Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Authors
7th Annual EU Debate 2010
On the 24th of March 2010 the 7th Annual E.U. Debate was held at IT Tralee in L108 Solas building at the North Campus.Both teams were made up of second year Business students.The motion for the debate was "This house believes that there can be no European Union without Monetary Union."
The proposition representing Year 2 of the Higher Certificate in Business Studies included Mr. Martin O’Connor, Ms. Barny Hassan, and Mr.Paul Adeola Oluwaseun. The opposition representing Year 2 of the Bachelor of Business Studies included Ms. Alice O’Regan, Mr. Lloyd Power and Mr. Alin Zlatescu.
The panel of judges for the debate were ITT lecturers Mr. Fergus Dunne, Mr. Pat McGarty and Mr. John Shanahan.
The guest speaker for this year’s event was Mr. Tim Hayes who worked in the EU Commission in Brussels for 16 years. He is now Head of Sector at the European Commission Representation in Ireland.
There was a good turnout for the debate which was open to the public. The debate was chaired by ITT lecturer in European Studies, Lucy Kelly.
The debate itself was very informative and entertaining with more "points of information" exchanged between the sides than any previous year. All of the debaters were very well prepared and were very passionate in getting across their point of view. There were some great exchanges between the opposing teams and all of this added to what has been described as one of the best debates of recent years.
Guest speaker Mr.Tim Hayes made a contribution on the role of the European Commission in Ireland, and on E.M.U. He congratulated both teams on a very well structured and hard fought debate.
After much deliberation the victorious team was the proposition represented by Mr. Martin O’Connor, Ms. Barny Hassan, and Mr.Paul Adeola Oluwaseun. The best speech was awarded Mr. Alin Zlatescu.
Overall the debate was very well received and was a great success.
We here at IT Tralee look forward to an equally successful debate in 2011.
Below you will find the speeches of Ms Barney Hassan and Mr. Alin Zlatescu (Best speech winner)
and also some photo's from the night.
The proposition representing Year 2 of the Higher Certificate in Business Studies included Mr. Martin O’Connor, Ms. Barny Hassan, and Mr.Paul Adeola Oluwaseun. The opposition representing Year 2 of the Bachelor of Business Studies included Ms. Alice O’Regan, Mr. Lloyd Power and Mr. Alin Zlatescu.
The panel of judges for the debate were ITT lecturers Mr. Fergus Dunne, Mr. Pat McGarty and Mr. John Shanahan.
The guest speaker for this year’s event was Mr. Tim Hayes who worked in the EU Commission in Brussels for 16 years. He is now Head of Sector at the European Commission Representation in Ireland.
There was a good turnout for the debate which was open to the public. The debate was chaired by ITT lecturer in European Studies, Lucy Kelly.
The debate itself was very informative and entertaining with more "points of information" exchanged between the sides than any previous year. All of the debaters were very well prepared and were very passionate in getting across their point of view. There were some great exchanges between the opposing teams and all of this added to what has been described as one of the best debates of recent years.
Guest speaker Mr.Tim Hayes made a contribution on the role of the European Commission in Ireland, and on E.M.U. He congratulated both teams on a very well structured and hard fought debate.
After much deliberation the victorious team was the proposition represented by Mr. Martin O’Connor, Ms. Barny Hassan, and Mr.Paul Adeola Oluwaseun. The best speech was awarded Mr. Alin Zlatescu.
Overall the debate was very well received and was a great success.
We here at IT Tralee look forward to an equally successful debate in 2011.
Below you will find the speeches of Ms Barney Hassan and Mr. Alin Zlatescu (Best speech winner)
and also some photo's from the night.
