bullying is extremely common in all schools whether they be state or private. Bullying represents inequality between pupils as often it is the result of one pupil being different to another. Additionally, teachers may treat their students differently depending on their intellectual ability or their behaviour. In the US racism between students and teachers is still a big issue, as minority groups are consistently placed on slower academic tack and in 38 states “black students are twice as likely as whites to be labelled as mentally retarded” (University of Washington2003).  Thus Private schools are not the only means of inequality between students and so the abolition of these would not completely diminish student inequality.  On the disparity between private and state schools, the correct way to improve the education for children in state schools is to spend more money on state schools, devote more time, energy and enthusiasm to them rather than punishing those schools that do just that. Preventing a minority from having a certain type of education is not the way to help improve the majority’s education. By and large, the complaint is that private schools are doing well and providing a good education, whilst state schools lag behind. It is in all our interests to set the standard of education as high as we can – you do this by raising state schools to the standard of private schools, not by depriving children of a private education.

negative: To be encouraged not banned. The idea of closing down schools because they are performing better than other schools seems ridiculous. Rather than banning faith schools so all schools are on an even, but lower, playing field, a logical course of action would be to try and determine exactly what it was about faith schools that made them perform so well and attempt to emulate that in ordinary schools to improve their performance.  It may be possible to convert the schools but they would loose their ethos. Without these schools religious ethos their standards would slip and the students would be worse off.

negative: There are two things we need to respond with in this case. One regarding the current state of labels and the other the strategy of fighting obesity.  It is a fact that the current label designs leave something to be desired. If currently only a certain (but not at all negligible) percentage go ahead and actually read the labels that does not mean that labels are inherently ineffective. It might just as well, if not more likely, mean that the current design of labels is simply not attractive and useful enough for people to pay attention to. Therefore efforts are being made to revamp the food label to improve its effectiveness. [1]  As to the second, food labels are but a weapon in our arsenal against fighting obesity. It might be that on their own they will not defeat the epidemic, but they certainly play a key part of the overall strategy. [2]  [1] Associated Press, New food nutrition labels from FDA coming, published 9/3/2011,  , accessed 9/17/2011  [2] Benassi, M., The launch of a dynamic process, published in May 2006,  , accessed 9/17/2011

negative: There should be rewards for success in school, versus punishment for failure to attend.  This problem could be addressed by subsidizing school supplies or rewarding good attendance records with additional cash. Cutting benefits will only hurt the children we are trying to help, with their families deprived of the resources to feed them or care for them. Free breakfast programs in the US feed 10.1 million children every day1. Providing meals, mentors, programs that support and help students are ways to help them get along better in schools. There are already 14 million children in the US that go hungry, and 600 million children worldwide that are living on less than a dollar a day2. Why punish those families that have trouble putting their kids in school, which only hurts those children more? There should be rewards for good grades, and reduction to the cost of school and above all programs so that children don't have to sit in school hungry and confused. 1 United States Department of Agriculture, "The School Breakfast Program",[Accessed July 21, 2011]. 2 Feeding America (2010), "Hunger in America: Key Facts", [Accessed July 21, 2011]. and UNICEF, "Goal: Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger", [Accessed July 21, 2011].

negative: media modern culture television youth sport house would ban child performers Children might feel as if their rights are being taken away, but there is a reason why children are not given free reign over the way they live their lives. Governments have already stepped in to prevent children from endangering their health by consuming too much junk food, [1] [2] and indeed from working in non-performance fields. So too must they take charge in this issue and act so as to prevent children from becoming susceptible to the emotional and physical risks involved in being a child performer.  [1] BBC News, ‘Junk food banned in school meals’  [2] Harris, ‘A Federal Effort to Push Junk Food Out of Schools’

negative: It is morally acceptable to make welfare conditional.  When society has to step in and provide for those who've proved themselves unable to provide for themselves that should reasonably create certain expectations on the part of those being helped. In almost every aspect of life, money is given in return for a product, service or behavior. It is the same with welfare payments; money in exchange for children being put in school. We expect parents to do a good job in their role as parents. Ensuring that their children attend school is a crucial part of parental responsibility. Children on welfare in the US are 2 times more likely to drop out of school, however studies have shown that children who are part of early childhood education are more likely to finish school and remain independent of welfare1. Thus, when a parent is a welfare recipient, it is entirely reasonable to make it conditional on sending their kids to school. If tax payers' dollars are being spent on those who cannot provide for themselves, there needs to be a societal return. One of the greatest complaints about welfare is that people work hard for the money that they earn, which is then handed to others with no direct benefit to society. If children of people on welfare are in school it increases the likelihood that they will finish high school, maybe get a scholarship and go to college, and have the necessary tools to contribute to the work force and better society.  1 Heckman, James (2000), "Invest in the Very Young", Ounce of Prevention and the University of Chicago, [Accessed July 25, 2011]. and Duncan, Greg and Brooks-Gunn, Jeanne (2000), "Family Poverty, Welfare Reform, and Child Development", Child Development, [Accessed July 21, 2011]

