Third Proposing speech
The opposers have said that the euro project was a big step for Europe in terms of unification and competiveness, and also that we should do something to improve ourselves even if it’s not perfect, because perfection doesn’t exist. Well, we don’t want to say that the Euro project is has to be totally rejected, but, due to the differences in terms of culture and economic power of the different countries, it should have been a slower process, by, before establishing the currency, unifying all the countries to make an “European spirit”, because if in one hand having different cultures can make a team more competitive and with more ideas, in the other the team must first exist, with a determined and unique objective. […]
Third Opposing speech
Dear readers, as this debate is nearing its end I will sum what has been said and I will clearly show you that the proposing team struggled with this motion and their misunderstanding of the motion! While the first prop showed his lack of knowledge in history, we showed that the Euro limited the fall of certain European countries and that European countries benefited from the Euro currency and were stronger against crisis than other countries. […]
Third Proposing speech
As the last writer, I will try to summarize our team’s opinion and arguments, to give a global vision of the situation, but first I will rebut some things previously said by the opposing team.
They have said that the euro project was a big step for Europe in terms of unification and competiveness, and also that we should do something to improve ourselves even if it’s not perfect, because perfection doesn’t exist. Well, we don’t want to say that the Euro project is has to be totally rejected, but, due to the differences in terms of culture and economic power of the different countries, it should have been a slower process, by, before establishing the currency, unifying all the countries to make an “European spirit”, because if in one hand having different cultures can make a team more competitive and with more ideas, in the other the team must first exist, with a determined and unique objective. And, at this moment, that’s impossible in Europe for an economic project, due to the differences of economic power between the members of the EU. About the other part, for us, is better to think a little bit more before doing something, to assure that it’s a good decision, that starting something without think on the implications it can take.
As a resume, Europe has tried to make a common currency to try to combat the dollar, and they have taken the dollar as the model to follow, but Europe is not the United States. First because of the different languages, cultures and mentality about money and work. An American will always say that he is American, rather than from Texas, Florida or Louisiana against a European, who will say “Yo soy español, Je suis Français, Io sonno Italiano” and not I’m European. And second because, even if in the USA the states are independent, there is an organism with real power to manage them all, to assure the money transactions, and as a unique country, there cannot be distensions between two parts due to differences of engagement. This, nowadays, doesn’t exist in Europe, even if there are international organisms that were created to manage Europe as a block; they have no real power.
Due to those problems, the euro has become a very unstable currency, as we can say if we compare the value of the Euro against other currencies (not only with the dollar because like that we can’t know who’s the unstable one, but also with the Yuan or the pound). The cause is as I said the heterogeneity of Europe, which makes, when there is a problem that affects the countries in different ways, a lot of downs and ups in the value of the currency.
Another problem of the euro, but not less important, that we have seen with that crisis, is that, if one country falls, then all the others have a lot of problems, first because they have to help that country, but that’s not really a problem, because as a group we should help the others, and we agree with that; and second because the value of the currency will fall. And, as a very big currency, it’s difficult to manage it for help all. If a country like Greece had his own currency it will be easier to go out of the crisis, because he could change the value of it and benefit of those interests (all this taking on count the same financial helps that it has received).
So, to summarize, the euro project is fundamentally misconceived, because we, as a society, are not yet well prepared to receive something like that, and that should have been predicted in the conception of the project, to prepare us; or have waited until we were.
Thank you for reading, and vote aye!
by AFV
Third Opposing speech
Dear readers, as this debate is nearing its end I will sum what has been said and I will clearly show you that the proposing team struggled with this motion and their misunderstanding of the motion! While the first prop showed his lack of knowledge in history, we showed that the Euro limited the fall of certain European countries and that European countries benefited from the Euro currency and were stronger against crisis than other countries. We agreed with the first prop when he said that if one country fall, every European country will follow its fall. That clearly shows that the Euro unify the countries! Indeed the economical unification due to the common currency unified the different policies on European policy issue. This means that the countries have to help each other during hard times and will not let their fellow neighborhood see its economy fall apart. According to first prop, we have to protect our culture and he just forgets that its the mix of different cultures together that create a strong bounding between countries and help each other to evolve toward a better policy and economy (just think about the founding of the U.S.A.).
I think the second prop got a little too fired up and lost sight of the motion. He thinks that it is a big mistake to take Estonia and Latvia in the eurozone. For him the fact that Russia didn't pour money on Estonia is a good enough reason to say that it is a mistake to trust such a “parasitic” country. He doesn't take at all in consideration that countries have to fulfill many requirements before being authorized to join the eurozone and actually Estonia fulfill these requirements as its budget deficit of its GDP is at 1,7%, way under the maximum 3% required and her debt is quite low (http://ec.europa.eu/news/economy/100715_fr.htm) . So putting aside the fact that it's a devilish country that will never change (“The minds of people won’t change for generations”) because Russia said so, it appears to be a good deal for both Europe and Estonia.
Within all his biased speech, he actually said something true. Yes, nowadays Euro is not flexible as the old currencies were and that has some drawbacks. But it's not as bad as he wants you to think because this strong position of Euro permitted to have less risk in changes in currency (in his example he showed you the best (im)possible situation not the worst where one would lose money after lending) especially nowadays where everything is going so fast.
Euro was the a really good idea. It is a strong currency, strong enough to fight against dollar and yuan printing, strong enough to let the European countries fight side by side against the rest of the world. It also help Europe itself. Indeed, it helped European countries to work together without being afraid of currency rates, etc. Euro made, without a doubt, the European's citizen life easier and increased tourism [1]. It increased trade within the eurozone by 5% to 10 % [2] and physical investment have increased by 5% in the eurozone [3].
Dear readers... What else?
Vote for us!!
No comments:
Post a Comment