GW Speech

Motion: This House Opposes the EU's decision to cut funding given to member states as a penalty
for passing policies deemed to be against 'EU values'

My time will start in 3 2 1

Clarifications:
A) Side proposition wants to make it very clear that we are not decreasing the amount of
spending on these countries but instead directing them into explicit sectors
B) We want to say that these individual countries are already very conservative and right wing, so
stimulating them into adopting these EU regulations would simply worsen the scenario through
sanctions.
C) I am first going to be providing a few clarifications, then refuting side opposition, and finally
giving weighing on why their existence of the EU is contingent on their economy and also on why
penalizing is a very detrimental act.
D) Through tolerating these discriminatory and ludicrous acts that opp proposes, individual
countries would violate these regulations although they decided to receive the benefit and cash
from the EU

Refutations:
LO:
-Countries need the money so these countries will change if their funding are cut and it is the
most efficient way
/The EU also needs these nations, and given that society is already brainwashed
the EU needs these nations so they have leverage over the EU to get their funding back
-->its unlikely that they will find their own policies problematic because they have been taught
these conservative ideology in school from a young age and propaganda literally everywhere. it is
pretty unlikely that they will find their policies problematic, and instead utilize minorities as the
scapegoat
(News will characterize it as the EU taking away money since we don’t allow same sex marriage
and they will think that it is because of the homosexuals and our money is now gone)

/They can use refugees as a scapegoat as a leverage, forcing EU to take away their sanctions

-By joining, these countries are automatically required to follow the regulations
/Then why do they join in the first place
/Regulations are something they have to follow in order to receive benefits from an association

DLO:
-Maiya told us that Violating means that they deserved to be punished
/This doesn’t matter because on the utilitarian point if the outcomes are going to be pretty bad,
they should still do it anyways so it doesn’t matter since it is an ethical metric based on the
outcomes. If the outcomes of sanctioning is bad, even if they violated EU values, the solution isn’t
to sanction them but rather utilizing our alternative to resolve the issue.
/Alternative ways to deal with this: the EU can withdraw funding and targeting the funding a lot
more and requiring the funding to be spent in different ways but not decreasing the amount
(Instead of giving these funds to the Hungarian government, they can fund women shelters, free
press, and also organizations that treat minorities better)

Extensions and Weighing:

Why it’s beneficial for them to be in the EU and why they will more likely to not pass the line too
much?
-It’s going to be effective because they need direct EU funding (Improvising the life of the
Hungarians) and they don’t actually want to be kicked out of the EU, but they are doing certain
actions which are against the regulations of the EU.
Because: Leaving the EU is going complicated for their country in general  lack of free trade,
train wrecking your economy, and also free flow of labor.
-Within Hungary, the majority of Hungarians 80% of the Hungarians support them to be in the
EU. This means if the government goes across the line, they will not receive support from the
public which is an issue.

Why penalizing them is bad:

-they might leave in a manner where they are closer to Russia or associations which are not close
with the EU. This is detrimental because another scenario like Brexit will very likely have many
undermining harms and countries will also follow the movement that Brexit has done.
-Brexit (one individual country) has achieved its fundamental goal with itself doing fine without
the EU, incentivizing other countries to do so (They feel confident that they can do so too without
detriment of their economy)

Impact:
-A consequence of this is that the EU gets a lot of economic migrants and a lot of people will
come through countries like turkey and reach countries like Germany or the UK, and Hungary,
because it is on the border has a lot of refugees from displacement
(If these countries don’t cooperate for this displacement, this could contribute to Syria’s
migratory crisis in the EU, so we need these countries in this regard)

We want to say that sanctions simply doesn’t work

-People are harmedAll the Pro-Victor Orban people will try to make LGBTQ people scapegoats
and they will be treated worse since he keeps all of the people in parliament that support him
and also the news presses that support his ideologies
-Further rise of nationalism-push them more towards countries such as Russia, and in the long
term accelerates the breakdown of the EU as more countries opt into a less harmful and more
autonomous resolution of brexit.

Very proud to propose.