negative: tax health health general healthcare weight house would implement fat tax A tax is not an effective instrument to fight obesity  There are very legitimate concerns whether artificially increasing the cost of fatty food by specifically targeting it with a tax would have a significant effect on the obesity trend.  In fact, research shows that a fat tax would produce only a marginal change in consumption – not the dramatic shift in public awareness the proponents of the fat tax are hoping for. The reason, LSE researchers believe, is simple: “those on the very poorest diets will continue to eat badly.” [1]  Other than the economic reasons for such behavior, it could be argued that is also a thing of habit and culture: fast fatty food is quick, accessible and tasty. [2] Thus while a tax might be useful in reducing things such as the use of cigarettes – which are at heart an unnecessary “luxury” and thus more easily affected by the price – eating food, whether junk or not, is necessary. It also seems that the fast fatty kind of food is fulfilling a specific need, a need for a quick, tasty and filling meal, something people consider worth paying good money for.  The fight against obesity ought to be multifaceted, complex and well thought out – and a fat tax is none of those things. We should approach the issue with more cunning and introduce other programs: such as increasing the availability of healthy food by introducing healthy vending machines; [3] increasing the amount of physics exercise by requiring it in school, improving possibilities for recreation and access to public transportation thus encouraging people to burn more calories [4] and, most importantly, proper education on the topic if we want to create lasting change. [5]  [1] Tiffin, R., Salois, M., A fat tax is a double whammy for the poor – it will do little to prevent obesity in those on lower incomes, and will hurt them financially, published 9/2/2011,  , accessed 9/12/2011  [2] Hitti, M., Top 11 Reasons For Fast Food's Popularity, published 12/3/2008,  , accessed 9/14/2011  [3] Yara, S., Best And Worst Vending Machine Snacks, published 10/6/2005,  , accessed 9/14/2011  [4] CDC, Recommended Community Strategies and Measurements to Prevent Obesity in the United States, published 7/24/2009,  , accessed 9/14/2011  [5] Bunce, L., ‘Fat tax’ solutions ignore wider social factors driving junk food habits, published 8/16/2010,  , accessed 9/12/2011

negative: health general weight house would ban junk food schools Given all the responsibilities our society has transferred from parents onto schools and educators in the 21st century, is it really sensible to include caring for nutritional choices to this already bloated and unmanageable list?  We need to ask ourselves, is it actually right that kids turn to schools and peers about lifestyle advice, when this is so clearly a domain of parents and families and so obviously a burden on an already taxed public school system.

negative: health general weight house would ban junk food schools Schools need to practice what they preach  Under the pressure of increasing media coverage and civil society initiatives, schools are being called upon to “take up arms” against childhood obesity, both by introducing more nutritional and physical education classes, as well as transforming the meals they are offering in their cafeterias. [1]  Never before has school been so central to a child’s personal and social education. According to a study conducted by the University of Michigan, American children and teenagers spend in school about 32.5 hours per week homework a week – 7.5 hours more, than 20 years ago [2] . School curricula now cover topics such as personal finance, sex and relationships and citizenship. A precedent for teaching pupils about living well and living responsibly has already been established. Some schools, under national health programs, have given out free milk and fruit to try and make sure that children get enough calcium and vitamins, in case they are not getting enough at home [3] .  While we are seeing various nutritional and health food curricula cropping up [4] , revamping the school lunch is proving to be a more challenging task. “Limited resources and budget cuts hamper schools from offering both healthful, good-tasting alternatives and physical education programs,“ says Sanchez-Vaznaugh, a San Francisco State University researcher. [5]  With expert groups such as the Obesity Society urging policy makers to take into account the complex nature of the obesity epidemic [6] , especially the interplay of biological and social factors that lead to individuals developing the disease, it has become time for governments to urge schools to put their education into practice and give students an environment that allows them to make the healthy choices they learn about in class.  [1] Stolberg, S. G., 'Michelle Obama Leads Campaign Against Obesity', New York Times, 9 February 2010,  , accessed 9/11/2011  [2] University of Michigan, 'U.S. children and teens spend more time on academics', 17 November 2004,  , accessed 09/08/2011  [3] Kent County Council, Nutritional Standards, published September 2007  , accessed 09/08/2011  [4] Veggiecation, 'The Veggiecation Program Announced as First Educational Partner of New York Coalition for Healthy School Food',18 May 2011,  , accessed 9/11/2011  [5] ScienceDaily, 'Eliminating Junk Foods at Schools May Help Prevent Childhood Obesity', 7 March 2010,  , accessed 9/11/2011  [6] Kushner, R. F., et al., 'SOLUTIONS: Eradicating America’s obesity epidemic', Washington Times, 16 August 2009,  , accessed 9/11/2011

negative: Reducing inequality.  Evidence suggests that children from lower-income families tend to “fall behind” further during long summer vacations. These children are less likely to read books, pursue additional studies or take part in useful extracurricular activities compared to their peers from wealthier families. [1] This has a knock-on effect on their academic achievement, and once they have fallen behind it is very difficult for them to catch up. (This is the logic behind government-funded programs such as Head Start in the US or Sure Start in the UK) [2]  Year-round schooling would remove this important driver of inequality, give students a level playing field on which to learn, and help create a more meritocratic society.  [1] Johnson, Alex, “Year-round school gains ground around U.S.”, MSNBC.com, 27th October 2010.   [2] “Early Head Start Benefits Children and Families”, US Department of Health and Human Services, April 2006.

negative: There are only slight price differences between 34 and 18-ounce sodas. McDonalds and Coca-Cola corporations were pushing independent franchises to lower the price of sodas to one dollar. [1] While the goal of the ban is to cut down the consumption of soda, the government has the right to put their citizens’ health needs above free enterprise. The non-universality of the ban is unfortunate but this ban is merely a small step in the direction of curbing obesity rates. The fact that restaurants will not be able to serve gigantic portions of soda will not push New Yorkers from eating at those restaurants to eating their meals at 7-Elevens. These are clearly two separate markets; one for purchasing drinks the other for consuming them with meals. It is therefore wrong to conclude that this is any kind of barrier to free enterprise.  [1] Ziobro, Paul, ‘McDonald's Bets Pricing Drinks At $1 Will Heat Up Summer Sales’, The Wall Street Journal, 18 March 2012.

