After covering the European Universities Debating Championships 2012 in our last couple of posts (here and here), today we’re looking at another debating competition: the Heart of Europe Debating Tournament, which ran from the 29th of July to the 3rd of August 2012. Originally a competition for European high school students that had participated in debates run by the Open Society Foundations, it eventually became a global competition for high school debaters from around the world. As in previous years, this year’s competition was held in the Czech Republic, and the motion under consideration for the final was: “This house believes that attempts to create a supranational Europe are going to fail.“
This year, the two teams that made it to the final came from Canada (arguing against the motion) and Singapore (arguing for the motion). You can watch the full video of the grand final below (the debate itself starts from around 13m15s):
Obviously, neither Canada nor Singapore are in Europe, so both teams were at a significant disadvantage. As such, there were a couple of factual blunders on display, but the fundamentals of the arguments were sound and it was really interesting to hear non-Europeans pick up on the diffferent reasons for and against “supranationalism” in Europe. The wording of the motion was also interesting (and both teams set out to provide their own competing definitions of the different terms under debate), particularly because “supranationalism” is not the same concept as “federalism” (though they were occassionally used interchangably during the debate).
The team from Singapore opened, beginning with the argument that:
There are only three men who have tried to unite Europe under a single banner: Genghis Khan, Alexander the Great and Napoleon Bonaparte. And just as all these attempts have failed miserably, we’re going to show you that attempts to create a supranational Europe in the present are going to fail as well.
It’s probably fair to say that the list of would-be conquerers of Europe is a bit longer than just three people. We have a long and glorious tradition in Europe of hitting each other about the head until we stop moving. No mention was made, for example, of the attempts by the Persians, the Romans, the Carolingians, the Habsburgs, the Ottomon Turks or the Nazis. To compound things, neither Alexander the Great nor Genghis Khan actually made any sort of serious attempt to conquer Europe within their lifetimes; instead, both men set out to conquer Asia (though had each lived a little longer, of course, things might have been different).
The Singapore team then went on to make the point that European supranationalism is only viable within a unified national political identity, something impossible in Europe for various historical reasons (mostly because we keep killing each other). This point (which is a good one) was undermined slightly when they then contrasted Poland with the mighty United Kingdom as an example of a “small, central European country.” Poland, of course, is bigger than the United Kingdom (and not far off in terms of population). It was also, historically, the largest state in Europe under the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth in the 16th and 17th centuries.
When it came to the Canadian team’s turn to speak, they seemed to focus slightly more on the risks of the EU collapsing than on the benefits of membership. Rather worryingly, they dismissed the cultural argument from Singapore because:
In the end, it’s not the people that are going to determine whether or not Europe stays together… We think it’s the political authorities, and that it’s especially the economy and how it manages to fail or survive.
Whether or not this is indeed true, it doesn’t seem to be a particularly democratic argument to be making.
Like the team from Singapore, the Canadians also made a couple of factual errors, arguing that Macedonia (not an EU member-state) “Wouldn’t be as well represented if we didn’t have this European Parliament to address the grievances that they have.” Still, their arguments were generally solid and it’s worth watching the video in full to get a feeling for how non-Europeans view the debate.
What do YOU think? If you want to share your own opinion about the motion under discussion, do let us know in the form below and we’ll take your comments and questions to policy-makers and experts for their reactions.
40 comments Post a commentcomment
Human Rights; Democracy; Rule of Law.
The three “little” details that make all the difference between those three men and the peace project called Europe United.
Good to see Singapore are experts of logical fallacy. Impressive debating technique.
I think that Singapore team should be a bit more humble and look in their own backyard. Europe is united, BUT the Europeans are not treated the same way by Europe. If every European would have the same wage and be taxed the same percentage with a same commitment to actually pay them, then we would talk about some equality. Now the South drains the North and productivity levels are way lower in the South, etc. etc. etc.
If one man tries to unify then it is definitely doomed to fail. What we have today is an inclusive union of people and states which is based on democracy, freedom and the rule of law. That is far more likely to succeed – and indeed has done so since 1957.
When did Alexander the Great tried to unite Europe under a single banner? Appart from his conquests in Ancient Greece he only conquered territories in Asia…and they forgot about the Roman Republic/Empire who did a pretty good job in “uniting” Europe…
Alexander never tried to unite Europe. He united Greece and then moved to conquer Asia, never coming back to Europe. And Genghis Khan never got further west than what today is Ukraine, and then left. It was his successors who made their way further into Europe. It is stunning that they include these two men and completely ignore the Roman empire, which indeed ruled over significant parts of Europe – much more than Alexander.