Barny Hassan's EU Debate Speech 2010
Thank you Madam Speaker, Members of the House, The Judging Panel, ladies and gentlemen, my distinguished opponents, this evening I stand confident and convinced on a European level in proposing the motion that this house truly believes that there can be No European Union without a monetary union. I shall focus on the social aspects that prove that this motion is correct. This will leave you in no doubt ladies and gentlemen that the opposition are ill-informed and do not appreciate
• The importance of EMU
• The overall stability and growth of the European economy
• And finally the overall success of European integration
As my colleague Paul has highlighted, the creation of the EMU is one of the most far reaching steps in the history of European Enterprise. The single currency has contributed to a greater sense of common purpose and endeavour among the European people. It has strengthened the European identity in a European union that is characterised by great diversity.
Ladies and gentlemen, let us not forget the first European Community enlargement took place in 1973, producing perhaps what is the most successful story of all: The rise of Ireland from being one of the poorest countries of the EC to the second highest GDP per capita.
And yet in the same year Europe was being hit by a severe oil crisis, followed by continental recession - to which member states responded only by further strengthening their economic cooperation and their ambitious plan for a single currency.
Need I remind my respectable opponents that the euro has world stage recognition as an international currency?
The euro, Members of the House is among the strongest currencies in the world, alongside the US Dollar and the Japanese Yen. It has soon become the second most important reserve currency after the US Dollar. Britain stands to lose political as well as economic influence in shaping future European economic integration if it remains outside a new system.
The euro after its launch immediately became the world's second leading international currency. Nevertheless, there are a number of factors that support the usage of the euro as an international currency.
1. The large size of the euro-area economy.
2. The economic and social stability attached to the euro, which reflects the sound economic fundamentals in the euro area under the policy framework of EMU.
3. The ongoing integration of national financial markets in Europe into broad and liquid European financial markets.
May I inform my worthy opponents that the euro is used beyond the EU states and has been adopted in 3 states that are actually not part of the EU; the Vatican City, San Marino and Monaco!
Several other countries have officially adopted the euro as their sole currency- Andorra, Kosovo and Montenegro without even an agreement. Other countries display trading prices in national currencies and euro prices as far as Africa: Equatorial Guinea, Madagascar, Surinam to name but a few!
May I remind my fellow opponents that it was actually Winston Churchill that planted the seed in 1946 suggesting the creation of then the “United states of Europe”? Although his goals were merely political, he had hoped that a unified government would bring together a continent that had been torn by the war. I am well aware and am sure Members of the House will agree with me that economic integration is not an end in itself but a means to an end.
More than half of Britain's leading retailers and Supermarkets have said that they will accept the single currency in the near future. Customers will be able to pay in euro and get change in sterling, including as Marks & Spencer, WHSmith and Safeway,
Some retailers have had to be prepared, leading supermarkets like Sainsbury's, ASDA and others have even introduced trolleys with euro coin slots.
Whilst my Opponents may ask- Is the euro popular?
I stand to say that the opions vary from state to state: recent research shows public opinion in
Finland is split nearly 50-50
68% support in Spain
72% in Ireland
75% in Belgium
83% in Italy
And lately Denmark 50%.
I might enlighten my opponents that even though Denmark opted out of the euro during the Maastricht treaty, the current Danish government has actually announced to hold a referendum on the issue following the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty. This has obviously come as a result of Denmark’s current financial turmoil.
A currency is like a Language.
The euro has become a symbol of integration and a voice in uniform in terms of social and economic decisions in the IMF meetings. In 2008 in Brussels, Jean-Claude Junker the president of the euro group stated that the EU member states using the euro should speak with one voice and be represented by one seat in the International Monetary Fund meetings in order to be more credible.
However Members of the House, it is important to note that some of the highly populated countries in the world,for example, People’s Republic of China, India, Indonesia, United States, exhibit large intra-regional income differences within them. Yet, each of these countries uses a single currency. The single currency is a political symbol of integration! Yes we are aware that it is a political process achieved through the means of economic integration.
Members of the House, Madam Speaker and my opponents, we are all aware that Greece is facing social and economic difficulties; this crisis has given momentum to calls for a even more integrated euro zone. Extreme measures have been taken on board with proposals for a common financial ministry for the euro-zone which would manage member states debts, a creation of a European version of the IMF so that IMF style resources and expertise can be used while solving economic problems within Europe.
