query: It is unfair to new members of EU  Not only are the largest recipients of CAP western countries – France, Spain and Germany - also the payments per hectare of arable lands differ significantly between new and old members of EU. The new members of EU with their economies often struggling and more dependent on agriculture (as is the case of Poland, Bulgaria or Romania) need more monetary support compared to their western counterparts to produce food of same quality and be competitive in EU market. However, the payments for hectare of land vary from 500€ in Greece to less than 100 € in Latvia. [1] These different conditions undermine the EU’s ethos of fairness and equality of countries.  [1] EurActive, ‘Eastern EU states call for ‘bolder, speedier’ farm reforms’, 14 July 2011,

positive: business economic policy international europe house believes eu should abandon The costs of starting and maintaining business in agriculture vary among European countries as well – the costs of additional materials can be much cheaper in for example Poland than in France. The costs of life vary among European countries as well. Subsidies which are sufficient for Polish farmers to live a decent life are simply not enough for French one. If one of the reasons behind this policy is to preserve traditional ways of life, then part of the role is to keep farmers out of relative poverty as well.  Also the current reform of CAP address these issues – the conditions for all countries should converge in the next years as there is a change replacing the Single Payment Scheme with a basic payment scheme. [1] It is a matter of setting the system right – not giving up on it altogether. Even for farmers in discriminated countries, it is far better that they receive some benefits than no benefits at all.  [1] European Commission, ‘establishing rules for direct payments to farmers under support schemes within the framework of the common agricultural policy’, Europa.eu, 19 October 2011,  p.7

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: business economic policy international europe house believes eu should abandon CAP protects the quality of the food in EU  The role of CAP is to produce food at affordable prices while maintaining its quality. By having policies which favour agriculture in Europe it is easier to control the quality of the food, maintain it and also support the diversity of the food produced in EU. [1] The goods imported from developing countries are often not produced under such scrutiny as are those in EU. In EU the quality standards of production are one of the highest – the hygiene, the amount of additives in products – all these are set and controlled by the EU. The result of it is that European citizens eat healthy food of high quality which is still affordable – mainly due to subsidies and payments obtained via CAP.  [1] European Commission, ‘The Common Agricultural Policy A partnership between Europe and Farmers’, 2012,

negative: business economic policy international europe house believes eu should abandon In the current interconnected world it is hard to imagine a situation when the EU will be unable to buy enough food for its citizens on the global market. Countries of the EU are among the richest in the world and have enough soft power to negotiate favourable terms of trade from developing countries in nearly any situation. [1] Even if the subsidies created by CAP were abandoned, the agricultural industry will hardly be decimated. The numbers of farmers may decline, there would be consolidation into bigger farms, however there always will be markets where European food will be sold – due its regional specifics, high quality or simply patriotism, when people buy food produced in their own country to support it.  [1] Zahrnt, Valentin, ‘Food Security and the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy: Facts against fears’, Ecipe Working paper, No. 1, 2011,

negative: It might be worth giving up the British rebate for serious CAP reform, but it is unnecessary. If the CAP were abolished, Britain’s net payments to the EU would automatically be much smaller anyway, so the rebate (66% of the difference between the UK’s contributions to the EU and its receipts from it) would also shrink away to insignificance. CAP reform is worth doing for its own sake, and other EU countries will only agree to it once they realise that fact - offering up the rebate will make no difference. In any case, even if the rebate was a useful bargaining chip to be cashed in, there is no chance of individual countries such as France (or Eire, Spain, Greece, Italy, Belgium, etc.) agreeing to changing the CAP at present and any one country could prevent it, so Britain should hold on to the rebate card.

negative: As the Schengen area gets bigger, it becomes more difficult to police and this increases the risk of rogue elements being able to move freely between countries  As new members are accepted and the Schengen area expands, it becomes more and more difficult to police. For example, once terrorists have gained access to the area, they are free to move within almost the entirety of Europe. The same applies for traffickers of people, drugs and arms. This was the rationale behind the blocking of Romania and Bulgaria from entering the zone at the same time as they entered the EU [1] ; they failed to curb organised crime before their accession and if they were join access routes would be opened to the whole of Europe.  This means that all countries are dependent on the security forces of countries monitoring external borders. It is key that Member States with an external EU frontier have a responsibility to ensure that proper checks and effective surveillance are carried out at the EU's external frontiers. It is vital that checks and controls at the EU's external frontiers be rigorous enough to stop illegal immigration, drug smuggling and other unlawful activities [2] . Given the different enforcement abilities of different member states, the security of one state is often not protected because of the carelessness of another. Dissolving the Schengen area gives countries responsibility for the protection of their own borders and thus makes Europe safer as a whole.  [1] Kelly, Tom, ‘EU borders will stay shut to influx from Romania and Bulgaria over fears of crime flood’, The Daily Mail, 23rd December 2010,   [2] The Schengen Convention: Abolition of internal borders and creation of a single EU external frontier, eurotool,

negative: americas europe global middle east politics politics general house would Turkey is a poverty stricken country and entry into the EU would help to raise the living standards for its entire population  The EU has welcomed poorer entrants than Turkey without disaster; Ireland, Spain, Portugal and Greece were all much poorer than the EU average when they joined and all are now well integrated and much more prosperous. Disastrous migration was forecast in their cases too, but did not occur. Nor is Turkey as poor as has been suggested; Turkey with a GDP per capita of $8215 in 2009 is richer than Romania at $7500 and Bulgaria with a GDP per capita of $6423 [1] both of which are already members. Turkey’s economy is also in the process of reform, including the restructuring of its banking system and IMF programmes; in the next few years this process will allow for faster, more sustained growth. Turkey provides a large new market for EU goods; should it be accepted into the single market the economic benefits would not be solely limited to that country.  Turkey’s inclusion in the EU would not threaten other members with overwhelming economic or immigration issues. It is possible that, as has happened with Bulgaria and Romania, that a delay is enacted for the Schengen passport-free zone [2] . This would give both the current EU and Turkey a period of time to adjust.  [1]  The World Bank, GDP per capita (current US$), 2009  [2]  ‘EU newcomers smart over Schengen delay’ by Chris Bryant, 21st Jan 2011

negative: americas europe global middle east politics politics general house would The EU will never be able to integrate Turkey economically. Turkey is too poor, with millions of subsistence farmers and living standards far below the European norm (making massive migration to richer EU countries inevitable). "Despite its current population accounting for 15% of the EU-25 population, its GDP is equivalent to just 2% of the EU-25 GDP. Its GDP per capita is 28.5% of the EU-25 GDP (European Commission, 2004)" [1] . It would be a significant drain on EU funding to bring its economy and living standards to an acceptable level.  Turkey is a nation of over 70 million with significantly lower living conditions and wages than most EU member states. Most EU states are already going through a recession and credit crunch and are suffering enough without a potentially huge number of Turkish migrants legally given the right to live and work in 27 member states, but who would be expected to choose to reside mainly in the more prosperous member states such as the UK, Germany, France, Spain and Italy. This is especially a problem for Germany, who by 2004 already had 1.74 million Turkish people living in Germany [2] who make up approximately one fourth of the immigrant population in Germany. To allow migrants to come in legally could potentially hinder Germany's economy significantly by increasing unemployment levels even further.  [1]  University of Miami study, ‘Turkey’s Membership Application: Implications for the EU’, Jean Monnet/Robert Schuman Paper Series, Vol 5 No 26 August 2005.  [2]  ‘Turkish Migration in Germany’, chart breakdown of German immigration figures by country.