Alexander is indeed not the best sample to use at this point, since he was mesmerized by the idea of conquering rather than the one of uniting…Europe.
Europe is now unite as much as possible; a step forward points a real mess. Europe is a set of national principles and it is not United States of Europe; will never be. Try ask the french to speak german or the british to use an italian way. And most of all, the taxation. Europe push it very much. There are many other states with a decent taxation (with representation!) that makes 24% a threat. A joke, and not a good one. We have to learn how to live inside this Europe, not build another one. This one might be a mirracle. Keep in mind, with all the senturies gone, The Planet was never as good as it is now. As powerful and strong, as healthy and happy. If somebody is not there, that one has to get in line!
Silly comparison. There’s no possible parallel, democracy and unity are two goals that can’t be achieved by force.
democracy is good system if it is functioning, but how works “democracy” in EU? Distribution of power between institutions of EU are not linear, citzens of EU dont interest in development politics and they attend on political life rarely…
Only 3 man? WWII was not unification of Europe?
BTW, great article about non existing democracy in EU… http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2188453/The-case-Europe-MEP-Daniel-Hannan-reveals-disturbing-contempt-democracy-heart-EU.html
I agree with the Singapore team exactly, especially after soon I saw European Court of Human Rights.While you decide is information necessary in the open systems and the preferences of people occurs good and/or useful but if like ECtHR does not give any information an applicant or a lawyer like me,there is a close system like Opus Dei or Vatican. Even if the building of ECtHR made from the glass,if the related person does not enter into the building,it’s not a Court, only everybody is to cheats. My impression; ECtHR was created by EU Administrators,why to receive salary from the funds of EU and to make a career for children,not for Justness.The outcome is available for all institutions of European Union, therefore Europe does not overcome of the economic crisis ! I was remembered by EC+HR again the Gotfather III film and Vatican conspiracies and Opus Dei ! Best wishes,
The ancient Romans (and not Alexander the Great), Napoleon and later on during WWII Hitler, all tried to unite Europe. They all failed because they tried to do that by force! Today, there is a big and significant difference:The peoples of Europe are trying to be unified voluntarily, based on principles having to do with the respect of human rights, democracy,Rule of Order etc. There may be difficulties, it’s not an easy project, but I believe that, in the end , those who visualized a unified Europe will be vindicated.
To make the mistake and compare today’s attempts for improvement with “big men uniting europe” is comparing two uneven and non similar things. A rather masterful rhetoric from them but sadly very shallow and wrong. With the same logic russia was never conquered by eutope, however the russian federation’s army is using the eastern roman/byzantine twin headed eagle as its symbol and are in fact christians. Does that mean that the west culturally controls russia or her army? Of course not, it’s just generalising a point and then accepting that as a fact.
Genghis Khan.
Hoje não é a Europa em que eu via no passado por culpa dos sistemas politicos do passado hoje temos a crise que tem a chave dos paises infratores e que entre outros somos nós também a Europa do futuro tem que ser uma verdaeira união económica e monetaria e com soluções de politicas verdadeiras
Charlemagne…?
Michalis Paikousis, read an article found in the link I left above and then talk about voluntarily and democracy… There is no weapons but this is 21ct warfare.
Europe as a federal republic like the United States of America is possible, but not by force and not by revolution. The Union is so big at the moment that a lengthy evolution is the only option for more unity.
Creating a federal republic within the current Union IS a possibility. But only if to start over with a stable core of states that are allready bonded to each other, the 17 eurozone states for example. Adding new state one by one is a better solution than launch a federal union with the current 27 states. It’s too big and too early for that.
Paikousis, tell this to people from Holand… van Vooren, wich part you don’t get with the King? Just asking…
Hihetetlenl nagy feladat!Taln a rmaiak tudtak valamit!T
They all have failed because one nation tried to lead and take over all others… The same thing that Germany is doing right now.. If we ever going to succeed in unifying Europe, the only way to do it is get rid off our complexes of superiority or inferiority and inequality in our continent and start co-operating, working together in creating something great for a change!!!
Well, at first they shld concentrate on their own affairs; they fgot Hitler
Then, i have spoken on this before..it is like w the FTAs (Asia -regional networks.)
Europe is shaped by our capability; as it grows and makes the transition from one perspective to another so we see more complexities, more shades of gray, more opportunities and challenges. We need the courage to see Europe as it is and not as we would wish it to be, and we need also to guard against what have been called ?memories of the future? ? assumptions that the future will turn out as we expect and hope.
If these “gentleman” are examples, then for warmongering. Our current efforts focus on building by consensus and agreement. Considering where we are today 1949 nobody would have betted a 1$ on that success.