As the French president recently sated in regards to France standing by Greece, Members of the House, the euro is our currency and implies solidarity!
Cohesiveness
Members of the House I cannot over emphasis that EMU promotes peace!!
It is a well known fact that countries that trade together do not wage war on each other. As Paul stated earlier, the whole idea of integration Members of the house was to prevent war within the union war. If EMU promotes intergration which results to a peaceful and a happy trade then this means peace throughout Europe.
• EU governments and institutions have transformed from a common market of 6 countries into a union of 27 with a population of over 500 billion (which is 7.3% of the world’s population given that the EU covers only 3% of the earth).
• It is the largest trading bloc accounting for over 30% of global trade with a combined GDP well ahead of the States in 2008 only. (Intra EU-trade alone on EU’s share of world trade imports and exports alone)
Ireland’s Policy on EMU
Last but not least I hope that my ill-informed opponents are aware that Ireland fully supports the process of European integration. Ireland's policy has always aimed at being eligible to participate in EMU from the outset.
If I can take you back -since, (my opponents) they appear to lag behind- to a statement issued by the former Taoiseach, Mr Bertie Ahern, in May 1998, which he emphasised that the Irish Government's is fully commited to continuing stability achieved through economic and budgetary policies.
Ireland’s involvement in the EMU membership is essential to our ability to attract Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) and has made significant strides in complying with the Maastricht conveyance criteria.
I feel that I need to tell my honourable opponents that people think it is holding on that makes you stronger, but sometimes it's letting go! They need to be aware that Europe spent several decades in experimenting with regional monetary cooperation before adopting a monetary union. The single currency is a symbol of peace through integration, a symbol of solidarity! I invite you to cross over- and join Tim, Paul and I- as we await to welcome then with open arms in proposing this motion!
Alin Zlatescu's EU Debate Speech 2010
Here is Alin Zlatescu's speech which won the best speech award at the 2010 EU debate:
Good evening fellow students, distinguished guests, members of the proposition.
The Euro has always been a major currency, based on a monetary union between countries who do not share political union.
Its creation was remarkable, the triumph of political will, over economic barriers.
But make no mistakes Ladies and Gentlemen; there are significant costs to such a union, which are becoming especially evident now.
The most obvious, is the loss of two major macroeconomic policy instruments: First, the exchange rate and second, the monetary policy, which could be used to prevent an economy from collapsing.
Of course this is not foolproof, as many countries know, but trying to adjust without such instruments, is that much harder, and will require severe cutbacks on public spending and private consumption, which are not only difficult to implement, but unlikely to be accepted by the public.
So let me explain: Ireland, and the other countries sharing the Euro, gave up their rights to put into practice, an independent monetary policy and exchange rate instrument. Instead, they choose to accept the economic strategies as implemented by the European Central Bank, which do not reflect economic conditions in Ireland, or for that matter, in any other, small, open economy countries, in Europe. Decisions taken in Frankfurt are more likely to be influenced by the Large European economies, to benefit their growth.
This “one size fits all” monetary policy, does not suit all the countries equally, is less effective than the policy an independent country, could pursue, and is the source of great instability for the member states.
This means, that the Eurozone members, lost their ability to devalue their currencies, to compensate for a loss of competitiveness. The governments are over reliant now on fiscal policy, which is itself controlled by the Stability and Growth Pact.
Adopted in 1997 and later revised in 2005, the Stability and Growth Pact, fails to enforce fiscal discipline, and ensure sound and sustainable public finances within the EMU.
Financial supervision, remained mainly national in scope, as the rules of the single currency, allow for sanctions to be applied, to countries running unsustainable fiscal practices, but to date, these sanctions have never been used, in the single currency’s 11 year history.
So what does that tell you?
