i ain't it was answered already. we don't care where you watch. television the tablet you cannot get the stuff of the state put up through the distribution system. it will all work out.

during this debate, panelists focus on the debt crisis come in the future of the euro, and whether priests should leave the euro zone. >> ladies and gentlemen, good evening. i'm the coorganizer of this debate series. it is my privilege to once again

be your moderator. i want to start by welcoming the audience that is watching this debate live on the internet, including the leading news website the global mail.com. also to the global tv and radio audience tuning in to this debate everywhere from the business news network to cbc radio and c-span throughout the continental united states. finally, and you'll come up with 2700 people who have once again failed where thompson hall to capacity for debate. we have had some stellar debates in this very hall. christopher hitchens and tony blair, who can forget the evening on religions impact on the world. henry kissinger, year ago today,

was on the stage. eighty-two years of age, participating in his first public debate. eloquently arguing against china owning the 21st century. just a matter of months ago, larry summers and paul taubman went head-to-head in the future of the north american economy. it's entertaining and engaging as those were, they did not have the urgency of tonight's debate. last month, the unthinkable has become the thinkable when it comes to the future of europe. as early as next month, with the second greek elections, we can see greece choose to leave out of choice or necessity, the euro zone. many people have predicted that that could cause a catastrophic spike in the cost of the worlds

largest nations, spain, italy, and a bank run throughout the euro zone. the result could be an implosion both politically and economically of the european union, it might include north america and the world. .. they do 23, and an advanced

economy that is responsible for a quarter of the world's economic output. in a sweep of human history europe's institutions and values, it's common goals are rightly a college to some of humankind's most important accomplishments. so, i think what we are wondering tonight, in this room in people around the world, especially people in europe, is can the considerable strength that europe enjoys allow it to survive this unprecedented crisis and maybe even emerge from the other side more united and stronger, or two of our debaters will make the case tonight, is the eurozone crisis itself an expression of a series of deep and fatal flaws buried in the core of the euro itself, the concept that animates the

european union. tonight we are going to find out. we are going to try to answer these all-important questions by tackling the big geopolitical question of our time. and we are going to do that right debating emotion, european experiment has failed. before introducing the all-star european cast and debaters that we have assembled, let's take a moment to read nice the organization who alone is responsible for staging these evenings. it is really thanks to its generosity and public spiritedness that we have had the opportunity twice a year to gather here at lloyd thompson hall and listen to some of the world's brightest minds debate the big issues facing our country and the globe. ladies and gentlemen please join me, a round of applause, cofounders of the aurea foundation, peter and melanie munk.

[applause] [applause] well, now the moment we have all been waiting for. let's get our debaters out here on center stage and art debate underway. the big round of applause, these two debaters arguing for tonight's motion, niall ferguson and josef joff. [applause] now let's get their formidable opponents out on stage. daniel cohn-bendit and peter mandelson. [applause]

introductions. with niall's presence on the stage tonight again, peter munk jokes with me earlier that we should rename the states the ferguson debates. niall is one for one of the munk debates and suffered a really staggering lost with fareed zakaria and henry kissinger a year ago, niall on this very stage but he started the first munk debate in 2008 with a big wind with charles krauthammer defeating the late richard holbrooke and samantha power on the question of is the world a safer place with a republican in the white house? [laughter] [applause] can he ladies and gentlemen make it too for once a night? we will say this, undeniably brain sale for it brain cell he was one of the most formidable debater of his generation.

he is also a celebrated harvard professor and "the daily beast" "newsweek" columnist, a film and diverse area and best-selling author. our own niall ferguson. [applause] now to my immediate left our second debaters speaking in favor of tonight's motion brings a vital perspective. the view of the german people on the fast-moving eurozone crisis. he is the publisher of the prestigious german weeklies iced, germans at equivalent of "time" magazine are canada's own maclean's, the author of numerous best-selling books of geopolitics including goober power, america's material temptation and his analysis of geopolitical events appears regularly in "the new york times" in the new republic and the london times literary supplement.

representing europe's goober power tonight in this contest ladies and gentlemen, josef joff. [applause] the story of daniel cohn-bendit in many ways is synonymous with european experiments. born in france in 1945, his german and jewish parents who fled nazi germany. mr. cohn-bendit burst upon the european scene in the 1960's as a key leader of the student revolts in france. half a century later, he remains fondly known as danny the red, a highly influential voice in europe serving as co-president with the free european alliance group in the european parliament he sits on the e.u. parliamentary committee for economic and monetary affairs,

and constitutional affairs, two things i'm sure we are going to discuss tonight. he is also co-president of the respected spinelli group, the european association at dedicated to the the federalist project in europe and from zürich, ladies and gentlemen, daniel cohn-bendit. [applause] are final debater tonight, speaking against the motion of one of your's most prominent and eloquent advocates for the cause of the european federalism in the face of the current crisis. he has held numerous senior cabinet positions in the united kingdom as a laborer and king under tony blair and gordon brown. most important to us tonight, he was great britain's e.u. commissioner from 2004 to 2008, where he gained an infinite understanding of the turner political and economic workings

of europe. today he is the chairman of global counsel, and international strategic advisory firm and to cap off his many talents he is a gifted writer. his autobiography, the third man, published in 2010, is a "sunday times" number one bestseller for five consecutive weeks. please welcome from london, england, lord peter mandelson. [applause] now before i call the debaters for their opening statements, i need to involved you, the audience. first i want to ask everyone to do something in this hall which is usually revoked in an auditorium such as this, which is tower up your smartphones. for the duration of tonight's debate can weigh in on the proceedings by tweeting to our hashtag, at monk europe. you can also follow the ensuing

conversation at monk debate so again we want you to be involved in the debate with the audience around the world who is watching on line. we also have two vip twitterers who are coming in with large twitter followings that are ian bremer who appeared on the stage last fall. he is the founder and president of eurasia group, best-selling author and the second vip blogger will be tweeting tonight is. he is 50,000 plus followers on twitter. he is a veritable justin bieber for global finance and we welcome him tonight via twitter. we are going to have their handles now up on the screen so if you have your smartphones, plug them in. unless housekeeping point. we want you to help us keep our debaters to their allotted times, six minutes for their opening marks and three minutes for their closings.

