This House believes the European Union should adopt a single working language through which to opera

If the EU uses the global language of English as its working language, other governments, parliaments and Unions will be able to understand its activities and methods of operation. 27% of the world’s population speak English. In the EU Member States alone, there are 61, 850,000 native English speakers and 168,000,000 non- native speakers of English.[1] It is a medium that could reach so many people and through which the EU can influence other governments to take similar positive action.  So many of the world’s large problems stem from a lack of communication. War is often the result of two sides being unable to communicate and mediate, and so violence is resorted to. It is often described as ‘the only language the enemy understands’ because of a failure to work out differences in a non-violent way. When fighting breaks out, it brings with it all manner of other issues such as famine and trauma. English is a global language and the EU should use this to its advantage. The EU brings democracy and should serve as a great example thereof for the rest of the world. Populations of all other countries need to be able to understand the EU’s activity and the way to operate a democracy as demonstrated by the EU, and the way to achieve this is for the EU to use the global language of English so as to render transparent the running of a democracy, so that it can spread.  If the EU can communicate its good ideas successfully, it can influence other organisations, providing them with the antidotes to their own problems.

[1] Wikipedia, List of countries by English-speaking population, en.wikipedia.org

So many of the world’s problems stem from a lack of communication. War is often a result of two sides unable to mediate, and one side often refers to resorting violence as ‘the only language the opponent understands’. This is what prompted Sir Winston Churchill to say ‘To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war’.[1] He meant that communication and compromise are always better than resorting to conflict, not least of all because it brings with it new problems of poverty, mentally scarred people and famine.

However, communication works both ways: what is said and how well it is heard. The EU cannot simply assume its activities will be well listened to. Its own issues and actions have little in common with the governments in the developing world who truly need help and improved strategies. For example, the EU deals with those problems facing a developed world; health, education, governmental services. By contrast, those governments in the developing world are faced with a whole array of problems that bear no resemblance to these, and far more serious ones; child soldiers, the setting up of schools, as opposed to making improvements therein. Therefore, listening to the EU will not inspire, advise or help the governments of those countries who really need it, regardless of how easily accessible and understandable the information is.

[1] Platt, Suzy ed., Respectfully Quoted: A Dictionary of Quotations, 1989.

It is highly demanding to request all MEPs to be multilingual and translation and interpreting time takes time out of the meetings when vital issues could and should be discussed and addressed and in which problems should be solved. They have been elected on the strength of their political abilities, not their language skills. If we require all MEPs to be multilingual, we are actually excluding many politicians who could be very skilled, but don’t speak enough languages for the EU.

Language politics exist, and this is a consideration for any politician, not to be ignored. States may find it politically wise to encourage multilingualism. For example, Nicolas Sarkozy wants France to be a bilingual country. This is indeed a tall order, but we must not dismiss and avoid challenges simply because of the effort they entail. Sarkozy’s desire to make such efforts is commendable and other EU Member States should follow suit by becoming multilingual.

Multilingualism could lead to several breakdowns in communication, which only give rise to further problems. This is especially likely between French and English where there are many ‘false friends’. For example ‘actuellement’ in French translates into English as ‘currently’, not ‘actually’. Using only one working language will eradicate confusion and reduce the number of errors. This is especially important in the realm of international politics, where small errors can breed long-term consequences.

There are often no direct translations for indispensible EU-specific vocabulary, so Member States should refer to it in their native language. The European Union uses in its debates and practices lots of technical jargon. For such vocabulary, there is often not a direct translation. The Member States must be able to speak about such important issues effectively and, while there exists no direct translations for much EU jargon, the best way to do this is through their native languages.

The EU does use technical jargon for which there is often not a direct translation. Therefore, it makes more sense to only have one name for each concept, by which that concept shall be known, in order to economize effort and to not waste time creating translations for EU-specific jargon. It is not chauvinistic, or even a matter of preference, to use English as a working language over other languages; it just so happens to be a language that is understood throughout the EU Member States. It is better and more effective to spend the time addressing the issues rather than deciding by which names to call these entities that give rise to issues within the EU.

Politics touches on emotional issues. Emotional issues specific to a country are best expressed by that country in their native language. If the EU Member States must communicate through a foreign language, this means there is a barrier between a) what is said and the emotion contained therein and b) the act of actually communicating it. When forced to express one’s true opinions through a foreign tongue, its true meaning or the level of its importance may become diluted, misinterpreted or otherwise compromised. It is better for EU Member States to communicate using their native languages, for this way there is a much closer emotional proximity between a) what is said and b) the emotion contained in saying it. Thus, the emotions and desires of the people are more faithfully expressed. 

