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 euro bonds. it ain't going to happen. that's the significance of the piece you put it from, peter, and you know it. >> peter, you spoke last. so danny, then we'll go to the next question. >> is that because you talked about the german people. >> can i answer that question that was posed to me from the floor? >> we're going to go on to the next question. >> any response? >> go ahead. >> no, i just want to tell him that a poll came out in germany about the question, do you think germany should make more debt to invest in europe, and it was a majority to say yes. >> 9-9-9. >> you know, it's really incredible. this is really incredible.

but give your response. >> his green and red friends said we want to have more debt but not the nation as such. can i answer a question first? look. first of all, 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. two weeks asd, s ago, he quote. >> it tells you that this wonderful desire which the two of you share in your dreamlike approach to politics does not work. otherwise something would have happened in this 150 years. >> sometime you should read. >> i don't read enough? i only read what i write myself. >> lots of questions so let's go to the next one. we're going to go right now to athens, greece, to the front lines of eurozone crisis to

speak live on skype with 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 that you fundamentally disagree with in what they've presented. >> i live in a country that might soon find itself outside of the eurozone. and i suppose it's more of a comment and question. i'd like to know that given that there are -- what is it -- ten eu members that are not in the eurozone, but parts of the eu, what life there would be for the european union without the euro or at least with more countries than just the 10 or 11 that will end up being outside the euro

given that it's built on fund ment fundamentals of freedom and trade and the environment that, again, affect all of us. >> coming to us directly from athens, greece. peter, i think that's a question that's up your alley as the former commission per. >> i don't understand the question. >> what he's saying is if we have these core eurozone members holding the currency right now, this group, and let's say -- >> the 17. >> -- the 17. let's say what is the potential to add to that now in the face of this existing crisis? is the future expansion in growth of europe stopped at this moment? >> i'm sorry, my understanding was quite different. my understanding of the question was -- >> how can you answer it if you don't understand the question? my understanding of the question was can greece leave the euro and remain in the european union. >> i think that was the first part of it. okay. let's deal with the first part

of his question first, which is can greece exit? can you have an exit and still have a euro hold those other countries together in a single unit? can it survive -- >> 70%, 80% on the basis of every opinion poll of the greek people says they want to remain in the euro. they don't want to leave or they want to stay. there must be some reason. and i think the reason is they know full well if they were to come out of the eurozone now and revert to their own national currency, it would, in all probability, sink like a stone. inflation will soar. the sovereign default and the default on euro-denominated contracts both within the country and externally will create a liar's paradise. it will create the most extraordinary economic and social chaos in greece which is why we have to move heaven and earth for greece's sake to keep it within the euro. >> and i want to tell you, if

they go out of europe, and i criticize the government because the austerity measure is too strong. this population can't stand it. and i think we should be clear on this. but if they go out, the new government will have no money to pay. and though there will be a population uprise, and what happens with population uprise with no future, then the military will take over. and we know this by history. so i think it's a big danger. and i think we should really do more to keep greece. i know that it's 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. but if the euro moves -- at 12: 12:00, the clock moves in the

same direction. they are economically linked to europe. and the euro is a stability moment even in difficulties. the dollar was stability even when california has no money. when new york. but the dollar was stability even in difficulties. >> how can you say that given how the euro is moving? i mean, the euro is tumbling. it's 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 should do. otherwise you would have been in the euro instead of britain sitting there gloating. thank god we never got into this. that's what i wanted to say. >> let's not forget -- >> because it's important what danny and peter are saying.