by having a screen that will appear up there with our clock, our countdown clock and when it reaches zero join me in a round of applause for our debaters. that will keep them on their toes. now, you all voted on your way in here and this is the critical part of these debates. we asked to consider the motion, to resolve the european experiment has failed and we will see if we have those early numbers now. again, this will not be the complete vote for the first ballot but it should give us something close to where public opinion in this room is at. interesting, different than i thought. 41% in favor of the motion. 22% undecided, 37% wow. this is the split room. public opinion is in play right now. we have a second question on your ballot on the way and where

we asked you, depending on what you hear during the debate, are you open to changing your vote? let's see that. wow. [laughter] this is an undecided audience. 90% of you if you could change her mind in the next hour and 45 minutes. only 10 of you are made up. i wonder who that 10% is. so ladies and gentlemen the debate very much in play, i'm now going to call on niall ferguson for the first opening statement. sir you have six minutes. >> thank you. [speaking in native tongue]

there are 23 ways of saying thank you in the european union are go and i think that in itself demonstrates why big european experiment has ended in failure. do you remember those experiments they used to do as a kid with a chemistry set and you would keep adding chemicals one after the other, to see what would finally produce an explosion? that is what they did in europe. they started with six. that wasn't enough. they went to nine. nothing, 10 a little bit of smoke, nothing more. 12, nothing. 15, still nothing. 25, beginning to bubble. [laughter] 27 -- [laughter] i am absolutely certain that lord mandelson and daniel cohn-bendit will tell you that

the european experiment has succeeded because there has been peace in europe, which began in the 1950's. the european union has absolutely nothing to do with peace in europe since world war ii. that was the achievement of nato. europe was not about peace otherwise it would have been a european defense community and that was vetoed by the french in 1954. ladies and gentlemen, europe has to be judged in its own terms in its own terms will always economic. how did it do in the 1950's? it grew 4%. in the 1960's it was about the same. in the 19 seventies, 2.8% and in the 1980s 2.1%. in the 1990s, 1.7% and so down to zero. european growth has declined. the share of europe in global

gdp has fallen since 1980 from 31% to just 19%. since 1980, the e.u. had only grown faster than the united states in nine out of two years. never has the unemployment rate in more than the u.s. unemployment rate. are any of you investors? the left worst markets of the last 10 years, greece, italy, finland and portugal were the worst in the world. and on top of all this, monetary union, the ultimate experiment gone wrong. we said if you have a monetary union without labor market integration and without any fiscal federalism it will blow up. i predicted that in an article in 2000. it is happening in real time in a chemistry lab on the other side of the atlantic.

but this was also a political experiment gone wrong. do you know what that experiment was? the experiment was to see if european peoples could be forced into ever closer unions, despite their wishes. by economic means because the political means would not have been acceptable and their results are the europeans voted against a were told to try again. in 1992, the irish in 2001 and again to the poor old irish in 2008. they gave the wrong answer in the referendum so they were made to hold the referendum again. that tells you something about why this experiment has failed, because it has lost political legitimacy ladies and gentlemen and that is what we see not only in greece but in government after government. 13 have fallen since this crisis began two years ago. and more will follow in the

months to come. finally ladies and gentlemen, this has been a geopolitical failure. the european union and was supposed to be a counterweight to the united states. do you remember the hour of europe? yes, that was supposed to be in 1991 when jack preuss announced that europe is going to solve the war in bosnia. 100,000 people died in that war, 2.2 million were displaced until finally the united states had to step in and sort out the mess. who do i call when i want to call europe? it was henry kissinger's famous question. finally the answer came, aaron s. ashton. nobody has ever heard of her, nor have they ever seen her. ladies and gentlemen, you know how hard it is to run a federal system let's just 10 problems

and only two languages. that is why you will understand why the european experiments with 27 provinces and a staggering 23 languages has ended in failure. thankfully i only have to use two or maybe three words now. thank you. [applause] >> i can see daniel cohn-bendit is really ready to grab his podium in response. sir, you are up. >> good evening. again only in english. you know, i have never heard such as a stupid thing.

[laughter] and i will tell you why. i was born in 45. my father was a lawyer. he was arrested after the -- and then they had to fly from south france because they were jewish. my mother and my father. i was born after the landing of the troops in normandy. nine months later, 45 -- imagine, i would have said to my parents, in 50 years there will be no military between france and germany, no troops, no soldiers in all of your. my friends will have said we have a problem. he is talking too to early and saying nothing. [laughter] so i tell you, i tell you, what happened in europe, these were

the most murdering regions of the world. re-creating colonialism, re-creating fascism. every bad thing was in europe and we had two world wars. these two world wars had two and because we couldn't continue and why did we continue? we had to create something where the people made economies together. it changed things together and why is this? they created in a big sense the european union and then communism fell. there were 80 million germans in the middle of europe and they said you will never forget this. you have to deepen the european

immigration. nowhere, not any more. they could be a hegemonic state in europe, but have to fight in a parliament together, but no more wars and then they created the euro. and of course the euro is in trouble and the euro is difficult because none, never, a common state like europe, what is done without war? and i was fighting that the european should go in. it's true. i will never forget this industry that the americans came but i tell you, we have to take responsibility for the world and then if you see the situation in europe today, the nationstates can't take care of their problems of crisis, economic,

fiscal crisis and climate change. not one of the states alone and in 30 years, no european state will be at the g8, none of them will be there. only europe who will defend the europeans and the europe jeans and in germany and france etc.. it's difficult, you are right come it's difficult i will tell you something. i prefer the european having difficulties to talk together than making war together. this is much better. it is only one language to make war, one language. [applause] so this is a crazy argument. of course we have a translator. come to the european parliament and you can see how it works. and finally i will tell you, europe is a dream. tell me why, after the fall of

the war, the polish want to get in, the hungarians. they all voted to get in. if it's so crazy they could have said we don't want to get in. because it's the future. saying it's the future doesn't mean it's not difficult, doesn't mean that we can't have backlash, but i tell you, i will tell you something, and i really really believe it. if we don't continue their european immigration than the european nationstates will be in trouble, because it's an aging society. we need to be together to defend. europe is an umbrella. europe is an umbrella to defend our vision, how to live together. and we did it without war. you know, the united states of

america came together after his civil war. the civil war and then two world wars and then we europeans, we learned to discuss, to discuss. i know, i know discussion can be more, you know too complicated but i will tell you something. an old jewish joke. if you have two solutions, choose always the third, and this is europe. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen a powerful and heartfelt appeal to the european project. now up next speaking for the resolution, josef joffe. [applause] >> i have to start by correcting my friend, niall.

