Prime Minister

 Explain the Status Quo and why is it problematic and why should it be revised or changed
 Set up the debate
o Define variables
o Provide context
 Determine if the motion is principle-based or policy-based
o If it’s principle-based
 Determine why it’s justifiable
o If it’s policy-based
 Create a model and thoroughly explain it
 Determine the ins and outs of the proposed model/How is it going to be
executed
 Determine goals
 How will it be better than the Status Quo
 Sign post and label what the hell you’re saying
o Always include argument, analysis, examples, conclusion
 Rule of 3s (provide an argument then present analysis and examples for it and
after that, open new argument, and lastly, provide conclusions for all arguments)
 Analysis – create implication and imagery
 Conclusion – harms and benefits; cite the effects of the analysis

Leader of the opposition

 Provide rebuttals
o Prove why their stance is not hard
o Prove why their positive effects are not exclusive
o Prove why negative effects on your side are not exclusive
o Prove why their points are irrelevant and what have you
 Tell either why Status Quo is problematic or tell why Status Quo is sufficient
 Challenge definitions provided if needed
 Sign post and label what the hell you’re saying
o Always include argument, analysis, examples, conclusion
 Rule of 3s (provide an argument then present analysis and examples for it and
after that, open new argument, and lastly, provide conclusions for all arguments)
 Analysis – create implication and imagery
 Conclusion – harms and benefits; cite the effects of the analysis

Whip
 Point out what the debate is all about
o What should’ve been tackled
 o What should be the purpose of the debate
o What is the end goal of the debate
 Point out the issues in the debate
o Point out contentions and lack of nuance (nuance is connecting a certain shit to the
motion to make sense)
 Provide final rebuttals
o If they don’t fit in your, speech say it beforehand
 Strengthen Member’s speech while weakening the other side’s
o Provide further analysis to your Member’s speech (you can add arguments packaged as
analysis but make sure it’s not open-ended or it does not need rebuttals)
 CREATE COMPARATIVES (highly important!!)
o Even-if (examples: even if some shit happens on our side’s model or world, it would still
be better as opposed to the opposition’s side since it still would have positive effects
which are still better than the opp side’s best case)
o Best case-Worst case (What’s the best thing that could come out of our model and in the
event that it fails, how is it still beneficial and better than opp’s side)
 Prove why you deserve to win
o Set your teams uniqueness and eloquence in substantiating and providing feasible
analysis
o Softly knife your opening but commend them too
o Point out the flaws of the opposing side

Hong Kong-China relations

Hong Kong needs radical social and economic reform. Let’s start with breaking up the property
cartel

Hong Kong’s economy has long thrived on a formula of free competition, low taxes and a level playing
field. During the economic miracle in the second half of the 20th century, there were few objections to
this old style of capitalism, which, for all its injustices, delivered rapidly rising incomes to the general
population.

But that was then, and now the situation is not the same. As its economy plateaus and Hong Kong as a
whole becomes less competitive in global markets, we see the collateral damage caused by a system that
put growth and the pursuit of profit above all else.

Hong Kong’s economy is dominated by cartels, with the provision of all sorts of services and goods
subject to oligopolistic arrangements, the product of a capitalistic jungle where the strongest survive and
eventually dominate.

The rich-poor gap is among the world’s highest. While the elite continue to pile up wealth, ordinary
Hongkongers generally have not improved their well-being, taking into consideration such adversities as
chronic overcrowding, environmental degradation and deteriorating civic pride.

There is no alternative to social and economic reforms in Hong Kong. In fact, the frustrations of ordinary
Hongkongers – that they no longer have a stake in the success of the system – is the underlying cause of
the massive street protests that have rocked Hong Kong this month, although the immediate cause is the
government’s attempt at legislation allowing suspected criminals to be extradited to the Chinese
mainland.

Social turmoil won’t go away even if Chief Executive Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor steps down. Indeed, it
is a pity that, since 1997, we’ve seen a succession of chief executives, each too distracted by immediate
problems and serving for too short a period to focus on long-term solutions.

