Copy and Paste
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
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