he is wrong about the phone number. there is a phone number. if you call the phone number, then you get a computer voice. for germany, press one. for france, press to cut. [laughter] that tells you where europe is that. but let me say something else. i think europe was a wonderful idea of. after all, zeus, the god of gods, graced his life for the mrs. when he was so smitten that he ran off with her. and the roman poet says the right hand grasps and the other upon his back. now europe was also -- several months later. when it decided to unify after the two most murderous wars in history. what a magnificent story. first, six nations get-together,

and now there are 27. then blow-by-blow, a common market for goods, capital market. and finally, no more -- a euro now reigns from portugal to the borders of poland. what we come would come next? of course the united states and europe. wrong, wrong. europe is crumbling before our eyes. the grandest experiment since the 13 american colonies became a blurb as you numb now faces its most deadly crisis. why has that seemingly inexhaustible march of progress ground to a hault?

think about integration as a mountain climb. and in the beginning in the foothills it is nice and easy. as we rise, the ascent gets tougher and the air gets thinner. finally we reach the sheer cliff the north face so to speak. that cliff is the core of national sovereignty. this is where we are today. with our proudest chief -- achievement about to various. we have gone too far so what do we do next? there are only a few ways. you retreat, staff our attack. attack the summit and climb to the united states of europe? just look at your party of 17 stragglers, cripples, free riders. and because this is a very educated mountain, he would add

there is no unification without war. this is what happened in italy, germany and by the way of course as danny always said in the jena where the civil war actually was a war of national unification. now there is no such war, there will be no such war in europe and thank god for that. there is no bismarck, there is no lincoln in europe's future and no bismarck of course. but what does this deadly crisis tell us? it says, you can't go to the summit unless you are both willing and able, but you are not. you are neither nor will you because a you can't and will not give up the biggest chunk of democratic sovereignty which is the power to tax and to spend and b, you don't belong in the same climbing part to begin with. just two or three or four of you

have the discipline and the stamina. the rest is overweight, lame or out of wrath. [laughter] so let's bring it down from the mountain metaphor. the heart full political point is that europe is broke and germany neither wants to nor can pay for the rest. and even france is broke. the point is furthermore that the stragglers don't want to go back to camp to get into shape for a painful domestic regimen, which has already killed so many governments. the point finally and most profoundly is about the stubborn tenacity of the nation-state which will not submit to a general will. not now when the core of sovereignty is at stake. money as the germans say, is where their the french stop sensors integration. it is no more cavorting in the foothills. it is facing the north face which we can.

so is europe history now? we don't know but we know one thing, that the experiment has failed in the sense that the wonderful dream of the 50s, up up and away has collided with the nasty reality of the nation-state. that will not fade away. and if truth be told, how many french germans and poles etc. will want to part with 2000 years of history? let me conclude if i may end this audience that has given victory to hitchens when they talked about god. let me conclude with a prayer nonetheless. let's pray that the inevitable crash of europe, the most ambitious part of the experiment will not very the rest and let's plead with zeus to save europa from the addressee's in the cozy

little harbor because europe, one more sentence, europe cannot conquer the sea of that is the nation-state but if she drowns, canada and the united states will not flourish. amen. thank you. [applause] >> so, time now for our final debater, speaking against the motion, lord peter mandelson. sir, you have six minutes. [applause] >> thank you very much and first of all, i must take niall and josef up on their staring remarks about catherine ashton. two days ago, two days ago the five permanent members of the u.n. security council and germany, the great powers, ran

into serious negotiations with iran about the development of the nuclear capability. who is leading the great powers? who? who is leading the security council, permanent members? no niall and no josef it was not hillary clinton. is catherine ashton so let's have a little less sneering and a little more seriousness. i was under the impression that the canadians actually watch hockey on friday nights rather than debated politics, but i guess you couldn't miss the opportunity of seeing all of us knock each other around the state on the subject of europe, me an englishman, he a scotsman, he is german and he a sort of frenchmen. [laughter] which sounds like the beginning of a bad joke, really. which is what i understand many of you think europe and its

currency are at the moment. but danny and i are going to ask you to step back and we are going to ask you to look at a more serious and a bigger picture. we are going to ask you to measure the european union against a longer history and a bigger age. before week can define failure in this motion, we have to know what we are talking about. indeed, the e.u.'s currency zone is certainly in trouble and it's sending out distress signals. i don't deny that, but the eurozone is not the whole european project. that project started in the six decades ago. when it was realized that the whole of europe could be, should be and would be bigger than the sum of its parts, by approving

elements of our sovereignty and our decision-making, we can achieve things that would not be possible to achieve if we remain a collection of relatively small, brother combat of nation-states. in doing that, we have put behind centuries of conflict in europe. not a small thing, and we have endured the division of europe, east and west and successfully anchored all of the post-soviet states and the post-tater ship states of spain, of greece and portugal in a system of values and of your reversible democratic and human rights. no small achievement so we have also created actually the largest economic space of its kind in the world, and all the e.'s of doing business and trading across the e.u. that goes with that.

now, in creating this unique model of super nationalism, we have succeeded in doing what has never been done before and has never been attempted in any other part of the world. this system has become absolutely essential to european life. our commerce, our diplomacy, our security and our policy coordination and so many different areas. i don't think he either niall or josef could argue with this achievement if they were actually serious. so they agreed that if the e.u. did not exist, european states would actually want to gain something very like it and even the euro itself. i don't think we can yet write it off as a failure. the currency union is certainly flawed, true. it's clear now that two decades

ago, europe started to run economically before we could walk politically. this is not in my view because we were over ambitious. but because we were actually not ambitious enough. we weren't ambitious enough to create the political institutions the machinery needed to make economic and monetary union work. the question is, is this failure of the eurozone permanent? in my view, the failure is one of design and execution, not concept and principled. now you have heard tonight and you will hear it again, from the other side of the whole thing is going to hell in a handbasket if the argument i think is that there is actually a workable version of the single currency. the question is whether europe

has the political will to implement this, so yes the serious stumble, yes a serious flaw in design but failure for the whole european project, for the whole of the european idea i would argue not. the historical determinists over here, and i don't quibble with niall's qualifications as an historian. it's very easy to be an historian talking about the past. [laughter] looking through your rearview window -- mirror the entire time. for a politician i'm afraid and administer you have to be a little bit more practical and a little bit more serious. so had europe failed i would say it is just too soon to know. could europe fail? of corsica. but must europe fail? absolutely not.

