Should the nordic unite to one country?
Debate Rounds (5)
A country existing of the regions, Sweden, Finland, Norway, Denmark, "land Islands, Faraoe islands and Lappland.
The country would have the 10th best economy in the world, with a population of just 25 million.
Every single country in the nordic region has a similar culture and they get along so well they could easily unite. The major languages would be Scandinavian and Finnish, as the scandinavian languages are almost the same.
The Nordic syates should not unite into one, as this would not only be highly politically improbable but there are political, cultural, linguistic, economic, and ethnic barriers as well. Not to mention this would lead to huge public dissatisfaction within different "regions" of this Nordic Federation, as smaller states would have to give up their policy desires for their state simply because a majority of those not in their region want a certain policy.
It would work in a similar function to the United States, internal laws. Every region has their internal laws, the only thing the majority outside your region can affect is international decisions. Politically Finland and Sweden for example share the exact same decisions, with the people on almost the exact same results of decision. As an example their reactions to the Ukraine crisis, both countries are completely neutral, and hold strict neutral policies.
Norway and Denmark are only in NATO for defence, they have no will to head for offensive wars, the exact same as Sweden and Finland.
There would be no Swedes or Norweigans, everyone would be Nordic.
I don't understand your point on how this wouldn't work when the United States worked, their differences are so small, all of them are small and lack power.
First of all, your argument regarding the language is false as you imply the Nordic people only speak two major languages, but rather the Nordic nations feature 8 major languages: Danish, Faroese, Finnish, Greenlandic, Icelandic, Norwegian, Sami, and Swedish. There is already a linguistic barrier between the Nordic states and unless you believe that publishing government documents in 8 different languages and having dozens of translators for a single legislative assembly is efficient, it would never work.
Second of all, foreign policy would also be another issue. Sweden has historically been a neutral nation and has not participated in any conflict or gotten itself involved in an international political debate for decades upon decades. However, let's take another Nordic nation like Denmark, who sent forces with the United States-led coalition forces, to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan. What would the fate be of foreign policy? This "Nordic Federation" would be horrifically divided over whether or not to join the European Union or whether or not to join NATO, as only a portion of the countries are member-states to these organizations. The people of nations like Sweden would not give up their ability to make foreign policy decisions such as refusing to join the EU or NATO, just because a majority of non-Swedes want to join these organizations.
Third of all, currencies and economic matters would be another issue. Within the Nordic countries are something like 5-6 different currencies, and establishing a new currency, getting rid of the Euro in Finland, the Danish Krone, the Swedish Krona, and the Norwegian Krone would wreak havoc on local economies and put more stress on an already fragile wider European economy. Small states suddenly withdrawing from the Euro can have catastrophic consequences, as seen in the EU's fear of Greece leaving the Euro at the height of their crisis. Also, many of the Nordic states have protectionist economic policies that seek to lower imports and boost exports, which is why many are not currently partaking in European-wide free trade. Eliminating trade borders and allowing for goods to move freely through this union could derail certain economic plans and disrupt economies not just on a national scale but on a regional level.
Finland and Sweden are in no shape or form neutral, even though they claim to be so. Finland has participated in Nato attacks and operations, so has Sweden, this already means both countries are large friends with Nato. Therefore they are not neutral.
The lanugages spoken are the scandinavian group and the finno-ugric. The scandinavian groups languages are so similar they are understandable between other scandinavian languages, while few things differ from this.
Sami and Fareo has never been posted as a government language, and Sami is a minor language in Finland and Sweden, Swedish is spoken more in Finland than Sami is.
That makes your statement of Sweden not surrendering their neutral policy invalid, as they are already doing so.
The Nordic Federation would most likely be a part of the EU, the use of EURO in all countries are easy to establish. The creation of a new currency wouldn't break out hell either for the Nordic Federation, only it's EURO neighbors.
Yours argument of the so called "divided" choice of joining the EU is not happening, the NATO decision is almost happening. The only country in the nordic that is not a part of the EU is Norway, Norway has go international rights of the EU and contacts and trade with them. Norway could join the EU at any time without any sort of argument, NATO is a harder thing though.
However as i stated above, almost the majority of Swedes support joining NATO, therefore they will break their Neutral policy if Russia does something more. In that case the Nordic Federations creation might depend on Russian aggression.
HistoryBuff forfeited this round.
The Nordic Federation would be the biggest power in the baltic sea, a huge economy ranked the 10th the Nordic Federation would defenitely be one of the strongest nations on the planet.
HistoryBuff forfeited this round.
RantBoss forfeited this round.
HistoryBuff forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||4||0|
Reasons for voting decision: It seems Con decided to stop participating in the debate. Which is unfortunate, as he was doing well up until then. But because of hte extra rounds he gave Pro, which left Pro's arguments standing, arguments to Pro. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.