The Instigator
USRugbyfan
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points
The Contender
Mouzie
Pro (for)
Losing
4 Points

EU countries should unite and form a single state

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
USRugbyfan
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/10/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,066 times Debate No: 13991
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (4)

 

USRugbyfan

Con

First of all, I would like to thank my opponent for this debate. Secondly I would like to lay out what I view this debate to be all about. EU countries refers to all the states which are members of the European Union. The exact nature of the super-state to be formed, I will leave to the Prop to define. However the reform must be rather drastic and not one merely of name, and thus must have practical consequences.
Now I will lay down the key items in this debate. In order to prove the motion, the prop must show:
1. that EU countries would be willing to join in such a state
2. that EU countries would benefit from joining such a state
3. that this super-state would hold together in the short term and in the long term.

In each of my arguments I will attempt to disprove one of this statements under the assumption that if one can be disproved, I have proved my case. (feel free to argue this and force me to explain why all 3 must be proved for the prop)

My initial arguments will be under the headings:
1. the nature of the contrast between social mentalities of certain EU countries, following a union of EU countries, ultimately would lead to everyone suffering
2. the implications of joining such a state would mean that nobody would want to join

Before I start however, I would like to take a look at what the EU does as is. At the moment it is effectively as central ECONOMIC government. Therefore, the implications of creating a EU super-state would mean that (in addition to all EU countries pooling their funds) the EU would gain power on a legal, political, and social level in addition to economic.

1. My first argument will be directed against the second objective.
Contrasting social mentalities; by this I refer to public opinion in a country towards concepts such as law and work. First I will deal with work.
First of all, Europe has a large spectrum with regard to attitudes towards work. It has countries which believe in hard work and development (such as Germany) and it has other countries which are more inclined to do the bare minimum (emphasis that this is a relative comparison to Germany, e.g. Italy, Greece). As is the state of each countries economy reflects the nature of their mentality: Germany has a strong and well designed economy, while Greece's is quite weak and fragile. Therefore, as is, the country which works harder reaps the rewards and the country which doesn't suffers the consequences.
Now lets take a look at the results of an unification. These economies would be meshed, and a central government would operate from a central fund. However where does a government spend its money? The answer is where it is needed. In modern Europe, such money is needed much more in countries like Ireland, Portugal, Italy and Greece. Therefore creating a central state has good effects and balances things out, right?
Wrong! Step back and look at this. Given that a government mainly gets money from income tax and other such taxes, it is easy to see that it would get a high portion from Germany. Now this money which would have been Germany's gets spent on others. For starters this links up well to objective no. 1 in that Germany would be unwilling to join this state for this reason. However ignoring this lets look at the long term effects of such a system:
A state is formed where the hardworking have to fund those who aren't, therefore there is not incentive to work hard as people who do get punished for it. Now going back to the weaker economies; social mentalities don't change overnight, therefore those country's wouldn't work any more having been given a boost to their economy, in fact they would world less as there is less need to work. Therefore a welfare state is created in which the entire super-state runs of the backs of those who works, while all along those who don't work less and less, thus creating an economic 'swamp' which the super-state will eventually sink into. Hence the countries involved would suffer, thus disproving objective number 2.

2. Now I will look into the implications of such a state which would cause countries to be unwilling to join. I will divide this into two sections: the larger countries with stronger economies, and the smaller countries with weaker economies (I consider large countries with weak economies as leeches and will ignore them).

First dealing with the large countries. As I have already indicated, the creation of a super-state is all but asking these countries to bail out everyone else. In other words to risk the collapse of their own economy in return for membership in this state. All they would gain would be a relatively large percentage of the votes for the government of this state. For these countries however, the risks far outweigh the potential gain.