thank you very much. [applause] >> well done gentlemen. a strong opening to the debate and i think you have flush something out which is important. that is going to be up to you to decide when you pick up your second ballot and for those of you voting on line right now. her next phase of the debate is to have the debaters engage each other directly. niall you were the first to speak so i'm going to come to you. what if you heard from the opposing side that you just fundamentally disagree with and do you think they got wrong in the agency and then i'm going to have them are about. >> first of all it fell into the trap of attributing europe and peace to the european union, to the process of european integration. he does it in a very talent way which is played well for him since 1968.

[laughter] but to be honest, it didn't work for me in 1968. this is not 1968. [laughter] >> it is a what i want to be. you don't have to tell me in which -- i have to come. >> you can begin to see why the process of european integration doesn't work very well. [applause] but already we are talking at cross purposes. europe's peace since the 1940s has almost nothing to do with the process of european integration which as i said it's been purely economic. it is not the institutions of the e.u. that make peace. it was nato and the division of europe during the cold war. the only attempt to make

european institutions concerned with military affairs has failed in 1954 because france voted it down in the national assembly. so we must send fall for this emotive, non-sequitur which is the one european language that everybody needs to speak. it's not the case. the issue is economic and neither danny nor peter addressed my point that in economic terms europe has failed to deliver. i have just come back from your. maybe you live there and don't notice this but there is an massive economic crisis unfolding in america because of the failed project of a monetary union. what are you going to say about that? >> i will tell you. i will tell you. >> you our next. >> i will tell you two things. first. , one of the biggest achievements of europe, and you don't make peace only with nato, is that the people came together, because of the people

of europe wouldn't have come together, you have no border inside europe, then you don't have peace. this is one achievement and you can't deny it. you can't deny it. you can't deny it. no, wait a minute. i wanted to discuss with the president of your paper because it was the biggest description of the reality of europe. he was one of the most, best prime ministers and chancellors of germany. no, i'm not finished. >> this is not the european parliament, okay? >> you always say to me -- you do what you want and i do what i want. i don't need a teacher to tell me you are not there, you are not there, you were not there. >> lets stop talking about the style of the debate. >> i was watching you in the

economic failure. when there was german reunification, they make a plan for german integration with money, with cash money. it was the european state together they made a big step to help the germans. when poland came in, it was european money who had poland, communism and today the polish majority agreed on this. it was the same with the other countries. now it is true that europe is also a success story of a lot of countries and do you know what? why the european eastern comp -- countries wanted to come into europe and on the economy, he was right on 1.. we have to make a step forward.

it's true, in a crisis like this, we must have a political governance of the economy and a fiscal approach together. if not, we are in trouble. >> allah quickly said. let me come back to josef and follow up on what danny said which is why is the united states of europe not a conceivable outcome of this crisis considering the cost of collapse and what would ensue? the first of all, i just want to say a word to johnny. if you are right, you don't have to scream. [applause] second, the problem with the two of you is you're so undesirable. if we have political union, then we would overcome our problems. but that is just putting the cart before the horse. the problem is that we don't and we have to figure out why we don't and i've try to explain it

in a few sentences. none of us, and you the brits least of all by the way, wants to give up sovereignty. we don't want to be ruled by the process in neither do you want to be ruled by a process or you, certainly none of us and that is why we never get eons and that is why we can't keep going and just let me -- this is not the european parliament. this is not discussed. we try to talk to each other rationally, quietly, politely, respectfully. [laughter] you see, you see, this is why you won't have europe. that's the problem. iris my case. >> lord mandelson you came in on this of why countries will set aside some final key pieces of

their sovereignty and turned for a larger europe that comes out of this crisis, in your view stronger and more united. >> i don't think they do have to set aside their sovereignty's. i don't think they do need to cease being nation-states. they don't have to cease being britain or french or germany. the spanish don't have to stop being spanish and the belgians will continue to muddle through as they do. [laughter] but, but the point frankly is something slightly different. we are not asking people to give up their nation-states. what we are observing is that european people have chosen to see their states and to see their governments pool their sovereignty and their decision-making in respect of certain key areas of their

lives. and the most important part of their lives is their economic lives, how businesses are created, how jobs are generated, how wealth is created in europe. and by the way, far from europe being broke, we do still represent 25% of global gdp and we don't have anything like the dead mounted of the united states. are you saying that the united states, because they have -- debt that they are broke with of course they are not broke. the point about the single market which is as i say the biggest single economic space of its kind as to is two things in my view. one is enabling businesses to trade across a single market with 500 million people. you enable businesses to grow in ways which they would not otherwise be able to do. if they were limited to their own countries and they faced a

myriad of 27 different sets of regulatory laws and policies, preventing them from trading freely across the single market. that is what you would have if you didn't have a single market and secondly, and i know this because i was the european trade commissioner, why is it that i admitted in washington or beijing or moscow or delhi or brazil, it's not because i'm british. it's not because i am peter, charming, articulate. [laughter] it is because i represent a europe, a market of 500 million people in those countries with their businesses and their job creation and their trade in their exports want to get access to our 500 million strong market or guy and i will tell you, if i was simply knocking on the door because i was luxembourg or

simply knocking on the door because i was belgian, even if i was knocking on on the door if you don't mind my saying, representing a relatively small market and a small population, i would not get the hearing, and would not have the clout, would not be able to negotiate with the force that i was able to do is trade commissioner representing the entire european union. now that is reality. that is reality. [applause] a great deal of respect, the greatest of respect for you to cut. usb to engage with serious arguments. i've yet to hear a serious argument from either of these two. >> i think you have had your say. >> i would like to hear the same from the other side. [applause]