negative: Private schools lack diversity  A private school is an institutionalised, artificial environment where the child will be exposed almost completely to children of their own socioeconomic background. This has two very interlinked problems.  1) One of the most important factors of a child’s education is to be exposed to a variety of races, religions, economies and abilities. This allows children to grow up to be more aware of these differences between people and more accepting of diversity as they get older. Yet private schools admission costs alone mean that students are from wealthy backgrounds, and this means they are largely exposed to other people from wealthy backgrounds. As we know, the majority of the people in the world are not wealthy and therefore these students have an extremely blinkered view of their country. Pakistan can be used as a prime example, where half of its children cannot read a full sentence at primary level and government spending on education has been cut from 2.5% to 1.5%. For those in private education and who usually go to university aboard they will never see or understand the situation of the majority in Pakistan and thus has a dysfunctional view of their country. (Landzettel 2011)  2) It is an inevitable feature of democracies that the rich have particular access to politicians and policy-makers. Furthermore, students from private education are much more likely to go into government or political roles. As mentioned above 66% of British politicians went to private school, and 44% of American politicians (against an 11% national average). While the rich don't have a need for state education because they can pursue education for their children from other sources, they have no motivation to lobby politicians on behalf of the education system and a perverse incentive to remove education from political agendas in favour of their preferred issues and legislation. Only by forcing the rich into the same situation as the poor can we expect to gain meaningful ground in terms of education reform, especially in terms of increased funding relative to national and municipal budgets. We cannot expect education will be a national priority until the entire nation has a vested interest in the good order of the system.

negative: The Ban Would Be a Barrier to Free Enterprise  The proposal for this ban on large sodas would only affect businesses regulated by the NYC Board of Health. Restaurants, delis, food carts, and concession stands at theaters and stadiums would be affected because they are considered Food Service Establishments (FSEs). The ban would exclude grocery stores, 7-Eleven’s, and other establishments that are not considered FSE’s but are regulated by the State. Consequently, the ban cause the FSE to face repercussions as they would have to serve less soda (the goal of the ban), but also this selective, non-universal ban could encourage consumers to patronize other establishments where they would not be affected by the ban. There is currently a level of demand for large sodas in the market, but the ban would place a barrier on that whole sector of the market. It would be the government directly impeding free enterprise by providing different sets of rules for competing stores. In addition, New Yorkers would be encouraged to report violating establishments that would receive $200 fines. [1] It would be unfortunate to hurt businesses for a ban that wouldn’t necessarily be effective in its main goal to curb obesity because of the multiple blatant loopholes.  [1] ‘From Supersized to Human-Sized: Reintroducing Reasonable Portions of Sugary Drinks in New York City’, NYC Department of Health and Mental Hygiene Briefing, 12 June 2012.

negative: x education education general secondary house would fund education using Variety within the education system is not always a good thing. National curricula exist to facilitate transfer between schools and comparisons of different pupils and schools, as well as enforcing basic standards.  Thus, not only might variety lead to some sub-standard schools, but it might trap children in a particular school that fails to match the child’s ambitions as it grows up, and ceases simply to reflect its parents’ desires, because the child lacks qualifications or even just knowledge required by a more appropriate school in the area.

negative: media television house believes advertising harmful Advertisements promote healthy products and lifestyles.  Advertising is used to promote healthy activities, products and lifestyles and is further regulated to ensure that unhealthy products are not promoted. The School Food Trust in Britain, for example, used celebrities in advertisements to promote healthy eating in 20071. Furthermore, adverts which promote seriously unhealthy things are becoming very rare. Cigarette advertising is all but extinct, and alcohol adverts are being more restricted. With adverts such as fast food we see as well that companies are changing their message to promote healthier options. This is because it is bad for businesses to be viewed as harming children. Public pressure and successful regulation will always bring any advertising problems back under control.  1 Schools Food Trust uses celebs to promote healthy eating. Campaign Live.

negative: Even if we were to accept that the government has a role in combatting the so-called ‘obesity epidemic’, that does not justify it taking any measures it deems appropriate. The government should at the very least be able to prove that there is some link between the toys sold with the fast food meals and the rise in obesity. After all, the toys have been around since the late 70s. The ‘obesity epidemic’ is a far more recent phenomenon.

negative: There is precedent of paternalistic government policies in NYC.  The principle of paternalism, that the state may interfere with another person, against their will, with the motivation of protecting that person from harm, [1] underlines a wide range of policies and laws across the United States, and there is already a precedent for such paternalistic laws particularly within New York City. New York City, under the leadership of Mayor Bloomberg, has enacted regulations on smoking, restaurants’ use of salt and trans fats. Laws prohibiting marijuana, cocaine, and other potentially harmful drugs are made with the goal to protect citizens. Seatbelt laws and the prohibition of cell phone use while driving all infringe upon a person’s freedom of choice but have been accepted for their inherent positive causation meaning there will be less deaths and injuries in accidents. Paternalistic policies are made to maintain the public’s safety and well-being with the assumption that the government “knows best.” Mayor Bloomberg’s proposed ban on soda sold in containers larger than 16 ounces targets the growing problem of obesity in New York City. Although obesity has been a popular topic of discussion in the City, there has been negligible advancement in weight-loss. This growing problem shows that education is not enough to incentivize people to control themselves. Dr. Donald Klein writes, “A fleeting, short-term self that enjoys chocolate, nicotine, or heroin is working his will on an enduring self that pays the cost. Although we may fancy ourself a fully integrated and consistent being, it might make more sense to describe ourself as a bundle of multiple selves, selves that overlap, intermingle, and sometimes conflict”. [2] That more than 50% of New Yorkers are overweight shows the people do not recognize their own long term interests. [3] Mayor Bloomberg’s goal is to limit soda consumption of the population. He has the wellbeing of New Yorkers in mind and he is following a precedent that people need guidance in personal choices.  [1] Dworkin, Gerald, ‘Paternalism’, in Edward N. Zalta e., The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Summer 2010.  [2] Klein, Daniel B., ‘The Moral Consequences of Paternalism’, Ideas on Liberty, May 1994.  [3] Hu, Winnie, ‘Obesity Ills That Won’t Budge Fuel Soda Battle by Bloomberg’, The New York Times, 11 June 2012.