negative: business economic policy international europe house believes eu should abandon It harms the economies of developing world  The current model of CAP results in major oversupply of food and beverages. In 2008 the stockpiles of cereals rising to 717 810 tons while the surplus of wine was about 2.3 million hectolitres. [1] This excess of supply is then often sold to developing countries for prices so low that the local producers cannot cope with them. The low prices of European food can be attributed to the higher efficiency of producing food because of use of advanced technologies as well as the CAP. Agriculture makes a small fraction of GDP in Europe, but in developing countries of Africa or Asia it is entirely different with large numbers dependent on much smaller plots of land. Hence, the consequences of CAP and high production in the EU can be the rise of unemployment and decline of self-sufficiency of these affected countries.  [1] Castle, Stephen, ‘EU’s butter mountain is back’, The New York Times, 2 February 2009,

negative: Expansion furthers EU ideals.  The prospect of joining the EU has been an impetus for reform in many ex-communist countries, driving changes (e.g. legal reforms, privatizations, human rights) that are desirable in their own right. The progress made in a few years by the first wave of eastern European states to join the European Union was impressive and membership was their deserved reward. Conversely, if the prospect of EU membership was now denied to those states that are still hoping to join in the future, these states are likely to be unwilling to implement the unpopular reforms that the European union would like. Even in countries that are not on any EU lists of applicant or potential members the door to enlargement has a positive influence. The prospect of joining the European Union has tempted even those who might naturally be inclined to look the other way. Viktor Yanukovych was the Pro-Russian candidate in Ukraine yet he has continued on the path towards EU membership since taking office for example creating the legislation necessary for an EU-Ukraine free trade zone. [1]  Enlargement is a unique opportunity to encourage nations to take a path which will lead them to becoming prosperous developed democracies. Most states are unwilling to accept lectures on where they are going wrong and would, like Russia has for example done, accuse western nations of violations against its sovereignty if there are attempts to encourage civil society, democracy or more westernized economies. Vladimir Putin has many times made statements referring to western NGO such as “the activities of "pseudo-NGOs" and other agencies that try to destabilize other countries with outside support are unacceptable.” [2] However these are much more palatable if the end result is membership in the European Union and the reforms are accompanied by European expertise and money, per-accession assistance currently totals 12.9 billion Euros. [3]  [1] ‘Yanukovych: Laws for creation of Ukrainian-EU free trade zone will be adopted in June’, Kyiv Post, 24 May 2010,   [2] Putin, Vladimir, ‘Russia’s Place in a Changing World’, Moskovskiye Novosti, 27 February 2012, Trans. Igor Medvedev,   [3] 2007-2013.eu, ‘Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance. (IPA)’, 2006,

negative: There will be an even greater brain drain from poorer countries to richer.  As the EU expands allows poorer and poorer countries to join there are likely to be increasing problems with internal migration creating a brain drain. The EU will not in the future be able to be nearly as generous in terms of funds to develop new members’ economies. If any new members are allowed freedom of movement their will almost certainly be even greater migration flows than there were as a result of the 2004 enlargement. Poland for example despite being the only European country to avoid recession has still had a net loss of 1.4million people who have stayed abroad more than a year. [1] If the talented and skilled from a country that is experiencing rapid economic growth are staying abroad when the rest of Europe is in the middle of a downturn how many more would move from the poorer potential members such as Macedonia?  [1] Marcin Sobczyk, ‘Poland Loses 1.4 Million People to Brain Drain’, Wall Street Journal, 24 September 2010,

negative: Size is not necessarily a problem; it means it is much simpler for the EU to pull Cape Verde up to European standards than it would be with a larger country. It also means there will be few concerns about membership; no one is going to be worried about emigration from a country with a tiny population.  The process would also not be immediate; countries take at a minimum five years and often over a decade to join the EU. There are other potential candidates such as Moldova, with a lower GDP per capita, which has been touted as a potential member by Romania [1] . Cape Verde has a service based economy, like many EU member states. It is already a member of the WTO, and has had good solid economic growth [2] . Moreover the entire accession process is built around helping potential member states achieve these criteria, and Cape Verde, due to its small size, would not face the biggest challenges to get in.  There is no reason why Cape Verde joining the EU is somehow impractical on an economic level.  [1] Nn, “Romania urges EU membership date for Moldova”, Radio Free Europe Radio Liberty, 19 March 2014,   [2] World Bank, “Cabo Verde Data”, data.worldbank.org,

negative: Enlargement could mean a new start  Britain should not alienate its natural allies among the new member states by insisting on the rebate. Like Britain, the new member states are largely economically liberal, anti-federalist regarding the future of the EU, and are pro-American in terms of foreign policy. As a result Britain is much more likely to be able to work with Poland, Czech Republic and Hungary on these issues. [1] They also recognise that Britain promoted the cause of their membership throughout the 1990s and appreciate its willingness to grant immediate free movement to their citizens who wish to work in Britain. In all these ways they are closer to Britain than to France or Germany, the two big states who have traditionally dominated EU decision-making. Enlargement presents Britain with a great opportunity to influence the future direction of Europe in partnership with these new states, but this opportunity will be lost if British insists on the rebate regardless of Central and Eastern European opinion.  [1] Number 10, ‘Transcript of press conference given by the Prime Minister David Cameron at the EU Summit in Brussels on 17 December 2010’, 2010

negative: It would be easy to assimilate into the EU  Both Switzerland and Norway would be warmly welcomed within the EU family and guaranteed a speedy entry into the Union. As advanced economies with strong legal and political institutions, they would be easy for the EU to assimilate, especially given their close involvement in the Single Market already. Both would be net contributors to the EU budget, and would strengthen the EU at a time when it is still coping with poorer new members and would-be members in Eastern Europe. And by contributing financially to the EU in this way, Switzerland and Norway will benefit from increasing trade as Eastern and Central European states rapidly gain in prosperity with support from EU regional transfers.

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: business economic policy international europe house believes eu should abandon The standards of quality can and are checked for imports. Only food, produced without potentially harmful agents and in a certain way, can be sold on European market. The fact that food was not produced in EU does not mean that food is of lower quality, or that there are fewer checks to ensure their quality. In a recent years there were many cases when the food produced in EU was not what it should be – horse meat scandal in 2013 [1] or scandals in Poland with rotten meat. [2] The CAP and EU are not enough to ascertain the quality of produced food and therefore it is unreasonable to follow this argument.  [1] Meikle, James, and McDonald, Henry, ‘Cameron tells supermarkets: horsemeat burger scandal unacceptable’, theguardian.com, 16 January 2013,   [2] UPI, ‘Europe’s food scandals multiply’, 8 March 2013,

negative: The EU as a trade bloc would be more inclusive to current and new members  The European project has gone too far for many European countries. For some such as Norway or Switzerland the EU has already gone far past the amount of integration they would be willing to allow. Even Member States are increasingly finding that the EU’s intrusiveness and the cost of supporting smaller economies outweigh any potential benefit. Britain has expressed this discontent particularly strongly. (11)  This is a problem for the European Union. The problem of its alienated Member States is only likely to get worse as it seeks to continue expanding: new countries will have increasingly divergent values and will be harder to integrate while deepening will mean more countries are left behind. In practice, this means that the EU will face massive barriers to its goal of integration, and compromise all its other goals in the process. The best solution then is to go back to a stage in the EU’s development that every country supports; the single market without the politics attached. This would bring the benefit of encouraging those who have been left out like Norway and Switzerland to join.  (11) “Goodbye Europe”, The Economist. 8 December 2012.

