Advancing national interests  A nation’s foreign policy should be primarily concerned with advancing the national interest. By the national interest we mean promoting the interest of the nation as a whole rather than any of its subnational groups; whether this is building up the state's military power to protect its citizens through alliances or military bases, benefiting the nation's economy through trade deals, or encouraging the creation of friendly governments around the globe. [1] Circumventing censorship helps obtain this last objective for democracies by encouraging peoples in autocracies to find their own voice and push for democracy; a system of government that is more compatible to other democracies. Ultimately this will also provide other benefits; friendly governments with similar political systems are more likely to create trade agreements with each other so providing economic benefits, in the 1990s the volume of trade between a democracy and autocracy was on average 40% less than two democracies. [2] Equally importantly democracies do not fight other democracies so helping to create stability. [3]  [1] Realism emphasises the alliances bit, Liberalism the economic self interest, and constructivists spreading values. Walt, Stephen M, “International Relations: One World, Many Theories”, Foreign Policy, Spring 1998,   [2] Mansfield, Edward D., et al., “Free to Trade: Democracies, Autocracies, and International Trade”, The American Political Science Review, Vol. 94, No. 2,  p.318  [3] Rousseau, David L., et al., “Assessing the Dayadic Nature of the Democratic Peace, 1918-88”, The American Political Science Review, Vol.90, No.3,  p.515


It is domestic not international legitimacy that matters  What matters for a state when it comes to foreign policy, and therefore with helping to circumvent censorship, is whether the policy is considered legitimate domestically. Since a government's legitimacy is domestically derived from the support of its people if they support the policy then it is legitimate. While it is often not considered a top priority people in democracies usually support promoting human rights and spreading democracy around the world. [1]  [1] Stevenson, Kirsten, “Strong support for democracy promotion in national opinion ballot”, Foreign Policy Association, 23 October 2012,


It is legitimate to enable freedom  Circumventing censorship is a cost effective method of promoting freedom. When a country has refused to recognise the right to freedom of expression of its own people and indeed is actively stopping them from exercising this right then it is legitimate for other countries to step in to act as an enabler of those rights. By circumventing censorship so the freedom of expression is returned to those that have had their voice stripped from them. Doing this costs the state that is acting almost nothing; thus Britain’s Foreign Office is devoting a mere £1.5million to promoting expression online, [1] and yet the benefits for those who it helps can be considerable by helping them to publicise and organise themselves by providing a platform. The small cost should be compared to the benefit of keeping activists one step ahead of the authorities by, for example providing software that helps make sure online communication is anonymous, which can save lives.  [1] “William Hague promises £1.5m to promote freedom of expression online”, BBC News, 30 April 2012,


Governments enable censorship to protect their citizens  What censorship is it legitimate to undermine? Censorship is often created in order to protect the people not to strip them of freedoms. This is most obvious when we consider that filters to prevent hate speech or child pornography are forms of censorship that may be enabled with the intention of protecting citizens not repressing them. Iceland for example has recently decided to ban pornography and it would be enabled in a similar way to censorship by regimes like China or Iran. [1] Even harsher censorship that naturally looks more repressive to us may be considered a legitimate means of protecting the people and their values. When a government is using censorship to ensure stability is that censorship not justified when compared to the alternative? While there may be divisions internally about the legitimacy of this censorship it is certainly not legitimate for outside actors to impose their own idea of how much censorship there should be.  [1] Kiss, Jemima, “Iceland’s porn ban ‘conflicts with the idea of a free society’, say critics”, guardian.co.uk, 28 February 2013,


Aggressive foreign policy is not legitimate foreign policy  Foreign policy is legitimate when it is peaceful and based upon mutual respect. It is no surprise that the most controversial foreign policy actions are those that are aggressive whether this is invading another state such as the Iraq war, attempting humanitarian intervention as in Kosovo, or engaging in clandestine actions such as Iran-Contra. This is because there is a powerful norm against aggressive action in international relations in order to maintain stability.  Undermining states by circumventing censorship is simply a new method of engaging in aggressive actions against another state. NATO has accepted that cyber operations can be considered to constitute an armed conflict, [1] so it is increasingly accepted that actions on the internet can be aggressive action. Indeed “If such cyber operations are intended to coerce the government… the operation may constitute a prohibited ‘intervention’”. [2] While no one would argue that this policy will create a war it is not a very big step from considering cyber attacks to be armed conflict to considering undermining states through circumventing censorship to be an aggressive action.  [1] Bowcott, Owen, “Rules of cyberwar: don't target nuclear plants or hospitals, says Nato manual”, The Guardian, 18 March 2013,   [2] Schmitt, Michael N., ed., “The Tallinn Manual on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Warfare”, Cambridge University Press, 2013, p.17.


This policy is not necessary and may be counterproductive  Unless a state wishes to pull the plug on the internet entirely state censorship on the internet is never complete. Dissidents and those who are interested in getting around censorship will manage with or without help from other governments, they will use privately developed software, or proxies to get around censors and protect themselves. Having help from foreign governments to bypass censorship may even put the people this policy is trying to empower in an even worse position. The use of software that is meant to undermine censorship helps to prove that the dissident’s intent is hostile towards the government and the state’s policies – otherwise they would not need to software, and would not resort to using methods developed by foreign countries. Russia is increasingly cracking down on those who have contact or receive help from ‘foreign agents’ particularly foreign NGOs, such a policy could be as easily applied to online help as financial aid. [1]  [1] Earle, Jonathan, “Hundreds of NGOs Checked for Foreign Agents, Extremism”, The Moscow Times, 19 March 2013,


The international system is based on equality and non-interference  Relations between states are based upon “the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.” The UN Charter emphasises “Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state”. [1] Within a state only the government is legitimate as the supreme authority within its territory. [2] Without such rules the bigger, richer, states would be able to pray on the weaker ones. This cannot simply be put aside because one state does not like how the other state runs its own internal affairs. The United Nations has gone so far as to explicitly state “all peoples have the right, freely and without external interference, to determine their political status and to pursue their economic, social and cultural development.” [3] Circumventing censorship would clearly be another power attempting to impose its own ideas of political cultural and social development.  [1] UN General Assembly, Article 2, Charter of the United Nations, 26 June 1945,   [2] Philpott, Dan, "Sovereignty", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2010 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.),   [3] UN General Assembly, “Respect for the principles of national sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of States in their electoral processes”, 18 December 1990, A/RES/45/151


Small is beautiful: community empowerment  Microfinance is empowering the communities that are using it - showing in development, small is beautiful. Communities are empowered to change their conditions. For example taking the case of savings - microfinance allows for savings. Half of the adults that saved in Sub-Saharan Africa, during 2013, used an informal, community-based approach (CARE, 2014). First, having savings reduces household risk. CARE is one of many organisations working in innovations for microfinance. At CARE savings have been mobilised across Africa by working with Village Savings and Loans Associations. Overtime, CARE has targeted over 30,000,000 poor people in Africa, to provide necessary finance. Savings ensures households have financial capital, can invest resources in education, health, and the future. Savings is security in livelihoods.  Second, microfinance is providing key skills. Oxfam’s Savings for Change Initiative provides training on savings, and lending, to women in communities in Senegal and Mali. Evidence from Mali indicates startup capital provided has ensured better food security, women’s empowerment in the financial decision-making of households, and crucially, a sense of community bond among the women (Oxfam, 2013). Gender based violence within households may also be reduced [1] .  [1] See further readings: Kim et al, 2007.


Microfinance and protection  Access to a small loan provides benefits for the poor’s ability to access high quality health care. A lack of access to banking facilities - loans and credit - may mean the poor are left excluded from health care services as these are usually not free. Microfinance institutions accept the irregularities of the poor’s income, so enabling health care to be affordable to the poor by providing access to finance. As Ofori-Adjei (2007) shows the integration of microfinance institutions within healthcare systems in Ghana is required to resolve the issue of inaccessibility. Ill health should not put a household into a state of poverty - microfinance provides this protection.  Microfinance schemes not only provide loans to access health care but are now integrating non-financial services, such as health education, within their finance schemes.


A livelihoods approach  The livelihoods approach provides a useful model to understand how poor people live [1] ; and remains important to recognising the benefits of microfinance.  The provision of microfinance reduces vulnerability to shocks and changes such as losing a job; enhances people’s access to assets that they use and need (such as finance, friend networks, and land); and this fundamentally acts to change the lives of the poor. Microfinance provides social protection through tapping into social capital. Further, microfinance means aid is not simply provided, but the individual is taught valuable financial skills and given the means to sustain themselves for their lifetime.  [1] See further readings: IFAD, 2013.


