Last Update - Fri Jan 31 2025
Infoslide: Multi-Speed Europe is a scenario where existing Member States in the European Union integrate at different paces, where certain Member States opt in doing more in specific policy areas, while others opt out. This would not apply retroactively, so existing policies would remain unified, but new policies would be differentially adopted. These may cover policies such as defence, internal security, taxation or social matters.
OPEN FINALS - Madrid EUDC 2021 Oskar Sherry Panel, I had the misfortune of doing a term of EU law, and if that's taught me anything, it's that the EU actually doesn’t have all these magical powers. They're pretty strict and have to be pretty firmly bargained for. So, I’m going to start by responding to OO, which—uh—their case relied on a bit of a lack of understanding about the European Union. Then, I’ll go into the case, which is centered on how this institution operates. OO’s case was generally about liberal, great, fluffy, happy policies. They didn’t really address the impact of bad policies getting pushed through. So, their case is at least symmetric. I don’t think they really proved why you have more good policies than bad policies. But even on the liberal policies—here we go—there are two reasons why liberal policies are not a winning argument in this debate. Firstly, They already have basic liberal requirements to join the EU. I pointed out the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which I thought was a good lesson in EU law. If you want to join the European Union, you have to adhere to minimum safeguards. The response to that from Opening Opposition is that we want to do more. The problem is—and this is crucial, panel—where liberal legislation doesn’t exist, this is often because the European Union does not have the legal competence. Because it is not in the treaties on which the European Union is founded. Things like civil liberties are often not within the EU's competencies, and things like vaccines certainly are not because public health is a competence that is wholly outside the European Union’s remit. Why is this? Because liberal, fluffy things like anti-discrimination aren’t just hated by Poland. They’re hated by a lot of countries in certain ways because they’re scared, for example, of their businesses and lobby groups being subject to large-scale legal duties that they cannot control and cannot foresee—partially in the context of the European Court of Justice’s expansionary influences. That’s a crucial piece of context in this debate. All these powers—of, like, you know, vaccine mass redistribution and liberal policies—EU can’t do under the status quo. What we are going to show you is how we meet the necessary functions of the EU which co opts the benefits that you get from OO. Even if you get slightly fewer of these policies passed, you have the power to pass these policies. And secondly, talk about why you get better bargaining when meeting the necessary functions of the EU. On meeting the necessary functions: I think the first point is an important one—but an obvious one. That is, often, you have unanimity gridlocks. Certain policies in the EU are majority; certain policies require unanimity. I think there isn’t too much gridlock usually in majority policies. I think this differentiation is crucial because it does a lot to differentiate from Opening Government. Most of the policies that have gridlock are unanimity? These are things like defense, foreign policy, and aid. The issue is that crucial goods can be held hostage by smaller nations that are often politically motivated—Poland and Hungary. That stops benefits from occurring. But I think the big point—this our big extension—is that you get new competences for the European Union. I thought it was really interesting, having done EU law, that the info slide said tax and social matters. Because those aren’t EU powers under the status quo. Which means the motion is probably implying that you can facilitate new competences for the European Union, which are desperately needed when you have this policy go forwards. How ? EU nations are obviously more likely to sign on to allowing these powers at all in the treaty when they are not concerned that they will be forced into using them. You’re more likely to allow tax powers, citizenship powers, public health, or social security when you don’t think you’re going to be bullied into it necessarily. And I’ll also note that because these countries are relatively risk-averse—because the ECJ tends to be quite expansionary—they can’t foresee it. They’re actually more likely to be charitable when they’re at the point of negotiation of individual policies. They’re much more hesitant to allow the powers at all because that is the only safeguard they have. Tax Social security Public health Education—there’s heaps of them. Right? And also, EU-specific defense. The EU can fund NATO defense under the status quo. But you allow EU-specific defense, which is new. The best Opposition argument—I think this is the clash we have to win—is that, whilst the EU technically, on our side, might then have the competence, it won’t use it in a way that is beneficial because of multi-speed Europe. Right? But given the Opening Opposition characterization, we think it is fair to say that at least some blocs at any given time probably have shared interests. That is probably a large number of countries at any given time. Because it will need to beat competences that are added by majority to the treaties. Currently, EU stimulus is inefficient because you can only