Argument: Political union is necessary for Eurozone recovery

What is needed for the Eurozone to flourish is an economic-political union with a single budget, so that capital can flow to where it is needed and fiscal policy can make up for imbalances between Member States (20). The alternative, as we have seen, is internal devaluation, which is a very painful and excruciatingly ineffective ways of achieving the same for a ridiculous price. (21) The European Union therefore needs to be looking forward to more integration rather than backwards to less. More integration can fix many of the problems in Europe; balancing regional disparities through fiscal transfers, eliminating the democratic deficit through a more powerful parliament, and preventing problems with nationalism by empowering regions.

(20) Traynor, Ian. “Eurozone should form political union, says Germany’s ECB firefighter”, The Guardian. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/may/21/eurozone-political-union-germany-firefighter

(21) Persson, Mats. “Can the euro be saved through internal devaluation alone – and at what political cost?”, The Telegraph. 28 September 2012. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/matspersson/100020411/can-the-euro-be-saved-through-internal-devaluation-alone-and-at-what-political-cost/

Candidate 1: "While it might be true that some of these benefits are a consequence of the political union, all of these can be maintained in other forms. This is particularly evident by the fact that non-EU countries such as Switzerland and Iceland participate in these schemes, without becoming members of the political bloc. By disassembling the political union, countries can furthermore opt to participate in some agreements, while not participating in others, thus maximising everyone’s benefit."
Candidate 2: "It is not true that not being fully representative makes a political entity undemocratic. In national politics we elect representatives to then make decisions on our behalf rather than have constant referenda, or even rather than require unanimity within Parliament. We expect not to have perfect representation. Furthermore, states that feel disenfranchised always have the option of leaving the EU; in fact it is much easier than it would be to leave an unrepresentative nation state. It is important to remember that Member States have consented to acting within this framework.

Even if the political entity is flawed, it can always be improved. Much more power could be given to the European Parliament, and there are already plans for the President of the Commission to be elected through the Parliament. Moreover if turnout is a problem for the elected legislature’s legitimacy then this is a question of encouraging turnout which might happen organically due to increased relevance but if not could be managed if necessary through compulsory voting. Finally not being a flawless democracy must be weighed against not having an entity at all."
Candidate 3: "The Eurozone is not the same thing as the single market, which is the foundation of the EU trade bloc. It would probably even be good for Europe for the Eurozone to be dismantled as it would allow currency devaluations to restore competitiveness to failing economies in Europe’s periphery. The European trade bloc would certainly survive, and it is likely that the weaker economies would be in a much better position in the long-term because their products would be cheaper while still being a part of the single market (22). Further political union, on the other hand, would involve huge financial risks by eliminating any form of national flexibility to deal with economic problems. (23)

(22) See “This House Would Abolish the Single European Currency”, Debatabase. http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/economy/house-would-abolish-single-european-currency

(23) Issing, Otmar. “The case for political union isn’t convincing”, Europe’s World. 1 June 2013. http://europesworld.org/2013/06/01/the-case-for-political-union-isnt-convincing/"
Candidate 4: "It is uncertain how many countries would realistically want remain in a trade bloc that does not support democracy as a core value.

Distilling the EU to a trade bloc that does not care about democracy and human rights would run the risk of allowing in non-democracies which in turn would merely alienate most of its current members. Many EU countries would not wish to be associated with non-democracies. Even only concerning trade, many would not want to make trade concessions to undemocratic countries whose regimes they cannot trust, as this might jeopardise the reliability of their trade with this country. (12) As such there would be very few potential new members as a result of moving back to a trade bloc. The better solution is to bring the standard of democracy in neighbouring countries up to the point where they can join the EU. To encourage other democracies such as Norway to join there could be concessions made such as on the common fisheries policy.

(12) Mansfield, Edward D.; Milner, Helen V.; Rosendorff, B. Peter. “Free to Trade: Democracies, Autocracies, and International Trade”, American Political Science Review. Vol. 94, No. 2. June 2000. http://www.stanford.edu/class/polisci243b/readings/v0002547.pdf"
Candidate 5: "The premise of this argument is that European countries are so connected that in entering war with another European country you would directly harm yourself. A European trade bloc is enough to ensure this, by interconnecting European economies to make war too expensive to be considered.

Furthermore, while it is clear that there have been no great wars since World War Two, conflicts have not entirely been prevented; to the extent that they have, perhaps it is not the EU’s merit as the EU did not do much to prevent conflict in the former Yugoslavia (25); finally, perhaps the EU may even be blamed for the rise of nationalism and ensuing political tension in countries such as Greece so there is a growing potential for future conflict as a direct result of political union (26).