Ending poverty through entrepreneurialism  Introducing finance provides communities with access to startup capital. Access to financial capital is vital in several respects for initiating capitalism. Firstly, access to capital enables entrepreneurialism. The poor have business ideas that would benefit both themselves and their community they just require access to capital to invest in such ideas. The Initiative ‘Lend with Care’ is providing access to capital to empower entrepreneurs [1] .  Secondly, the cumulative effect of small-scale savings and borrowing, enabled through microfinance enables individuals, families and communities, to enter markets - of land and property. Being able to buy property and land can enable personal security, dignity, and increasing returns.  [1] See further readings: Lend with Care, 2013.


Rebuilding agricultural systems  Africa is faced with an agrarian crisis. Microfinance is providing rural communities a chance to gain food security and reduce vulnerability to risks such as climate change, unstable demand, and political tensions. Microfinance supports small scale agriculture – which is more sustainable, effective for growth, and beneficial for communities than larger scale agriculture. In Zimbabwe, small scale farming has the capability to improve production, benefiting households, communities, and the Nation (IRIN, 2013; Morrison, 2012).  Kiva, a microfinance NGO, is providing affordable capital to remote communities. Loans have been provided to small-scale farmers and a rental system has been set-up enabling farmers to borrow tools and resources needed.


Deeper issues unresolved  Microfinance provides a quick-fix solution for the poor. The individual, or community, is provided with a loan to invest in their future. However, although access to capital is a key concern for enabling entrepreneurialism it is not the silver bullet. Microfinance schemes will fail without providing a stable political and economic environment that makes a good climate to invest in.  Microfinance is essentially short-termist. It encourages investment but only in things that will bring a quick return. With interest rates as high as 30% the person taking the loan needs to pay it back as quickly as possible. This can sometimes be against an individual’s long term interests, for example access to microfinance often reduces primary school attendance as this is a long term investment that will not pay back the loan money (IOE, 2011).


Debt cycles and the curse of microfinance  Microfinance is incorporating free market ideologies and subprime (lending to those who may not be able to repay) lending at a smaller scale. Unstable crises’ form as a result, and debt is intensified for the poorest - of which are given access to credit they are not able to repay. This is a problem with all lending, microfinance is no exception.  In India the pressures of microfinance repayment has become linked to suicide and early mortality (Biswas, 2010). The stress of looking for microcredit, and then how to pay it back, has created a crisis within the microfinance industry. Regulation is required on the microfinance organisation: controlling the distribution of credit and the use of threats if the individual defaults.


Realistic barriers  There are significant barriers to introducing microfinance. Microfinance can’t reach everywhere; a lack of infrastructure, or poor infrastructure, can mean that microfinance initiatives often can’t reach where need is greatest. Those who are poorest most need money just to get buy, not to invest. They would be unable to repay even tiny loans. It returns to the question of who is the poorest, and what do we know about them - where they are, what they need, and why are they poor?  Secondly, structural constraints limit the ability for microfinance to be sustainable and provide a long term solution. Bad governance, inadequate structures to regulate microfinance, and political instability, mean the theoretical benefits of microfinance may not become a lived reality.  Thirdly, who is involved in the supply? The involvement of multiple actors - NGOs, communities, the state, and private sector, complicates how microfinance is being run and therefore the effectiveness. Tensions emerge with such partnerships as each actor has the different objectives and motivations.


Turkey is actually part of the European continent both geographically and historically.  Geographically, Turkey is astride the divide between Europe and Asia, it is uncontestable that Turkey is in part a European country and so has the right to become a member of the European Union. Turkey’s biggest city, Istanbul, is located within Europe. One of the core values of the EU stands as “every country on the European continent after having completed all the necessary preparations has the right to join the EU’’ [1] . Furthermore, Turkey and its predecessors, the Ottoman Empire and Byzantine Empire were major European and World powers from the end of the Roman Empire until the breakdown of the World War I. The Ottoman Empire took part in the European state’s system from its birth even if as in some ways an outsider, until the end of the eighteenth century Turkey was considered to be much more a part of the European system than Russia. [2] Turkey since the first world war has been orientated towards the west using western methods to modernize including for example making the state secular; building a law system based not on Islamic law but on Swiss civil law. [3] Turkey can therefore be said to be as much a western nation as an Islamic one.  [1] The EU: A Community of Values. EU Focus.  Accessed on September 3, 2010.  [2] Anderson, M.S., The Origins of the Modern European State System 1494-1618, Longman London, 1998, p.57  [3] Huntington, Samuel P., The Clash of Civilizations and the remaking of world order, Simon & Schuster London, 1996, pp.144-145


The admission of Turkey will help the economy of the EU develop more dynamically.  Turkey has a booming economy with one of the fastest growing economies of the world [1] . Turkey has a young, skilled and vibrant workforce contributing in the fields of innovation, industry and finance. Having a young and growing population means that Turkey is in the opposite situation to the European Union, whose population is declining. As a result Turkey joining would be very complementary to the European Economy. In Turkey 26.6% of the population are under 15 [2] while in the EU only 15.44% is. [3] This is significant because the population of the European Union as a whole will be declining by 2035 [4] and because of the aging population the working population will be declining considerably before this. Aging obviously means that the EU will not be able to produce as much, but also that much more of EU resources will be devoted to caring for the elderly with a result that there is likely to be an drag on GDP per capita of -0.3% per year. [5] One way to compensate for this is to bring new countries with younger populations into the Union.  [1] GDP growth (annual %). The World Bank.  Accessed on: September 3, 2012.  [2] ‘Turkey’, The World Factbook, 24 August 2012,   [3] ‘European Union’, The World Factbook, 24 August 2012,   [4] Europa, ‘Population projections 2008-2060 From 2015, deaths projected to outnumber births in the EU27’, STAT/08/119, 26 August 2008,   [5] Carone, Giuseppe, et al., ‘The economic impact of aging populations in the EU 25 Member States’, Directorate-General for Economic and Financial Affairs, n.. 236, December 2005,  p.15


Strategic position and energy benefits  There would be immense strategic benefits both to Europe and to Turkey if she were allowed to join the European Union. Turkey is already a important regional power with a lot of influence in the Middle East and Central Asia and it is already a member of NATO, which most members of the EU are also a part of. [1] This is in part because Turkey is in an immensely strategic geographic situation as the border between Europe and Asia. Historically this has meant Turkey is ideally located for trade, today it means it is strategically close to the oil and gas fields advanced economies like the EU’s depend on.  Turkey is therefore vital for Europe’s energy security. According to the EU energy minister “Turkey comes first in these countries for cooperation” on energy issues because of its location. [2] This is because Turkey is an important transit point for Oil coming through the Bosporus from the Caspian Sea and Russia and also for gas. Turkey acts as a bridge both to the Caspian and the Gulf and creates a second option for importing gas into Europe through pipelines that Europe needs as shown by the cut offs caused by Russian disputes with Belarus and Ukraine. Having gas pipelines through Turkey to the EU, such as the Nabucco pipeline, would shatter Russia’s gas monopoly in Europe. [3]  [1] Solana, Javier, ‘Why Turkey must join the European Union’, CNN World, 13 June 2011,   [2] Kurtaran, Gökhan, ‘Turkey vital for energy, EU commissioner says’, Daily News, 10 February 2012,   [3] Tekin, Ali, and Williams, Paul A., ‘Europe’s External Energy Policy and Turkey’s Accession Process’, Center for European Studies Working Paper Series #170, 2009,


Turkey is not yet up to European standards of human rights.  Turkey is a democracy but it is not yet up to the standards necessary for membership in the European Union. Turkey has numerous problems with the autocracy of its leaders, the suppressed human rights of the Kurdish and the other minorities. The State Department Human Rights Report condemns for example arbitrary arrest and says “Police detained more than 1,000 members of the pro-Kurdish Peace and Democracy Party (BDP) on various occasions” during 2011. Kurds and other minorities are “prohibited from fully exercising their linguistic, religious, and cultural rights” and are harassed when attempting to assert their identity. [1] There is little freedom of the press in Turkey, most of the media are state-controlled resulting in turkey ranking 148th on Reporters without borders press freedom index whereas the lowest EU country is Greece ranked 70th. [2] While some countries in the EU, such as France, have criminalized the denial of the Armenian genocide [3] Turkey on the other hand hasn’t even recognized that it ever happened. It is clear that while this disparity exists and human rights violations continue Turkey cannot join the EU.  [1] Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, ‘Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2011 Turkey’, U.S. Department of State,   [2] ‘Press Freedom Index 2011-2012’, Reporters Without Borders,   [3] De Montjoye, Clementine, ‘France’s Armenian genocide law’, Free SpeechDebate, 29 June 2012,