On the other had lets observe smaller countries. They are being offered a 'bail out' in return for entering a super-state in which they would lose all importance and significance. In other words, it comes down to the small states selling themselves all but literally to the big states. Now you might say, that they would be better off having done so thus proving objective 2. However that assumes that all countries will act rationally in this matter. This is not the case. There is a concept which exists which in itself gets quite irrational, the concept of Nationalism.
To explain the irrationality of it: the US repelled to Britain because 'no taxation without representation'. This was rational. Ireland however not only had representation but they had a very high level of representation, even so they rebelled. This shows that the status for Ireland of a part of a larger country, in which they were fairly represented, was repugnant to the people. Hence they rebelled. In fact look at the entire last century. The whole story of the last century is that of empires splitting into their proper countries. Such a reform, in addition to being unsatisfactory for small nations would be going back on 100 years of progress.
In conclusion to this point, the creation of such a super-state is all but asking small countries to sell themselves to larger richer ones, something that neither would be willing to do. Hence disproving the 1st objective.
Mouzie

Pro

Shalom! Thanks for allowing to debate with you, first time I really seriously debated before, so good luck and let have a jolly good time!

My argument is again the three points that my opponent said:

1. that EU countries would be willing to join in such a state
2. that EU countries would benefit from joining such a state
3. that this super-state would hold together in the short term and in the long term.

Now since English is my second langauge, I will try and be as clear as possible. The EU is not really a 'state alliance' but simply an economic alliance between parties. Now, I understand the 'what if' here and so here we go.

You said a pretty good argument about work, but here is the problem. Of course we know that Germany is known to be hard working people, but at the same time you said that Greece or Italy are 'more inclined to less work' the problem is with that statement as you don't know how the general population works. Greece don't work as much as Germany as because there is an economic crisis there. The Greece people most likely work hard, but that's like saying American are not healthy, because they have a higher standard of eating fatty food than France or something like that.

You said that Germany has a strong economy, here is where you hit a roadblock. In 1991, Germany unified together, this is a great example of how even with a great economy like Germany faces a problem. West Germany is heavy industrilized. East Germany... not so good. So you have this huge rift in between the West and the East and even to this day, you can still see the problems that Germany is having. Germany is not an economic superpower house, sadly. The West side had more jobs than the East, this created a massive job loss in the East, because they had to adapt at the Western culture. Now you can my argument with that of a weaker economy country compare to that of a stronger one. The ONLY reason why most Western country are stronger in economy is because the Eastern ones.. had Communism, Poland is a great example: Large country, awesome people, good government, proud member of the EU.. but it has the Soviet in their lands. It was Communism that prevented them from 'booming' like the rest of the countries.

Greece on the other hand didn't need that, their economic wasn't like that of the United States or Germany. Their economy was very common of the Greater Balkan (Bosnia, Croatia, Serbia, Hungary, Romania, etc) they was mostly rural with a rich cutural base.

Now we go on about the central state argument, you're right about how a government gets it taxes from the people, but then you said that Germany will have to pay a high portion which is sadly: wrong. Perfect example of that of United States. Each states have their own taxes and such, but overall you all pretty much pay the same deal. In the EU cases, you wouldn't tax Germany 'more' than the other, or higher than the other. Taxes in a country or a single superstate means that every little heads in your country have the pay a tax fee.

You make the argument that Germany will back out, I think not, because no government will suck money from one local area. Because you would know that the people will not like that and back out. So you need to exand your hand to ALL countries weak and stong.

Now to the part you said that the larger countries will not join because they have to bail out the little ones.. hate to break it to you.. but they already did! Yes, I hate to say this, but they already did. They bailed out Greece, they're planning to bail out Ireland.. unless they already did.. I haven't been looking at th News to be honest. But even when they haven't formed this superstate, they done it already.

Now here is where you hit a small little bump.. man I sound cocky don't I? The countries don't have to give themselves up as a whole. The same thing with.. Russia. Russia is not RUSSIA, it is a federal states like that of the United States. They have republics, states, etc. In side of Russia under one banner. The most prime example is: Chenchya, a former republic and now a republic under Russia rule.