The way forward is to introduce a more enlightened form of capitalism, still pro-business and pro-free-
market, but fairer, more inclusive and more sustainable.

Social turmoil won’t go away even if Chief Executive Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor steps down. Indeed, it
is a pity that, since 1997, we’ve seen a succession of chief executives, each too distracted by immediate
problems and serving for too short a period to focus on long-term solutions.

The way forward is to introduce a more enlightened form of capitalism, still pro-business and pro-free-
market, but fairer, more inclusive and more sustainable.

In today’s Hong Kong, small and medium-sized businesses and entrepreneurs – meaning local Hong
Kong players – often find it difficult to establish themselves against entrenched industry leaders,
consisting generally of the Hong Kong super-rich and mainland Chinese and foreign companies.

Hong Kong’s slavish commitment to a level playing field has come down to this – it pits little guys in
competition against established big guys, in an economy that is no longer growing fast enough to
accommodate all.

While such a set-up may facilitate corporate profits, it leaves ordinary people feeling left out and
hopeless. It also reduces competition and stifles entrepreneurship, which is exactly what capitalism is
not supposed to do.

Hong Kong authorities can draw on studies and experiences from all over the world, as social unrest and
inequality is a global phenomenon, and governments everywhere are looking for answers.

In short, Hong Kong’s government needs to be more interventionist. It needs to unapologetically improve
the access enjoyed by local people to training, employment and commercial opportunities.

It needs to be much tougher on monopolistic practices. (There may be a few monopolies that can be
justified because their scale is critical to maintaining Hong Kong’s global advantage, but very few.)

We need more deregulation and emphasis on consumer rights. Fiscal reform is required, starting with a
critical review of the so-called low taxation regime.

Appearances to the contrary, the typical Hong Kong family is subject to high taxes, in the form of indirect
taxation arising from exorbitant property prices, fuelled partly by high land prices.

We urgently need to break up the real estate cartel. Because so much wealth in Hong Kong is tied to real
estate, the business lobbies tied directly or indirectly to property development represent an all-powerful
vested interest that has resisted reform, both before and after the end of British colonial rule in 1997.

Shock therapy is recommended. The rules of the game have to be redrawn to open up the field to many
more formats and players, increasing competition and giving the public access to a much wider stock and
range of public and private housing.
On the supply side, plans for massive land reclamation must be accelerated and we need to bite the bullet
on country parks, converting part of their massive space into housing.

Our thinking has to take into account the national push to promote the Greater Bay Area, with expensive
transport links newly put into place. A precedent has been set with the mainland, allowing Macau to
make use of neighbouring Zhuhai’s Hengqin island.

Why shouldn’t the mainland authorities also lease land in neighbouring Guangdong for use by Hong
Kong? Such land would come under Hong Kong’s administration, and could be used for high-quality
public housing estates.
Or Hong Kong could relocate some of its institutions of higher learning, health care facilities or its
container port to the new area.

Hong Kong has the necessary financial resources to undertake reform. With US$38,000 in annual per
capita income, close to that of France, it now makes sense to focus on making its population happy,
rather than emphasising growth for growth’s sake.

Not to forget that Hong Kong has built up huge reserves, representing the savings of generations,
managed by the Hong Kong Monetary Authority.

The money belongs to the people of Hong Kong and is intended to fight emergencies, which describes the
situation today. Simply, reforms can be expensive, and it’s good to know we have a piggy bank to handle
temporary disruptions.

If properly consulted, it wouldn’t be in Beijing’s interest to oppose such reforms. On the contrary,
mainland China has benefited from social and economic changes transforming the country in just two
generations.
China badly wants Hong Kong to be stable and prosperous. Only 28 years remain before Hong Kong’s
status as a special administrative region expires. We must act decisively to give Hongkongers a
significant stake in their community, so we can face the challenges of 2047.