>> you niall you're a. >> nor are we in the house of commons. >> so what, big deal. [laughter] niall, niall. >> should i come back? >> you will get there. you will get there. with a performance like that, you will get there, i promise you. >> number one, it is all very well for you to sing the praises of the european union but it's actually 19% of gdp, check the numbers and checking fast. weisser shrinking? because europe is inflicting on itself a completely man-made avoidable recession. why is it doing that? because of the faulty design of the monetary union. who designed it? people like you, sir. [laughter] people like you. you designed it in the 1980s and can i finish? you have had your say. the design flaw was there from the outset. if you read below report from

1989, and says at the end for the monetary union to work their will have to be central control over national -- and that didn't happen. it never happened. there was a growth and stability pact. remember that? every single member of the eurozone violated it. the greeks cooked the books but they were the only ones. even the germans violated their own rules and the net result of this has been an economic disaster. you put on a face peter because it's not your problem but i can tell you -- they are fleeing your. can i finish? can i finish? >> he has challenged me. >> do you think the banking crisis may have had something to do with the fact that there is 25% unemployment? [applause] speak and i respond to that? in february of 2009 i was

actually in the city and i said, the european banking process is going to be as bad as the banking crisis because they leverage is just as bad and the whole of the balance sheets is bigger and i've said that repeatedly now since then and what has been done in europe? nothing, nothing. do you know a policy was, you and your fellow bureaucrats? to kick the can down the road. there is one more point. there is one more point. >> we want to get everybody's points and so here's what we are going to do. we will give you two minutes and then give danny two minutes because we are going to move onto questions in a little bit. [laughter] >> hang on the second. why does he only get two minutes? because he is german? >> do i get two minutes for screaming or for talking? >> lead by example. germany usually does. >> you accused us of having no arguments. let me turn this around and you said something which is typical of all failed experiments from

socialism to europe. the theory is okay. the concept is okay but it's the design of execution. you remember of this french nato officer comes to nato for the first time and says oh -- the theory of europe is wrong. it is wrong. do you hear me? it is wrong and i can tell that it's wrong by the way you argue. you use about five minutes arguing about this wonderful economic space. nobody challenges this wonderful economic space. we are talking about whether europe can acquire the will and the wherewithal to go the next step. if you'd like the economic space look the united states. almost as big as europe. there are free trade but who wants to get together? canada wants to get together with the united states or with

mexico? you have made the case for economic free trade zone. it is not what what we are debating in this room. [applause] speak, and on this because you are sitting in a european parliament every day so you are at the proverbial mountain face there. why do you think you could scala to a greater level of integration when we are seeing a lot of unity in europe right now? >> i gave you the european law. there are eight laws. the governance of the european economy and the banking system, the organization of the banking system, the need, the stability should be realized by other countries. it was decided by the european

parliament and now it is the law and europe and you will see what happened, right, when the germans and the french -- and no, who wants to be ruled? no, no, no. i don't need a father. my father died when i was 17 and i don't need another father now. stop educating me. i'm not educated bolt. [applause] >> i agree. >> i want to tell you -- >> i agree with you. >> i know you agree but i don't want to be like you and you don't like -- want to be like me. we will keep it like this. i will tell you something. europe today, you don't want to dismantle it. what you want, you say you don't

want to be ruled. the united states, most of the countries, countries that don't want to be ruled by washington. stop it now. i will tell you something. [inaudible] modern life is much more calm for kate at. this is the problem. this is the problem. >> we have two and a half minutes. >> they are like a little child, always educating me. so i want to finish one sentence. >> you at 25 seconds left and then we are going to lord mandelson. sir, don't debate the process. >> i will debate the process, it's not fair.

>> do you want to hear peter now? [applause] here we go. >> i said at the beginning i talk like a minister and i say danny, you talk from the heart. i think he has been brilliant. i love it. [applause] what do you want me to say? >> lets elevate the discussion. peter i'm going to give you the remaining moments of this clock. >> i want to hear from the audience because they think their questions and issues they have raised would be somewhat more interesting to raise then some of those that i have had from the people opposite. >> i will turn to you to cut. is there anything finally would like to say? >> this is very simple. what you heard is the argument in order to sort out the crisis europe has to go to the next step.

edessa takes the next step for central control of fiscal decisions at a national level. that is federalism as you know from your own canadians experience. the trouble is that is not what europeans want. indeed when the question was posed in reference to 2005, when european federalism was presented, it was rejected by the french and the dutch and then abandoned. so what you're calling for, which is the transition to a jena europe or federal republic of europe, whatever you want to call it, doesn't have a lyrical legitimacy which is why it hasn't happened. so your solution and this must be obvious to the audience come is a nonsolution. isn't going to work. the germans are going to vote to make those transfers to the other countries. >> listen very carefully. i also read an article that you wrote in the financial times earlier this month in may.

you are talking about the repairs that were needed to the eurozone. nowhere did you write that they are impossible to implement. you talked about a new fiscal compact. you talked about direct help for banks and the you see bee. you talked about the creation of euro bonds and -- europe's own sovereign debt. let me finish please. your only complaint is that europe is not going as fast as the united states did in creating a fiscal federalism. anti-finisher article. you finish the article with a great flourish, and the spanish philosophy, europe is the solution, not the problem. now, who is the true niall ferguson may i ask? [applause] >> well, peter, can i respond?

