Debate Assignment – MGN445 Business in Europe
Length: 1,000 words total (700 for initial post, 300 for reaction)
Objectives: 1, 2, 3, & 4
Topic: Debate will focus on contemporary topics pertaining to modules 10-12.
Students will provide a defensible argument from a certain viewpoint
and criticise an argument from another viewpoint. MGN445 Business in Europe.
1. Debate assignment
The assignment consists of 2 rounds of debates. Topics and allocations of the
debates will be announced later, but will be related to modules 10-12.
In the first round, you will provide a defensible argument in favour of your viewpoint
on the topic of the debate you will be assigned to.
In the second debate you will criticise a contribution from another student. See below
for more details. MGN445 Business in Europe.
2. General guidelines
Focus your argument on one particular aspect of the debating topic. The number
one mistake students make is trying to cover everything, with the result being a
list of statements rather than a convincing argument. MGN445 Business in Europe.
Use Toulmin to structure your argument. An often made mistake is that students
fail to provide evidence for their claims or make claims that are too generic.
Making use of Toulmin addresses those issues and provides superior arguments.
If you use references, please add them. They are a form of evidence for your
claims. MGN445 Business in Europe.
In writing a response for your second post, there is no need to criticise everything
the original poster wrote. It is better to focus on refuting a single aspect, by
showing the original poster was incorrect/ ignored important information that
would make the argument incorrect or irrelevant etc.
Make sure you explicitly discuss implications for companies per CRA and debate
brief. MGN445 Business in Europe.
Refer to the CRA for marking guidelines.
MGN445 Debate Guidelines.doc 2
The below are examples of contributions to illustrate the difference between opening and response,
and between good and not so good contributions. MGN445 Business in Europe.
Debate assignment: should Turkey join the EU?
For the opening statement, argue that Turkey should not be allowed to join the EU.
There are several reasons the EU should not allow Turkey to join the EU.
– Turkey is an Islamic country, whereas the EU is based on a Christianic tradition (Wikipedia).
This is incompatible and before we know they want to introduce the sharia
– They have a lot of unemployment (Turkstat.gov.tr, which is the countries statistics agency,
comparable to ABS). It is currently 9.9%. Freedom of movement of personnel, means that a
lot of Turks will move to other EU countries, creating problems in those societies just as we
have seen when Poland and Rumania joined the EU. MGN445 Business in Europe.
– It is a very large country, which would get too much power in the EU
– It has a GDP per capita of just 8,000eur, meaning it would receive lots of money from the EU,
costing the tax payers in other nations. http://www.theweek.co.uk/news-
– It still occupies parts of Northern Cyprus, claims that are not recognised by the EU.
In short, for all these reasons Turkey should not be allowed to join the EU.
For the opening statement, argue that Turkey should be allowed to join the EU. MGN445 Business in Europe.
While we can probably come up with a whole list of populist and political reasons for (not) allowing
Turkey to join the EU, the reality is that the EU needs Turkey. Recent Eurostat data shows that the
proportion of the population who are working is shrinking, and the proportion of those in retirement
is increasing (cf. European Commission, 2014). This creates all kinds of problems, but most of all an
issue regarding affordability of the welfare state. This would make employers in the EU increasingly
uncompetitive, as they already on average finance 35.3% of the total social security spend in the
European Union ( http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-
explained/index.php/Social_protection_statistics ). Moreover, it may also lead to skills shortages, as
the pool of available employees slowly shrinks. Research from Vincent (1996) shows that this issue
could be relatively easily addressed through free movement of labour between states who have an
ageing population (like the EU) and developing countries who often have a surplus of a young
workforce. A recent study by Ernst & Young shows that Turkey has such a young and educated
workforce (Nibbe and Camlica, 2013). Whilst I acknowledge that actions such as increasing the
retirement age and sobering the pensions may alleviate some of these pressures, the reality is that
in the long-term the ratio of working people to retired people will still be problematic. That is why
having access to the young and educated Turkish workforce is vitally important in the long run for
companies operating in the EU to stay competitive. MGN445 Business in Europe.
European Commission (2014). The 2015 Ageing Report: Underlying assumptions and projection
methodologies. European Economy, 8. MGN445 Business in Europe.
Nibbe, J., Camlica, M. (2013). Turkey 2013: the shift, the growth and the promise. Ernst & Young’s
attractiveness survey, Ernst & Young Global Ltd.
MGN445 Debate Guidelines.doc 3
Vincent, J. (1996). Who's afraid of an ageing population? Nationalism, the free market, and the
construction of old age as an issue. Critical Social Policy, 16(47), 3-26. MGN445 Business in Europe.
Response to Henri Notsogood.
I agree with Henri that Turkey has a below average GDP per capita and that Turkey would most likely
receive more money than it pays to the EU. Yet, this Figure needs to be placed in perspective.
Turkey’s GDP per capita is actually higher than that of EU members Romania and Bulgaria and just
below that of Poland and Hungary. 1 Just using GDP per capita as deciding to allow entry would
therefore not be justified. Moreover, we have to take into account that all countries contribute to
the EU as well as receive. So the figure that really matters is the operating budgetary balance (what
a country receives minus what it contributes). To get an indication, I have used the data of Poland,
Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, as together these economies are roughly the same size and GDP per
capita as Turkey. In 2014, their received almost 26bln more than they paid. 3 This represents about
only .2% of the entire current GDP of the EU, which sits at 13921 bln euro. 4 As such, I conclude that
based on the amount of money Turkey would likely receive, and there is absolutely no reason to
block Turkey’s entry into the European Union. More importantly, Turkey imports much more from
the EU than it exports. The EU had in 2014 a positive trade balance of 20bln eur with Turkey,
meaning that there is significant money coming back to the EU in terms of trade. 5 Lejour and Mooij
(2005) concurred that the trade benefits with the EU already exist due to the Customs Union, but
concluded that the EU overall would still receive net economic benefits from Turkey joining the EU
due to current institutional constraints that would be removed. 6 This is in particular important for
companies who get not only better access to cheaper production locations, but also to a significant
and growing market. As such, the entry of Turkey is likely to deliver more benefits than costs. MGN445 Business in Europe.
1 Corselli-Nordblad, L., Konijn, P. 2013. Eurostat newsrelease, 98/2013, 19 June 2013. Eurostat Press
6 Lejour, A. M., & Mooij, R. A. (2005). Turkish delight: does Turkey's accession to the EU bring
economic benefits?. Kyklos, 58(1), 87-120. MGN445 Business in Europe.
MGN445 Business in Europe
I strongly agree with Yamei Zhang on the reasons why British should remain in the EU. In the
analysis, Zhang has made a strong case for Britain to remain in the EU by highlighting the
benefits that Britain continue to draw from EU, including free trade agreements, cheap labour,
and growth of the GDP. Like Zhang illustrates, the most important reasons why Britain should
stay in the EU is because of the prevailing trade agreement that ensure Britain export to the EU
market tariff-free. By leaving EU, Britain will no longer enjoy the free trade agreement and this
will have a hard hit on the economy as well as the social considering the close link between
economy and social life. Walker (2018) estimates that trade disruption will cost Britain an
estimated 87,000 job and a slowdown of the economy by 2% by 2030. Therefore, Zhang’s
argument of possible loss of trade benefits is valid. However, the author could have improved the
argument by adding statistics to support the effect of possible loss in trade……….
or ORDER A CUSTOM PAPER