There is no need for any prefixed or specified Europeans anymore. Given that the continent of Europe is merging into one single identity, there is no need to have more than one working EU language in operation; this could create divisions and even tensions within the overall identity of ‘European’. The Euro coins are no longer specific to each nation, goods are bought and sold between EU nations without restrictions. The seams between the European nations are fast disappearing as they merge ever closer together. Therefore, one singe language for managing all the EU Member States’ communal affairs makes perfect sense.  

Europe is only an umbrella identity; the diverse elements that form it must not be ignored. European identity is comprised of many elements, these being the many different countries within the continent. These different countries assert their individual identities through culture, people, traditions and languages. These must be acknowledged so that the EU is aware of the identities of the very Member States that comprise it. Keeping languages alive in the face of language death is a very emotive issue. Such response to one’s own language is what makes us human. To deny people affection for their own language is to dehumanise them.  In the whole, if the EU tried to strengthen its identity by choosing one language, it would harm its true identity, as a group of diverse states, joined together.

It is very expensive to employ translators and interpreters, and to publish all documents in French as well as English. Ireland Business News reported that the EU’s translation (excluding interpreting) costs were 800 million Euros in 2006. This money is better spent on the EU’s actual practices.

It is favourable that the EU employs people and one large way it does so is by hiring linguists and translators. Unemployment needs to be kept down and is an issue the EU claims to take seriously.

The EU has the largest translation unit in the world. It employs some 1, 650 permanent onsite linguists and 550 support staff, as well as freelance translators all over the world.[1] A Connect Euranet debate took place in France in which the EU representatives and ministers spoke of the urgent need to address the pressing issues of employment and unemployment. It is unjustifiable for the EU to fight unemployment and also render a large proportion of its staff- the linguists- out of work.

[1] Nitobe Centre for language democracy, ‘FAQ – Translation/interpretation’.

If the EU uses the global language of English as its working language, other governments, parliaments and Unions will be able to understand its activities and methods of operation. 27% of the world’s population speak English. In the EU Member States alone, there are 61, 850,000 native English speakers and 168,000,000 non- native speakers of English.[1] It is a medium that could reach so many people and through which the EU can influence other governments to take similar positive action.  So many of the world’s large problems stem from a lack of communication. War is often the result of two sides being unable to communicate and mediate, and so violence is resorted to. It is often described as ‘the only language the enemy understands’ because of a failure to work out differences in a non-violent way. When fighting breaks out, it brings with it all manner of other issues such as famine and trauma. English is a global language and the EU should use this to its advantage. The EU brings democracy and should serve as a great example thereof for the rest of the world. Populations of all other countries need to be able to understand the EU’s activity and the way to operate a democracy as demonstrated by the EU, and the way to achieve this is for the EU to use the global language of English so as to render transparent the running of a democracy, so that it can spread.  If the EU can communicate its good ideas successfully, it can influence other organisations, providing them with the antidotes to their own problems.

[1] Wikipedia, List of countries by English-speaking population, en.wikipedia.org

So many of the world’s problems stem from a lack of communication. War is often a result of two sides unable to mediate, and one side often refers to resorting violence as ‘the only language the opponent understands’. This is what prompted Sir Winston Churchill to say ‘To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war’.[1] He meant that communication and compromise are always better than resorting to conflict, not least of all because it brings with it new problems of poverty, mentally scarred people and famine.

However, communication works both ways: what is said and how well it is heard. The EU cannot simply assume its activities will be well listened to. Its own issues and actions have little in common with the governments in the developing world who truly need help and improved strategies. For example, the EU deals with those problems facing a developed world; health, education, governmental services. By contrast, those governments in the developing world are faced with a whole array of problems that bear no resemblance to these, and far more serious ones; child soldiers, the setting up of schools, as opposed to making improvements therein. Therefore, listening to the EU will not inspire, advise or help the governments of those countries who really need it, regardless of how easily accessible and understandable the information is.

[1] Platt, Suzy ed., Respectfully Quoted: A Dictionary of Quotations, 1989.

It is highly demanding to request all MEPs to be multilingual and translation and interpreting time takes time out of the meetings when vital issues could and should be discussed and addressed and in which problems should be solved. They have been elected on the strength of their political abilities, not their language skills. If we require all MEPs to be multilingual, we are actually excluding many politicians who could be very skilled, but don’t speak enough languages for the EU.