Turkey must recognize Cyprus.  The biggest problem facing Turkey that will prevent its entry to the European Union is that it does not recognize Cyprus, a state that is already an EU member. It is clear that Cyprus and relations with it are the main sticking point as the EU President Van Rompuy has admitted “Were it not for some challenges from one of the members of the European Union, Cyprus, we would have made more progress when it comes to Turkey, I acknowledge that negotiations on enlargement are stalled for the time being because one of the members of the club has problems with the process.” [1] Negotiations towards reunification of the island have stalled since the EU backed UN peace plan was rejected by the Greek Cypriots in 2004 just before they joined the EU. Neither Cyprus nor Turkey are willing to take any possible steps that would help build confidence and break down the barriers to agreement such as reopening ports and airports. [2]  [1] Neuger, James G., ‘Turkey’s EU Bid Is ‘Stalled,’ Cyprus to Blame, Van Rompuy Says’, Bloomberg, 5 September 2012,   [2] ‘Cyprus: Six Steps towards a Settlement’, International Crisis Group, Europe Briefing No.61, 22 February 2011,


Turkey is not enough economically developed to join the EU.  Turkey has many economic problems ranging from high inflation, high regional disparities, high wealth disparity, unemployment, bad infrastructure and poverty among others. The country must solely focus itself onto improving those problems, before obtaining EU-membership. Not resolving economic problems before joining the EU can lead to problems as exemplified by Greece, Portugal and Italy, countries which had their big economic problems that were overlooked upon joining the Eurozone. Turkey’s GDP per capita is less than half the average of the EU [1] and as a large country with more than seventy million people it would pose an immense strain on the rest of the Union.  The effect of this economic disparity is likely to lead to a massive influx of immigrants from Turkey to the rest of the EU, because they will take advantage of free movement of people in the European Union and these immigrants. This immigration is likely to have the effect of forcing down the wages of workers in the existing EU nations as the Turks will be willing to work for less. [2]  [1] ‘Turkey’, The World Factbook, 24 August 2012,  ‘European Union’, The World Factbook, 24 August 2012,   [2] Turkey is part of Europe. Fear keeps it out of the EU. The Guardian. August 6 2009.  Accessed on: September 3, 2012.


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’,


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


The creation of the post of a High Representative marked an important change in the EU.  The creation of a post of High Representative and Vice President of the Commission (HRVP) marks an important change in the decision making process at the EU level with regards to foreign policy. Agreement on the post showed a clear commitment to the pursuit of a common EU foreign policy and to developing a unique cooperative model for foreign and defense policy decision making that goes beyond the nation state. Member states should now deliver on that commitment by seeking as much common ground as possible to ensure that the High Representative’s role is truly significant. The goal of a common foreign and security policy should thus be supported not only as a mechanism to streamline EU’s position and role in world politics, but also to reinforce notions of cooperation and consultation essential for maintaining a stable international system, in line with the stated goals of the EU. (The 12 stars in a circle is meant to symbolize the ideals of unity, solidarity and harmony among the peoples of Europe)1.  1 Europa.eu, 'Symbols',accessed 1/8/11


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


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.


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.  ">


The post of a High Representative is merely a shadow of what it should have been, and its failure shows the EU's inability to consolidate foreign policy.  While seemingly groundbreaking, the current agreement on the EU reform treaty was nothing but a lame attempt to salvage a much bolder initiative: an EU Constitution. The rejection of the EU Constitution in the Dutch and French referendums, as well as the extreme difficulty in getting even its watered-down version accepted, shows the extent to which the member states of the EU are not yet ready to think and act in unison. The UK representatives successfully insisted that the language of the reform treaty clearly states that major foreign policy decisions will continue to be taken at the state level.


Going back on this rule would promote casual sex  Condoning the use of barrier methods of contraception would be implicitly condoning casual sex since their primary function is within that context. This is particularly important since the Catholic Church's teachings on casual sex are not taken particularly seriously already. Any action, such as the Catholic Church allowing the use of barrier contraception, that would promote casual sex in countries with severe AIDS/HIV problems, would be an incredibly irresponsible one. Pope Paul VI argued that when considering "the consequences of methods and plans for artificial birth control. Let them first consider how easily this course of action could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards." The Church's current stance on barrier contraception, therefore, is the most responsible one1. 1 Pope Paul VI. "Humanae Vitae." 1968.


Protects people from spending eternity in Hell.  It is important to remember that the Catholic Church believe that barrier contraception is against God and that using it will condemn people to Hell. Therefore, even if the Church's stance on condoms is harmful, which the proposition does not accept that it is, it is less harmful than people spending an eternity suffering. In this context, therefore, the most responsible thing for the Catholic Church to do is to forbid the use of condoms and, thereby, save people from Hell1. 1 Pope Paul VI. "Humanae Vitae." 1968.


Radical changes risk the stability of the Catholic Church.  Whenever a Church makes a radical change to its doctrines and teachings it causes a huge amount of tension within the Church. An excellent example of this is the Church of England allowing women to become bishops; a huge number of people left the Church over the controversy. Since the Catholic Church's ban over contraception of all kinds is something that it has stood fast over for a great number of years, as well as something that sets it apart from most other denominations and faiths, the proposition believes that a change in this would result in a huge amount of tension within the Church. This tension would inevitably bring about a considerable risk of large parts of the Church collapsing altogether. This would be much the same as the tensions over gay priests in the Anglican church that have led to fears of a schism1. Therefore, in the interests of its own stability, the sensible course of action for the Catholic Church to take is to maintain its ban on contraception. 1 Brown, Andrew. "Jeffrey John and the global Anglican schism: a potted history." Guardian.co.uk, 8 July 2010


In context of other teachings, does not promote the spread of AIDS/HIV.  The Catholic Church does not only forbid the use of barrier contraception but also of casual sex. The issue is not that the Church is being irresponsible by banning the use of barrier contraception but that people are choosing to follow some of the Church's teachings but not others. Pope Benedict XVI argues AIDS is "a tragedy that cannot be overcome by money alone, that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which even aggravates the problems"1. If people followed the Church's teachings on casual sex as well as their teachings on barrier contraception, the AIDS epidemic would be dramatically decreased. Given, therefore, that it also forbids any sex outside of marriage, the Catholic Church is totally justified in forbidding barrier methods of contraception2. 1 Wynne-Jones, Jonathan. "The Pope drops Catholic ban on condoms in historic shift." The Telegraph, 20 November 2010, 2 Pope John Paul II. "Evangelium Vitae." 1995.


The Catholic Church believes that any limitation of procreation is against God.  Catholics consider the first commandment given to them by God to be to 'multiply'1. In light of this, anything that limits procreation, be it the use of contraception or even condoning the use of contraception, is against God. It is important to remember that the Catholic Church's primary obligation is not to its people but to God. The Church is, therefore, justified in any action where the alternative is going against what they believe to be the wishes of God, even if it is harmful to the people of the Church. 11:28, The Book of Genesis, The Bible.


In contradiction to the Catholic Church's responsibility to promote life.  Many Catholic countries in Africa and South America have huge problems with AIDS and HIV with thousands of people dying as a result. In a survey carried out in 20091, it was found that in sub-Saharan Africa 22.5 million people were living with HIV/AIDS and 1.3 million people died of AIDS. An enormous number of these people contracted HIV because they did not use a condom during intercourse, under the advice of the Catholic Church. It is clear, then, that the Catholic Church's stance on barrier contraception promotes the spread of AIDS. The opposition also believes that since the Catholic Church are in a position of power over a colossal number of people, they have a responsibility to ensure the welfare of those people. They must, therefore, reduce the likelihood that the people that they have power over will die as much as they can. Their ban over the use of barrier contraception is not in line with this responsibility. 1 UNAIDS global report.