>> may the second, 2012, three weeks ago. three weeks ago. >> since that article has been published have you heard anything from the german government to suggest that any of those things -- >> i've heard from you tonight. >> answer the question, peter. >> we want to hear from the audience. >> this is an important point. not a single thing, not a single thing. >> let's give this to move on through the process. well done. [applause] this is certainly a lively debate. the first question is going to come from a good friend. she is well-known to a lot of us. she is a senior business correspondent on air personality

>> a tough act to follow. the question is for niall and i'm going to build up josef's analogy. do you strive for the summit? i think i'm climbers will tell you as many die on the way down as on the way up so the question i have is a practical one which is, is it not better and more sensible to press on in this time of crisis to closer monetary and political union rather than retreat with all of the losses that might entail? ..

take the next step to a federal europe? and when the germans look how much that is going to cost them, they say no. so although i would very much like to avoid the breakup, right now, i see no sign, and i've just been to berlin, no sign that the german government sees this or is willing to take the massive political risk from a domestic point of view that would be involved in eurobond. ain't going to happen. that is the significance, peter, and you know it. >> danny. we go to the next question. >> talks about the german -- >> question was posed to me

from the floor? >> we'll have the other side respond. >> he didn't answer the question. >> i need to respond. >> go ahead. >> i want to tell him today they came out of paul in germany about the question, do you want the germany should make more debt to invest in europe? and it was a big majority to say yes. from the, yes, from today come out. >> neinnein [laughing] >> that is really incredible. from germany and he knows he is nein this is really incredible. >> is green and red friend said do you want to have more debt but not the nation as such. can i answer the question? >> i want to say something. you don't understand how much you played in his hands with that quote because ortega said that, europe is the solution more than 150 years ago.

and that tells us -- >> two weeks ago he quoted it. two weeks ago he quoted it. >> he makes the point it was 150 years ago tells you that this wonderful desire the two of you share in your dream-like approach to politics, that is does not work. otherwise something would have happened in 150 years. >> sometime you should read. >> i don't read enough? i only read what i write myself. >> a lot of questions. let's go to the next one. we'll go right now to athens, greece, the front lines of the eurozone crisis to speak live on skype. the managing editor of the leading english language daily in greece, the athens news. are you there? can you come in, please? >> yes, i can hear you. >> excellent. you've been listening in live watching the global web stream. what have you heard tonight thaw fundamentally disagree with in terms of what these

two teams have presented? >> i'm mostly listening in a country might well soon find itself outside of the eurozone and i suppose it is more of a comment and question. i would like to know, that given that there, what is it, 10 e.u. members that are not in the eurozone as part of the e.u., what life there would be for the european

>> deal with first part of the question first, can greece exit. can you still have a euro hold those other countries together in a single unit? can it survive. >> 70 to 80% on greek opinion poll, they don't want to leave. what they want to stay. there must be some reason for that. and i think the reason is they know full well that if

they were to, come out of the eurozone now, revert to their own national currency, it would all probability sink like a stone. inflation will, soar. the, the sovereign default and the defaults on euro denominated contracts both within the country and externally will create a lawyers paradise. it will create the most extraordinary economic and social chaos in greece. that is why we have to move heavy -- heaven and earth to keep it in the euro. >> if they go out of the euro and i criticized the government because the austerity measures is too strong. this population can't standist and i think we should be clear on this but if they go out, they will, the new government will have no money to pay. there will be a enough, population uprising in what happens with population uprising with no future,

then the military will take over. and we know what happens by history. i think it is a big danger. we should really do more to keep greece --, i know it is difficult. we have to ease the difficulties but it is very dangerous. and i want to tell you something. of course there are countries out of the euro. take denmark, the crone. but if the euro moves at 12:00, at one second. the crone move in the same direction. a lot of countries not in euro but completely dependent because they are economically linked to europe and they have, the euro is -- moment in difficulties. the dollar was stability even when california has no money. when new york has no money but the dollar was stability even in difficulty. >> how can you say that

given how the euro is moving? the euro is tumbling. it is become the most, the strongest force for instability, wait a minute, in our lives. i don't want any brit to tell me about what the euro is, and what it should do because otherwise you would have been in the euro instead of britain sitting there gloating. thank god we never got into this. [applause] that's what i wanted to say. [laughter] >> but, josef -- let's not forget, it is important what danny and peter are saying here. they are saying europe will do whatever it takes to keep greece in europe regardless of a new government that will reject the austerity measures. germany sign onto that? >> i will do it under the following conditions. if you tell me where we get the money from. will we get it from the brits who are broke? will we get it from the french who are broke whose national debt has risen from

35% of gdp in 20 years to 90%? will we get it from the great state of luxembourg or maybe from broke spain? where will we get the money from? if you tell me where the money is, we can talk business. >> can i talk? >> get to you in a second. the deal -- >> that is actually a really good question. what is the answer? [laughter] where will the money come from? where is it coming from, danny? >> the country, all the countries with the big deficit. the deficit started after the subprime crisis in 2008. spain had, in 2007, 39% of deficit. and now it is at 90%. >> answer the question. >> it is linked to the subprime crisis. all of this you have to say, is it true? >> where does the money come from? where does the money come from to keep greece in. >> the money will come from the europeans, from

eurobonds. you have to do it. >> what if the germans say no? >> the germans won't say no. >> this is very important. >> we'll go to another question. >> a few weeks ago i was in the federal chancellorry. seeing the chancellor who is personally responsible for europe. the other month i was visiting the president of the german bundesbank in frankfurt. prior to that i had been in the ministry of finance in berlin. on not one occasion did any official, president, counselor or whoever he was, ever say to me, that germany did not want to become part of the solution of the eurozone crisis, a, b, and say you will have to listen to this. secondly, were you serious or not? i'm listening? secondly, secondly. >> i'm all ears. >> so what did they tell you? what did they tell you they were going to do? i read it too and every statement come out pro

berlin, negative about eurobond and negative about -- >> you want the answer? >> why do you think it is, they keep on saying no and they're not prepared to do anything. and extra 500 billion euro exposure has come onto the balance sheet of the german bundesbank? because they agreed to it. they want to be part of the solution. >> that is not how it works. >> that is not how it works and you know it. the liabilities are hundreds of billions of euros will automatically run up under the terms of the monetary union. the germans didn't have to say yes or no. it happened automatically. they're extremely worried about it as you must know. >> i thought you said the germans could always say no. they could say nein. they haven't said nein. they have said -- >> that is not the point. >> we'll go to other question. because i think this is important.

this crisis is affecting young europeans. 50% among 18 to 25-year-olds in spain and greece. melanie is a international affairs at the munk school. thank you for asking the question. >> thank you. i would like to ask the debaters tonight, what hope if any, do young people in europe for the future given the extremely high unemployment in the continent? >> danny, weigh in on that. your political career began at just manage on streets of paris. was unemployment 50%? >> you want to use it for what? you have two things, first, in the last counsel, critical to the council, but in the last council they decided extra program for young people. now this is the first decision to take now from the european budget, 25 billion, to start some program in spain, in italy

and in greece first. second, the german chancellor, agreed, with francois hollande. they didn't agree with everything but some of the things and to put together a program, to propose for the summit at end of june, a special program for young people all over europe exactly because of the young problem and he said in this direction i will say that we, germany, will participate more than they can in this program. there are really positive on it. so i think that the young, unemployment is, is what is concerning and the european parliament is making proposition, and the european government and i think, this will go on the right track. so i think, this is something that we can say, nobody say no. whatever language you want to say it. you can't say it in russia. it is nyet but it is not true.