negative: business economic policy international europe house believes eu should abandon The importance of agricultural industry cannot be valued on the merit of how much percent of GDP it creates. It is one of the industries that are vital for the society as whole – without food the society cannot properly function. In the case of complicated world we are now living in food security – the ability to be self-sufficient in producing food at least to some degree – is important. Also agriculture is not the only industry which is subsidised – the subsidies to other industries such as coal and steel come directly from member states’ budget and not EU’s. Thus for example Germany subsidizes car production by about $1300 per vehicle. [1] The 40% figure is therefore deceptively high as it is the only industry through which subsidies go through the EU budget rather than individual member states.  [1] Davison, Remy, ‘Far from pole on car subsidy grid’, Business Spectator, 26 July 2013,

negative: EU expansion is right.  It is right to extend the economic and political benefits enjoyed by existing EU members to the rest of Europe. States in eastern Europe are still recovering from the “dead hand” of communist rule imposed after deals between the USSR and the USA and Britain at the end of World War II. Many within the boundaries of the former Soviet Union such as Belarus and increasingly Ukraine have reverted to more authoritarian governments. These states should not be abandoned by their western neighbours. Europe has just as much responsibility to those states within Europe that have so far been left out the European Union’s enlargement as it did to those countries of Central and Eastern Europe that were accepted in the most recent enlargements.

negative: The global economy is not welcoming to African players  The international trade arena represents anything but a free market. Instead, tariffs, taxes, subsidies, regulations and other restrictions operate to disadvantage some countries. Because of their weaker bargaining and economic power, it is typically developing not developed countries that are on the losing end of this equation. The agricultural protectionism of the EU and USA, in particular, means that developing countries are unable to compete fairly. In the EU, for example, each cow gets over 12 USD every day, which is many times more than what the average Sub-Saharan person lives on 1. Furthermore, Africa has yet to break into the global market for manufactured exports: this is very difficult precisely because of the success of low-income Asia.  1 BBC News. (2008, November 20). Q&A: Common Agricultural Policy. Retrieved July 21, 2011, from BBC News:

negative: business economic policy international europe house believes eu should abandon CAP maintains European food security  The subsidies to agriculture are important for maintaining self-sufficiency to enable Europe to feed its own citizens. In the world of fluctuating markets, global climate change, commodity crisis such in 2008, the state intervention is even more important because that means that the needed goods can become unavailable. Without EU’s help the prices can fluctuate wildly which can be of concern mainly for poorer parts of EU, where the major part of household spending is still food and non-alcoholic beverages. To prevent this kind of situations only the continent-wide policy can be an effective measure. The markets of other countries can compensate losses from others and vice versa. The result of a secure supply of affordable food has been that the amount an average EU household devotes to food has halved since 1960. [1]  [1] European Commission, ‘CAP – how much does it cons’ ‘Food Prices’, ec.europa.eu,

negative: americas europe global middle east politics politics general house would Turkey has precedents, such as Romania and Bulgaria, both of whom were accepted into the EU  Romania and Bulgaria, who have by far the worst human rights’ records, were prioritized over Turkey when they were granted the right of accession, joining the EU in 2007. The EU rewarded states that have made a big effort to democratize and change policy in order to be allowed in to the EU. By essentially procrastinating on Turkey's case, the EU are discouraging Turkey from making the required changes to their legislature and norms and thus hindering their chances of accession. Countries such as Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic were pressurized to reform at a rapid pace after being promised by the EU they would likely be in the EU in a relatively short period of time; Turkey has been given no such promises. Turkey should have even more 'right' to be in the EU as these states, as it formally applied for membership long before these states and should thus be given priority over them.

negative: A European political union is by necessity undemocratic  The EU is too large for a democratic structure. Since it deals not with citizens directly but with Member States, a question arises as to which agents should make fundamental decisions. Should every Member State get an equal vote, or a vote in proportion to the size of its population? If nation states get equal votes, a lot of people in larger states such as Germany, France or Spain may find themselves highly disenfranchised. On the other hand, if states get votes in proportion to the size of its population, countries such as Luxembourg will be forever hesitant to join, and rightly so, for its citizens would most likely be excluded.  The democratic deficit in the EU is no less visible in practice. The Commission is not directly elected (4); Council politics are confusing, take a long time, and grind to a halt whenever Germany is in the middle of elections (5); and the voting turnout for European elections, where MEPs are elected, is too low to be considered a fair representation of voters’ views (6).  This poses a problem the moment the EU begins having legislative power in its Member States: we must not let more and more aspects of citizen’s lives be affected by an institution that is increasingly undemocratic.  (4) “About the European Commission”, European Commission.   (5) Pop, Valentina. “German elections to set EU agenda in coming months”, Agenda, EU Observer. 2 September 2013.   (6)Dowling, Siobhán. “Europe’s Unpopular Elections: Who Is to Blame for EU Voter Apathy?”, Spiegel Online International. 3 June 2009.

negative: europe house believes federal europe Actually if the EU became a unified state, there would be s loss of UN Seats - a major democratic, liberal voting block in international institutions such as the UN would be lost, in return for one vote (for an incredibly powerful state). Due to the UK and France, both EU members and also UN Security Council permanent members (UNSC P5 - along with the US, China and Russia), and with Germany (G4 - along with India, Japan and Brazil) hopeful to gain a seat in the future, removal of these nations from the UNSC would leave it open to greater sway by American, Russian or Chinese influence. As it is, the UK and France provide a powerful voting bloc in the SC. (Italy has offered the plan of a revolving seat for EU member states.). Therefore countries from the EU are powerful enough as it is and creating only 1 country can result in the exact opposite situation.  None of the benefits, listed in the Proposition argument are actually benefits of a federal Europe. They all have been achieved via the EU. This means that the EU itself is strong and influential enough. There is no need for deeper development as it will only bring disadvantages. “In these days of renewed gloom about the future of Europe, a quick test is in order. Who has the world’s biggest economy? [...] Who has the most Fortune 500 companies? [...] Who attracts most U.S. investment? [...] The correct answer in each case is Europe, short for the 27-member European Union (EU), a region with 500 million citizens. They produce an economy almost as large as the United States and China combined”. [1]  [1] Debismann, ‘Who wins in U.S. vs Europe contest?’

negative: europe middle east politics house supports admission turkey eu Turkey has a booming economy. Turkey has one of the fastest growing economies of the world Turkey is therefore rapidly catching up with Europe and this will therefore become less and less of an issue; at the same time Europe will need Turkey more while Turkey will need the EU less. [1] While many Turks may wish to move to the EU to try to find work it is unclear either that they would do so, Europe’s average unemployment rate is currently higher than Turkey’s, or that Europe would let them, there would likely be transitional rules such as those imposed on Bulgaria and Romania. [2]  [1] GDP growth (annual %). The World Bank.  Accessed on: September 3, 2012.  [2] EURES, ‘Free Movement : Romania’, European Commission,

negative: Qualified majority voting (QMV – an alternative to the unanimity requirement) favors big states and marginalizes the others  QMV in the Council before the accession of Croatia required 74.8% of the votes (258 out of 345). These votes are determined by an equation that takes into account size of population, e.g. Germany has 29 votes while Malta has only 3 votes. Also, a Member State may ask that the qualified majority represents at least 62% of the total population of EU. This system, as Novak puts it, may be potentially oblivious to the needs of smaller states as “the presidency and the Commission seek the support of big countries as a priority because they thereby achieve a qualified majority more quickly.” Furthermore, Novak continues that sometimes, small countries lack resources and large civil services “which seems to lead them pretty mechanically to rely on the Commission’s expertise, or, less often, on that of representatives of big countries.” [1] There we see that substituting unanimity requirement with QMV poses a real danger of marginalizing smaller states through a seemingly ‘democratic voting procedure’. While it is bad enough to foster such behavior regarding the common EU policies, it is unthinkable that this could happen during negotiations on important treaties (like common EU treaties).  [1] Novak, S 2011, Qualified majority voting from the Single European Act to present day: an unexpected permanence, Notre Europe, viewed 29 September 2013, <  .