Birth control within monogamous relationships.  Contraception is not just used in casual sex but within monogamous couples who want to control when they have children. The reason for this could be so they ensure that they don’t have more children than they can afford to reasonably look after.  Contraception can help monogamous couples to give more to the children they do decide to have and to the community, since less of their time and money will be used in maintaining a family which is larger than they can reasonably afford to control. The current cost of raising a child in Britain is calculated to be over £210,000, a very substantial sum that any responsible parent must think about before having more children 1.  Since, in this case, contraception promotes a good in the community, as well as more responsible reproduction, the Catholic Church is unjustified in its blanket ban over barrier contraception.  1. Insley 2011


Promotes image of Catholic Church as uncaring and stubborn.  Organised religious groups, such as the Catholic Church, around the world, regardless of faith and denomination, change their official stances in an effort to keep up with a changing world. For example, the Church of England allowing women to become bishops. In doing this, these groups show that they are able to be reactive and can fit into a world that changes every day. Even the Catholic church has begun to realise that by stubbornly refusing to change its stance, the Catholic Church presents itself as unable to adapt and stuck in its ways 1. As a result, it finds that it will lose a lot of its influence and, by extension, its propensity to do good. Since its stance on contraception limits the Church's ability to do good, then it is clearly a stance that generally causes harm and, therefore, is an unjustified one.  1.Wynne-Jones 2010


Barrier contraception can protect women from husbands with AIDS/HIV.  There are many cases, particularly in South America and Africa, of men contracting HIV from sexual partners outside their marriage, be it from before they were married or from an extramarital affair and passing it on to their wives. In cases such as these, the wife may follow all of the teachings of the Catholic Church and still contract HIV. If the Church did not forbid the use of barrier contraception then the frequency of occurrences such as these would be severely limited. Since, as discussed above, the Catholic Church, has a responsibility to promote life in its people, their ban of barrier contraception is unjustified.


Opposed by much of the Church  In spite of the Catholic Church's ruling, a huge number of people who identify as Catholic do not adhere to the Church's teachings on contraception. Additionally, many Catholic priests and nuns openly support non-abortive forms of contraception, including barrier contraception. In 2003 a poll found 43% of catholic priests in England and wales were against the church's stance and a further 19% were unsure1. The Church should listen to the requests and opinions of those who are part of it 2. 1 Day, Elizabeth. "Most Catholic priests 'do not support Rome over contraception'." The Telegraph, 6 April 2003, 2 Short, Claire. "HIV/AIDS


Socialism was a twentieth century ideology which ran its course and ran out of steam when it became clear that Capitalism worked better  The world has moved on; it is inconceivable that the protests of the seventies and eighties could be refought again. This issue was settled at the end of the eighties. It wasn’t just the collapse of the Soviet Union, although that no doubt played a major role in shaping the future of socialism in Europe.  In a globalised world the traditional ideas about class and the nature of the labour market have moved on and politics moved on with it.  Socialists may have won many of the arguments over social issues, but arguments on the advantages of free trade, deregulation, the role of the state, the relationship between government and industry all line up firmly in the Capitalist column.  There were some remnants of dogmatic, “classical” socialism left in continental Europe, especially amongst its union movements, which are now collapsing. As Margaret Thatcher put it, “The problem with Socialism is that you will eventually run out of other people’s money.” [i]  [i] Quoted in: James Turk. “Will Sovereign Debt Defaults Bring The End Of Socialism?” Free Gold Money Report. 19 December 2009.


Although there are protests as a result of the banking crisis and the resulting financial meltdown, they have no cohesive ideology  There is clearly a difference between the general malaise of those protesting the result of the financial crisis and any form of coherent ideology or manifesto for government. The only people pretending that protesters in Athens or Rome – or the Occupy movement worldwide – are in some meaningful way Socialists are aging class warriors from the seventies.  The Occupy movement may well count many social liberals [i] among its members, and these individuals are almost certainly unhappy about many aspects of modern Capitalism but that doesn’t make Occupy, or the Athens street protestors Socialist.  [i] Occupy Wall Street Website. “Forum Post Liberalism is Not Socialism”. 12 November 2011.


Even the leaders of the Left have given up on Socialism as a creed and have now accepted the vast majority of modern Capitalist principles  Even the leaders of those European political parties that still call themselves socialist tend to avoid the word. Broadly speaking even the leaders of the left- outside Cuba and Colombia- accept the basic principles of Market economics and recognise that high-tax, high-spend economics simply does not work.  Like it or not borders are now open and the idea that the state can control the flow of capital is a thing of the past. As a result people generally are richer and the idea that there a solid class block is simply no longer relevant to their lives.


The idea that wealth should be more fairly and evenly distributed has never had so many supporters and the failure to do so has rarely been more keenly felt  In the model of Blair and Clinton, it didn’t matter if the rich got a lot richer, as long as the poor got a bit richer. That model has now been shown not to work and the rather timid new leaders of the left are starting to return to concepts of fairness and equality rather than the rather bland concepts of ‘opportunity’ and ‘choice’.  Europe is increasingly governed by unelected technocrats who seem to think that the opinions of a handful of international bankers are somehow more important than the jobs and livelihoods of millions. This may always have been the case but it tends not to show during times of plenty. Now these latent inequalities are becoming apparent and people are angry.  It is perhaps one of the great ironies of history that one of the aspirations of early nineteenth century Socialists- nationalising the banks- required Capitalists to actually achieve it.


It is impossible to acquire the information necessary to create a coherent economy  A planned economy requires that the planners have the information necessary to allocate resources in the right way. This is a virtually impossible task.  The world contains trillions of different resources: my labour, iron ore, Hong Kong harbour, pine trees, satellites, car factories – etc. The number of different ways to use, combine and recombine these resources is unimaginably vast.  And almost all of them are useless. For example, it would be a mistake to combine Arnold Schwarzenegger with medical equipment and have him perform brain surgery.  Centralised planning cannot possibly sort through the myriad of way of arranging resources to arrive at the most efficient usage. Only a decentralised price system can achieve this via the institution of private property and associated duties and rights. [1]  [1] Boudreaux, Donald J, ‘Information and Prices’.


Globalisation has made socialism impractical to implement  Global economic forces have rendered socialism powerless. Financial speculation, and investment flows can make or break economies, and the agents who channel these monies want to see countries liberalise, privatise and de-regulate more. This is being shown by the speculative attacks on Eurozone countries where the markets are showing they can force governments to implement tough austerity or even force changes in government without an election as has happened in Greece and Italy where technocrats have taken over as Heads of Government. [1]  These more flexible markets generate higher levels of growth and prosperity, and provide higher returns on investment, encouraging more. Countries which try to resist globalisation and liberal economic markets, as in ‘old Europe’, suffer stagnant growth and higher unemployment as a result. Old socialist-style economic models of tight economic regulation and central planning are unsustainable.  [1] Frankel, Jeffrey, ‘Let European technocrats weave their magic’, The Sydney Morning Herald, 29 November 2011,


Class consciousness is an important aspect of Socialism, it would be hard to find a period in recent history when the majority have been so aware that their interests are not the same as the uber-rich  It has rarely been so clear that the interests of the few are not the same as those of the vast bulk of either European societies or the world outside it. At a time of rising unemployment, a handful of people who are already fantastically rich continue to pay themselves obscene salaries and bonuses. Of course there is nothing in this that is unusual, it’s just not usually done in so cavalier a fashion.  Although there is nothing mechanical in the process, most Socialist thinkers have been clear that the popular realisation that there really is a class distinction between what the Occupy protesters refer to as the 1% and the rest of us is an important first step towards establishing Socialism.  Whatever the media and political classes may pretend, Socialism is not – and never was – a single party or policy. It is a process. And that process is being seen on the streets across Europe


Socialism has changed historically to meet the challenges of the moment and is addressing those of the 21st century in new ways  It should perhaps come as no surprise that the days of standing outside shopping centres and train stations handing out soggy newspapers have passed into the annals of political history – although some still do it.  Equally, trades union are no longer seen as being as central to European Socialism as they once were. However, the militancy seen over the last few years suggest, if anything, that what was a diversified ‘anti-capitalist’ movement is now coalescing around a rather clearer set of goals of which the basics of the anti-capitalism movement are merely a part. In the light of the globalisation of Capitalism, the left is increasingly rediscovering its internationalist roots which were lost to a great extent in the seventies and eighties in national struggles to save industries and jobs.


Medical science allows us to control death, suicide and euthanasia are sensible corollaries to that.  We now live longer than at any time in the 100,000 years or so of human evolution and longer than the other primates [i] . In many nations we have successfully increased the quantity of life without improving the quality. More to the point, too little thought has been given to the quality of our deaths.  Let us consider the example of the cancer patient who opts not to put herself through the agony and uncertainty of chemotherapy. In such a circumstance, we accept that a person may accept the certainty of death with grace and reason rather than chasing after a slim probability of living longer but in pain.  All proposition is arguing is that this approach can also apply to other conditions, which may not be terminal in the strict sense of the world but certainly lead to the death of that person in any meaningful sense. The application of medical science to extend a life, long after life is ‘worth living’ or would be possible to live without these interventions cannot be considered a moral good for its own sake. Many find that they are facing the prospect of living out the rest of their days in physical pain or are losing their memory. As a result, some may see ‘going out at the top of their game’ as the better, and more natural, option.  [i] Caleb E Finch. Evolution of Human Lifespan and the Diseases of Aging: Roles of Infection, Inflammation, and Nutrition. Proceding of the National Academy of Sciences of the united States of America. 12 October 2009.