BREXIT BINDS COULD HURT BRITAIN’S LABOR IN A SNAP ELECTION

SOUTHAMPTON, England (Reuters) - Retired electrician Steve Oliver has voted for Britain’s opposition
Labour Party all his life but if the political crisis over leaving the European Union leads to an early
election, he will not be doing so again.

Conservative MP Royston Smith wears Union flag cufflinks during a visit in his constituency of
Southampton Itchen, Britain, August 28, 2019. REUTERS/Peter Nicholls

Oliver wants to leave the EU and, more than three years after he and around 17.4 million other Britons
voted to divorce Britain’s largest trading partner, he cannot support Labour’s position that there should
be another Brexit referendum.

“I can’t understand for the life of me why Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of my party, is trying to force down
this vote. Brexit has been voted for by the public,” the 64-year-old told Reuters as he strolled through
the local market in Bitterne, a suburb of Southampton in southern England.

“If that man had any sense he should realize that if he tried to do that he’d never get (voted) in.”
With opposition parties threatening to collapse the government in a no-confidence vote and media
reports of Prime Minister Boris Johnson war-gaming an early election if parliament tries to thwart his
Brexit plans, expectations Britain could be heading to the polls this autumn are growing.

The parliamentary seat of Southampton Itchen is a top Labour target and the kind of place it needs to be
successful if it is going to win a national election.

It is the governing Conservatives’ most marginal seat - incumbent lawmaker Royston Smith held it by
just 31 votes in 2017 - and it was represented by Labour for more than two decades before Smith first
won it in 2015.

But it also voted by 60% to 40% in favor of leaving the EU in the 2016 referendum, making it more pro-
Brexit than Britain as a whole, which voted 52% to 48% to withdraw from the bloc.

ADVERTISEMENT

Oliver says he would now vote for the Brexit Party, led by prominent ‘Leave’ campaigner Nigel Farage,
which triumphed in this year’s European Parliament elections in Britain by riding a wave of voter anger
over the failure to deliver Brexit.

‘DOES HE WANT TO LEAVE THE EU?’

The chances of a snap national election rose markedly this week when new premier Johnson - a Brexit
campaigner who has vowed to leave the EU on Oct. 31, with or without a deal with Brussels - enraged
opponents of a no-deal exit by ordering the suspension of parliament for more than a month.

However as voters have become increasingly polarized along Brexit lines, Labour has suffered public and
political criticism of Corbyn’s strategy of trying to keep both Leave and Remain voters onboard by not
siding with either camp.

Instead Corbyn, a long-time eurosceptic in a party where a majority of members oppose Brexit, has
sown confusion with his ambiguous position and alienated many voters on both sides.

Before a 2017 national election, which the Conservatives narrowly won under then Prime Minister
Theresa May, Labour said it accepted the referendum result and would seek to negotiate an exit deal
that kept the country closely aligned to the EU.

As Brexit paralysis set in after May’s withdrawal deal was repeatedly rejected by parliament earlier this
year, Corbyn pushed for another election to break the deadlock - but, under pressure from within his
deeply divided party, has now also backed holding a second referendum on any Brexit deal.

How Labour would campaign in such a referendum would depend on the deal, he has said, leaving open
the possibility a Labour government could negotiate a new Brexit agreement but then campaign against
it in favor of Remain.

“I don’t even know what Jeremy Corbyn stands for - does he want to leave the EU? Does he want to stay
in?” said pro-Brexit pensioner and former Labour supporter Janet Collingwood, sitting outside a Bitterne
cafe in the sunshine drinking a cup of tea. She says she has switched to voting Conservative over Brexit.

Data from pollsters YouGov shows Labour’s vote share is being squeezed on both the Remain and Leave
sides, something that has been borne out in voting over the last few months.
Labour’s vote share dropped by more than 12 percentage points at each of the three by-elections for
parliamentary seats so far this year, with parties with more strongly held positions such as the pro-
Remain Liberal Democrats and the pro-Leave Brexit Party on the rise.

Voting for seats on local councils in England and the European Parliament elections in May also both
showed voters split more by Brexit than traditional party lines.