negative: Requirement to join the Euro  Even if EU membership were in the interests of Switzerland and Norway, the requirement that all new members join the Euro provides a strong argument against joining the Union itself. At present, both countries have strong currencies, with the Swiss Franc a major international reserve currency in its own right. Through the Krone and Franc they can control their own monetary policy to suit economic conditions. By contrast, small EU states are at the mercy of the European Central Bank, having to endure interest rates that may be right for Germany or France, but which are too tight or too loose for Ireland or Belgium. This explains why EU countries such as Denmark and the UK have so far refused to join the Euro. Norway and Switzerland may also wonder whether they want to yoke themselves to profligate debtor countries like Italy, Greece, whose falling credit ratings are placing monetary union under strain at present. And neither Norway or Switzerland has the financial problems of Iceland, although the credit crunch has required Switzerland to support its international banks – in ways which EU membership might well have prevented.

negative: European Union expansion is not a moral process. No one in Europe is trying to claim some kind of ‘civilising mission’. The remaining countries that are outside the European Union cannot be said to be countries that the members of the European Union had abandoned to Russian rule in the same way that could be said of Poland from 1945. Instead these were either within Yugoslavia which largely escaped Soviet control or were already within the borders of the USSR before World War II.  The sheer fact that a country is on the European Continent is not enough for a country to be admitted. Neither is it true that EU countries have a duty to give membership in order to help. The EU is already involved in aid, reconstruction and development programs all over Europe and should not have further obligations.

negative: The Rebate is not justified  The British rebate is an undeserved anomaly - no other country has a similar arrangement to pay back part of its contribution to the EU budget. Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark and Sweden all make a bigger net contribution to the EU than Britain does (in proportion to the size of their populations), [1] yet they do get special treatment. Britain knew how the EU operated when it chose to join more than thirty years ago - if it didn’t like the structure of the budget, whereby rich countries pay more than poor ones, it could have stayed outside. In any case, a few billion Euros a year is a small sum to pay for access to a huge continent-wide market, the department for Business Innovation & Skills estimated that GDP in 2006 was 2.2% higher than it would have been without a single market, [2] in Britain this would be almost $50billion.  [1] BBC News, ‘EU Budget’, 2007  [2] BIS, ‘The Benefits and Achievements of EU Single Market’

negative: Benefits of joining the European Union  Both Norway and Switzerland already gain from their economic association with the European Union, but they would realise much greater benefits if they formally joined the organisation. Being imperfectly integrated into the European economy means that consumers pay higher prices for goods and services than citizens of EU countries. Businesses are sheltered from full competition, which can lead to complacency and a loss of global competitiveness. And the nature of their relationships with Brussels means that their economies are inherently fragile – bilateral agreements could be cancelled by either side at any time. This would have little impact on the wider EU-economy, but would devastate much smaller Norway or Switzerland. The risks this involves were brought home in 2008 when Swiss voters had to approve an extension of the freedom of movement under the Schengen agreement to new EU-members Romania and Bulgaria; if the referendum had been rejected, the EU would have cancelled the whole bilateral deal on Schengen. [1] So unless the two countries stay in step with the EU as it moves forward towards integration, they may lose many of the benefits they have already acquired. Given that in recent deals the EU has been relatively generous in the expectation that Switzerland and Norway will be encouraged to join the Union, there is a further risk that future treatment will be much less sympathetic if Brussels recognises that this is not going to happen.  [1] EurActiv.com, ‘Populists defeated in Swiss EU labour poll’, 2009

negative: It is clear why the EU would like to welcome the rich Swiss and Norwegians within its embrace, but why would either country want to sign up for a project which would involve their citizens’ taxes being given away to other countries? EU waste and fraud are legendary, so it is easy to understand why voters have consistently rejected giving up their taxes to Brussels. As latecomers they are not in a strong position to bargain over entry terms, and can expect to become major net contributors, especially as their farmers are unlikely to gain much from the Common Agricultural Policy. Estimates of the cost of membership for Switzerland were set between SFr3 billion and SFr8 billion in 2004 – more than its entire defense budget.

negative: The European political union is a tool for promoting democracy  The EU has the ability to demand certain conditions from candidate states before they join. It has explicitly set a democratic standard countries must satisfy to be members. This is a powerful tool that repeatedly has incentivised reform in terms of human rights and democracy. In particular, countries emerging from Former Yugoslavia and Turkey have engaged in structural reform during the last decade as part of the process towards becoming Member States (17). It is also stronger for enabling a common foreign and security policy which encourages cooperation between member states when setting policy ensuring all members work together. The EU, therefore, can be a strong force for democracy. This is good, not only because democracy is intrinsically preferable to non-democratic systems, but also because democracies will be more likely to trade and freer trade produces more economic benefits. If the EU were to be merely a trade bloc, it could not put pressure on its countries to stay democratic and endorse the free market. Thus, both in political and financial terms, the EU’s role as a promoter of democracy should be defended.  (17) Dimitrova, Antoaneta; Pridham, Geoffrey. “International actors and democracy promotion in central and eastern Europe: the integration model and its limits”, Democratization. Volume 11, Issue 5. 1 June 2004.

negative: With the expansion of the European Union it is no longer justified that Britain should not be paying more towards the European Union, and in particular the much poorer Eastern European states which have joined. Britain cannot expect to get as much back from the European Union as it puts in. Britain should accept being one of the biggest contributors and in return would get a bigger influence one the EU, rather than being constantly frozen out of decisions by France and Germany.


query: Fewer human deaths  Fewer large beasts will lead to fewer deaths in Africa. Some endangered animals are aggressive and will attack humans. Hippopotamuses kill in excess of three hundred humans a year in Africa, with other animals such as the elephant and lion also causing many fatalities. [1] Footage released in early 2014 of a bull elephant attacking a tourist’s car in Kruger National Park, South Africa demonstrated the continued threat these animals cause. [2] Tougher protection would result in higher numbers of these animals which increases the risk to human lives.  [1] Animal Danger ‘Most Dangerous Animals’  [2] Withnall, A. ‘Rampaging bull elephant flips over British tourist car in Kruger Park’

positive: animals international africa house would african government implement tougher Most of these human deaths are caused by humans invading the territory of the animals at hand. Even giraffes, usually considered peaceful animals, will attack if they feel that humans are too close. Generally, it is the human’s responsibility rather than the animal’s. Increased protection may save more lives as methods such as fencing will forcibly separate humans from animals and decrease the chances of the two coming in to contact. [1]  [1] Morelle, R. “Fencing off wild lions from humans ‘could save them’”

negative: animals international africa house would african government implement tougher Endangered animals are a source of pride for African countries  Endangered animals warrant a tougher degree of protection in Africa as they have notable cultural significance. Some groups believe that African elephants have mystic powers attached to them and have coveted them for centuries. [1] African lions have been depicted on the coat of arms for states and institutions both past and present. [2] They are intrinsically linked with Africa’s past and its identity. The extinction of these animals, therefore, would have a negative cultural impact and should be prevented.  [1] University of California, Los Angeles, ‘Elephant: The Animal and its Ivory in African Culture’  [2] Coleman, Q. ‘The importance of African lions’

negative: Animals are harmed when used as objects of entertainment, no matter how innocent that entertainment is  The circus is another arena in which human beings abuse other animals. Animals are trained to perform tricks using whips, electronic goads, sticks, food-deprivation etc. Wild animals such as lions, tigers, and elephants are kept in shamefully inadequate conditions in tiny spaces. The necessity of regular transportation means that the circus can never provide an appropriate home for wild animals. These animals are forced to travel thousands of miles in cramped and squalid conditions and frequently end up physically and mentally ill. And what for? Purely for the entertainment of we arrogant exploitative humans. What sort of lesson does it teach our children about non-human animals to take them to the circus and see these great creatures demeaned and controlled by force to perform silly tricks?  Horses and dogs are among the principle victims of exploitation in human sporting activities. The main purpose of horse- and dog-racing is for human beings to indulge their penchant for gambling. The welfare of the animals involved is at best a secondary concern. Horses are frequently injured and die in horse races, especially races over hurdles such as the infamous British 'Grand National'; they are also blinkered and whipped to make them run faster, even the British Horseracing Authority has accepted the use of the whip needs to be limited out of concern for the welfare of the animals. [1] Or the Riverside (Washington)Suicide Race [2] [3] , where horse often die from the nearly 400 foot steep grade of the suicide hill, the riders trying to make it down and through a river. It is unconvincing to claim that the animals can enjoy being subjected to this. As for the conditions the animals are kept in, these may be good for the top dogs and horses, but in the main conditions are poor, and once the animals cease to win races they are likely to be neglected, abandoned, or slaughtered. Horses are also forced to take part in the dangerous contact sport of polo in which collisions and a hard, fast-moving puck pose serious danger to the animals who, unlike their riders, have no choice in whether they take part.  [1] British Horseracing Authority, ‘Whip use and specification’, 2011.  [2] Wikipedia, Suicide Race  [3] Nick Timiraos, ‘The Race Where Horses Die’.