negative: These examples do not really demonstrate that food labels do not work or are deceptive but rather that consumers should be educated better about how to actually read and recognize them – something the consumers themselves want, a fact known now for decades. [1]  On the other hand, stricter regulations on packaging advertising are being called for as well, attacking the problem from another perspective. [2]  We contend that better educated consumers on the one and better regulations on the other will uproot this problem at hand. In addition, this just goes to show that food labels are anything but ineffective – they just need to be known and regulated better.  [1] Hackleman, E. C., Food label information: what consumers say they want and what they need, published in 1981,  , accessed 9/17/2011  [2] Neuman W., U.S. Seeks New Limits on Food Ads for Children, published 4/28/2011,  , accessed 9/17/2011

negative: If school is so expensive, than shouldn't the government be subsidizing school costs instead of forcing parents to send kids to school when they can't afford the books and clothes? It is also unfair to assume that parents on welfare on neglectful and do not value education. Supporting meal programs in schools and subsidizing other costs are much more likely to draw children than forcing parents to send children to school when the kids are hungry and embarrassed1. 1 United States Department of Agriculture, "The School Breakfast Program",[Accessed July 21, 2011].

negative: Damaging to extra-curricular activities.  A lot of extra-curricular activities take place during summer holidays. Summer camps, trips abroad - even debating competitions. Summer holidays are a sensible time to hold such activities, partly due to the weather but also because different regions or school boards often have different vacation schedules and summer is the only time when students are all likely to have free time. Year-round schooling would reduce the opportunities for such activities.  Some families use long holidays to arrange extra tuition in certain subjects, either as remedial education or to give their children an advantage [1] . Year-round schooling would make it harder for families who wish to exercise this choice, too.  [1] “Summer School”, US Education Commission of the States, 2011.

negative: government religion church religion general secularism house would ban religious Religious symbols cause problems in schools.  As well as division in society in general, religious symbols are also a source of division within school environments. The Hijab causes schools many problems. It is potentially divisive in the classroom, marking some children out as different from the others and above the rules that the school enforces for everyone else. This may lead to alienation and bullying. Full headscarves may also be impractical or dangerous in some lessons, for example PE, swimming, or in technology and science lessons where machinery is being operated. In the same way, there have been discussions as to whether to ban the display of Crucifixes in public classrooms. Authorities in Italy have followed through with the ban saying that such a Christian symbol segregates those who are not Christian.1  1 'Decision due in Crucifix ban case', Times of Malta, March 17th 2011 , accessed on 24th July 2011

negative: Banning advertising won't work  How exactly is a ban on promoting diets supposed to work? Proposition isn't talking about tackling advertising online, presumably because it's difficult to do, nor is prop tackling the issue of books promoting certain techniques. So this ban would have failed to catch the largest craze of recent years, the Atkins diet.  Equally diets are a mainstay of teen and women's magazines and a fairly central pillar of lifestyle sections of newspapers. Even so called 'quality' papers endlessly talk about lifestyles issues such as how they don't work and everyone would be better off retiring to a country manor in Shropshire for Swedish massage and a diet of organic barley.  Unless prop is talking about starting to ban books or shut down entire sections (and profitable sections at that) of publishing companies then it is difficult to see how this measure will have any real affect.


query: The UK would have a completely independent foreign policy  Britain’s is not completely sovereign within the European Union with the EU having a common foreign and security policy and all economic negotiations taking place under the auspices of the EU trade commissioner, it is what the EU refers to as an ‘exclusive power’, rather than the Foreign Office. [1] Exiting would give these powers back to the UK. Regardless of how these powers are used this will mean the UK has more influence and freedom to manoeuvre as it will have more options with which it can negotiate with other powers.  [1] ‘Policy making: What is trade policy’, European Commission,

positive: onal europe politics leadership house believes uk would have more influence It is a misconception that any nation has complete sovereignty in the realm of international affairs, the restraints and restrictions as a result of being in or out are simply different. Every foreign policy has to operate within the context of the international system, and the capabilities with which the state has. Leaving the EU will give back certain areas with which the UK can negotiate but at the same time will ensure the UK is a lone voice rather than part of a combined negotiating position. The common foreign policy is just that; 28 countries making the same point, much more difficult for even the biggest nations to ignore. The decision making is done by all the heads of state/government so cannot be said to represent a loss of sovereignty. [1]  [1] ‘Foreign & security policy at EU level’, EUR-lex, updated 8 December 2015,

negative: Leaving would take back power to control the economy  Voting to leave would take back the power over the British economy that the European Union currently has and give it back to the sovereign British Parliament. EU common fisheries and agriculture (CAP) policies control how many fish we can catch and what is commercially farmable. If the UK were to leave the British government would be once more able to shape an industrial policy; for example under EU rules it did not have the power to save Port Talbot as it is not allowed to provide subsidies to support the failing plant. [1]  [1] Rankin, Jennifer, ‘EU sets tone as it cracks down on subsidies for struggling steelworks’, theguardian.com, 20 January 2016,