“Our position has been to try and do what we can to bring both sides together,” said Simon Letts,
Labour’s candidate for Southampton Itchen. “The weakness ... is that is takes about two paragraphs of
explanation to explain it.”

LEAVE BOUNCE?

By contrast, the electoral picture is looking brighter for the Conservatives.

While they have also suffered at the ballot box this year due to voter frustration over Brexit, they now
have a new leader and a new approach.

Opinion polls have shown a Conservative bounce since Johnson took over last month with a “do or die”
pledge to take Britain out of the EU at the end of October.

Slideshow (9 Images)

A YouGov survey conducted Aug. 27-28 put the Conservatives on 34%, up from 25% a month earlier, and
12 points ahead of Labour on 22%. Much of that gain has been at the expense of the Brexit Party.

“Johnson’s approach has been to wholeheartedly appeal to Leave voters – specifically those who have
abandoned the Conservative Party for the Brexit Party,” said YouGov research manager Adam
McDonnell.

“Polling suggests that on the Remain side Labour are going to have a much tougher job squeezing the
Liberal Democrat vote than the Conservatives are going to do with the Brexit Party.”

Southampton Itchen’s Conservative lawmaker Smith said messages from constituents telling him they
were switching to the Brexit Party had gone into reverse since Johnson’s victory.

“I think Boris is going to play well in the constituency,” said Smith, a Brexit supporter. But he is not
complacent that the Brexit Party threat remains if an election is called.

“We are hoping for the Labour vote being split more than ours,” he said.

‘BACK TO NUTS-AND-BOLTS POLITICS’

Moving further toward Remain in any election campaign is unlikely to help Labour, as while 48% of
Britons voted to stay in the EU at the referendum, they are more strongly concentrated in a smaller
number of constituencies than Leave supporters.

“It is pretty difficult for Labour to form anything close to a government without really most of its seats
being Leave-voting constituencies,” said Richard Johnson, politics lecturer at Lancaster University, who
has analyzed the kind of seats Labour needs to win have any chance of victory at an election.
“Even if Labour won 100% of the Remain electorate it wouldn’t get anything close to even 48% of the
constituencies because of the distribution of Leave and Remain voters.”

That is likely to make the timing of any election crucial. Letts believes Labour’s best hope is that any
early election comes after Brexit has taken place.

“Whatever the resolution (to Brexit) is ... our prospects improve because then we are back to nuts-and-
bolts politics,” he said. “We are back to talking about the housing crisis, standards of living, food banks
and education cuts and all the other stuff.”

TRUMP BORDER WALL: CONSTRUCTION OF 30 FOOT BARRIER IN ORGAN PIPE CACTUS ARIZONA

Washington — The Trump administration has begun erecting a 30-foot-high border wall that will cut
through federally protected land in Arizona, despite warnings from Democratic lawmakers and activists
that the new barrier and its construction could do irreparable damage to a fragile desert ecosystem.

The first phase of construction in Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, which runs along the southern
border with Mexico, will replace a two-mile stretch of 15-foot-high fencing with structures that are
twice as tall and feature large flood lights to illuminate the surrounding areas, according to a
government court filing and congressional staffers familiar with the plans.

The project is the first construction of new border barriers on federal lands using funds diverted from
the Defense Department under President Trump's national emergency declaration. The Department of
Homeland Security told a federal court earlier in August that it plans to eventually replace nearly 44
miles of existing pedestrian and vehicle fencing with 30-foot steel bollards, creating a barrier spanning
most of Organ Pipe as well as portions of an adjacent wildlife refuge.

A portion of the new border wall in Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument in Arizona, seen on Tuesday,
August 27, 2019.HOUSE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

Some members of Congress and environmental activists say erecting the massive structures will severely
hamper animal migration, cut wildlife off from already-scarce desert water sources and threaten
animals' ability to flee natural disasters like floods and wildfires. The 516-square-mile Organ Pipe
monument is named for the unique cacti that dot the landscape. Several endangered species call it
home, including the Sonoran pronghorn and desert bighorn sheep.