It’s clear, the euro has been a disaster for Ireland, and will ensure, our fall lasts considerably longer than it has to.
Let us look now, at what other countries have done? Well, we see that, of the three entrants into the EEC in 1973, we’re the only ones using the euro. However, we trade far less with other Eurozone countries, than either Denmark or Britain.
Countries like Sweden, Denmark and the UK, have negotiated, an opt out clause, allowing them to remain outside the Euro Area. Their decision was based on the deep reluctance to surrender sovereign power, something that Ireland did not reflect on.
The prospect for the Irish exporters facing a flexible exchange rate with the sterling is rather daunting. A strong sterling causes inflationary worries for Ireland, while a weak one, hits the Irish exporters.
Who would’ve guessed, that we’d get locked into an arrangement, which means we have to try to be more competitive than Germany, the world’s, most successful exporter.
So the question for those who, rightly suggest, we need to cut our wages and prices down by30%, to claw back the competitive losses we suffered since joining the euro, is: How are we going to do it? In particular, how are we going to do this, without leaving the euro? And, what is the alternative to leaving the euro? Most importantly: How high does unemployment have to go for us, to be competitive again?
Until these questions are answered, there are significant question marks, over the wisdom of Ireland using the euro.
We simply can’t keep cutting expenditure, when there is no offsetting stimulus, coming from a cheaper exchange rate, which would allow the trading sector to grow. This is basic-economics, the sort of stuff you learn in first year.
We know that, had we applied the most basic criteria for suitability, there is no way Ireland would’ve joined the euro.
Besides, one doesn’t even have to understand economics, to see that what happens in Greece is a clear example, highlighting the inefficiency of the Monetary Union.
The problem posed by the debt issues in Greece is deeper, and probably more significant, since it calls into question, the stability and practicality of the Eurozone itself.
With Greece overdrawn, and no one eager to foot the bill, Europe’s debt crisis, has exposed a fundamental weakness among the 16 countries that share the euro: Different, and often widely opposite approaches to spending, don’t make for a happy union.
It’s impossible to have a common currency, for such a big and diverse area.
There’s no real solution for Greece. They’re helpless now, and only for a magic wand, its deficit would disappear.
For the opponents of the euro, Greece, and the lack of cohesion among the EU, is a case of: “I told you so.”
As a result, it should force Europe, to reconsider how much of a union it really wishes to be.
Because, look at it this way: what’s in this monetary union for you and for me, for the ordinary people of this country? Well, I’m sure you have the answer to that: not much, but to the contrary: wage cuts, rising unemployment, it simply fails us when we need it the most.
So what should we do?
What can we do?
Well, the response to this crisis, means that we’re moving into a new era, which might be good for us, but until there’s full political union in Europe, Ireland should adopt the Danish and Swedish approach, of having its own currency, something that could be done without too much disruption.
However, if this crisis were to accelerate political union, and would, ultimately, change the view in Brussels, about the joint responsibility, that is necessary to make the euro work, it will have been a crisis worth having, for Ireland in particular.
Thank You!
Good evening fellow students, distinguished guests, members of the proposition.
The Euro has always been a major currency, based on a monetary union between countries who do not share political union.
Its creation was remarkable, the triumph of political will, over economic barriers.
But make no mistakes Ladies and Gentlemen; there are significant costs to such a union, which are becoming especially evident now.
The most obvious, is the loss of two major macroeconomic policy instruments: First, the exchange rate and second, the monetary policy, which could be used to prevent an economy from collapsing.
Of course this is not foolproof, as many countries know, but trying to adjust without such instruments, is that much harder, and will require severe cutbacks on public spending and private consumption, which are not only difficult to implement, but unlikely to be accepted by the public.
So let me explain: Ireland, and the other countries sharing the Euro, gave up their rights to put into practice, an independent monetary policy and exchange rate instrument. Instead, they choose to accept the economic strategies as implemented by the European Central Bank, which do not reflect economic conditions in Ireland, or for that matter, in any other, small, open economy countries, in Europe. Decisions taken in Frankfurt are more likely to be influenced by the Large European economies, to benefit their growth.