Now, that was fun to type out I have to admit.
Debate Round No. 1
USRugbyfan

Con

In the second phase of this debate, first I will refute my opponents refutation, in addition to adding additional arguments:
1. A central super state cannot satisfy all parties.
2. How the EU economic system has already failed Europe

However first I will address my opponents contention:
1: My opponent conflicts my reference to Germany's economy as a strong on the grounds: "In 1991, Germany unified together, this is a great example of how even with a great economy like Germany faces a problem. West Germany is heavy industrilized. East Germany... not so good. So you have this huge rift in between the West and the East and even to this day, you can still see the problems that Germany is having. Germany is not an economic superpower house, sadly."
By saying this, my opponent has proven my case. He has shown how it was bad for a strong economy (West Germany) to join with a weak economy (East Germany) hence proving that it is bad for the two countries to unite, hence proving that it would be bad for strong European economies (not necessarily Germany) to join with weaker European economies, thus disproving objective 2 for me.
He went on to say that the only reason that Western countries are more successful is that they never had communism. In itself this is not relevant. The matter is that the Western countries have stronger economies and would be unwilling to merge with weaker economies, regardless as to why those economies are weaker.

2. Next my opponent refutes my argument as to why strong economic countries would be unwilling to join this super-state. I will refute that midway through my speech. (it will be marked with a *)

3. My opponent says that my point as to that big countries would have to bail out little ones is irrelevant because they already have. This however is not the case (that it makes my argument irrelevant), quite frankly those countries wouldn't have been happy doing it as much as they have done, and joining this super-state is effectively a permanent commitment to do it in the future, something that they wouldn't be willing to commit to.

4. Finally my opponent brings in how Russia and the USA function while being federal states. This is an entirely different matter as these assortment of states have things in common to hold them together. In the case of the USA, while the people are of many different cultures, ultimately they all have in common the fact that they packed up all they knew so they could have a fresh start (the concept of immigration). In Russia, all the people are from the same ethnic background, just as the German principalities were, thus a union was possible.
Now why is Europe different, Item 1, largely the European states have been enemies throughout history, hence a certain level of nationalism exists. No matter how logical a union is (which I have tried to prove that it is not anyway) if nationalism exists, a union can only end in one way: it falling apart where at best peacefully or at worst through civil war. Item 2, the language problem which will always be a obstacle to a successful unity.

Now on to my new points:
1. A super state cannot satisfy all parties.
Focusing on the logical side of things, a state will enter the super state if it will be better off, but in what ways can it be better off? a) economically b) politically. Given that Europe is not threatened by war at the moment, countries would not motivated by political power very much. Therefore I will look at it economically. The EU already provides all the advantages of a common currency, and policies to assist in trade. Therefore all that is left which a super state would accomplish is a pooling of funds and the standardization of policies. But wait a moment, this would not cause more money to appear. Therefore if any state were to benefit from this pooling, ie get extra money, it would mean that another country would suffer by the same margin. Therefore for each benefit you have an equal and opposite problem. Hence not all countries can be kept happy by this, hence they wont want to join, there disproving objective 1 and 2.

*This ties in to my original argument as to why strong economic countries (previously I said Germany) would not want to join the super-state as without doubt, it would be these countries from whom the extra money would come, causing that country itself to be worse off. (that was refutation to "You make the argument that Germany will back out, I think not, because no government will suck money from one local area. Because you would know that the people will not like that and back out. So you need to exand your hand to ALL countries weak and strong." Either these countries would have to pay for the funding of other countries thus suffering, or they wouldn't but if that was the case and a 'provinces' money would be only used on that 'province', what would be the point of the reform in the first place?