negative: animals international africa house would african government implement tougher Heavy handed approaches do not solve the motivations for poaching  Creating tougher responses to poaching will not deter poachers as they fail to recognise the motivations for illegal hunting. Many hunters, especially those who aren’t native to Africa, take part in poaching as there is a thrill in the illegal status. [1] The close calls, challenges and sense of independence will all be multiplied by increased protection on the game reserves.  Then there are those who take part out of necessity. Poachers will often be able to make $50-100 per kilogram for a rhinoceros’ horn [2] and the bush meat from kills can be a necessary source of nutrition. [3] Poaching creates opportunities for Africans which are usually unavailable in licit work. Tougher protection of animals fails to provide an alternative livelihood for these poachers.  [1] Forsyth, C. & Marckese, T. ‘Thrills and skills: a sociological analysis of poaching’ pg.162  [2] Stewart, C. ‘Illegal ivory trade funds al-shabaab’s terrorist attacks’  [3] BBC, “Lions ‘facing extinction in West Africa’”

negative: animals international africa house would african government implement tougher Legalising the trade of horns, ivory, furs and pelts would be more effective  Making it legal for hunters to kill these endangered animals, rather than protecting them, could prevent extinction. The protected status of endangered animals has made their pelts, horns and tusks more expensive as they are harder to obtain. [1] The current illegality of trading rhino horns has constrained supply in comparison to demand in Asia. This has driven the price of the horn to around £84,000. Softening protection for endangered animals could, in theory, reduce the price to a point where it is no longer profitable to hunt these endangered animals. [2] This would potentially increase supply by freeing up that seized by governments which is currently destroyed, and could potentially involve farming as South Africa is considering with Rhino horn. [3]  [1] Welz, A. ‘The War on African Poaching: Is Militarization Fated to Fail?’  [2] Player, I. & Fourie, A. ‘How to win the war against poachers’  [3] Molewa, E., ‘Statement on Rhino poaching intervention’

negative: This argument fails to note that states restrict human behaviour towards animals with the aim of protecting animals in many situations, not just that of 'endangered species'. For example the aforementioned fox hunting ban, which outlawed hunting foxes with dogs as it was deemed excessively 'cruel' to the animal, even though many people enjoyed the practice. [1] This is done not only because humans are able to hold themselves to a higher moral standard than animals but also because animal suffering tends to produce a negative emotional response in many humans (such as amongst those who disliked the suffering of foxes in hunts and pushed for the ban), and thus we prevent human suffering by preventing animal suffering.  [1] BBC News “'More foxes dead' since hunt ban”. BBC News. 17 February 2006.

negative: animals international africa house would african government implement tougher African countries have little money to spare  Africa has some of the least developed countries in the world, making extensive protection of endangered animals unviable. Many African countries are burdened by the more pressing issues of civil war, large debts, poverty, and economic underdevelopment. [1] These factors already draw significant amounts of money from limited budgets. Tanzania, for example, has revenue of $5.571 billion and an expenditure of $6.706 billion. [2] Increased expenditure on animal protection projects would only serve to worsen this budget deficit.  [1] Simensen, J. ‘Africa: the causes of under-development and the challenges of globalisation’  [2] The World Factbook ‘Tanzania’

negative: animals international africa house would african government implement tougher Human development is of great importance to the African continent, arguably more so than conserving endangered animals. In 2010 it was estimated that there are 239 million sub-Saharan Africans living in poverty. [1] Poverty can be the cause of a wide array of political, security and socio-economic issues. Possible sources of income, such as cotton plantations and food crops, should therefore be embraced as they will have a more positive impact on the region than the survival of endangered species.  [1] World Hunger, ‘Africa Hunger and Poverty Facts’

negative: Bullfighting is no more harmful than the alternatives for bulls and cows  Robert Elms argued in 2010 that "Those who see bullfighting as cruel are, of course, right. It is cruel that man should breed and kill animals for his enjoyment whether as a dinner or a dance. But to my mind the life of an Iberian fighting bull, a thoroughbred animal which lives to a minimum age of four, roaming wild, feasting on Spain's finest pasture, never even seeing a man on foot, is far superior to that of the many thousands of British bulls whose far shorter lives are spent entirely in factory conditions and killed in grim abattoirs so that we can eat beefburgers."(10)  Moreover, Bulls are celebrated and honored in bullfighting. In most bullfighting countries, bulls are honored as mystical creatures of immense strength and beauty. Statues of bulls regularly stand outside of bullfighting stadiums, and depict the animals in the most majestic, strong, and beautiful way possible. These statues frequently standalone without an accompanying matador in the depiction.(8)  This respect and appreciation of the bull is a demonstration of the decency with which the art form treats the animal. All members of the bullfighting community, fighters and crowds alike, prize quick and relatively painless kills. If a matador fails to deliver such a kill, and the bull suffers needlessly, then he will be jeered and shamed. This dynamic demonstrates a clear sense of decency within the bullfighting community.(8)  Therefore there is no compelling moral reason to ban bullfighting, as in many ways it is either no worse or even superior to the other roles assigned to cows and bulls in Western cultures. If anything, the end result (death for human enjoyment) is the same if the animal is eaten or dies in a bullring, but at least in a bullfight the cultural value and artistic expression gives the creature's life and death a poetry and nobility which it will never have in a mechanical slaughterhouse or a butcher's shop.

negative: There is nothing noble or poetic about the death of a bull in a bullring. The bulls in a standard bullfight are drugged and confused animals, debilitated and run in circles by others who stab them with spears before the matador approaches to make the "kill shot" with his sword. Anyone who believes this fight to be fair is mistaken. By the time a matador approaches to actually kill the bull, the animal typically has enough spears in his neck and back muscles to prevent him from fully lifting his head.(7)  By contrast, most nations have laws regulating slaughterhouses to ensure that animals killed for meat endure as little pain as possible. The animal is unaware of 'dignity' or 'poetry', but rather only knows its suffering, and consequently this all that the state should take into consideration, with the logical conclusion being to ban bullfighting to protect the animal.

negative: animals international africa house would african government implement tougher Poaching is becoming more advanced  A stronger, militarised approach is needed as poaching is becoming far more advanced. Poachers now operate with high-calibre rifles, night vision scopes, silencers and use helicopters to hunt their prey. [1] These methods are used particularly against rhinoceroses in South Africa, whose horns have become extremely valuable on the Asian market for their supposed medical properties. [2] In response to this, South African rangers are being given specialised training and use their own aerial surveillance to track poachers down with success, [3] supporting the argument for a militarised response to protect endangered animals.  [1] WWF, ‘African rhino poaching crisis’  [2] Zapwing, ‘The Rhino Poaching Crisis’  [3] ibid

negative: Even if animals are able categorize images in photographs and learn sign language, they are still phenomenally less intelligent than human beings. They will never study philosophy or perform brain surgery or even invent a wheel. Furthermore, intelligence does not prove the ability to self-actualise. Mourning others does not prove that animals value their own lives. Perhaps it implies that animals enjoy company but whether they consider the value of their companion's life and their future potential is questionable. Without the ability to value one's own life, life itself ceases to be intrinsically valuable.  The farming of animals does involve death but it is difficult to prove that death is intrinsically a harmful thing. Pain is certainly a harm for the living but animals are farmed are killed very quickly and they are stunned beforehand. Animals on farms do not know that they will be killed so there is no emotional harm caused by the anticipation of death.  There is no evidence that the painless killing of animals should carry any moral weight.