Suicide is a rational choice in many situations.  When confronted with chronic pain or with diseases that steadily remove our sense of self – or at least the self of whom we are aware – death has proven to be a sensible option taken by sensible people [i] . It is a simple fact that we all die, our objections to it tend to be based on the idea that it can happen at the hands of others or at a time, or in a manner, not of our choosing.  Neither of these issues arise with either assisted suicide or voluntary euthanasia. Proposition has no difficulty at all with the suggestion that both procedures should be regulated and take place in safe, medically supported, environments.  However, if an individual accepts that death is their preferred option in such a scenario, it is difficult to comprehend of reasons why they should not be allowed to proceed. Our social rejection of murder does not, ultimately relate to death itself but to the denial of choice. With murder someone is denying that person all their future potential so denying their freedom of choice, and this remains the case even if the murder was completely painless. Here, reason tells us, the virtuous act is death and the reservation of that choice.  The determining element of humanity is that we are rational beings; a blanket ban – legal and social – on choosing the time and manner of our deaths reflects our primeval fear of a death that comes, unwanted, in the dark of the night, not the mature judgement of modern, thinking (and long-lived) humans.  [i] Andy Bloxham. Husband films assisted suicide of wife to prove it was not murder. The Daily Telegraph. 10 March 2011.


The decision to die is a deeply personal one - it is no business of the state.  Ultimately, the decision to die is a personal one, it may affect others but, clearly it has the greatest impact on the person who decides to die.  Clearly those who remain behind will have to deal with the consequences of that death and the end of their relationship with that person but, one would hope, that would be the case if she had died of natural causes at a later date. Furthermore the experience of watching someone die can by as traumatic, or more so, for the carer or loved one than it is for the individual concerned.  What it clearly is not, is an issue for legislators and other strangers who have no connection to the person involved. There are deeply personal issues such as love, death, sex, and reproduction where we accept the state may have a role in the formal sense of preventing their abuse but otherwise should not have an opinion either way. With the right to die the state has maintained not only an opinion but a criminal sanction. This is a clear example of where the role of the state is to respect the individual and step back; legislation is far too cumbersome a tool with be used in circumstances as varied and complex as these.  Dealing with the loss of a loved one, particularly in a situation such as assisted suicide, is painful and traumatic enough for all concerned without adding to that the additional stress of a threat of criminal sanction.


Once the moral absolute is broken, there is no other credible point before the right to use becomes standardised.  It is easy to say that this social move would not lead to healthy thirty year olds walking into emergency rooms and asking to end it all because they had just broken up with their partner or been sacked. However, it’s rather difficult to see why it should not. Proposition says that all this would do is extend the right to commit suicide to those currently incapable of performing the act themselves but that isn’t so. It also extends the surety of success and of a medically painless procedure that is not available to the teenager with a razorblade or the bankrupt with a bottle of pills and another of vodka. For the sake of exactly the equality of approach, it seems only fair to do so. Proposition are attempting to pick the easy bits of the case but, by doing so, they leave contradictions in their case, why shouldn’t the right to die be universal? They know the reason; society would reject the idea out of hand, regardless of its merits. As a result they draw an arbitrary line simply because it is difficult to argue this right as a response to poverty or grief or addiction. They could argue that all of those things “might” get better. Well similarly a cure for cancer “might” be invented. The only consistent argument is either a universal ban or a universal acceptance. Anything else is an argument about where to draw the line; such approaches tend to lead to a gradual, slippery descent away from the original intentions of legislators. Whatever the initial legislation, it would likely be a matter of days before the court cases started.


The death of one individual has implications for others, which by definition, do not affect the suicide herself.  Even setting aside the religious concerns of many in this situation [i] , there are solid secular reasons for accepting the sanctity of life. First among them is the impact it has on the survivors. The relative who does not want a loved one to take their own life, or to die in the case of euthanasia. It is simply untrue that others are not affect by the death of the individual – someone needs to support that person emotionally and someone has to administer the injection. Because of the ties of love involved for relatives, they are, in effect, left with no choice but to agree regardless of their own views, the law should respect their position as well.  It further gives protection to doctors and others who would be involved in the procedure. Campaigners are keen to stress that doctors should be involved in the process whilst ignoring that, pretty much whenever they’re asked doctors say they have no desire to have any part of it [ii] . Indeed it would be against the Hippocratic oath which while it is no longer always taken still sums up the duties of a doctor which includes doing no harm and includes "And I will not give a drug that is deadly to anyone if asked, nor will I suggest the way to such a counsel." So ruling out euthanasia. [iii] Presumably, the very case that is so keen on the voluntary principle would also observe this compelling rejection by a group critical to the plan.  [i] Joint letter to the Telegraph. The terminally ill need care and protection – not help in committing suicide. The Most Rev Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury. The Most Rev Vincent Nichols, Archbishop of Westminster. Sir Jonathan Sacks, Chief Rabbi.  [ii] Ella Pickover. Doctors Reject Assisted Suicide. The Independent. 28 June 2012 .  [iii] Sokol, Dr Daniel, ‘A guide to the Hippocratic Oath’, BBC News, 26 October 2008 ,


There is a risk that even a free choice may have some coercion involved.  By far the biggest worry is that a right to die will create a silent form of coercion that cannot be detected. In the West’s increasingly elderly society the role of older people in that society, their value and their continuing contribution is all too likely to be masked by the issue of the cost placed on those of working age. Even where older people do not face pressure from their families, society needs to be aware of this wider narrative. Such a narrative will slowly create a norm where the elderly feel that they are a burden and it is expected that they will exercise their right to die. The ‘choice’ will remain and they will even think it a choice free of coercion but will exercise their right not because they really want to die but because they feel it is what they ought to do, once the right to die is completely normalised those exercising it may not even consider that what they are doing is not really of their free will. Perceiving oneself as a burden is already a common cause of suicide [i] and would certainly increase if it were to no longer be considered taboo. Not having a right to die will not stop arguments about the burden placed on the working members of society by the elderly but it will stop this going any further towards the creation of a culture where individuals consider it normal that they should die when they feel they are a burden.  [i] Joiner, Thomas E. et al., ‘The Psychology and Neurobiology of Suicidal Behaviour’, Annual Review of Psychology, 10 September 2004, p.304 .


It is impossible to frame a structure which respects the right to die for the individual but that cannot be abused by others.  In terms of moral absolutes, killing people is wrong sets the bar fairly low. Pretty much all societies have accepted this as a line that cannot be crossed without the explicit and specific agreement of the state which only happens in very rare circumstances such as in times of war.  There is a simple reason for a blanket ban. It allows for no caveats, no misunderstandings, no fudging of the issue, and no shades of grey. Again, the reason for this approach is equally simple; anything other than such a clear cut approach will inevitably be abused [i] . As things stand guilt in the case of murder is determined entirely on the basis that it is proven that someone took another life. Their reasons for doing so may be reflected in sentencing but the court is not required to consider whether someone was justified in killing another.  It is in the nature of a court case that it happens after the event and nobody other than the murderer and the deceased know what actually took place between them. If we take shaken baby syndrome cases as an example the parent still loves the child, they have acted in the madness of a moment out of frustration. It’s still murder. Supporting a dying relative can be no less frustrating but killing them would still be murder, even where that comes after a prolonged period of coercion to fill in forms and achieve the appearance of consent. It would, however, be very hard to prove. At least with a baby we can assume consent was not given, that would not be the case here.  [i] Stephen Drake and Diane Coleman. ‘Second Thoughts’ Grow on Assisted Suicide. The Wall Street Journal. 5 August 2012.


Animal research necessitates significant harm to the animals involved  Animal research, by its very nature necessitates harm to the animals. Even if they are not made to suffer as part of the experiment, the vast majority of animals used, must be killed at the conclusion of the experiment. With 115 million animals being used in the status quo this is no small issue. Even if we were to vastly reduce animal experimentation, releasing domesticated animals into the wild, would be a death sentence, and it hardly seems realistic to think that many behaviourally abnormal animals, often mice or rats, might be readily moveable into the pet trade. [1] It is prima fasciae obvious, that it is not in the interest of the animals involved to be killed, or harmed to such an extent that such killing might seem merciful. Even if the opposition counterargument, that animals lack the capacity to truly suffer, is believed, research should none the less be banned in order to prevent the death of millions of animals.  [1] European Commission, 1997. Euthanasia of experimental animals. Luxembourg: Office for official publications


Would send a positive social message, increasing animal welfare rights more generally in society  Most countries have laws restricting the ways in which animals can be treated. These would ordinarily prohibit treating animals in the manner that animal research laboratories claim is necessary for their research. Thus legal exceptions such as the 1986 Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act in the UK exist to protect these organisations, from what would otherwise be a criminal offense. This creates a clear moral tension, as one group within society is able to inflect what to any other group would be illegal suffering and cruelty toward animals. If states are serious about persuading people against cock fighting, dancing bears, and the simple maltreatment of pets and farm animals, then such goals would be enhanced by a more consistent legal position about the treatment of animals by everyone in society.