In addition, you must look at various contrasting policies between EU states. For starters, that of economic policies. For example, countries like Ireland are relatively capitalist (low taxes and few state supplied services), while others such as Sweden are relatively socialist (high taxes but many state supplied services). Therefore as almost by definition a state must have a constant structure, one of these parties would suffer, as between polar opposites, there is no such thing as compromise. Therefore one party would be unsatisfied and hence be unwilling to join the super-state, thus disproving objective 1. (Other such contrasting policies include the legalization of abortion, and, well, apply this identical argument to abortion)

2. Finally I will look at how the EU system has already failed, and thus why investing everything on this would be a disaster. In the EU, the ECB (European Central Bank) sets the interest rates for all banks withing EU countries, and this value is constant. During the 'good times' Germany and France were entering a boom, therefore the ECB set interest rates low to assist in the beginning of the boom, this was good. The problem is that the ECB failed to take into account that EU countries boom and bust at different times. For Ireland which was already well into its boom, this was disastrous. It was in effect for Ireland a pro-cyclical policy (in other words causing a bigger boom only to be followed by a bigger and worse bust). Did this only effect Ireland negatively? No, the EU is now being forced to help Ireland, while being dragged down by it at the same time. Therefore, although this policy was initially good for Germany and France, it ultimately hurt them. Therefore the EU economic system has flaws and it would be far too risky to risk everything on it. Thus this disproves objective 2.

Incidentally thank you very much for debating this with me Mouzie as this your contention give me a great opportunity to prepare for this same (live) debate on Thursday both in getting a feel for what the proposition will say and giving me new ideas which I hadn't thought of previously.
Mouzie

Pro

Thanks the comment, I am glad to help out! Just typing it out as I am treating you as a fellow human being, so sorry if I seem 'blunt' and 'not polite'.

1. Actually, Germany wasn't that bad when West and East joined together, I didn't say what happen fully when the East joined. The jobs in the West flowed to the East and the Eastern economy took off like a rocket. East Germany was as weak as West Germany, but overall the East didn't strain on West Germany. It united the people, it created a task: To help their fellow Germans in the East. It showed the world that even a place like the East to flourish and spread. West Germany and East Germany combine and was successful, it is a great story to this day.

2. You're not making a clear point of this superstate, no offense. I will respond in two forms: 1. Is the superstate a state as a whole, meaning these countries are to be 'annexed' or a superstate as a series of states under one central government. If you mean as the superstate as a whole, the need to 'bail out' would be nulled, there is no more countries to bail out, there is no other federal government to loan money to. If you mean the superstate as in states under one government, then still you're not paying the federal, you're only paying the local government. The United States have 50 states, the states run themselves (each have their own laws, norm, and even their own arm forces) and a federal government to make choices to the nation as a whole.. now let shall say.. Alaska economy is falling and need a bail. Should the central government and even the local government ignored it? Bailing out provided the people with care and if you don't bail out the people than you simply showing them that you don't care.

3. Wrong, I am very sorry to say that! A prime example is the United Kingdom, each with their own countries located inside of the British Isle: Wales, Scotland, England, and Northern Ireland each with their own culture. They all are under a Union as well. They are all difference in their own ways, but yet pulled together for the greater cause. In the EU superstate, that would be military and economic causes.

3.1 You made a point about nationalism and here where I stop you, nationalism only start popping its ugly head when two things happen: One if the people are being opposed or treated as 'second class' compare to the main accepted culture. Or when the people face a massive government problem: government failed, famine, bloody civil war, etc. Yugoslavia is a prime example, with a VERY high culture, language, and religion differences. But, nationalism only started when Serbia tried to create a 'greater Serbia' Language will not be a problem, in most case: English is the spoken language, in every countries, states, etc. English is chosen, but you need to look at a country that is known to be of peace: Switzerland. Switzerland is surrounded by many countries and they are not just taught Swiss, they are taught Italian, French, German, etc. They are successful at teaching people. Also when a child is surrounded by languages, the child will easily learn it. It's not like you and me struggling with a language, the child are raise by it. A child suck it up like a baby with milk (bad example. :P)

4.Same thing of all countries, you can't please everyone, you can't please all parties. But you also forgot what feed the country and I am surprise you forgot about it already: taxes. A country get the money from the people. Trade and taxes are two slices of the pizza. A large population means more money in your pocket, more people means you don't have to tax as high as compare to where I live (Israel) which have a tiny population, but have to pay a good amount of taxes. Less taxes on the people means that people have more money in their pockets and they'll spend that money, this increase your economy greatly and this encourage businesses to boom, which create jobs. A country understanding that their people will improve with jobs, money, and protect from other countries will increase the change of a 'superstate'.