>> niall, come to you. you're an historian. you looked at revolutions in history. is there a tipping point, 50% unemployment in that dem grachk, does that suggest social instability is just now seething beneath the surface? >> when i arrived in barcelona a few days ago, took me over an hour to get to the hotel because of the demonstrations by students. it is not only in montreal that this happens. [laughter] it was going on. and the mood is very bleak. the mood is very bleak with good reason because when you look, not only at the current unemployment rates for young people but at the future prospects for european growth it is hard to see what kind of a future lies ahead. moreover, when young people look at the fiscal policies of the generation that screwed europe apart, what they see a mountain of debt that will be their inheritance. if you do any calculation about the futh ture path of taxation -- future path of taxation for the next generation of employees,

those lucky enough to being employed, the taxes will be far higher than the previous generation. we see this all the time. with he can sew does of talented young europeans to study in the united states. it was already happening even before the crisis. that is partly because of the bleak economic prospects. it is also because, let's be absolutely candid, the continental european universities have been rubbish since your generation screwed them up since 1968. [laughter] [applause] >> let's take another question from the stage. this will be the final question tonight. and we have spoke about it before, brittany. i think it is a good one because it will take the somewhat acrimonious foursome and think in a new way. >> so there has been a lot of great debating tonight but what i would really like to know which of your opponents arguments do you find the most compelling? [applause] >> so i will repeat that. there is going to be a bit

of a mental shift for all of you. which of your opponents arguments, jesef, do you find the most convincing? put yourself in your shoes. >> the most convincing part is what donnie said, i'm not educable. [laughter] the most convincing thing that peter said which i am amazed because he is such a steeled and well-trained debater. i assume you went to oxford. you must have won some debates on the oxford unit you stubbornly defended something which was not issue. you defended something which i totally agree with, that, you know it is much better to have free trade and open borders than closed and nonfree trade but that was not the issue of this debate. i agree perfectly with that. open trade is better than closed trade. but it was not the issue. the issue is whether europe, the experiment has failed and, the failure, i think,

the basic failure is, that we have ground to a halt. that we can not continue. and the reasons for that are deeply buried in our societies, our social contracts, our cultures but above all, in the fact that we are not a nation-state. but we are 27 separate nations with 27 different histories and ways of doing things. if you don't believe me, that these cultural differences can be overcome, look at the four of us. the way we debate here. i mean, --. [applause] >> lord mandelson, i will have you end question question and answer session which of niall's and josef's arguments that you give credence in this discussion. >> i am trying to give credence --. >> [inaudible]. you have a good argument, correct? >> you are like a little child. [laughter]

>> let's not make this personal. let's not make it personal. >> i don't agree with that argument. >> lord mandelson, you have the final word here. >> what i was trying to say that, what i'm trying to do is give credence to josef's argument that somehow we have achieved free trade across a 500 million strong market in the european union without anyone doing anything about it. i mean how do you think we came to create this market? it didn't happen by accident. it happened by political design. it's been built up over, 60 years and culminated, culminated in the creation of, finally, of the single market in the eight '80s and the early '90s. by the way the architect was then british commissioner in brussels during the course of the 1980s. thank you for your sneering

remarks about the british in europe. but the point i'm making is, that the question really i want to put to you, would you rather see this fall apart? would you rather dismantle it, would you rather see a single market cease to exist because if you do, if you want to end what you call the european experiment as you claim to do, i would then have to put it back to you. where do you think business is going to grow? where do you think the jobs are going to be created in the middle of a depth of economic chaos that is going to blight europe not for years, but for decades? and that's all i'm asking you to do. i'm not denying that there are problems in the single currency. in the single currency. i have acknowledged those. i think they are very serious and we've got to put them right. i happen to think we can put them right. niall disagrees. he think it is impossible to do because he thinks the

germans will always say no. i hope i tried to persuade him that the germans are in the middle of saying yes but they want certain things to be put in place beforehand and they want a little bit more discipline. they want a few more rules. and they want a little bit more control over the eurozone before they start turning on the spending caps even more and i don't blame the germans for asking for that. i go back to my point to josef. if you think it is such, if you think it is so terrible this european experiment, what effect do you think it will have on our economy, businesses and jobs if you just let the whole thing fall apart? i don't understand your point? >> i didn't argue for falling apart. >> gentlemen, i'm conscious of the clock. we'll move for closing statements. lord mandelson because you spoke i will change the order slightly. daniel cohn-bendit you have three minutes on the clock. >> well i want to make it simple.

i agree totally that the europe and the single currency is in difficulty. i would sign the article of the from neil ferguson from the financial times. germany would say no. mrs. merkel wants the fiscal compact. she needs a 2/3 majority. she needs the votes ever the social democrats and the greens and the green and social democrats say we have to make a step for more solidarity, redemption fund it is called, that is computerization of part of the debt that this one. second, then you get euro obligation. second, and then germany is right towards france. we need a common ability in the future and i just want to say it is going in this direction. and what i can understand is, knowing the european history

of course it is very difficult but we are in a situation in europe where we see the majority of the population goes forward even if they are afraid. he is right, france and holland voted against the constitutional project. you're right, because we made mistakes. i never said europe didn't make mistakes. i just say, because the crisis is like this, the step out of the crisis is more europe. and now we are debating. it is an interesting debate and complicated debate how to do it. it takes time. it is difficulty. to say the european project fails is going back. if you have cram belled eggs, you -- scrambled eggs you don't get the eggs back. you can't do it. if you have scrambled eggs you have to organize so that everybody can eat it.

and you know, i, i really, i want to say to everybody here, don't fool yourself or don't let yourself be fooled. europe is a vision a perspective. historically something completely new and i'm proud that i could 20 years+++tspu history of. that is why i defend europe. [applause]

