Question: Discuss if the EPA. (European Partnership Agreement) is good or bad for Jamaica.
Be it resolved that the European Partnership Agreement is good for Jamaica. According to Ian McDonald in a statement he made in the Gleaner dated April 23, 1997, “I cannot understand why those who governs poor countries like ours, and those who are influential in them, seem to accept so easily the free trade cult”. This is how he regards the EPA. However, before I seek to clarify and support my stance as it relates to the European Partnership Agreement, it is critical that two key terms put forward in the moot be defined. “Good” According to the Collins Oxford Dictionary; is of high quality or standard either on the absolute scale or in relation to others. The EPA (European Partnership Agreement) as defined by several sources such as the Gleaner dated Wednesday, September 10, 2008 and the Encarta Dictionary as; a free trade system between Caricom nations and Europe that has no custom duties, quota or embargo that either restrict countries from trading with each other or dictates that they pay a fee in order to trade with a particular country. So then, it is really a free market that covers services, investments, competition and developmental assistance. The argument that is postulated to be argued can therefore be rephrased as; a system that has no custom duties, quota, embargo which imposes a legal binding between African Caribbean and other countries in the Pacific to extend to the European Commission Strategically any treatment negotiate with third parties is of high quality standard to the Jamaican Economy, hence the society at large. I stand firmly to disagree with the moot that the EPA is good for Jamaica. In doing so I stand on the shoulders of giants such as Ian McDonald colomnist for the Daily Gleaner, David Jessop and Morris Cargill, Gleaner Senior colomnist and one who has been writing for over 45 years. All these men shears the same view. In relation to the statements made by Ian McDonald, why do we as a nation attend conferences, meetings and assembles of all kinds and happily affix our signatures to agreements, protocols, treaties, declarations and proclamations which if and when implemented will do us serious harm? Clearly, the Prime Minister Bruce Golding and his deputy and Minister of Foreign Affair and trade Dr. Baugh are blind to the deficiencies with the EPA. Their stance regarding this matter was made clear in the Gleaner dated September 10, 2008. The Prime Minister was adamant and was prepare to report to Caricom colleagues in Bridgetown, Barbados that Jamaica will not back away form the new free trade pact with Europe like neighboring islands such Grenada and St. Lucia demands more time to consult with advisors and voters due to the uncertainties in their minds. Kenneth Baugh also supports the Prime Minister when he stated in the House of Parliament August 26, 2008 “That it is important for Jamaica to sign the EPA even though there were concerns regarding the agreement”. “There is a need to depoliticize the issue. We are not in the business of ascribing blame, we are here for continuation,” said Kenneth Baugh. But, is this continuation possible? Why have we allowed ourselves to be brain washed into accepting economic suicide as if we were residence of Jonestown or Heaven’s Gate? Is it not clear that in conditions of free trade between the powerful and weak, the developed and the underdeveloped, the rich and the poor there can be only one winner? Why should it be otherwise? If a free for all in blows and cutlass lashes was to be the order of the day, would not the strong man and the bully and the man with the blade sharpened to technological perfection be delighted and would they not prevail? (Ian McDonald April 23, 1997) so then, why should a free-fro-all trade be any different? We should be saying with all the force and clarity we can muster that unbridled...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document