negative: animals international africa house would african government implement tougher Not all endangered animals have such cultural significance within Africa. Pangolins are armoured mammals which are native to Africa and Asia. Like rhinoceros, pangolins are endangered due to their demand in East Asia. They are relatively unknown however, and therefore have little cultural significance. [1] This is the case for many of Africa’s lesser known endangered species. Any extension of protection for endangered animals based on their cultural significance would be unlikely to save many of these species.  [1] Conniff, R. ‘Poaching Pangolins: An Obscure Creature Faces Uncertain Future’

negative: Fighting bulls have a better quality of life than meat-producing bulls  If animal welfare is the primary concern then consistency requires that if one accepts the raising and slaughter of animals for meat then one should also accept the raising and slaughter of animals for entertainment.  “Those who see bullfighting as cruel are, of course, right. It is cruel that man should breed and kill animals for his enjoyment whether as a dinner or a dance. But to my mind the life of an Iberian fighting bull, a thoroughbred animal which lives to a minimum age of four, roaming wild, feasting on Spain's finest pasture, never even seeing a man on foot, is far superior to that of the many thousands of British bulls whose far shorter lives are spent entirely in factory conditions and killed in grim abattoirs so that we can eat beefburgers.” [1]  To condemn bull fighting is to fail to be sensitive to cultural differences and to the true nature of the sport. First, bull fighting is an integral part of traditional Spanish culture that should therefore be respected in the same way that any other minority activity (such as the slaughtering of animals according to certain Jewish or Muslim ritual laws) would be. Secondly, the bull fight is a symbolic enactment of the battle between man and beast; the matador is a highly trained and highly skilled artist and fighter and takes his life in his hands when he enters the ring - it is a match between man and animal. Finally, since the bull would be killed anyway, it is of little consequence how it is killed.  [1] Robert Elms, ‘End bullfighting and you give in to the neutering forces of accepted taste’.

negative: Aesthetics  An environment with a great diversity of plant and animal species in it can act as a source for art and entertainment, enriching the lives of humans. Thus the preservation of endangered species is an important part of ensuring this diversity continues to exist so people and enjoy and be inspired by the many varied kinds of life on this earth. A good example of this is the re-introduction of the grey wolf into Yellowstone Park in the United States (where it had previously become extinct due to human action), which added to the biodiversity of the region and caused a greater influx of tourists into the park. [1] People enjoy being surrounded by different kinds of nature, and so protecting endangered species is an important part of protecting human enjoyment.  [1] Wilcove, D. S., & Master L. L. “How Many Endangered Species are there in the United States?”. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 3[8]. October 2008.

negative: animals international africa house would african government implement tougher There are numerous sponsors who contribute towards animal protection schemes, reducing the government’s burden. Private wildlife custodians spend significant sums of money ensuring they are fully equipped to deal with poachers. There are also private donors and interest groups such as World Wildlife Federation (WWF) who supply funding for the governments’ conservation efforts. [1] This financial support has made projects such as the increased military presence in South Africa’s game parks possible.  [1] Welz, A. ‘The War on African Poaching: Is Militarization Fated to Fail?’

negative: animals international africa house would african government implement tougher If tough approaches to conservation did not exist then the situation would be far worse. [1] The lack of legislation and an armed response to the poaching threat has led to the extinction of many species, such as the Western black rhinoceros. [2] Without the boots on the ground then poaching would most likely expand due to the lack of deterrent which armed guards cause.  [1] Welz, A. ‘The War on African Poaching: Is Militarization Fated to Fail?’  [2] Mathur, A. ‘Western Black Rhino Poached Out of Existence; Declared Extinct, Slack Anti-Poaching Efforts Responsible’

negative: First off, you are appealing to instincts which not everyone has. People who work on farms are happy to slaughter animals. A lot of people do not own pets simply because they do not feel any affection towards animals and care more for material objects. Many people do not care about the clubbing of seals. It is human beings of course who perform these clubbing, murder sharks, poach etc. Furthermore, it is irrational that people care about their pets because cows are equally as sentient as animals yet people are happy to eat veal and battery farmed beef and clearly do not care about the cow.  People treat pets as property. They buy and sell them, put them down when they contract illnesses that are too expensive to treat, give them away when they move houses etc. These are things that they certainly wouldn’t do to human beings. If you want to argue according to what humans do instinctively then we instinctively value humans more than animals and are happy to eat and kill animals.  Furthermore, we do not think that using a descriptive claim- what humans feel instinctively- means that you can then make a prescriptive claim – that all sentient beings deserve equal consideration.  In many ways we treat other human beings as only extrinsically valuable. Neo-Malthusians believe we should allow the poor to die of hunger to ensure that the current population does not suffer from the scarcity that arises from overpopulation. Many wars have involved killing lots of people to achieve political aims. Therefore, we often treat humans as extrinsically valuable.

negative: Many traditions have been defended for their cultural, traditional value. Stoning women for immodesty is one of them. Such tradition-for-tradition's-sake arguments do not actually prove anything, as cultures are constantly evolving and changing -the ban on bullfights can be just one more such change.(11)  The bullfighting tradition is based on cruelty to bulls, and so simply being 'old' and 'traditional' is not enough of a justification. Cruelty is cruelty no matter where in the world it happens. Our understanding of animals has improved a great deal in recent times. There is no place in the 21st century for a ‘sport’ which relies on animal cruelty for ‘entertainment’. Moreover, people need not see a bull die in order to understand death. Video, pictures, books, and news reports all make it possible for individuals to learn about and understand death. It's occurring around us naturally all the time. It is completely unnecessary, therefore, to artificially produce death in the bullfighting arena in order to create an appreciation of the cycle of life and death, etc. Nature watching is also a good alternative. Or even hunting or fishing, in which an individual generally attempts to quickly and decently kill an animal that they will then eat. Torturing a bull for entertainment is unnecessary when compared to these outlets for understanding life and death. Furthermore, majorities in bullfighting states oppose it as well. Recent polls have shown that in Spain 67% are not interested in bullfighting, and in France, 69% of people oppose public funding for bullfighting.(3)

negative: animals environment general health health general weight philosophy ethics It is immoral to kill animals  As evolved human beings it is our moral duty to inflict as little pain as possible for our survival. So if we do not need to inflict pain to animals in order to survive, we should not do it. Farm animals such as chickens, pigs, sheep, and cows are sentient living beings like us - they are our evolutionary cousins and like us they can feel pleasure and pain. The 18th century utilitarian philosopher Jeremy Bentham even believed that animal suffering was just as serious as human suffering and likened the idea of human superiority to racism. It is wrong to farm and kill these animals for food when we do not need to do so. The methods of farming and slaughter of these animals are often barbaric and cruel - even on supposedly 'free range' farms. [1] Ten billion animals were slaughtered for human consumption each year, stated PETA. And unlike the farms long time ago, where animals roamed freely, today, most animals are factory farmed: crammed into cages where they can barely move and fed a diet adulterated with pesticides and antibiotics. These animals spend their entire lives in their “prisoner cells” so small that they can't even turn around. Many suffer serious health problems and even death because they are selectively bred to grow or produce milk or eggs at a far greater rate than their bodies are capable of coping with. At the slaughterhouse, there were millions of others who are killed every year for food.  Further on Tom Regan explains that all duties regarding animals are indirect duties to one another from a philosophical point of view. He illustrates it with an analogy regarding children: “Children, for example, are unable to sign contracts and lack rights. But they are protected by the moral contract nonetheless because of the sentimental interests of others. So we have, then, duties involving these children, duties regarding them, but no duties to them. Our duties in their case are indirect duties to other human beings, usually their parents.” [2] With this he supports the theory that animals must be protected from suffering, as it is moral to protect any living being from suffering, not because we have a moral contract with them, but mainly due to respect of life and recognition of suffering itself.  [1] Claire Suddath, A brief history of Veganism, Time, 30 October 2008  [2] Tom Regan, The case for animal rights, 1989