negative: onal europe politics leadership house believes uk would have more influence Leaving the EU will mean the UK will have less regional influence  Like it or not the UK is a part of Europe geographically and as such the countries that are most important to UK foreign policy are also in Europe. Leaving the EU will damage relations with those powers that are currently a part of the EU, and potentially also those who are used to dealing with the UK as part of the EU. The United States has noted it “benefits from a strong UK being part of the European Union” [1] in much the same way as the UK does. If this is the UK's strongest ally's view what would be the view of the powers from whom out would mean divorce? The UK will be outside the group trying to influence it rather than on the inside. The EU states will no longer need to listen to the UK on a wide range of issues where it has previously been a key voice.  [1] Earnest, Josh, ‘Press Briefing by the Press Secretary Josh Earnest’, White House, 14 March 2016,

negative: europe politics defence leadership house favours common eu foreign policy There have been tests on the EU's ability to create a common foreign policy that it has failed.  The War in Iraq, along with previous notable failures to deal with the breakup of former Yugoslavia, has been an excellent test for the extent to which the EU can claim to have a common approach to world politics and foreign policy in particular. It has clearly pointed out a whole range of diverse and often opposed national interests, and national publics that were unwilling to make compromises along EU lines of commitment. It has also showed that the economic power of the EU is not enough to turn it into a major player on the international scene: the lack in military power and presence speaks for itself. The EU still lies very much under the umbrella of NATO and US military power and as long as this military dependency continues, the EU will not be able to have its own independent voice in world politics. 1  1.  ">

negative: onal europe politics leadership house believes uk would have more influence In the areas of policy where rapid responses are necessary even within the EU the UK retains its freedom of action. The areas where there is joint policy are issues such as trade and environment negotiations which are always slow anyway. Defence and security are areas where power remains with the member states. The only areas of foreign policy where the slow speed of the EU comes up against slow decision making are areas where joint policy is a benefit as in response to the migration crisis; no one nation could have responded alone, even Germany, who take in most migrants needed there to be a path to the country.

negative: In regards to an eventual separate place on the UNSC for the European Union – the EU might be an economic powerhouse and might want to coordinate foreign relations in regards to external economic policy, but at heart it is intended to be an economic union  In regards to an eventual separate place on the UNSC for the European Union – the EU might be an economic powerhouse and might want to coordinate foreign relations in regards to external economic policy, but at heart it is intended to be an economic union, not a political union. Most of its founding treaties and the daily workings of its institutions focus on creating and maintaining a single market, not on creating a shared foreign and military policy. Giving the EU representation at what is an institution for foreign and military policy is misreading what the EU was intended to be.

negative: Even if other countries such as Russia are unwilling to give up their own seats Britain and France have an alternative in the form of joint European Union membership. Both countries are therefore much more likely to agree to lose their seats than Russia w  The member states of the European Union haven’t harmonized their foreign policies so far simply because they have vastly divergent interests in the arena of global power politics. The interests of Germany vis-a-vis Russia are a world apart from France and the UK’s interests, let alone Poland’s. For example in the brief war between Georgia and Russia in 2008 France, Germany and Italy tried to avoid confrontation with Russia while Eastern Europe and Britain demanded a much tougher stance with sanctions. [1] And France and the UK famously took very different positions over the Iraq War, while their different experiences of empire and decolonisation give them a wider international perspective than most other EU states. Handing the EU a single seat does nothing to change those interests, and thus would actually harm every member state’s individual foreign policy interest, instead of furthering it.  [1] Waterfield, 2008,

negative: The European Union might be an economic powerhouse and might want to coordinate foreign relations in regards to external economic policy, but at heart it is intended to be an economic union, not a political union. Most of its founding treaties and the daily workings of its institutions focus on creating and maintaining a single market, not on creating a shared foreign and military policy. Giving the EU representation at what is an institution for foreign and military policy is misreading what the EU was intended to be.

negative: europe politics defence leadership house favours common eu foreign policy The position of High Representative will be, and has been, largely powerless, because the member states have such divergent interests that agreement will be rare, and that attempts to devise a common foreign policy for the EU are doomed. Because control of foreign policy is such a key aspect of sovereignty, it would be wrong for national governments to give this power away to the EU, which is less democratically accountable. If the EU and its High Representative do try to pressure states into common positions this may well backfire, creating strong anti-EU feeling in both national governments and public opinion. Pushing too hard for a common foreign policy and giving too much power to an unelected High Representative may instead begin to tear Europe apart. 1  1. Traynor, Ian, 'EU foreign ministers round on Lady Ashton', guardian.co.uk, 23rd May 2011, accessed 1/8/11

negative: europe politics defence leadership house favours common eu foreign policy The previous arrangement of having two foreign policy centers (in the Commission and in the Council) was arguably inefficient, but consolidating these into a single office-holder has created more complexity and at significantly greater expense.  Creating a position of EU High Representative is not objectionable in itself. Previously the EU was in the ludicrous situation of having two foreign affairs spokesmen, one from the Council and the other from the Commission. Rivalry and duplication of efforts, staffs and resources results, and so focusing all the EU’s external affairs work around one person makes some sense. What it does not mean is that the High Representative should lead a drive for a stronger common foreign policy position. Only when member states agree (which may not be often) will he or she have a role. In fact, by weakening the foreign affairs role within the Commission, this development may actually limit the pretensions of Brussels to develop its own agenda and dictate foreign policy to the member states.