Language politics exist, and this is a consideration for any politician, not to be ignored. States may find it politically wise to encourage multilingualism. For example, Nicolas Sarkozy wants France to be a bilingual country. This is indeed a tall order, but we must not dismiss and avoid challenges simply because of the effort they entail. Sarkozy’s desire to make such efforts is commendable and other EU Member States should follow suit by becoming multilingual.

Multilingualism could lead to several breakdowns in communication, which only give rise to further problems. This is especially likely between French and English where there are many ‘false friends’. For example ‘actuellement’ in French translates into English as ‘currently’, not ‘actually’. Using only one working language will eradicate confusion and reduce the number of errors. This is especially important in the realm of international politics, where small errors can breed long-term consequences.

There are often no direct translations for indispensible EU-specific vocabulary, so Member States should refer to it in their native language. The European Union uses in its debates and practices lots of technical jargon. For such vocabulary, there is often not a direct translation. The Member States must be able to speak about such important issues effectively and, while there exists no direct translations for much EU jargon, the best way to do this is through their native languages.

The EU does use technical jargon for which there is often not a direct translation. Therefore, it makes more sense to only have one name for each concept, by which that concept shall be known, in order to economize effort and to not waste time creating translations for EU-specific jargon. It is not chauvinistic, or even a matter of preference, to use English as a working language over other languages; it just so happens to be a language that is understood throughout the EU Member States. It is better and more effective to spend the time addressing the issues rather than deciding by which names to call these entities that give rise to issues within the EU.

Politics touches on emotional issues. Emotional issues specific to a country are best expressed by that country in their native language. If the EU Member States must communicate through a foreign language, this means there is a barrier between a) what is said and the emotion contained therein and b) the act of actually communicating it. When forced to express one’s true opinions through a foreign tongue, its true meaning or the level of its importance may become diluted, misinterpreted or otherwise compromised. It is better for EU Member States to communicate using their native languages, for this way there is a much closer emotional proximity between a) what is said and b) the emotion contained in saying it. Thus, the emotions and desires of the people are more faithfully expressed. 

There is no need for any prefixed or specified Europeans anymore. Given that the continent of Europe is merging into one single identity, there is no need to have more than one working EU language in operation; this could create divisions and even tensions within the overall identity of ‘European’. The Euro coins are no longer specific to each nation, goods are bought and sold between EU nations without restrictions. The seams between the European nations are fast disappearing as they merge ever closer together. Therefore, one singe language for managing all the EU Member States’ communal affairs makes perfect sense.  

Europe is only an umbrella identity; the diverse elements that form it must not be ignored. European identity is comprised of many elements, these being the many different countries within the continent. These different countries assert their individual identities through culture, people, traditions and languages. These must be acknowledged so that the EU is aware of the identities of the very Member States that comprise it. Keeping languages alive in the face of language death is a very emotive issue. Such response to one’s own language is what makes us human. To deny people affection for their own language is to dehumanise them.  In the whole, if the EU tried to strengthen its identity by choosing one language, it would harm its true identity, as a group of diverse states, joined together.

It is very expensive to employ translators and interpreters, and to publish all documents in French as well as English. Ireland Business News reported that the EU’s translation (excluding interpreting) costs were 800 million Euros in 2006. This money is better spent on the EU’s actual practices.

It is favourable that the EU employs people and one large way it does so is by hiring linguists and translators. Unemployment needs to be kept down and is an issue the EU claims to take seriously.

The EU has the largest translation unit in the world. It employs some 1, 650 permanent onsite linguists and 550 support staff, as well as freelance translators all over the world.[1] A Connect Euranet debate took place in France in which the EU representatives and ministers spoke of the urgent need to address the pressing issues of employment and unemployment. It is unjustifiable for the EU to fight unemployment and also render a large proportion of its staff- the linguists- out of work.

[1] Nitobe Centre for language democracy, ‘FAQ – Translation/interpretation’.

English, the language which would likely be selected as the single European language, is also the language of Euroscepticism, as perfectly demonstrated by the British press. Anderson and Weymouth explain in Insulting the public?: The British Press and the European Union, ”Even those aspects of Euroscepticism which are perceived to be founded on less mythical stuff, such as the economic arguments against the single currency, get a better coverage than any arguments in favour.”[1] Right-wing tabloids publish very anti-Europe articles, scapegoating the German Parliament, the Bundestag, for what they see as the depletion of Britain’s say in her own politics, and using vocabulary with WW2 undertones. Even The Times, the UK paper of record, has voiced highly anti-Europe sentiments. It is through such articles and press coverage as this that the derogatory term Europrat has been coined.