Animals have a right not to be harmed  The differences between us and other vertebrates are a matter of degree rather than kind. [1] Not only do they closely resemble us anatomically and physiologically, but so too do they behave in ways which seem to convey meaning. They recoil from pain, appear to express fear of a tormentor, and appear to take pleasure in activities; a point clear to anyone who has observed the behaviour of a pet dog on hearing the word “walk”. Our reasons for believing that our fellow humans are capable of experiencing feelings like ourselves can surely only be that they resemble us both in appearance and behaviour (we cannot read their minds). Thus any animal sharing our anatomical, physiological, and behavioural characteristics is surely likely to have feelings like us. If we accept as true for sake of argument, that all humans have a right not to be harmed, simply by virtue of existing as a being of moral worth, then we must ask what makes animals so different. If animals can feel what we feel, and suffer as we suffer, then to discriminate merely on the arbitrary difference of belonging to a different species, is analogous to discriminating on the basis of any other morally arbitrary characteristic, such as race or sex. If sexual and racial moral discrimination is wrong, then so too is specieism. [2]  [1] Clark, S., The Nature of the Beast: are animals moral?, (Oxford : Oxford University Press, 1982)  [2] Singer, P., “All Animals are Equal”, in La Follette (ed.), Ethics in Practice, (Malden, Mass; Oxford : Blackwell Pub, 2007)


Research can be done effectively without experimenting on living creature  As experimenting on animals is immoral we should stop using animals for experiments. But apart from it being morally wrong practically we will never know how much we will be able to advance without animal experimentation if we never stop experimenting on animals. Animal research has been the historical gold standard, and in the case of some chemical screening tests, was for many years, by many western states, required by law before a compound could be released on sale. Science and technology has moved faster than research protocols however, and so there is no longer a need for animals to be experimented on. We now know the chemical properties of most substances, and powerful computers allow us to predict the outcome of chemical interactions. Experimenting on live tissue culture also allows us to gain insight as to how living cells react when exposed to different substances, with no animals required. Even human skin leftover from operations provides an effective medium for experimentation, and being human, provides a more reliable guide to the likely impact on a human subject. The previous necessity of the use of animals is no longer a good excuse for continued use of animals for research. We would still retain all the benefits that previous animal research has brought us but should not engage in any more. Thus modern research has no excuse for using animals. [1]  [1] PETA. 2011. Alternatives: Testing Without Torture.


Some groups of people have less capacity for suffering than most animals  It is possible to conceive of human persons almost totally lacking in a capacity for suffering, or indeed a capacity to develop and possess interests. Take for example a person in a persistent vegetative state, or a person born with the most severe of cognitive impairments.  We can take three possible stances toward such persons within this debate. Firstly we could experiment on animals, but not such persons. This would be a morally inconsistent and specieist stance to adopt, and as such unsatisfactory. We could be morally consistent, and experiment on both animals and such persons. Common morality suggests that it would be abhorrent to conduct potentially painful medical research on the severely disabled, and so this stance seems equally unsatisfactory. Finally we could maintain moral consistency and avoid experimenting on the disabled, by adopting the stance of experimenting on neither group, thus prohibiting experimentation upon animals. [1]  [1] Fox, M. A., “The Moral Community”, in La Follette (ed.), Ethics in Practice, (Malden, Mass; Oxford : Blackwell Pub, 2007)


People would die and suffer needlessly under such a policy  23 new drugs are introduced each year in the United Kingdom alone . [1] . While almost all of these drugs will have been brought to the market after extensive animal testing, the number of animals used to check their safety only seems to be a high cost when the benefits that each drug brings to its users are inadequately considered.  New drugs that are approved for medical use have the potential to relieve human pain and suffering not only for the first group of patients given access to them, but also for future generations of sick and suffering individuals too. Consider all the lives, all over the world, that have benefitted from penicillin since its discovery in 1928. If drugs cost more to research and develop, then that reduces potential profit margins, and some drugs that would have otherwise been discovered and released will fall below the new threshold of likely profits necessary to fund the research. Adopting this proposition will lead to more people suffering and dying in the future than would have otherwise been the case.  [1] BBC News. 2013. Falling drug breakthroughs 'a myth'.


Animals involved in animal research are mostly well treated.  The vast majority of animals used in research are not subjected to suffering. Where there may be pain, they are given painkillers, and when they are euthanized it is done humanely. [1] They are looked after well, as the health of the animals is usually not only required by law and good practice, but beneficial for the experimental results. Many of these animals live better lives than they might have done had they been born into the wild. Many animals, and indeed humans, die untimely deaths that are due to reasons other than old age, animal experimentation may increase these numbers slightly but so long as the animals are treated well there should be no moral objection to animal research. If the foundation of the argument for banning animal experimentation is therefore based upon the cruel treatment and pain suffered by animals then this is a reason for regulation to make sure there is very little suffering rather than an outright ban.  [1] Herzog, H., “Dealing With the Animal Research Controversy”, in Akins, C. Panicker, S. & Cunningham, C. L (eds.), Laboratory animals in research and teaching: Ethics, care and methods, (Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association, 2005, Ch. 1.


Animal research is only used where other research methods are not suitable  Developed countries, including the US and all members of the EU (since EU Directive 2010/63/EU) have created laws and professional regulations that prevent scientists from using animals for research if other, non-animal research methods would produce equally clear and detailed results.  The principle described above is also enshrined in the "3Rs" doctrine, which states that researchers and their employers have a duty to identify ways to refine experiments conducted on animals, so that yield better results and cause less suffering; replace animals used in research the non-animal alternatives where possible; and reduce the number of animals used in research. Not only does the 3Rs doctrine represent a practical way to reconcile the necessity of animal research with the universal human desire not to cause suffering, it also drives scientists to increase the overall quality of the research that they conduct. Governments and academic institutions take the 3Rs doctrine very seriously. In EU countries scientists are required to show that they have considered other methods of research before being granted a license for an animal experiment.  There are a huge number of ways of learning about our physiology and the pathologies which affect it, including to computer models, cell cultures, animal models, human microdosing and population studies. These methods are used to complement one another, for example animal models may well produce data that creates a computer model. Nonetheless, there is some research which cannot be done any other way. It is difficult to understand the interaction of specific sets of genes without being able to change only these genes – something possible through genetically modified animals.  Finally, as noted above, given the high cost of conducting animal research relative to other methods, there is a financial incentive for institutions to adopt non-animal methods where they produce as useful and accurate results.


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.


Animals' rights are of less moral worth than human rights  Humans are complex beings with large well developed brains, that form sizeable social groups, have significant ability to communicate with one another, possess interconnected desires, preferences and interests about the world, have an awareness of their own existence and mortality, and as such are beings worthy of moral consideration. Animals too express some of these characteristics to some degree and thus animals too are worthy of moral consideration. However, animal lives and human lives are of unequal value. This is due to the fact that no animal possesses all of these characteristics to the same degree as the average human, or even comes particularly close. Thus any rights ascribed to animals should be truncated relative to the rights we ascribe to humans. [1] Therefore animals should not rightly possess the same rights to not be experimented upon as humans might. To the extent to which causing some harm to animals brings great benefit to humans, we are morally justified in creating some moral harm, to achieve a far greater moral good.  [1] Frey, R. G., “Moral Standing: The Value of Life and Speciesism”, in La Follette (ed.), Ethics in Practice, (Malden, Mass; Oxford : Blackwell Pub, 2007)


More ‘good’ is produced by saving five lives than saving one  When any life is removed so too is the future good that life may produce; all of the good that person would have experienced as well as all of the good they could have brought to other people’s lives will no longer occur. It is difficult to say precisely how much good a person may bring. However, it is fair to assume that saving five people brings with it a greater chance of higher levels of ‘good’. Considering the fact that one does not know anything about the people on the tracks one must assume that there will be five times more ‘good’ produced by saving their lives than if the one person is saved.


As humans we try to save as many people as possible  There exists a basic right to life which, as humans, we try to follow. Killing others is outlawed because we generally believe that every person has the right to live their life and no one else has the right to take that life away. In the situation with the train there are two possible outcomes which both lead to life being cut short. Due to the fact that we place such value on life we have a duty to reduce the number of people who die. One ought to commit the act that results in the fewest deaths, and this is to kill the one and save the five.