negative: The EU might function as an economic union, but its original goal was to prevent war from ever happening again on the European continent. Economic integration is a means to this goal, by making member states economically too dependent on each other for them to want to declare war on each other. Given this history, the EU can contribute a lot of knowledge and experience on how to use ‘soft power’ in a foreign policy context, and given its goal of (and success in) creating everlasting peace on the continent, it should have a seat at the world’s foremost foreign policy institution. Furthermore the EU is ever closer to a political union – “German finance minister Wolfgang Schaeuble has said his country is willing to discuss greater harmonisation of eurozone tax policy, adding that the next decade is likely to see Europe take significant steps towards closer political union.” [1] Therefore it is simply a normal step for the EU to have a say in the international affairs.  [1] Willis, Andrew. 'Germany predicts EU 'political union' in 10 years', 13/12/2010,

negative: Political union lends international credibility to a trade bloc  Trust is a valued asset on the international market. When multinational corporations trade in astronomical figures, they must be able to trust in the political goodwill of the governments of the trading partner, to ensure that all parties to the agreement honour its conditions. Major trading partners, such as China and the US, are immense markets where one body can represent the whole country; this is also the case with the European Union through the European Commissioner for Trade. Having one person who can negotiate for the whole bloc has immense benefits in terms of economies of scale and making the European Union a major power in trade negotiations. Without a political union that provides a framework that binds them all members equally Europe would lose out (16).  A single point of contact for trade negotiations is good because it gives the EU a larger market share, it allows smaller EU countries to benefit from the larger EU countries’ economic gravity, and it contributes to long-term trade relations between the EU and other large international entities.  (16) “EU position in world trade”, Trade, European Commission.

negative: onal europe politics defence leadership house favours common eu foreign policy Creating a common EU foreign and security policy will in fact be easier than many people suppose, because many of the 21st century’s most important issues in external relations are already part of the ‘normal’ EU policy routine; climate change, development, trade, aid and the environment, for example. Most such issues are ones on which any single member state, even one as significant as Britain, France or Germany, cannot hope to make a real global impact alone. Only by coordinating policy at EU level will the interests of member states be advanced at all. Having a High Representative to coordinate and promote this work on behalf of the Union as a whole makes sense and actually gives all member states a greater international effectiveness – the true measure of sovereignty.

negative: europe politics defence leadership house favours common eu foreign policy The High Representative will be a catalyst and a facilitator for decision-making.  The High Representative will not only act as a spokesman for EU nations when they agree on foreign policies, but will act as a catalyst around which external policy will increasingly become coordinated. By chairing meetings of EU foreign ministers, he or she will be able to shape the agenda and influence the outcomes of meetings, encouraging member states increasingly to think in terms of common foreign policy positions. They will have added authority from their ability to speak for the EU in the UN Security Council. The High Representative will also direct the EU’s new External Action Service, which brings together policy specialists from both the Council and Commission in a unique manner (ranging from the Arctic region to nuclear safety and enlargement) 1. With representatives all over the world the EU will develop a foreign service capable of creating and articulating policy positions in a manner that few national governments can match. Over time this will promote the evolution of a true EU foreign and security policy, and will contribute significantly to increased European consciousness among EU citizens and further moves to political unity.  1. European Union External Action, Policies, accessed 1/8/11

negative: onal europe politics leadership house believes uk would have more influence Britain will have greater ability to respond quickly  Whatever the EU is we can all agree it is not the fastest and most responsive of institutions. As a result of needing the input of 28 countries EU external policy is slow and faltering. Leaving will enable the UK greater freedom to create its own policies and to reframe them in response to changing circumstances and challenges. The UK will no longer need to take into consideration any other country’s views.

negative: onal europe politics leadership house believes uk would have more influence The EU is a force multiplier  The UK gets more bang for the buck as a result of being a member of the EU. It has representation in more countries as a result of the European External Action Service (equivalent of the Foreign Office) thus extending UK influence to countries where it would not otherwise have representation. For example the EU have representation in Djibouti [1] whereas the UK individually is represented there from neighbouring Ethiopia. [2]  The UK, along with France, and to a lesser extent Germany, leads the EU on foreign policy matters, as illustrated by the first The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy being a Briton, Catherine Ashton. [3] This means the UK essentially gains from the backing of the other 26 member states giving the UK a much more influential voice globally. For example the EU has a role in the Middle East ‘quartet’ of the EU, USA, Russia and United Nations [4] giving the UK a place at the table on the key issue of Israel Palestine where otherwise it would have none.  [1] ‘Délégation en République de Djibouti’, Délégation de l’Union européenne,   [2] ‘British Embassy Addis Ababa’, Gov.uk,   [3] ‘The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy’, Europea Union External Action,   [4] ‘The Quartet’, Office of the Quartet,

negative: nomic policy economy general international europe philosophy political Neo-functionalism has a liberal view of the international system; whereby agreements can be easily reached.  Actually the European Union has proven the exact opposite of the statement – “Nations prefer the certainty, or the self-controlled uncertainty, of national self-reliance, to the uncontrolled uncertainty of the untested blender” as they give more and more power to the united institutions of the European Union – the European Commission and the European Parliament. The most recent treaty, the Lisbon treaty, proves this as it gives more rights to the EU on account of national power Lisbon’ gives the European Parliament a much greater say in the EU’s decision-making process, it reduced national vetos, created a president and a representative for foreign affairs. [1]  [1] Europa, ‘Treaty of Lisbon: The Treaty at a glance’, Europa.eu,

negative: onal europe politics defence leadership house favours common eu foreign policy Consultation, collaboration and the attempted creation of a common set of values has not worked and is not likely to work. This language is not much different from what we have heard with every attempt the EU has made to push for further political integration. The role of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), as agreed upon back in 1993 during the Maastricht Treaty, was in fact presented very much along similar lines. Fifteen years later however, that united front has not been created. If anything, the EU’s political union, and certain any attempts towards a common foreign policy, have completely disintegrated when faced with the War in Iraq and the larger war on terror and more recently the Euro debt crisis on another front.