Staffers from the House Committee on Natural Resources, which has jurisdiction over issues related to
the use of federal land, visited the site on Tuesday and provided footage of the construction to CBS
News. The recording shows workers using heavy machinery to dig into the ground, and a massive well
nearby pumping scarce groundwater for use in mixing cement to hold the six-inch-wide bollards that
compose the wall.

Arizona Congressman Raúl Grijalva, the Democratic chairman of the committee, represents the district
that includes Organ Pipe and is a fierce critic of the Trump administration's hardline immigration
agenda. He said the president's "destructive ego has become a danger to entire regions of our country."

"If sensitive habitats and decades-old environmental laws are expendable, there's no guessing what else
Trump and his supporters in Washington will throw under the bus," he said in a statement to CBS News.
"There is little room for indifference here, because we've seen what walls do and how difficult it can be
to tear them down."

In May, the Department of Homeland Security waived dozens of laws to allow construction in Organ
Pipe and other wildlife refuges in southwestern Arizona. In a notice in the Federal Register, Acting
Secretary Kevin McAleenan pointed to high level of illegal crossings in the Tucson sector, which includes
Organ Pipe, and said existing barriers "no longer satisfy Border Patrol's operational needs." Border
agents have encountered 38,709 migrants trying to cross the border illegally in Tucson sector so far this
year, according to DHS statistics. McAleenan said the Department of Homeland Security must replace
the barriers to meet an "acute and immediate need."

Under a 2005 law, the homeland security secretary can waive any laws "necessary to ensure expeditious
construction" of barriers along the border and can overrule other agencies like the National Parks
Service, which administers national parks and monuments. McAleenan invoked that authority to waive
the department's obligations under 36 federal laws, including the Clean Air Act, the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act and the National Fish and Wildlife Act.

The Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), an environmental group, sued the government in early August,
asking the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., to issue an injunction blocking its construction. The
group argued the waivers were never meant to be used to justify long-term projects like the border wall.

"We're asking the court to strike down the waiver. It was never intended to exist in perpetuity," Laiken
Jordahl, borderlands campaigner for the group, told CBS News from Arizona, where he is documenting
the construction. "How can this still be 'expeditious'?"

Responding to the CBD's lawsuit, DHS said construction of most of the wall in Organ Pipe would not
begin until October, once the replacement of the two-mile stretch was completed.

Waivers have been used to fast-track construction of border barriers and fencing 18 times since 2005,
including 13 times under the Trump administration alone. In 2008, the Supreme Court declined to hear a
challenge to the legality of the waivers, rebuffing environmental groups that sought to block
construction without environmental review under the Bush administration.

The department did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the environmental impact of
the construction when asked on Wednesday. But in its court filing in August, the department said
Customs and Border Protection, the division of the department overseeing the project, "minimize[s] the
impact on the environment, culture, commerce, and quality of life for the communities and residents
located near the sites at which such fencing is to be constructed" even when waivers are issued.

Without the waivers, the government would be required to evaluate the environmental impact of the
construction and allow local communities to weigh in on the project to fulfill its obligations under the
National Environmental Policy Act, one of the laws that was waived. In formal comments objecting to
the wall's construction in July, Grijalva said the impact on the environment could never fully be known.

"By failing to fully account for and predict the environmental, economic, and social harms of this project,
the consequences will inevitably be costlier and more destructive," he wrote.
“1) Sexual Orientation refers to the direction of emotional sexual attraction or conduct.
This can be toward people of the same sex [homosexual orientation] or towards people
of both sexes [bisexual orientation] or toward people of the opposite sex [heterosexual
orientation].

Gender Identity refers to the personal sense of identity as characterized, among others,
by manner of clothing, inclinations, and behavior in relation to masculine or feminine
conventions. A person may have a male or female identity with the physiological
characteristics of the opposite sex.

Gender Expression refers to the outward manifestations of the cultural traits that enable
a person to identify as male or female according to patterns that, at a particular moment
in history, a given society defines as gender appropriate.”