This “one size fits all” monetary policy, does not suit all the countries equally, is less effective than the policy an independent country, could pursue, and is the source of great instability for the member states.
This means, that the Eurozone members, lost their ability to devalue their currencies, to compensate for a loss of competitiveness. The governments are over reliant now on fiscal policy, which is itself controlled by the Stability and Growth Pact.
Adopted in 1997 and later revised in 2005, the Stability and Growth Pact, fails to enforce fiscal discipline, and ensure sound and sustainable public finances within the EMU.
Financial supervision, remained mainly national in scope, as the rules of the single currency, allow for sanctions to be applied, to countries running unsustainable fiscal practices, but to date, these sanctions have never been used, in the single currency’s 11 year history.
So what does that tell you?
It’s clear, the euro has been a disaster for Ireland, and will ensure, our fall lasts considerably longer than it has to.
Let us look now, at what other countries have done? Well, we see that, of the three entrants into the EEC in 1973, we’re the only ones using the euro. However, we trade far less with other Eurozone countries, than either Denmark or Britain.
Countries like Sweden, Denmark and the UK, have negotiated, an opt out clause, allowing them to remain outside the Euro Area. Their decision was based on the deep reluctance to surrender sovereign power, something that Ireland did not reflect on.
The prospect for the Irish exporters facing a flexible exchange rate with the sterling is rather daunting. A strong sterling causes inflationary worries for Ireland, while a weak one, hits the Irish exporters.
Who would’ve guessed, that we’d get locked into an arrangement, which means we have to try to be more competitive than Germany, the world’s, most successful exporter.
So the question for those who, rightly suggest, we need to cut our wages and prices down by30%, to claw back the competitive losses we suffered since joining the euro, is: How are we going to do it? In particular, how are we going to do this, without leaving the euro? And, what is the alternative to leaving the euro? Most importantly: How high does unemployment have to go for us, to be competitive again?
Until these questions are answered, there are significant question marks, over the wisdom of Ireland using the euro.
We simply can’t keep cutting expenditure, when there is no offsetting stimulus, coming from a cheaper exchange rate, which would allow the trading sector to grow. This is basic-economics, the sort of stuff you learn in first year.
We know that, had we applied the most basic criteria for suitability, there is no way Ireland would’ve joined the euro.
Besides, one doesn’t even have to understand economics, to see that what happens in Greece is a clear example, highlighting the inefficiency of the Monetary Union.
The problem posed by the debt issues in Greece is deeper, and probably more significant, since it calls into question, the stability and practicality of the Eurozone itself.
With Greece overdrawn, and no one eager to foot the bill, Europe’s debt crisis, has exposed a fundamental weakness among the 16 countries that share the euro: Different, and often widely opposite approaches to spending, don’t make for a happy union.
It’s impossible to have a common currency, for such a big and diverse area.
There’s no real solution for Greece. They’re helpless now, and only for a magic wand, its deficit would disappear.
For the opponents of the euro, Greece, and the lack of cohesion among the EU, is a case of: “I told you so.”
As a result, it should force Europe, to reconsider how much of a union it really wishes to be.
Because, look at it this way: what’s in this monetary union for you and for me, for the ordinary people of this country? Well, I’m sure you have the answer to that: not much, but to the contrary: wage cuts, rising unemployment, it simply fails us when we need it the most.
So what should we do?
What can we do?
Well, the response to this crisis, means that we’re moving into a new era, which might be good for us, but until there’s full political union in Europe, Ireland should adopt the Danish and Swedish approach, of having its own currency, something that could be done without too much disruption.
However, if this crisis were to accelerate political union, and would, ultimately, change the view in Brussels, about the joint responsibility, that is necessary to make the euro work, it will have been a crisis worth having, for Ireland in particular.
Thank You!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)