negative: europe politics defence leadership house favours common eu foreign policy The EU is indeed under NATO’s and US’s military umbrella, and while terrorist attacks on EU’s territory have certainly heightened levels of anxiety, its ‘foreign policy’ is still based on an inclusive approach: bring threatening nations under your economic and political umbrella and provide them with incentives to collaborate. Academics such as Allen David and Michael Smith have argued that the EU’s ‘foreign policy’ seeks to go beyond the nation state and thus treats what lies outside its borders not necessarily as ‘foreign’ and ‘threatening’ but rather as a different system.1 The EU provides a subsystem of international relations within a larger global system, in which threats and fears subside as a result of economic and military integration. The most pressing challenge is to learn how to extend this system beyond the current borders of the EU, keeping in mind that the accession process is a mechanism not to be abused.  1. Allen, David, and Smith, Michael, 'External Policy Developments', Journal of Common Market Studies, Vol 43. (2005) pp.109-26 accessed 1/8/11

negative: Britain can have free trade without all the baggage of political decisions being made in Brussels. Just as the EU accounts for a high portion of UK trade so the UK is a high proportion of EU trade; around 16% of EU exports go to the UK, [1] so the EU would want to have a deal with the UK to allow this trade to continue.  [1] Portes, J., ‘After Brexit: how important would UK trade be to the EU?’, National Institute of Economic and Social Research, 2 November 2015,

negative: onal europe politics leadership house believes uk would have more influence As a smaller and less attractive market the UK will inevitably get a less good deal than it could have with the whole of the EU at its back. Moreover if the UK still wants free access to the EU market, which accounts for 45% of UK exports and 53%, [1] it will still not have a completely free hand economically. Norway for example may retain close economic links and freely trade with Europe but does not have any ability to make decisions on EU rules and must accept their regulations – clearly a worse position than the UK now. [2]  [1] Webb, Dominic, and Keep, Matthew, ‘In brief: UK-EU economic relations’, House of Commons Library, Briefing Paper, No. 06091, 19 January 2016, p.3, www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN06091.pdf  [2] Eide, Espen Barth, ‘We pay, but have no say: that’s the reality of Norway’s relationship with the EU’, The Guardian, 27 October 2015,

negative: While keeping sight of the UKs national interests is important almost all of them can be carried out as well with the European Union as outside it. In particular the whole of Europe is interested in preventing terrorism. In other areas such as maritime security it makes sense for the UK to specialise in it while other countries specialise in other areas such as having larger armies. Moreover it should be noted that the UK is in one of the safest areas of the world with no hostile states in any direction. In this sense the EU is a buffer between the UK and less stable areas such as North Africa, the Middle East, or Russia so it makes sense to work with them as part of the same organisations including the EU.

negative: France and Britain should be willing to give up their seats for the European Union.  The most practical way to reform the United Nations is for France and Britain to give way to a European Union seat. Although there would inevitably be some loss of influence for both nations the pain would be minimised by retaining one seat between them. The European Union often decides what countries get what jobs based upon internal politics, so for example Catherine Ashton became High Representative for Foreign and Security Policy because Tony Blair did not get the presidency. [1] It would therefore be possible through an internal agreement in the European Union to make sure that France and the United Kingdom retain control of the UNSC seat through having control of the foreign minister post and the post of Ambassador to the United Nations.  [1] Meade, 2009,

negative: onal europe politics leadership house believes uk would have more influence Power is shifting to the East  Geography has a great influence on the position of nations and their foreign policies. For example it is the UK’s Island nation status that is a major reason why it is not fully committed to the European project. Attention internationally is now shifting to East Asia where the main rising powers are; China and India. This means that the UK’s position is less geographically important so to compensate the UK needs Europe; China’s leader Xi Jinping on his state visit to Britain stated China wants “a united EU, and hopes Britain… can play an even more positive and constructive role in promoting the deepening development of China-EU ties.” [1] The United States, Britain’s main ally since World War II, is much less interested in Europe.  [1] ‘China wants Britain in a united European Union, Xi Jinping tells David Cameron’, South China Morning Post, 23 October 2015,

negative: Britain should not pay more than other countries  Britain’s rebate is completely justified. Without it Britain would pay far more into the EU than it ever received back. The UK government argues “Without the rebate, the UK's net contribution as a percentage of national income would be twice as big as France's, and 1.5 times bigger than Germany's.” [1] This is because most of the EU’s budget goes to pay for the costs of the Common Agricultural Policy and regional aid programmes. The UK’s farming sector is a very small part of the economy, and very few of its regions count as poor in Europe-wide terms, so Britain receives little funding back from the EU. Meanwhile as a result of new members joining the EU development funding has been taken away from poorer areas of Britain, many of which will no longer be eligible, to be redirected to Eastern and Central European countries which need it much more, [2] Britain’s net contribution to the EU budget will go up .The rebate recognises this and returns two-thirds of the UK’s net EU contribution (payments less receipts) every year. Even with the rebate, the UK is still the second biggest net contributor (proportional to population) of all the EU states. Over the past ten years Britain has contributed 2½ times as much to the EU budget as France has [3] - and without the rebate it would have been 15 times as much!  [1] BBC News, ‘EU budget commissioner calls for UK rebate to end’, 2010  [2] European Union Committee, ‘Future Financing of the European Union’, 2005, p.154  [3] The Economist, ‘About a rebate’, 2005

