THBT ONB We Should Abolish Euro Currency
Waiting for the instigator's fourth argument.
The round will be automatically forfeited in:
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Time for argument
- One week
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Four points
- Rating mode
- Characters per argument
This house believes that, On net balance, The Euro should be Retired/Abolished
Burden of proof is shared
We: Society/Law/Government (whoever controls Euro currency)
Should: The beneficial action to take, under net balance restrictions
Con: We should keep the Euro
Euro: the single European currency, which replaced the national currencies of France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Greece, Portugal, Luxembourg, Austria, Finland, the Republic of Ireland, Belgium, and the Netherlands in 2002. Nineteen member states of the European Union now use the euro.
Abolish: to get rid of, to stop using
My framework should be valued because the Euro is inherently about a currency -- an economic aspect of the world. Con likely has many arguments about how the politicians will perpetuate the Euro, that it will endure on. However, on principle, we ought to think about the social contract (on a national level). One would only accept a government's actions if each rational person could live under the societal principles and the enactment of such laws. Furthermore, there must be no superior alternative available. For example, the Euro is part of the European Unity, which Pew Research Center describes as "economic integration, membership in the European Union, the EU as an institution, the European Central Bank and use of the euro as their currency" .
Con might notice that the majority of people in the questionnaire supported keeping the Euro; do not be misled, they were offered a horrible alternative: returning to the old currency of drachma, franc, or other ridiculous currency. It's hard to say if they would still choose the Euro they were offered an alternative like the Dollar, Bitcoin, or another more reasonable choice. Regardless, Con must still negate the failure of realization of the economic integration as a whole. The nation is bigger than its people and is about the entire states interacting with each other. Due to the collapse of countries' economies, it seems unlikely that they can support themselves, much less trade well with other countries. In addition, my arguments present that the Euro-zone countries are basically at war with each other in a trading manner, which contradicts the social contract on a national level.
My argument will start with a political analyst's arguments and improving his claims.  Yoav first argues that we should analyze the cause of the crises, rather than the effects. He states that the EEC was already capable of preventing conflict and that a looser structure would allow better coordination and cooperation. He further reasons that federal Europe is behind the Euro, and the same currency use makes the federal structures' problems far sharper and more enhanced. He proposes a counter plan where we transition back to EEC to re-issue separate national currencies and abolish the EU presidency. He finally concludes that the Parliament would be maintained, but would have less power than national parliaments.
To enhance Yoav's arguments, let's look into details why the causes of the effects are problematic. One book on the Euro  talks of how the Euro countries on average perform significantly weaker due to "misperceived iron law of required fiscal budge balance", thus caused by misunderstood macroeconomic principles (Eurozone Crises Chapter). He realizes that the failure comes from misguided decisions from politicians with ideas to promote neoliberalism and market integration (Page 7). The uncertainty to adjust to patterns of shock makes the policy uneven. Furthermore, the lack of formal agreements means that the macroeconomics implementation falls apart in reality. Despite high expectations, the Euro countries were still caught in a social collapse, and the EU is falling apart, echoing Yoav's call to action of moving forward to the EEC.
If this wasn't enough, expert Vaclav Klaus furthers on how the Euro Zone has failed.  After he talks about the introduction of the euro-zone project, he tells us that the economic growth of member states has been slow, with increasing gaps compared to US, China, and non-euro-zone members. He notices that the euro fails to reverse the unproductive trend of "leisure society", and that the long-term trade imbalances have grown. Despite the uniform currency, there hasn't been any homogenization, and an economist of the European Central Banks argues that it was a political decision, therefore meaning that the cost of maintaining exceeds any potential benefits.
To put the nail in the coffin, Martin Feldstein, a famous economist, realizes that the Euro is an experiment that failed.  It "[imposed] a single currency on a very heterogeneous group of countries", and notes the same catastrophes listed above -- debt crises, the fragile condition of banks, high levels of unemployment, and large trade deficits. He repeats that countries have failed to work with each other and that the Euro's main purpose was political, not economic. Economists had long warned of the adverse effects on the economies of Europe, especially meaning that the fixed exchange value would lead to fluctuations in output and employment, which leads to negative values.
He reasons that the ECB has to make monetary policies based on overall conditions, which results in high-interest rates with countries with rising unemployment and low rates otherwise. He tells us that the monetary union caused borrowing too much and banks over-loaning on overpriced housing. With the incredibly high debt-to-GDP ratios, the national debt would cause the entire country to collapse, and the author deduces that the economy would be in shambles despite many different policies to counter the Euro's current effects. He also agrees that the differences in the eurozone members lead to differences in trade balances that can't be financed.
Finally, yet another scholarly article notices how the Eurozone decisions perpetuate anti-democratic processes. In the abstract alone, the author realizes "The eurozone’s policy solutions to the crisis did not allow for any democratic input, were implemented through opaque and often-undemocratic throughput processes, and resulted in deteriorating output". As you can see the natural competition generated by the Euro means that the countries cannot work together, countering one of the core goals set by The Euro.
To assist this, yet another economic expert argues that the EU has taken an authoritarian turn, especially with emergency politics in the euro crisis.  The building of the cycle of authoritarianism means that democratic legitimacy is at stake. Even though the Euro's principles are not completely identical with Democracy, the ideals of freedom, equality, and ability of choice are crucial in an economy. Think about how nonsensical it would be if a head organization got to force countries to make decisions or implement specific economic policies. The shift of forcing authority is anti-European due to the elitism in European politics. You see, it fosters populism and resistance against the system, which is the opposite of cooperation. With poor European decisions, the dissatisfied voters would develop anti-EU ideals and directly contribute to my Social Contract framework. As a result of the authoritarian experience, the parties "successfully mobilized exclusive nationalist identities and anti-immigrant sentiments against a Union in which detached élites took decisions defying national sovereignty and democracy". In the conclusion, the author notices the possibility of collapsing the political order altogether and therefore fulfills the negative effects of the Euro.
As you can see, The Euro has caused the demolishment of state rights, cooperation, and wholly detrimentally destroyed the economy. While National Sentiment means that it's unlikely for the Euro to be abolished, luckily I do not have to prove that it is even possible. Notice how "should" is defined in the debate description. It is under the net balance restriction, not under practical or political restriction (unless it costs more to abolish than maintain it). Given the numerous evidence in my favor, it seems like, on net balance, the Euro should be retired or gotten rid of. We must not let it continue.