Killing one person is the rational choice  The philosopher John Rawls came up with a thought experiment to discover the right way to organize a society. When people talk about how society should be organized they generally take their own situation and interests into account. Rawls asked us to imagine a situation in which we do not know anything at all about our own lives and then try to organize society? Without knowing anything about our wealth, intelligence, personality, race, gender, religion etc., we would create the fairest society. This is because without knowing who we are we have no idea where we will be in society once it has been organized. So, in order to make sure we have the best chance to be treated fairly we create a society in which all people are treated fairly. The same experiment can be applied to the train problem. If we do not know anything about who we are in the experiment we would chose to kill the one person. This is because there is a greater chance of us being one of the five people and so killing the one person gives us the best chance to survive.


We cannot make any judgments about whose life is valuable and whose is not  It is impossible to know what any of the people involved in the situation will do with their life. One might be a serial killer while another might be a life-saving doctor. By attempting to use some sort of calculation in the scenario we are presuming that we have more knowledge than we actually do. In reality we are totally ignorant to the right course of action and doing anything in the situation could be a terrible mistake that causes a lot of pain and suffering in the future.


The act of killing is emotionally damaging  To actually be involved in the death of another person is an incredibly traumatic experience. Soldiers coming back from war often suffer from ‘post-traumatic stress disorder’ which suggests that being in a situation in which you have to take another persons life has a long lasting impact on your mental health. This is also true for people who are not directly involved in the act of killing. For instance, the people who worked on developing the atomic bomb described an incredible guilt for what they had created even though they were not involved in the decision to drop the bombs. The same traumatic experiences would likely affect the person responsible for pulling the lever.


We do not want a society in which killing can be acceptable  As soon as we agree that there are situations where killing is acceptable we have reason to fear for our own safety. By accepting killing in certain situations society as a whole becomes more open to the idea. It then becomes hard to draw the line as to where killing is acceptable and where killing is unacceptable. It is much better to outlaw all instances of killing so that we have a general moral standard to follow in all situations.


Utilitarianism is demanding  If we choose to save the five people just because we have the power to do so then we also have to consider all the other lives that are in our power to save. It is in our power to donate all of our excess money to charity to save lives and so we must also do this. Actions like this are worthy of praise but no one would suggest that we have a duty to do them.


We instinctively know killing is wrong  While sometimes our feelings as to what is right and what is wrong are not accurate they are needed when thinking about morality. If a theory is well argued and thought out but goes against our feelings as to what is right and wrong then we will dismiss it. Most people have the feeling that killing is wrong and so to partake in any action that leads to the death of another is also wrong.


Killing is worse than letting someone die  People die in accidents and by natural cause all of the time. However, it is much rarer for a person to be actively involved in another person’s death. If one chooses to pull the lever and change the course of the train then one is actively participating in the death of the one person. The other option involves no action; it simply allows a set of events to run their course. There is, therefore, a greater responsibility involved in being actively involved in the death of another.


The apparent loss of liberty is overstated.  Negative cases of security abuse are few and have been greatly exaggerated by an emphatic civil rights lobby that has no empathy for the victims of terrorism. Of course, with any wide-scale attempt to fight terrorism there are bound to be a few cases of abuse of security measures. For example in the UK terrorism suspects were originally detained without charge under the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act however the detention was declared unlawful by the law lords in 2005 so the government introduced new scaled back policies such as ‘control orders’. [1] Therefore government has always been willing to scale back its security legislation when the courts believe it goes too far. Nonetheless it is not a good idea to shut down all security measures under a pretext that they violate rights [2] . The majority of the measures are intended to safeguard those civil liberties instead of abusing them.  [1] Hewitt, Steve, THE BRITISH WAR ON TERROR TIMELINE, Libertas, 2007,  , accessed 9 September 2011  [2] Stratton, Allegra and Wintour, Patrick, ‘Nick Clegg goes to war with Labour over civil liberties’, guardian.co.uk, 13 April 2010,  , accessed 9 September 2011


The argument is about practicality and the balancing of risks.  It would be incredibly disingenuous of the opposition if they did not concede that the dangers are great and that something must be done. Because, deep down, everyone knows that it is simply a balancing of risks – in practice all the government is trying to do is save lives. It is of course, the government’s primary duty to protect citizens but this can only be done with the loss of some civil liberties. These liberties will of course still be completely protected by the courts. When it comes to the issue of life and death, it is the proposition’s hope that a few civil liberties would be only willingly given up by any prudent citizen.


National security is something that must be protected even at the cost of  Terrorism is part of the modern world and is inextricably linked with the rise of modern communications, the internet, and a global community. This is an age in which space and time are bending to the tune of new media – information at your fingertips may sound nice, but for those who want to destroy, it only makes their object easier to attain. And so more strict national security measures must be employed in order to keep up with the enemy. Escalation is the name of the game imposed on governments around the world by terrorists for example the Mumbai terrorists used GPS systems to guide them into Mumbai, attacks were coordinated on cell and satellite phones and Blackberrys were used to monitor the international reaction [1] . In order to keep up states need new powers to stop, deter, and prevent terrorism. The government needs to secure state-security first; only then can the debate on civil liberties begin, and only then.  [1] Shachtman, Noah, ‘How Gadgets Helped Mumbai Attackers’, Wired, 1 December 2008,  , accessed 9 September 2011


Western countries already benefit from extremely liberal laws.  The USA is at present far better than most countries in their respect and regard for civil liberties. New security measures do not greatly compromise this liberty, and the US measures are at the very least comparable with similar measures already in effect in other democratic developed countries, e.g. Spain and the UK, which have had to cope with domestic terrorism for far longer than the USA. The facts speak for themselves – the USA enjoys a healthy western-liberalism the likes of which most of the world’s people cannot even conceive of. The issue of the erosion of a few minor liberties of (states like the US’s) citizens should be overlooked in favour of the much greater issue of protecting the very existence of that state. [1]  [1] Zetter, Kim, ‘The Patriot Act Is Your Friend’, Wired, 24 February 2004,  , accessed 9 September 2011


It is with the popular support of the public that security measures are taken.  Let us not forget that is with the consent of the public that these security measures are taken, CCTV for example was a populist measure that has often been considered a threat to civil liberties [1] . It is in line with democratic ideals; the majority of the country wants greater security [2] . For example in 2005 59% of Americans wanted the Patriot Act extended. [3] And because democracy embodies all those values we are fighting for – freedom and equality included- we must adhere to a democratic spirit when deciding on how to organise ourselves or else risk falling into the same mind-set as those terrorists themselves.  [1] Norris, Clive, McCahill, Mike and Wood, David, ‘Editorial. The Growth of CCTV: a global perspective on the international diffusion of video surveillance in publically accessible space’, Surveillance & Society, 2(2/4):110-135, 2004,  (2)/editorial.pdf, accessed 9 September 2011  [2] Law Council of Australia, ‘Politics and Populism win out at anti-terror summit’, 30 September 2005,   [3] Langer, Gary, ‘Poll: Support Seen for Patriot Act’, ABCnews, 9 June 2005,  , accessed 9


The loss of individual liberty is the start of a slippery slope.  The proposition puts us in a dangerous place. That situation is the thin edge of a totalitarian wedge – we must take a principled stand for liberty and stop the increasing number of anti-terrorist legislation and over powerful policing powers. Many evil events in history started with good intentions and few cases of injustice. Allowing even a few abuses as an acceptable side effect of improved security will change the tolerance level of the public and lead to a belief that rights such as the presumption of innocence and habeas corpus (which prevents the state from imprisoning someone without charging them with a crime and then trying them) are a negotiable luxury. Furthermore, abuses of the system are likely to victimise certain minority groups (e.g. Muslims, Arab-Americans) in the same way that Japanese-Americans and many other groups were persecuted in World War II, [1] something about which Americans are now rightly ashamed.  [1] Hummel, Jeffrey Rogers, ‘Not Just Japanese Americans: The Untold Story of U.S. Repression During 'The Good War'’, The Journal of Historical Review, Fall 1987 (Vol. 7, No. 3),  , accessed 9 September 2011


In the public’s eyes, the government seems to suspect everyone.  Although the anti-terrorist measures are supposed to be trying to catch certain people, it is the whole of the public who have to suffer on a daily basis: an abundance of security cameras, security checks, and anti-privacy measures continually invade innocent people’s lives and yet it is supposed to be the terrorists who are being punished. The issue of justice, and whether it is actually being done, has to be fully looked at properly. These measures are not solving the problem of terrorism as it does not address the core grievances. Instead other ways such as negotiation to address grievances is necessary, as happened in Northern Ireland [1] .  [1] Bowcott, Owen, ‘Northern Ireland’, The Guardian, 11 May 2007,  , accessed 9 September 2011