negative: Bullfighting is a form of animal torture  Bullfighting constitutes animal torture because it is exactly the suffering of the animal from which the entertainment of the crowd is drawn, and the level of suffering inflicted is on the level of that caused by torture. Jeremy Bentham argued that "Cock-fights and bull-fights, the chase of the hare and the fox, fishing, and other amusements of the same kind, necessarily suppose a want of reflection or a want of humanity; since these sports inflict upon sensitive beings the most lively sufferings, and the most lingering and painful death that can be imagined."(1)  The want of humanity even in modern bullfighting is shown by the sadistic cruelties inflicted on the bulls: According to anti-bullfight veterinarian José Zaldívar, in the great majority of cases, the matador missed the vital spot that would cause the bull to die quickly. "These provoke internal bleeding. It is a slow, agonising death – as the high acidity of their blood proves."(2)  At the end of the fight, the bull may not be yet dead while his body parts are cut-off to be kept as trophies. Spanish bull breeders receive EU agricultural subsidies, meaning that, in the EU, taxpayers' money from all countries (not just those with legal bullfighting) goes to support this terrible industry.(3)  Also, in order to reduce the risk to the matador, sometimes the bull’s horns are shaved. This can inflict some pain on the bull and can also make it more sensitive to other forms of pain during the fight.(3)  Moreover, bulls are not the only creatures to suffer in bullrings. The tormented bull does not understand that it is the man on the horse's back that is causing his pain, only that he is in agony. He therefore sees the horse as his enemy as much as the man. It's not unusual for horses used in bullfights to be so badly gored by the bulls that they have to be killed, but only after they have been dragged from the ring and the view of the spectators.(4)  All this suffering makes bullfighting as unacceptable as the many other kinds of animal cruelty which most countries ban, such as cockfighting, dogfighting or any other form of grievous harm inflicted on an animal for 'entertainment' purposes.(2)  We have these laws because governments have generally acknowledged the truth of Bentham's words: "It doesn't matter if they can reason; it doesn't matter if they can speak; what does matter is if they can SUFFER."(5)  All nations need to follow through on this principle by making bullfighting illegal, just like any other form of animal torture.

negative: The circus is where children first learn to love animals! The proposition is right to draw attention to issues of animal welfare but again, they do not need to take such an extremist approach. There is evidence that animals enjoy performing and can form close relationships with their trainers and with an audience. Closer scrutiny of circuses and better enforcement of animal welfare laws are desirable, but once those conditions are met the circus can be seen as a celebration of wild animals and the relationships they can form with animal-loving human beings. If the reality falls short of this ideal then reform is called for, not abolition.  We need to strike a balance between human pleasure and animal welfare. The proposition's point of view is much too unbalanced. Putting the animal welfare case at its strongest, we should ban all sports in which animals are treated cruelly, or are at high risk of injury or death. None of the sports mentioned by the proposition here fall into that category. Anyone who works in horse- or dog-racing will tell you that it is in their interest to ensure that the animals are healthy and happy, or else they will not perform well. They will also tell you that most of these animals enjoy racing and enjoy winning. As for polo, horses are rarely injured; the risk of injury is acceptably low.

negative: It is consistent to oppose both uses of the animal.  Moreover, Bull fighting is probably the most barbaric exploitation of animals that is still legally practised (in Spain, Portugal, parts of France, Mexico, and, illegally, in the United States). The idea that there is a fair match between the bull and the matador is laughable. The bull dies at the end of every single bullfight (it is either killed by the matador or slaughtered afterwards if it survives); for a matador to be seriously injured is rare and it is very rare indeed for a matador to die as the result of a bull fight. During bull fights the animals are taunted and goaded, and have sharp spears stuck into their bodies until eventually they collapse from their injuries and exhaustion. Matadors are not heroes or artists, they are cruel cowards.

negative: animals philosophy ethics science science general house would ban animal Animal research is necessary for the development of truly novel substances  Undoubtedly then, the most beneficial research to mankind is the development of truly novel drugs. Even according to the proposition this represents about a quarter of all new drugs released, which could be seen as significant given the great potential to relieve the suffering beyond our current capacity that such drugs promise.  After the effects, side effects and more complex interactions of a drug have been confirmed using animal and non-animal testing, it will usually pass to what is called a phase I clinical trial - tests on human volunteers to confirm how the drug will interact with human physiology and what dosages it should be administered in. The risk of a human volunteer involved in a phase I trial being harmed is extremely small, but only because animal tests, along with non-animal screening methods are a highly effective way of ensuring that dangerous novel drugs are not administered to humans. In the United Kingdom, over the past twenty years or more, there have been no human deaths as a result of phase I clinical trials.  Novel compounds (as opposed to so-called "me-too" drugs, that make slight changes to an existing treatment) are the substances that hold the most promise for improving human lives and treating previously incurable conditions. However, their novelty is also the reason why it is difficult for scientists to predict whether they may cause harm to humans.  Research into novel compounds would not be possible without either animal testing, or tremendous risk to human subjects, with inevitable suffering and death on the part of the trial volunteers on some occasions. It is difficult to believe that in such circumstances anyone would volunteer, and that even if they did, pharmaceutical companies would be willing to risk the potential legal consequences of administering a substance to them they knew relatively little about. In short, development of novel drugs requires animal experimentation, and would be impossible under the proposition's policy.

negative: The problem with this argument is that it prioritizes the enjoyment of some individuals over others with no real justification. The grey wolf, for example, went extinct in the Yellowstone region in the first place because humans considered it a pest and a threat to livestock and so hunted it to extinction. Clearly these people didn't enjoy the 'diversity' the grey wolf provided. We don't usually give something the force of law regarding animals just because some people enjoy it. For example, the UK has now banned fox hunting even though a great many people found it to be a source of pleasure and recreation. [1] If everyone desired the protection of all endangered species, there would be no need for this law, but the fact that a law is needed to restrain human action shows that not everyone 'enjoys' this biodiversity in the same way.  [1] BBC News “'More foxes dead' since hunt ban”. BBC News. 17 February 2006.

negative: The problem is not a significant one  The animal welfare movement should be tackling more important things. In the UK, only about 3% of cattle, 10% of sheep and 4% of poultry are slaughtered without stunning. [1] Farming and transporting causes the vast majority of the pain in the life of a given animal before it ever arrives at the slaughterhouse. This is a much more important issue, as it affects every animal, not just the small proportion slaughtered without stunning.  From the slaughter to the animal actually dying is normally within 20 seconds, and can be as low as 2 seconds, depending on the species of animal. [2] The distress caused by this in not significant in the grand scheme of things. Given that the animal is being slaughtered, some discomfort is inevitable, but religious slaughter – even if it is more painful than slaughter with stunning – can hardly be described as prolonged or systematic cruelty.  [1] Rhodes, Andrew, ‘Results of the 2011 FSA animal welfare survey in Great Britain’, Food Standards Agency, 22 May 2012,   [2] Grandin, Temple, ‘Welfare During Slaughter without stunning (Kosher or Halal) differences between Sheep and Cattle’, Grandin.com, September 2012,