(25) “The EU and the Nobel Peace Prize”, Charlemagne, The Economist. 12 October 2012. http://www.economist.com/blogs/charlemagne/2012/10/eu-and-nobel-peace-prize

(26) Mariam Onti, Nicky. “Soros Blames Merkel For Golden Dawn”, Greek Reporter. 7 October 2013. http://eu.greekreporter.com/2013/10/07/soros-blames-merkel-for-golden-dawn/"
Candidate 6: "The benefits outlined in the argument are only valid if the political aspect of the EU functions efficiently. The EU’s undemocratic nature and unnecessary bureaucracy create uncertainty about whether the EU will even exist in the long-term. Adding to that the growing resentment to the EU in several Member States and looming referenda, the EU is an unstable entity.

A trade bloc, on the other hand, is not conflated with issues regarding sovereignty, national identity, immigration and other sensitive political issues. Therefore, it is likely to be considered safer by potential trading partners. When the EU is not a political agreement, foreign investors can have more trust that the countries involved now will remain involved in the future."
Candidate 7: "It is important to remember that many areas of policy remain under national control and even those areas that are decided at the European level are agreed by the member states (9). The EU legislation, however, is important for creating trust between trading partners in the EU. Even if some of the laws seem trivial or unnecessary, it is the trust in the other countries’ compliance even in these laws, which creates a stable market in which actors can expect larger laws and agreements to be honoured. The political aspects of the union therefore complement the economic aspects.

As regards austerity, the British are implementing their own austerity policies, without Commission involvement, and are doing just as badly as anyone else (10). On the contrary, someone needed to sanitise the Greek economy, and it was evident that they were not going to do so themselves. EU decisions, as a whole, are preferable. We should remember that when countries agree to austerity as part of a bailout it is not a violation of sovereignty; they have the choice to say no and probably default as a result.

(9) Bache, Ian; Bulmer, Simon; George, Stephen. “Politics in the European Union”, 3rd edition, Oxford University Press. 17 February 2011.

(10) Giles, Chris; Bounds, Andrew. “Brutal for Britain”, The Financial Times. 15 January 2012. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/5cc73ea0-3e04-11e1-91ba-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2igLfoxJI"
Candidate 8: "The reason that there is such trust in the status quo lies in that these countries have collaborated in a political union for decades. Once this structure has been removed, it is easy to turn protectionist and to start trade wars. This is precisely the source of the failure of trade blocs such as NAFTA. Without the presence of a political body, it was possible for the US to develop protectionist policies within the trade bloc framework. By subsidising their agricultural products to outcompete Mexico’s in Mexico itself, the US severely harmed its trade partner’s economy (14). This is a harmful form of trade. The EU benefits from its current more balanced, controlled and mutually beneficial structure.

(14) Faux, Jeff. “How NAFTA Failed Mexico”, The American Prospect. 16 June 2003. http://prospect.org/article/how-nafta-failed-mexico"
Candidate 9: "The EU, in practice, is not a particularly consistent or effective promoter of democracy. It has been unsuccessful in countries such as Ukraine and Georgia in the European neighbourhood (18): this suggests the EU can only lead countries into democracy when the conditions already exist for this change to happen naturally.

The example of Hungary shows how powerless the EU can be when pressing Member States to stay democratic once they have got in, extremist parties have expanded, the independence of the judiciary threatened and freedom of the press reduced (19). Its structure may make it difficult to become a member without democratizing, but also difficult to justify expelling a Member State. Such cases damage the credibility of the EU as a promoter of democracy. But a change to a trade bloc would not damage the ability of the EU to promote democracy; states could still be forced to democratize as a condition of joining.

(18) Emerson, Aydin, Noutcheva, Tocci, Vahl and Youngs. “The Reluctant Debutante: The European Union as Promoter of Democracy in its Neighbourhood”, Working Document, Centre for European Studies, No. 223. July 2005. http://www.fride.org/download/OTR_Debutante_ENG_oct05.pdf

(19) Landry, David. “Hungary: “Test case” for EU democracy?”, Budapest Business Journal. 1 August 2013. http://www.bbj.hu/politics/hungary-test-case-for-eu-democracy_67257"

The Eurozone is not the same thing as the single market, which is the foundation of the EU trade bloc. It would probably even be good for Europe for the Eurozone to be dismantled as it would allow currency devaluations to restore competitiveness to failing economies in Europe’s periphery. The European trade bloc would certainly survive, and it is likely that the weaker economies would be in a much better position in the long-term because their products would be cheaper while still being a part of the single market (22). Further political union, on the other hand, would involve huge financial risks by eliminating any form of national flexibility to deal with economic problems. (23)

(22) See “This House Would Abolish the Single European Currency”, Debatabase. http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/economy/house-would-abolish-single-european-currency

(23) Issing, Otmar. “The case for political union isn’t convincing”, Europe’s World. 1 June 2013. http://europesworld.org/2013/06/01/the-case-for-political-union-isnt-convincing/