It impedes economic progress.  Extra-security measures only impede, or halt the flow of trade [1] , make the country harder to deal with - less internationally ‘friendly’, and disrupt communities. Security states almost always have slower growth than freer states because there is extra red tape, transport networks are slowed down, for example airport check ins take much longer. The U.S. Travel Association, says on average, in the United States as a result of the airport security measures each person avoids two to three trips a year because of the hassles of airport-security screening. That amounts to an estimated $85 billion in lost business for hotels, restaurants, airlines and other travel suppliers. [2] And this is even before the losses caused by unproductive hours, and deterred investment. All these things will decrease incomes and GDP growth.  [1] Verrue, Robert, ‘Tighter Security Must Not Slow Down World Trade’, The European institute, Spring 2004,   [2] McCartney, Scott, ‘Aiming to Balance Security and Convenience’, Wall Street Journal, 1 September 2011,  , accessed 9 September 2011


It would be letting the terrorists win  It is the aim of all terrorists to influence by violent means government policy. If we changed how our country was run we would be letting the terrorists win – they would be getting what they wanted. If we changed the way we lived [1] , greater security measures or something else, we would be shaping our society to the tune of the terrorist. So more security measures at airports limit the freedom to travel, turning the country into a surveillance society makes everyone nervous; ultimately the country is no longer the same as it was having lost the freedoms which are the best way to combat terrorism. This is something perversely wrong.  [1] Symanovich, Steve, ‘If you don’t read this, the terrorists win’, Washington Business Journal, 24 December 2001,


The threat of terrorism and security risks are overstated.  The threat of terrorism is greatly over exaggerated. Western governments all over the world are effectively selling the threat of terrorism to their citizens in order to increase their powers of control. The threat, however, has to be exaggerated in order for the electorate to believe that the security measures are needed. The motives of governments doing this vary; some just want the new security measures to make their jobs easier; others however, see it as an opportunity to increase state control and power over the average citizen. There is not enough evidence to show that terrorism has evolved into something more threatening since than it had been for several decades. For example there was the bombing of Pan Am 103 in 1988 killing 270 people or the 1983 bombing of the US embassy in Beirut which killed 63. [1] While the scale is smaller than the 9/11 attacks they are just as terrible and were met with a much more measured response that did not involve infringing civil liberties. Governments are likely to take advantage of anti-terrorist mania and seize the moment to strengthen their regimes. Modern government bodies fighting terrorism are sophisticated enough to counteract terrorism with little use of 'draconian' measures. It is not acceptable to curb citizen rights because of isolated events.  [1] PBS Frontline, ‘terrorist attacks on americans, 1979-1988’,  , accessed 9 September 2011


Overcomes prejudice  Affirmative action is required to overcome existing prejudice in universities’ admissions procedures. There is clear prejudice in the job market, as shown in a study by Marianne Bertrand, an associate professor at the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business, and Sendhil Mullainathan of Massachusetts Institute of Technology. [1] [2] Following this line of thinking, it is therefore not a far-fetched idea that admissions departments in top universities are likely to be discriminating against applicants from minority backgrounds, even if this process is not deliberate. A senior academic will look to see in applicants qualities they see in themselves, so, given the overwhelmingly white, affluent, male makeup of the academic community, minorities are at a disadvantage even if the admissions officer is not intending to discriminate against them. Prejudice towards certain types of applicants is blatantly unfair, and also undermines meritocracy (as explained above). Since we do not expect applicants from minority backgrounds to actually be worse applicants, it makes sense to require universities to take more of them, so as to protect the system from any bias that may exist.  [1] Bertrand, M. “Racial Bias in Hiring”. Spring 2003.   [2] BBC News Magazine. “Is it wrong to note 100m winners are always black?” August 27, 2011.


Equality of opportunity  Affirmative action is required for equality of opportunity. Under the status quo, it is easier for students who go to better schools to get into university. This is reflected in data from the UK - Oxford and Cambridge universities (the top academic institutions) take more than 50% of their students from private schools, despite 93% of UK schoolchildren state educated. [1] In addition, there is a clear underrepresentation of ethnic minorities in these universities. [2] A similar story is evident with regards to ethnic minorities in the USA - white students are more likely to graduate from high school and go to college than black and Hispanic ones. [3] [4] These examples reflect the opportunities granted to wealthier children from particular socioeconomic and racial groups, whose superior education and less disruptive home lives give them a leg-up. It is unfair that such random aspects, which have nothing to do with talent or hard work, have such a determining influence on one’s life chances. Moreover, it undermines meritocracy – by allowing the rich to be advantaged, we create a society in which wealth, rather than ability, is rewarded.  [1] Sagar, P. “The truth about Oxbridge admissions: a reply To Dave Osler”. Liberal Conspiracy. May 21, 2010.   [2] Vasagar, J. “Twenty-one Oxbridge colleges took no black students last year”. The Guardian. December, 2010.   [3] Orfield, Gary, et al., 'Losing Our Future; How Minority Youth Are Being Left Behind by the Graduation Rate Crisis', Urban Institute, 25 February 2004,   [4] Marklein, M.B. “Minority enrollment in college still lagging”. USA TODAY. October, 2006.


Changes negative perceptions of university life  Affirmative action is required to change negative perceptions of university life. In the status quo, many talented potential students are put off applying for top universities (or university at all) because of their negative perceptions of elite institutions. This perception exists in part because of the makeup of the student population – black high school students may see a university filled overwhelmingly with white lecturers and students as not being a welcoming environment for them, and may even perceive it as racist. [1] The only way to overcome this unfortunate stereotype of university is to change the student population, but this is impossible to do ‘organically’ while so few people from minority backgrounds apply. Therefore, it is necessary to use quotas and other forms of affirmative action, to change the student body in the short term, and encourage applications from more disadvantaged students in the long term.  [1] Ancis, J.R. “Student perceptions of campus cultural climate by race”. Journal of Counselling and Development. Spring 2000.


Increase the number of Minorities  College admission processes are impersonal and favourably biased towards white, affluent students – therefore, quotas specifically for minority students need to be established. College admissions processes are as such because they heavily rely on standard tests or college admission exams. This has caused countries such as Brazil to create quotas for brown (mixed) and black students in most universities. [1] These students cannot afford the better education enjoyed by their rich, white counterparts, and therefore do not perform well in college exams and do not gain admission into university. Quotas are needed to make the admission process a little bit fairer and increase the number of minorities in university campuses.  [1] Stahlberg, S.G. “Racial Inequality and Affirmative Action in Education in Brazil”. August 2010,


Affirmative action can create social tensions  Under the policy of affirmative action, there is a real danger that social tensions become inflamed. This is because in the process of benefiting minority groups it helps to disenfranchise the majority. For example in the 2001 riots in Oldham and other cities of Northern England one of the main complaints from poor white areas was alleged discrimination in council funding. [1] There was a possibility that the more privileged from minority groups such as upper-class blacks will be favoured at the expense of the marginalised within majority groups such as lower-class whites. Therefore, rather correct racial bias, affirmative action may inevitably deepen it.  [1] Amin, A., 2002. ‘Ethnicity and the multicultural city: living with diversity.’ Environment and Planning, 34, pp.959-980, p.963


Affirmative action will not work  The underlying issue which affirmative action tries to gloss over is the embedded social problems which put the poor and ethnic monitories in continual disadvantages generation after generation. This policy merely papers over the cracks by masking the fact that the failures of state-funded schooling and attempts at integration have led to a situation in which ethnic minorities and the poor are so vastly underrepresented in universities. The state should do more to address these underlying problems, rather than covering up its failures with a tokenistic policy. Better funding of state schools, real parental choice in education, and accountability through the publication of comparable examination data would all drive up standards and allow more underprivileged children to fulfil their potential. [1] [2]  [1] Gryphon, M. “The Affirmative Action Myth”. Cato Institute Policy Analysis. No 540. April 13, 2005.   [2] Rosado, C. “Affirmative Action: A Time for Change?” March 3, 1997.


Achievements should be earned not given  There is a great possibility that beneficiaries of positive discrimination may not be regarded as good role models as their achievements may be viewed as unearned. [1] A role model is someone others can look up to and admire for the things they achieved through hard work and talent – by parachuting people into university, their ability to act as a role model is undermined. It is also patronising to assume that young people from ethnic minorities can only look up to people who have the same colour skin, or went to the same type of school – in a society that admires diversity and cosmopolitanism, we should surely accept that anyone can act as a role model.  [1] The British Psychological Society. “The Hillary Clinton effect - how role models work for some people but not others”.