For English, the language of Euroscepticism, to be the official and single working language of the EU is unthinkable; it is ironic at best and ridiculous at worst.

[1] Anderson, P.J, and Antony Weymouth. Insulting the Public? The British Press and the European Union. London: Longman, 1999.

Press freedom is a separate issue from EU language politics. The press must have reasonable freedoms, and so they are perfectly within their rights to express anti-Europe opinions; provoking debate and discussion on political issues is essential to a well-informed readership. The anti-EU arguments get more coverage than pro-EU ones, but there are many arguments in favor of the EU within the British press. Freedom of the British press to express anti-EU opinion is their right and should not affect the use of English as the single working language within the EU at all. It should not impinge upon improving the strength and effectiveness of communication within the EU at all.   

Ernst-August Gutt observes the use of translation “across boundaries”.[1] As a body dedicated to being “United in diversity”, the EU should practice translation in order to affect this intercultural activity.  The linguist Laurence Venuti observes this: “Translation is the ‘trial of the foreign’. But in a double sense. In the first place, it establishes a relationship between the Self-Same (propre) and the foreign by aiming to open up the foreign work to us in its utter foreignness …And this trial, often an exile, can also exhibit the most singular power of the translating act: to reveal the foreign work’s most original kernel, its most deeply-buried, most self-same…most distant”.[2]

Governmental bodies such as the EU have to mediate and compromise when discussing issues and debating. Translation is simply another type of mediation. The linguist Laurence Venuti describes it as “a bilingual mediated process of communication”.[3] Translation in a political setting is therefore simply an extension of this political mediation strongly present in the European Union. 

[1] Venuti, L. (ed) The Translation Studies Reader, 2000, p.378

[2] Ibid p.284

[3] Ibid p.161

The use of English does not mean Anglo-snobbery; that is a prejudice against Anglophones. The two EU official languages are English and French. If the EU were to adopt a single WORKING language, in all likelihood it would be English, but this is not to be seen as Westminster snobbery. English is not directly synonymous with Britain. It is also the official language of the former British colonies such as America, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa and is, to a large extent, a global language. Britain itself is a very Eurosceptic nation, and so the use of its official language cannot logically be taken as British rule over the EU. However, all the more Europhile countries should not feel unfairly treated in using this language to communicate; if all these pro-EU countries communicate through English i.e. a global language that is not their own, they are less likely to show any extreme bias toward their own country and culture. Embracing English, a foreign method of communication, means that in the EU debating chamber, a Member State’s arguments will not be contaminated by the connotations held within their mother tongue, and the ideas cemented within that culture. As explained by Laurence Venuti in The Translation Studies Reader, “deficiency of the receiving code has to do with…such things as individuality…and geographical origin of the speakers”.[1] Eradicating individuality reduces bias and deficiency of expression.

[1] Venuti, L. (ed) The Translation Studies Reader, 2000, p.344

EU citizens do not have to translate everything; to keep the costs of interpreters and translators down, we can just interpret and translate the most important information. This policy of ‘prioritising translation’ has been adopted by the Welsh Assembly. The Assembly translates into Welsh only the information and literature that is most relevant and will actually be read. Translation IS a realistic solution and should be considered over the EU working through one single language.

Prioritising translation may well have negative results. A mistranslation can lead to severe confusion and when such sensitive information is being handled, this is not at all desirable. Further, confusion can result if one entity becomes known by two different names. The practice of translation may only create tensions and divisions between bodies within the EU. Some may be angered that their literature is not being translated, when another organisation’s literature is, and is thusly getting a higher profile and receiving more attention. Therefore, one single WORKING language makes sense.

A “single working language” implies English, a global language, and already one of the two key EU languages, the other being the lesser understood French. That English could be the default language worries the French where they fear the rise of what the French call anglosnoberrie ; the anglicising of the world at the expense of other languages including French.

The EU would become one more example of English dominating the world at the expense of the many cultures and languages of Europe. This is indeed an extremely hypocritical stance to take, when the EU is a body that seeks to strengthen intercultural activity and give all the cultures within it a voice. This cannot be done when the overwhelming majority- twenty-six- of the languages, ‘voices’, of the Member States are  silenced and only one is given a platform on which to speak.

To work through one single global language that is understood by all cultures makes perfect sense; it is a medium through which they can all communicate within the context of EU operations. The EU is not asking the MEPs (Members of the European Parliament) to address their own people nor their parliament at home through the medium of English. The use of a single working language is just to ensure effectiveness when discussing and debating EU matters between Member States.