>> well-done, sir. speaking in your third or fourth language you just had three seconds left on the clock. so excellent oration. josef joff you are you're next with your closing remarks. >> let me just dispense over the issue that europe is guaranties the peace. that is historically false and conceptually false. the problem is that, that security and peace were assured before we started integration. in fact we couldn't have started integration unless there had been somebody else in the game stronger than france, stronger than germany. stronger than all which happens to be the united states. who protected each against the other and guaranteed everybody's security against each other. once the security problem is solved, we could go on and to, to build europe.

second point i afree with the fact -- agree with the fact that the europe has to be part of the solution. what we've heard from the two other debaters is we've heard them restate and restate what is desirable. it should be. that's why i will defend europe. it should go on and climb the eiger north face. what neither of us have said how it shall be done, how it can be done given we talk about it 7 nation states. and, and, so let me stick with a metaphor for a moment. i could climb the cliff but the problem is is that we need somebody who leads and somebody who follows. and the problem with europe is, that most of us are just much better at saying no or nein but nobody really wants to accept anybody as a

leader to rule, to rule the roost and to rule the rest. and if you look at it that way, then you will be necessarily become more modest in what europe should and can do. there is no abraham lincoln. there is no bismarck who can pummel and beat the rest into following him and thank god for that, by the way. that we don't have that. i, there are certain kind of french deputies i would not want to be led by. now, as to, to the more prudent argument of peter, says, would you want to live in a your rob that is not europe? that was not the issue of this debate. the issue of this debate was, has the experiment failed? it seems moo -- to me, with some powers of observation

it has failed but that does not mean we want to dismantle the whole thing. nobody has argued that. nobody in his right mind would argue, that is maddening. what follows from what we see, is that we should be less ambitious, preserve what we have while preserving at the same time the kind of realism that tells us, no, we're not going to be epluribus unum [applause] i thought that was applause for me. [laughter] i spoke too long. that's all. oh, my god. i'm leaving. >> very good closing. one that resonated. so now, lord mandelson, your closing argument, please. >> well i don't expect people to show blind faith either in the euro, the single currency or the european project. what i do ask people though is not to accept the view of

those who are proposed this motion but everything that is wrong in the eurozone and in the operation of the single currency will remain wrong. that every mistake that has been made, is irreversible. in other words, that all politics is hopeless. i'm asking you to accept the view that you can actually repair things. you can actually reverse mistakes. you can change things for the better. it is not academic but it is politics, niall. i think that so much of what we've heard from the other side is quite frankly, a sort of nile listic, a council of despair. i don't expect you to share my commitment, niall, and i don't expect you to necessarily agree with my pro-european views, although as i pointed out you did so two weeks ago in the financial times at the beginning of may.

what i ask you though to do is just to bear in mind what is at stake. this isn't actually a laugh. we're talking about people's livelihoods. we're talking about people's jobs. we're talking about people's futures. we're talking about a whole generation of young people who need this to succeed, not fail. so please stop praying for failure. stop arguing for failure. i'm not saying that necessarily we will prevail or that necessarily we will win. but all of us have got to make a huge, combined, political effort to make this thing succeed and stay on the road for two reasons. one, is, that there is no such thing, if this thing gets into worse trouble, there is no such thing as a velvet divorce in the euro, in the eurozone. the fallout would be absolutely tremendous. for all of us in europe. but secondly, and equally

importantly, you know we're talking about in the european union as a whole, we're talking about a single economic space which is the second largest in importance of its kind in the world. it would not just be the europeans who would be hit if this thing fell apart. it would be people in advanced economies and developing economies, rich people, and poor people including many in canada, right across the world. . .

[applause] >> niall, you have the final word. >> in february 2009, i gave an interview, in which i said there would be less saw that in the wake of the financial crisis they would be such political upheaval and social dissertation at the result would be violence. it is being fulfilled in life to measure of the failed experiment of european integration. the direction of causation is all wrong on the opposite side. why is their depression levels of unemployment in countries like greece and spain? if it wasn't an act of god, it

was a direct consequence of the failed experiments, an experiment that was obviously doomed to fail come into your government elected not to join the euro. why was it year after year the labour government refused to join? you know the answer. the answer was because of the some people in your party, including your old friend, gordon brown thought it was coming. the magnitude of the crisis being inflicted on the european periphery can hardly be overstated here. the stakes are very high. we could be on the brink of a second phase of depression if this speaks to the military mediterranean region that could be maintained when oliver again. what happens after that? what happens this i'm right in the germans continued to say no to the kind of federal matters

that might possibly staunch the flow of money out of spanish banks? their other experiments fail in europe right now. experiments have excessively generous welfare states. experiments of multiculturalism which has traded huge unintegrated immigrant who are most likely to be the focal point for the populist backlash. the experiment has been more dangerous than any of the eurocrats ever anticipate it and we've yet to see the full consequence when it was sad to create karl kraus once described the empires is an experimental laboratory for world destruction my fear, lisa jim demint is that if it european is plain to become calm. this experiment has failed.

thank you. [applause] >> let me reiterate something in the past debates. it's one thing for people to get up the quality and caliber of her speakers. they do it all the time and get a set piece speech. it's something quite different though to pitch your ideas forward and have some contested in the way they have been tonight. in fact, she talk about an issue that is again hardly academic. in fact, potentially the lives of hundreds of millions of people, possibly for the future of the global economy. so it has been a spirited debate undoubtedly, but one that i think we'll come away from what the larger understanding in europe. so please join me in a round of appreciation.

[applause] >> so, now the fun part of tonight's evening. we are going to have a second vote on the motion be it resolved the european experiment failed at the two how they started in this room tonight. let's have those numbers up for the first audience though. 41% of you were in favor of the motion. 22% undecided. 37% against. a minimum amount to how many do they change your vote. a whopping 90% payday kentfield based on what we've heard tonight, public opinion is in play. member to pass their ballots on to the ushers us to leave the

hall. i'm going to announce the results shortly after 9:00 p.m. in the south lobby. we are also selling books about their previous month debates. the city watch it online around the world coming thank you for tuning in. will post the results on their website shortly after 9:00 p.m. ladies and gentlemen, to the reception. thank you. [applause]