The Final

I feel kind of proud actually. On my update in early/mid February; where I posted my opening speech in the "This House would welcome being governed from the playing fields of Eton," debate; I put Nick Clegg as my customary photo at the speeches side. I am a moderate admirer of Clegg, he seems sensible; even if many of the Liberal Democrat policies simply pander to public opinion(such as the Iraq War, and on the simultaneous embracing of the green economy and rejection of nuclear power). After last weeks elections, which were the first I was able to vote in; he now holds the balance in the forming of a new government. I feel like a political prophet. This has been an interesting development. Most of his discussions have been with Cameron and his lot. Now there is no doubting that Clegg is to the right of his party, but no good can come of this in my opinon. A LibCon alliance may be mathematically desirable, commanding an easy majority as it would; but ideologically destructive. In many cases Liberal Democrat policy is to the left of Labour, a coalition with obvious assholes such as George Osborne would alienate the left of the party. I thought it fitting to put a younger Gordon Brown as my picture here on the day he announced his intentions to step down as party leader. In my opinion, he is by far the most principled and consistent politician of the current three party leaders. Whilst Conservative press (As a side note to this point: out of all newspapers in the UK, ALL of them endorsed the Conservatives apart from the Daily Mirror(Labour) and the Guardian(Liberal Democracts). Well at least as far as I know, correct me if I'm wrong.) tore through and destroyed this man, and with this the fact that he faced the hardest Prime Ministerial term of any man or woman in recent history. Let's face it: the Tories lost. Labour certainly lost, but so did the Conservatives. They received 10m votes this is true, but with all the wind in their sails; they could not oust Labour really and truly. I hope this is a sign of a shifting political demographic, well and truly away from a two-party-pandering system, and to a real representative one. The Liberals need to use this as collateral in any deal they manage to pull.

Well moving on, my last post noted how Davin and I reached the final of the Northern Ireland Schools Debating Competition. This final took place on the 30th April 2010 in the Senate Chamber of the amazing Stormont Parliament Buildings. This building blew me away and it was a real pleasure to get the chance to debate in it. The motion was, "This House would welcome being part of a European Federal State." Davin and I were in our more comfortable position of opposition (having, I felt, seemed a bit squirmish as the proposition in the Semi Finals). Here is more or less what my opening speech said (I am willing to post Davin's speech, but I have no copies of it; plus his own speech was cut completely short by points of information so over half of it was not said.):

Ladies and gentlemen, chairperson, esteemed adjudicators, members of the proposition and of the audience; Davin and I believe that UK involvement in a European Federal State would be monetarily destructive, corrupt in its origins, hostile to national self determination and sovereignty, and adverse to public opinion. We, the opposition, feel that we must first underline that this debate is about the supposed merits of involvement in a Federal Europe for us, and whether or not the UK should abstain from such a federations. The supposed or theoretical implications of such a situation are thus relevant only should they be directly applicable to the UK now, and offer benefits not already available. My argument can be broken down into three headings: firstly, the essentiality of legitimacy, secondly; the confusion surrounding structure and representation, and thirdly; the failings of the Eurozone. Davin will follow on this by depicting the EU as it is now, a network of corruption with a considerable and consistent democratic deficit. Whilst this debate should not focus on the EU, any European Federal State must by definition have been born within the EU, therefore criticisms of this organisation are criticisms of what the birth of a Federal Europe would entail. With this, we WILL show you why UK involvement in a United States of Europe is not ipso facto desirable, and that it should be resisted.
Legitimacy
On legitimacy: the legitimacy of a government is the foundation of its power. An institution is perceived as legitimate if there is approval for it among those subject to its authority. A relevant example of this can be drawn in contemporary America. In the USA there exists fiscal centralisation, ie taxes are given to the federal government and spread across states. By extension, someone paying federal taxes in Philadelphia knows that their tax may spread wealth to the complete other side of the continent. But this is an accepted condition as the American government is supported by the government and is thus legitimate. With this in mind, in the UK now our context is firmly anchored within an electorate which is one of, if not the, most Eurosceptic in the entire supposed European family. This is the fact. Another fact is that the UK electorate will not accept their taxes being spread to a distant Luxembourg. Another fact is that the UK electorate will not accept the ability of a German, a Romanian or a Slovenian to vote in their elections. The proposition have instead joined this auction of hyperbole in glorifying Eurofederalism, and demeaning the pro-European realism Davin and I advocate. The objection to a European Federal State here is that there is no appetite within the UK for it, therefore it is not feasible.
Structure and representation
On structure and representation: there are of course glaring isses within the EU surrounding the unaccountable Commission and the impotent and weak Parliament, now these are two issues Davin will go into in more detail but the basic fact is that there is a basic crisis of EU legitimacy. There is no widely understood or accepted framework of Europe in place. By extension, the heavyweight of change and the abolition of sovereignty that would occur should we be moulded into a Federation need to be met with answers to these questions which I am posing to the proposition: what actual structure would a federal Europe take? How do the proposition justify superseding and complete ignoring public opinion? And how many representatives would the UK have to play the role and do the jobs of the roughly 650 current constituency MPs in the House of Commons? The objection to a European Federal State here lies in the fact that any answers to these questions will be either utopian in tone, or completely unsatisfactory.
The Eurozone
I will now deal with the issue of the monetary and fiscal unionism that would certainly follow should a Federal Europe become a reality with us involved. In the words of Meyer Amschel Rothschild, known as the founding father of Internation Finance, "Give me control of a state's money supply, and I care not who make its laws." The ridiculous claims of prosperity offered by the Euro can indeed now be empirically tested against its actual performance; whereby the credit crunch gave the Euro, its credibility crunch. The propostion are accepting it seems, that the Eurozone's regulation was so frivolously imposed that Greece could simply tell the European Central Bank that their deficit was okay. The proposition are accepting it seems that unemployment has risen year on year since the Euro's inception, but this is okay, as this keeps wages low and private profits high. Never mind it seems, that the Eurozone showed none of this supposed European solidarity, having taken weeks to secure even the ghost of an agreement on Greece. Swiss research group 'Assembly of European Regions' conducted a study on this issue, which concluded that, "European countries which have their own [economic levers] do consistently better than centralised ones." Joining the Eurozone needs to offer some benefits, some advantages. But the fact is, it offers more hindrances and constraints, enforcing a fiscal straightjacket. The objection to a European Federal State here lies in the huge famine of supposed benefits offered by joining this catastrophe.
This is an appeal to reason ladies and gentlemen.
Firstly; a European Federal State would not be legitimate. Any such mass reorganisation of government does indeed need public support.
Secondly, there is no realistic or accepted framework within which the EU can be placed, let alone a European Federal State.
Thirdly, having economic power always comes out on top of having no economic power, which is seemingly what the proposition would rather.
To vote against this motion is a vote for maintaining the credibility of democracy. It is a vote for economic autonomy and against economic despotism. It is a vote for a pro-European realism, instead of utopianism, and tyranny. Ladies and gentlemen, vote against this motion.

Well, coming as Davin and I have, an extremely long way since the student debt debate: we won the competition and are thus the Northern Ireland Schools Debating champions. A huge honour and a privilege, it was an amazing and tough debate, and an amazing night. Thank you to all who came to show support.