use monetary and not fiscal policy. That means you can’t do public spending. You just have to hope blindly that the low interest rates you set will be passed on by the reserve banks to the banking sector. They very rarely do this. They just often use this to make speculative, shitty investments. If a country, for example, under the status quo, is going to get stimulus money, the EU has to either: Trust that the money will be used properly—so often, stimulus isn’t passed because Germany doesn’t want to trust Greece to use it properly. Or demand structural reform that is harmful to economies before the payment actually occurs—because these loans aren’t collateralized. Also what the IMF does. EU fiscal policy competence reduces this uncertainty and thus reduces these harms. I don’t even really need to analyze this because OO did it for me when they talked about vaccination. But public health isn’t within the EU's remit. You actually allow things like smokers’ health to be on the agenda. You allow things like vaccination policy writ large. Things like the information surrounding vaccinations—because that is a crucial public health mechanism even if the vaccination supply is within Europe under the status quo. Under the status quo, health insurance only applies to people who are workers and students. Because the EU has to shove in health insurance to worker and student provisions. They can’t put in a separate health insurance provision. That means it’s inefficient because it doesn’t actually target health, which is what the EU wants to do under the status quo. It’s also inequitable. I don’t see why you have to work to get it. Because it is, firstly, unpopular with domestic voters to offer concessions as Germany. ECB(European central Bank)sets the interest rates at which it lends to commercial banks in the eurozone (also known as the euro area), thus controlling money supply and inflation manages the eurozone's foreign currency reserves and the buying or selling of currencies to balance exchange rates ensures that financial markets & institutions are well supervised by national authorities, and that payment systems work well authorises production of euro banknotes by eurozone countries monitors price trends and assesses risks to price stability. POI Here is the asymmetric analysis that opening government was missing -that small countries are bullied in sectors where there are other eu institutions and measures that can be tied to the things you want to bully the small countries on. So it's easy to believe small countries in the eurozone because you can tie ECB stimulus to other policies, you can bully them economically because you can tie its economic policy. In things like defense where there isn't a complimentary eu institution which we create under our side at least you get some kind of bargaining equality. You are unable to bully small countries they hold hostage and they hold the rest of the EU hostage.
80+
MG | CG
IR
Youtube link (Timestamped): HERE
EU competence: Refers to the legal authority of the European Union (EU) to act in specific policy areas. The EU's competences are granted to it by the EU Member States in the EU Treaties. Exclusive competence:The EU has the sole authority to make decisions and pass laws in these areas. For example, the EU has exclusive competence over customs union, trade policy with non-EU countries, and the euro currency. Shared competence:Both the EU and member states can make decisions and pass laws in these areas. However, EU law takes precedence if there is a conflict with national law. Examples include environmental policy, consumer protection, agriculture, internal market.What are these competences?
What are the benefits? I’m going to talk about why you get benefits from these policies that will make people sign on to them—even if not every country does. And benefits that are independent of every country signing on.
Firstly: More efficient measures.
Secondly: EU law builds a trust mechanism.
Thirdly: You solve collective action problems.
Fourthly: Measures are more direct and hence more equitable.
On bargaining ,Why you get better bargaining? Firstly, it’s less coercive. Under the status quo for majority and unanimity policy, there is an incentive for beneficiary countries to push votes through—but not an incentive to offer trade if you’re a country like Germany, this is why you don’t offer things to get things—like Germany and France don’t. That is the analysis missing from the Opening Government.
And secondly, there is the alternative of coercive mechanisms, which means you don’t have to be generous.
Really quickly open it or closing, no pois in the final that's very nice-
“CG agrees that your problems arise like coveted environmental and new liberal programs EU was able to legislate i negative but we analyzed why when future issues arise only on our side it will still include all the states of the eu”
But if the future issues arise but you don't have the power “ab initio” to make that legislation then your harms and your impacts and benefits don't accrue. That's the analysis i've just been giving you and that means.That germany and other countries often use coercive eu institutions for certain things right so they use the ECB to get things through on economic policy i think the best op response to this is that we're contradictory and we say sometimes small countries are bullied sometimes they're held hostage.
As I've said before , I thought I couldn’t debate with ADHD. But Rachel, the severe dyslexic, has made it an absolute pleasure. I’m proud to Closing Gov. Thank you.