5. The United States (Yes, I will be using this a lot. :P) have laws varies of each states, some states give out more budget than others. In the case of the EU superstate it wouldn't control the entire thing. That would be stupid. (See 2 as I am confuse!) The superstate regardless will allow the states (or area if annexed) to keep their laws. But, federal laws would be a problem, against this is will you get a simple set of rules and allow the 'states' to run themselves. The federal government doesn't have to control EVERYTHING, but simply hand the power stick to the people.

6. You can't blame the economic policy on the bank itself, the policy is flawed, but like the Chinese Great Leap Forward or the US plan, they recovered and they learn from their mistake. If a superstate is formed the bank would be needed anymore, thus removing that risk again. The countries keep their own bank services OR form a series of banks like that United States does.

And you're very welcome, I know I am a terrible debater, hehe! Hope my English is good!
Debate Round No. 2
USRugbyfan

Con

First I will address you very reasonable observation as to the nature of the super-state. I never actually defined it, as I said in round 1: "The exact nature of the super-state to be formed, I will leave to the Prop to define", however as we only have one round left, I will define it as a dominant central government and not as federal states, as making europe federal states wouldn't change anything.

This round I will dedicate mainly to refutation and summation:

1: with regard to the Germany dispute, it seems to have left the point of reliance however I would like to insert one last comment: "It united the people, it created a task: To help their fellow Germans in the East." I would like to focus on 2 words in this excerpt from my opponents speech: united, and fellow. West and East Germany is not proof that uniting Europe would be good. It was rather crossing the divide which had been formed recently. Europe which has never been united and in fact has often been fighting each other would not work like this.

2. " If you mean as the superstate as a whole, the need to 'bail out' would be nulled, there is no more countries to bail out, there is no other federal government to loan money to." I know that the need to bail out, in a super state wouldn't be the same, but that's not the point, the point is that in the actual act of joining this state, the commitment to share funds with poorer countries would be made, thus being effectively a commitment to bail them out permanently.

3. "A prime example is the United Kingdom, each with their own countries located inside of the British Isle: Wales, Scotland, England, and Northern Ireland each with their own culture. They all are under a Union as well. They are all difference in their own ways, but yet pulled together for the greater cause." Yes, these separate cultures have united, but I would like to ask my opponent when? Deep into the middle ages, and what have we seen since then, constant strife and wars between the scots, english, and welsh (don't let me even get started on the northern irish). The UK is a great example of contrasting mentalities and cultures uniting, in that it is a bad idea. Sure it worked ultimately, but the objective that I laid down was that the super-state would hold together i the long term AND short term. If Europe responds like the UK did historically, there is no way it would survive in the short term. A quote to conclude this: "History repeats itself because nobody paid attention the first time."

4. Ah yes Switzerland, the problem is that Switzerland is not in the EU and making an EU super-state leaves this bubble in the middle and surrounded, quite messy!

5. Nationalism: I must disagree about your claim that: "nationalism only start popping its ugly head when two things happen: One if the people are being opposed or treated as 'second class' compare to the main accepted culture. Or when the people face a massive government problem: government failed, famine, bloody civil war, etc." One thing I will add to your list is when a people have been historically persecuted. Take Ireland, at the time when it finally succeeded in its revolution in 1922, that was the point in which (prior to the actual war) England was treating them better than ever before. Historical grievances will be enough to awake nationalism whenever things are not going a countries way in such a state, (e.g. a mass legalization of abortion may be interpreted by Ireland as oppressive as they are against it) The main thing to note is that Nationalism is not an entirely rational emotion.

6. Next my opponent goes on about taxes, under the logic that if EU countries unite, there are more people to tax which means more money is available, which means taxes can be lowered which is good. One little (no quite big actually) problem here, is once you unite EU countries, not only do populations and hence taxes go up, but expenses go up by the same margin. Now the expenses for England are added to those for Italy, Spain, ect.. Therefore the creation of a super-state will not result in more money for the people as my opponent argues.