negative: Bullfighting is too dangerous to humans to justify  Many matadors are gored each year. In 2010, famed matador Julio Aparicio was gored in the throat by a bull during the Festival of Saint Isidro. The bulls horn went through his neck and throat and up through his mouth. Such gruesome scenes, and the risks that matadors must take with their lives, have no place in a modern society.(7)  The culture and audience pressure of bullfighting actually increase the danger for matadors. The bullfighters perceived and praised as 'the best' are the ones that come closest to the bull, letting its horns pass inches by the fighter’s side, etc. The greater the risk for the bullfighter, the greater the reward from the crowd. The bullfighter is not trying to stay as far away as possible in order to make a riskless kill; they are trying to demonstrate their courage and bravery in the face of potentially fatal risks.(8)  In Spain and most other countries with bullfighting, the horns of bulls are not shaved, but rather kept sharp, increasing the danger for the matador.(8)  The state bans many other kinds of activities on the grounds that they are harmful to the participants: taking narcotics is illegal, driving without a seatbelt is illegal, and in many countries even legal guns are required to be fitted with safety devices to protect the user. This is yet another instance where, if the state did not step in, individuals would enter into certain activities which would be harmful to them. The need for the state is especially keen here due to the pressure to take risks put on matadors and others by the audience and the bullfighting community, which may lead many of them to take risks, and suffer injuries, they otherwise would not, for fear of losing 'face'. Bullfighting is just too dangerous to humans to allow, and so the state should step in and ban bullfighting to protect all those involved.

negative: Harming animals for entertainment is immoral  If a creature suffers then there can be no moral justification for refusing to take that suffering into consideration. All animals are sentient beings that experience joy, happiness, fear and pain, in the same way that human beings do. As Bentham previously noted, it does not matter that they cannot express this suffering in the same way as humans can (by speaking about it) or reason about their suffering in the same way -the important thing is that they can suffer in the first place. We can have no right whatsoever to make them suffer for our 'enjoyment'. If any torture inflicted to an animal deserves condemnation, bullfights are the worst kind of torture since they are performed solely in the name of entertainment. We must end the animals' torture and stop these shows of brutality and violence. It is too small a step from the intentional infliction of pain on an animal to the torture and killing of human beings.(5)  Bullfights perpetuate the idea that injuring and killing an animal for amusement is acceptable, and that is not an idea which any state with any concern for animals, or for its human citizens, should wish to be prevalent. Part of the 'attraction' of bullfighting for crowds is witnessing death. Advocates of the practice make this into an argument for the practice. But, a desire to see death in front of one's own eye's amounts to bloodlust. Why should humans be accommodated in such a morbid pursuit? Eric Gallego, an animal rights protester, said in 2010: “Bullfighting is a bloody entertainment. We must stop this cruelty because we don’t want to be a barbaric society in Europe.”(6)  This argument applies just as much to any other country in the world: why would we want to encourage people to enjoy pain and suffering, as we have laws which make causing pain and suffering illegal (both for humans and animals) in almost every other context? Bullfighting is therefore immoral, and encourages cruel and immoral behaviour in other areas, and so it should be banned.

negative: Human rights trump those of lower animals  Why human rights always trump animal rights: It has already been established that laws protecting endangered species cause harm to humans by denying them the opportunity to engage in behaviour they would otherwise desire to do. The problem with this is that it elevates 'animal rights' to an equal plane with human rights and therefore restricts human life and happiness. This is wrong as humans enjoy superior mental faculties to animals and also have greater sentience, meaning that humans are aware of their pain, suffering and the opportunities denied to them (for example through laws restricting land development) in a way in which animals are not. As a consequence, we should cause humans to have less happiness in life in order to protect the lives of 'endangered species', as animals' lives, 'happiness' and suffering are less meaningful than that of humans.

negative: There are other options to a cull  Culling badgers is just one option for reducing the incidence of bovine TB. We are forgetting that the rate of bovine TB is increasing mostly because the UK was very successful at wiping out bovine TB in the past. In the 1930s the national infection rate was around 4 in 10 cattle, this was reduced to less than one in 1000 in the mid-1960s. [1] This was done by removing infected cattle; this is still done today but that it was so successful in the past shows that other methods work. Badgers are not a new species in the UK and would have represented the same risk in the 1960s.  Also potentially a better option is vaccination. This can be done either by vaccinating the badgers, or most effectively by vaccinating the cows. Wales has opted to go for a vaccination of badgers, a field study has found that vaccination can result in a 74% reduction in the proportion of wild badgers testing positive for TB. [2] It can also be done comparatively cheaply by using volunteers (the same people who are campaigning against the culls). It will still cost £2000 per km2 (about twice the cull) and it is clear that even if herd immunity is achieved in badgers this won’t immediately stop infections of cattle from badgers but considering the cull is expected over 9 years with only a 16% improvement in infection rates a vaccine would seem to be a good alternative. [3]  [1] Rollins, Julian, ‘Badgers: To cull or not to cull’, BBC Countryfile, 8 April 2009,   [2] ‘Research into Bovine TB’, Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs, 10 December 2012,   [3] ‘Bovine TB vaccination no magic bullet say MPs’, parliament.uk, 5 June 2013,

negative: imals international africa house would african government implement tougher There is no guarantee that legalising the trade would satisfy demand in East Asia. [1] Nor is there any substantial evidence to suggest that prices would drop to the point where hunters could no longer sustain themselves. If neither of these factors transpires then there is a strong likelihood that endangered animals would be hunted to extinction.  [1] Player, I. & Fourie, A. ‘How to win the war against poachers’

negative: These possible harms can be outweighed by the gains we make as humanity from protecting these species. It is important to note that the way we benefit from protecting endangered species extends benefits not just to the current generation but to future generations in terms of the preservation of biodiversity for scientific and aesthetic reasons. By contrast, allowing farmers to hunt to extinction species which are a threat to their livestock is only a short-term gain which applies almost exclusively to the farmers themselves and not to humanity as a whole.

negative: Protecting endangered species protects the interests of humans  Protecting endangered species helps protect humans: Humans actually benefit in a large number of ways from the protection of endangered species and thus continuing biodiversity. Firstly, the diversity of life and living systems is considered by many scientists to be a necessary condition for human development. We live in a world built on a carefully balanced ecosystem in which all species play a role, and the removal of species from this can cause negative consequences for the whole ecosystem, including humans. [1] There is also the potential for almost any species to hold currently-unknown future benefits to humans through products they could provide. One example of this is the scrub mint, an endangered plant species which has been found to contain an anti-fungal agent and a natural insecticide, and thus holds great potential for use that benefits humans. [2] Endangered species have also been known to hold the key to medical breakthroughs which save human lives. One example of this is the Pacific yew (a tree species) which became the source of taxol, one of the most potent anticancer compounds ever discovered. [3] Biodiversity also helps protect humans in that different species' differing reactions to ecological problems may in fact act as a kind of 'early warning' system of developing problems which may one day negatively affect people. This was the case with the (now banned) dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) pesticide, as the deterioration of the bald eagle and the peregrine falcon through their exposure to DDT in fact alerted humans to the potential health hazards of this pesticide, not just to animals but also to humans. [4] Thus the preservation of endangered species helps to protect humans, as this means plants and animals continue to play their specific role in the world's ecosystem which humans rely on, can act as an 'early warning' for problems which may affect humans, and may hold the key to scientific and medical breakthroughs which can greatly benefit humanity. Al this could be lost through the careless extinction of plant and animal species.  [1] Ishwaran, N., & Erdelen, W. “Biodiversity Futures”, Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 3[4]. May 2005   [2] Wilcove, D. S., & Master L. L. “How Many Endangered Species are there in the United States?”. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 3[8]. October 2008.   [3] Wilcove, D. S., & Master L. L. “How Many Endangered Species are there in the United States?”. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 3[8]. October 2008.   [4] Wilcove, D. S., & Master L. L. “How Many Endangered Species are there in the United States?”. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 3[8]. October 2008.