To suggest impossibility for a federal Europe is ridiculous. If that were so there would be no USA.
The problem lies in the spread being too grand a prospect too early. First, Europe has to unite solidly with itself. And by that I mean those of thinking mind and action. And under true democracy, which really means consent of the majority to a standard they are accustomed to. This cannot be achieved by embracing all cultures within one principle as those cultures deviate too broadly. And imposing change on any society too quickly creates rejection. Look at Persia under the Shah. He tried to modernize far too quickly and created huge opposition, which ended in downfall.
What has to first be achieved is a United Europe of one culture, one ethos, one aim of desired unity for the social good of its members. Once that is strong in itself and functioning with flourish, the embracing of other states can take place. But only if those States adhere in true principle to the original concept and requirement within that concept.
As those great leaders mentioned above found, they floundered when they tried to ‘force’ their aims on peoples who rejected and feared the concept. It therefore has to start with winning the minds and hearts of those you want to unite. And you cannot do that without a sound basis from which to begin.
We all know union would be good on a great many levels. So, put all those principles together and sell it to us for our good. That way you will have what is needed in truth, the will to bring it about. This meaning all States with leaders who truly want unity and the good of the people within it. If you are trying to unite a people with leaders who denounce the project with every move, then it is virtually impossible to find consensus.
Europe has to consider the plight of all its citizens should the EU decide to return to separate States. Or, as in the case of the UK, reside within a State who has decided to withdraw from the EU altogether. Thereby rejecting the rights under that charter for their safety. As UK government suggests it intends to repeal the Human Rights Act and that this policy is one of the main reason for withdrawing from it.
We have been inundated daily by numerous discussions and arguments about why we should reject any further union. There has been a daily pounding by a man called Daniel Hannan in our favourite tabloid on why we must get out of Europe and quickly. And his voice, presently, is the only one in town.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2188453/The-case-Europe-MEP-Daniel-Hannan-reveals-disturbing-contempt-democracy-heart-EU.html
So, I suspect the plot is underway and no other side will get a look in. The referendum will be fixed by no other point of view being aired. Or, heaven forbid, raise the advantages of why we should remain part of a United Europe.
This leaves the people who have used their freedom of movement to settle and establish themselves in the UK, as well as those Britons who do not wish to remain in the UK without what they perceive as being, European citizenship.
What plans are being made for those who want to return to their State, or, for those British citizens who wish to leave in order to reside in other European States….
For goodness sake, its a debate. If this wasn’t the topic I doubt both teams would care about how Europe is faring… And they judging because its part of the competition. Grow up
A supranational Europe, or perhaps better: a Europe of regions, is possible, even desirable in this globalised world in order to be influencial at world level. There is one big precondition: we should take the ‘subsidiarity principle’ more into account. This means that decisions on matters should be take at the level that is most appropriate. Doing so would not only help to agree in a more coordinated way at a higher level on issues that indeed affect a larger (up to the whole EU) region, as well as to decide on very personal issues at a lower level. It would hence also improve the democratic level of decisions and make it more clear to the citizens.
If the EU would achieve this, it could become a model for other continents and eventually resolve the UN Security Council problem. That Council would then be the meeting of representatives of all continents, to decide on problems at world level.
In my opinion, European Union should relate to those people who tried to unite Europe across the centuries, because the aim is not anymore the power or the supremacy. Now, the aim is to make all the countries equal and better, even if this is not achieved and even if it’s a fair utopia.
It’s not the fact that EU is doomed to fail, but it’s the fact that the political authorities underestimate the power of equal rights, of equal standard or simply they don’t care about them. The issue is to save Euro now, but what about a new issue – to save the weaker economies of EU. Isn’t that enough to make EU even more united and to make its citizens have the sense of belonging to a great family?
Member of the On-line Writing Team of Think Young
No, unless we as Europeans, allow it to.
Uma Europa em crise e em que os entendimentos e as solidariedades são cada vez mais difeicis de estruturar é preciso encontrarem caminhos para desenvolverem uma união federal com os actuias 27estados esses serão os valores de uma União Europeia de futuro
I hope so.
Me too.
Wrong question. The wright one is: “Is a supranational Europe possible?”. In that case I really don’t know. We better ask our German friends and partners
http://eblanademocraticmove.blogspot.ie/2013/03/seriously-mrs-merkel.html
The German sponsors :D
I would personally be disappointed, if anything the EU is truly setting standards in how to get along internationally, and as much as ‘Merican’s like to promote how forward thinking we are… I’d really like to see you all work this out, and lead by a truer example in this. I hope Germany finds the future relationships more important and valuable than short term gains.
the eu setting standards?…LOL