7. The business of different laws in different states: this may work for certain minor laws, but it would never work for entire economic systems (capitalism vs socialism). Besides this is drifting back in the direction of if a super state doesn't change laws, or effect the countries economically (positively) then what is the point of uniting these countries in the first place. There is quite simply no problem with the current system which requires fixing.

So now I will give a general conclusion from my arguments throughout this debate
The creation of a super-state can only effect a country economically,politically or legally

Legally: if you standardize things, you make countries unhappy, if you leave it alone, then there is not point.

Economically: If you form a common fund, previously richer countries have to carry the system on their backs and thus wont be happy. If on the other hand you leave each 'province' to manage itself economically, there is no change and hence no point.

Politically: small countries, by becoming a minority in the new state effectively lose all individual power and importance, and hence would be unwilling to join this state. In addition to the rational, the irrational reason of nationalism due to past offences would make them unwilling to join their previous oppressors.

Therefore in conclusion, at best such a reform does nothing except provoking nationalism, and while at worst is makes many parties unhappy whether for economic or legal reasons, hence asking for trouble. Therefore this reform is clearly a bad idea! Vote Con!

Once again thanks Mouzie for this debate, it was a lot of fun. You were neither rude nor difficult to understand, and I am grateful for you efforts to preserve the humanity of this debate!
Mouzie

Pro

1. West Germany and East Germany are a prime example, while both shared a similar cultural and language (Germanic), both countries was very different. You had West Germany which you can look at very similar to the United States and western countries.. and then you had East Germany with their own culture that of USSR/Eastern countries. You can step into Berlin and go to West-East and see the the cultures that separated the German people. Now why I am using Germany..because if you try and look at a country like.. North and South Korea, they are too divided, they both are locked in their beliefs. They both been over 50 years still fighting the Korean War. So Germany is a great example, because it showed that two cultures can mix together. Yugoslavia is a PERFECT example, where you have so many cultures and such mix together with awesome success. While Yugoslavia ended, the only main reason it ended is because Serbia caused a massive turmoil in the country.

2. Remember that according to you the countries would be 'annexed' under one government, the countries that needed a loan or a bail wouldn't need it, you're just paying yourself and that wouldn't make much sense. Example, lets say I was.. Russia and Finland (for some reason) wanted to join me in a union, because they suffered a serious economic problem. They are in debt really bad and so I annexed Finland.. all of that money, isn't paid, but their treasury doesn't exist anymore. Their banks are now the Russian Federal Banks (I don't know what the banks are in Russia, but I am close enough). So, Russia's money is now theirs and so the bail isn't needed as their banks are wipe clean. Another example is Ethiopia, they was annexed by Italian and suffered a serious debt, when they got out, they don't use the Italian banks, so all that debt goes away.. but you don't owe money to the banks anymore.

3.
They was often at wars with each others in the times.. most countries was, remember back in the periods that Europe was a raging war zone with the Hundreds Year War and the 30 Years War.

4. About Switzerland: "Relations between Switzerland and the European Union (EU) are framed by a series of bilateral treaties whereby Switzerland adopts EU law in order to participate in the EU's single market. It has this limited economic integration as Switzerland sees joining the EU or EEA (see below) as infringing upon its tradition of direct democracy." While Switzerland is not EU, it is still signing treaties and following EU laws.