negative: europe politics defence leadership house favours common eu foreign policy The EU has already been unifying on multiple fronts, this is just a step in the same direction.  The EU has slowly been building up its own common military framework, with the UK and France leading the effort to pool European military capacity. In addition, the EU itself has created new institutional bodies such as the Political and Security Committee, a Military Committee and military staff. The EU has had military envoys in Macedonia and Bosnia-Herzegovina and has committed itself to the creation of a Common Security and Defense Policy with 3-4,000 troops on permanent standby in multilateral ‘battlegroups’ ready for immediate deployment(see Rockwell Schnabel’s article listed below)1. While incremental, these are steps not to be ignored. The Union has also placed that military capacity within the broader context of a security strategy designed to promote international peace, justice and development.  1. Schnabel, Rockwell A., 'U.S. Views on the EU Common Foreign and Security Policy', The Brown Journal of World Affairs, Vol. IX. Issue2., (Winter/Spring 2003) accessed 1/8/11

negative: europe politics defence leadership house favours common eu foreign policy The fact that it is a Representative highlights the fact that the EU is based on consultation and consensus, and that is a positive thing.  While the new ‘EU High Representative for Foreign and Security Policy’ marks only a bold first step towards a more unified voice for the EU, the decisions are indeed still based on a state by state consultation mechanism – hence the name representative. This should however not to be downplayed as a less significant change in how the EU approaches its foreign policy. The consultation aspect is in fact essential to reaching agreement and the importance of not only presenting a united front to the rest of the world (the EU is exemplary in trade policy and environmental policy, but less important when it comes to presenting a united voice in foreign policy as Belgian Foreign minister Mark Eyskens put it in 1991 “Europe is an economic giant, a political dwarf, and a military worm” 1, but also creating a united front through collaboration and debate. One should thus see this not only as a means to an end, but rather as an important mechanism in itself, whereby new identities are slowly created along with a deeper sense of commitment to a common set of values.  1. Craig R Whitney, ‘WAR IN THE GULF: EUROPE; Gulf Fighting Shatters Europeans’ Fragile Unity’,

negative: onal europe politics leadership house believes uk would have more influence There are also advantages to this power shift; the UK is less threatened so better able to act. The UK is therefore free to align itself with whichever powers it wishes rather than having alignments dictated by geography and who is threatening the UK. In the past the threat from Germany, and then the USSR, forced the UK into an alliance with France and the USA. When it comes to deciding between the USA, China, and India the UK has a free hand. As a result the UK has a once in a lifetime opportunity to strike new “trade deals with the growth economies around the world”. [1]  [1] Boris Johnson quoted in Erixon, Fredrik, ‘Boris and the Breziteers are talking nonsense about Britain’s trade policies’, The Spectator, 1 April 2016,

negative: The EU now has the necessary foreign policy organs.  In the past the European Union has not had the necessary foreign policy bureaucracy and decision making capabilities to be able to control a UNSC seat. Since the Lisbon treaty this has changed. The Treaty created a President of the European Council, currently Herman Van Rompuy. [1] And a European External Action Service (EEAS) which will eventually have a staff of 5,400. The EEAS is a functionally autonomous EU body with a large number of embassies around the world. [2] This will give the EU representation in most countries, 54 with ambassadors out of a total of 136, [3] and the ability to coordinate a foreign policy. A seat at the United Nations Security Council would be a natural extension of this.  [1] European Council,   [2] BBC News, 2010,   [3] Waterfield, 2010,

negative: onal europe politics leadership house believes uk would have more influence It is undeniable that in some areas the EU is a force multiplier. But many of the issues it uses this leverage on are not areas of concern to a UK that has left the EU; migrants arriving in Greece are of little national interest to the UK. Britain would instead focus its weight on areas that are of direct concern such as terrorism. In other areas the multiplier simply saves the UK a little money; could the UK have an embassy in Djibouti? Certainly if it wished, but it is not an area of primary concern to the UK.

negative: If there were similar crises without the EU existing as a balm and place where all countries can talk regularly and confront problems together then the security situation would be much worse. In the past it has only taken small incidents to spark a war – usually exemplified by the assassination of archduke Franz Ferdinand starting off world war I, but there have also been wars started by trade such as the ‘War of Jenkins Ear’ which became part of the war of Austrian Succession. Today the EU provides a place to negotiate disputes between members making war between member states unthinkable. Of course war would still be a very unlikely response to a dispute, but leaving the EU would mean getting rid of one of the organisations that reduces that possibility by mitigating crises.

negative: Parliament may on paper be able to influence decisions made by the Commission, but a lot of what the Commission does is still heavily influenced by the Council, a body established for national governments to negotiate based on their own partial self-interest. Such negotiations can lead to major anomalies in the European Union such the Parliament having a seat in Strasbourg order to appease France. Moreover the parliament’s powers over the commission are limited, the opposition cites being able to reject the appointment of members of the commission but it can’t reject individuals only the college of commissioners as a whole. [1] By making the Parliament the primary body in the European Union, decisions can be made with the view of fully representing the needs of their constituents rather than having to constantly be careful of the partisan Council. This can result in better decision making on how the Commission and by extension, the European Union should move forward.  [1] European Parliament, ‘Oversight over the Commission and Council’,

negative: There is no guarantee that the EU will actually implement anything in the agreement with David Cameron. The wording is clear enough but with no specifics about how or when the administrative burden will be lowered. Yes the UK may be fighting to create a more business friendly Europe but more important however is the way that the EU increases the regulatory burden on the UK. This regulatory burden can be much easier done away with by leaving the EU than by negotiating reductions with the rest of the Union.