5. According to you the Irish was treated fairly well.. I hate to break some sad news here, but they wasn't the Irish Famine and the Good Friday was some of major events in Irish history. Since, I know you really don't want to look this stuff up here you go. "In Ireland under British rule, the Great Famine was a period of mass starvation, disease and emigration between 1845 and 1852.[1] It is also known, mostly outside of Ireland, as the Irish Potato Famine.[2] In the Irish language it is called an Gorta M�r (IPA: [ənˠ ˈɡɔɾˠtˠə ˈmˠoːɾˠ], meaning "the Great Hunger")[fn 1] or an Drochshaol ([ənˠ ˈdˠɾɔxˌhiːlˠ], meaning "the bad times").
During the Famine, Ireland's population fell by between 20 and 25 percent.[3] Approximately one million people died and a million more emigrated from Ireland.[4] The proximate cause of famine was a potato disease commonly known as potato blight.[5] Although blight ravaged potato crops throughout Europe during the 1840s, the impact and human cost in Ireland—where a third of the population was entirely dependent on the potato for food—was exacerbated by a host of political, social and economic factors which remain the subject of historical debate.[6][7]
The famine was a watershed in the history of Ireland.[8] Its effects permanently changed the island's demographic, political and cultural landscape. For both the native Irish and those in the resulting diaspora, the famine entered folk memory[fn 2] and became a rallying point for various nationalist movements. Modern historians regard it as a dividing line in the Irish historical narrative, referring to the preceding period of Irish history as "pre-Famine."

See, even in that line that even in Irish history showed nationalism, which proved my point that nationalism only really started at a nasty events like famine, civil wars, etc. United Kingdom (Or simply England), are getting a lot of backlash because of what they did during the Famine, I would highly recommends you looking up on the Irish Famine.

6. Actually it wouldn't according to many sources (I won't list them.) the highest tax rate for a country is around: 30% Most countries have a tax rate of: 10-30% which isn't a lot of money. Taxes don't really change, you don't raise it unless you needed the money badly, since you're adding all of the banks together and keeping their money when they have it, the bank of the EU superstate will increase. Remember that I said that the expenses will not be added, because you're not keeping their banks anymore. You're making a new bank as you're not the former country anymore.

7. Like I said, you can make local laws to provide the former countries to keep their own laws. Even though they are not 'states' they can have a regional law. Perfect example is Hong Kong, they are under China's rule, but they have their own special laws that give them more rights and such than other areas.

Now my conclusion.

Legally: See 7.

Economically: See 7.

Politically: Europe have a right democratic government, so I am sure that the superstate will do will with people united under freedom and the rights of mankind.

Allowing the EU to be created into the superstate does: Help reduce the need of bailing out, long term peace, the lack of need for NATO, the lack of need for EU. The lack of need for borders, the lack of need to help weaker nations. To unite the people, to unite them to make them stronger.

All large states have problems, but in the long run they did provide cultural and understanding with the people in most cases.

Vote Pro!

Thanks, it was fun.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Mouzie 6 years ago
Mouzie
It was a fun debate, I hope we can do another one sometimes in the future.
Posted by USRugbyfan 6 years ago
USRugbyfan
Could people who are voting just put the slot 'spelling and grammar' as a tie given that Mouzie's first language is not English, it is not a fair source of points. The winner should be decided based on who argued better, not based on who grew up speaking English. (Thus Mouzie, I consider those 2 points I have already gained from that source null and void)

Incidentally I am well familiar with the Irish famine, but that was 60 years before the war for independence. 60 years past must be considered as past oppression, not current oppression.
Posted by LiquidLiquid 6 years ago
LiquidLiquid
Sounds like a horrible idea pro, but pro EU might as well be a country anyway.
Posted by Mouzie 6 years ago
Mouzie
My last point I said The bank would be needed, this is a typo I ment to put: wouldn't be. Guess you can't win them all!
Posted by USRugbyfan 6 years ago
USRugbyfan
That is exactly what I will try to articulate using more solid foundations than instinct and feeling.
Posted by Saint.James 6 years ago
Saint.James
The EU countries all have very very diffrent points of views i think if this were to happen it would only result in massive civil wars im only saying this because i have lived in several diffrent EU countries
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by adealornodeal 6 years ago
adealornodeal
USRugbyfanMouzieTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Davewerty 6 years ago
Davewerty
USRugbyfanMouzieTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by cherokee15 6 years ago
cherokee15
USRugbyfanMouzieTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Vote Placed by gavin.ogden 6 years ago
gavin.ogden
USRugbyfanMouzieTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:11