they're saying europe will do whatever it takes to keep greece in europe regardless of a new government that will reject the austerity measures. will germany sign on to that? >> i'll 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 or 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 business with him? >> but niall -- >> that's actually a really good question. what's the answer? no, no, where will the money come from? >> the deficit -- the deficit of the country. all the countries are in a big de

deficit. the deficit started after the subprime crisis in 2008. spain, 2007, 39% of deficit. and now it is at 90%. >> you are not answering the question. >> it's sinked ee eed linked t subprime crisis. is it true in >> where does the money come from? >> that's not the question. >> where does the money come from to keep greece in? >> the money will come from euro bonds, and i can tell you how to do it. >> the germans say no. >> the germans won't say no. >> one more question. >> two weeks ago i was in the federal chancellory. the other month i was visiting the president of the german bunders bank in frankfort. on not one occasion did any official, president or 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," so you're going to have to listen to this. secondly, are we serious or not? secondly -- secondly. >> i'm all ears. >> so what did they tell you? what did they tell you they were going to do? because i read "the financial times," too. and every statement that's come out from berlin since i read that article has been negative about euro bonds and stability. >> you want the answer? >> finish up and then we'll go to the next question. >> if they keep on saying no and they're not prepared to do anything, an extra 500 billion euro exposure has come on to the balance sheet of the german bunders bank. >> because they've agreed to it. they want it to be part of the solution. and that's what they're doing. >> that is not how it works and you know it. now 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, and they're extremely worried about it, as you must know. >> i thought the germans could always say no. they could always say nine. they haven't said nine. they've said ya. >> no, peter. >> we're going to go to another question. this time i think it's important because this crisis, as niall mentioned, is affecting a lot of young europeans, in greece and spain. i'm going to go to melanie green. she's a master student in international affairs at the munk school. thanks so much for agreeing to ask a question. >> thank you. i'd like to ask the debaters tonight what hope, if any, do young people in europe have for the future given the extremely high youth unemployment across the continent? >> great. danny, why don't you weigh in on that. your career began as a young man on the streets of paris. was unemployment at 50%?

>> no? you have two things. first, in the last -- and i'm very critical to the council. but in the last council, they decided to fix the program for young people. $25 billion to start some program in spain, in italy and in greece first. second, the german chancellor agreed with francois. they didn't agree about a lot of things but some things to put together a program and to propose for the summit end of june a special program for young people all over europe exactly because of the young unemployment. and mrs. merkel said in this direction, i will say that germany would participate more that they can in this program. they are really positive on this. so i think that the young

unemployment was a concern. and the european parliament has made 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's nyet, but it's not true. >> niall, to come to you, you're an historian. you've looked at revolutions through history. is there a tipping point, you know, 50% unemployment in that demographic, i mean, does that suggest social instability is just now seething beneath the surface in >> when i arrived in barcelona just a few days ago, it took me over an hour to get to the hotel because of the demonstration by students. it's not only in montreal that this happens. 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 is a mountain of debt that is going to be their inheritance. if you do any calculation about the future path of taxation for the next generation of employees, those who are lucky enough to be employed, taxes will be far higher than they were in the last generation. now, we see this almost all the time with the exodus of talented young europeans to study in the united states. and it's really, really perceptible. it was already happening even before the crisis. that's partly because of the bleak economic prospects. it's also because -- and let's be absolutely candid -- the continental european has been rubbish since your generation screwed them up in 1968. >> let's take another question from the stage. this will be the final question

tonight. and we spoke about it before, britney. and i think it's a good one because it's going to take this somewhat acrimonious and force them to think in a new way. >> so there's been a lot of great debating tonight. but what i would like to know is which of your opponents' arguments do you find the most compelling? >> so repeat that. it's going to be a bit of a mental shift for all of you. which of your opponents' arguments, joseph, do you find the most convincing? put yourself in their shoes. >> no, the most convincing part is what danny said, is that i am not educable. the most convincing thing that peter said which i'm amazed because he's such a well-trained debater. you must have won some debates in the oxford union, which you

defended something, you defended something that i totally agree with, it's much better to have free trade and open borders than nonfree trade, but that was not the issue of this debate. i agree perfectly, open trade is better than closed trade. it was not the issue. the issue is whether the experiment has failed, and the failure -- the basic failure is that we have ground to a halt, that we cannot continue and the fact that we are not a nation state. but we are 27 separate nations with 27 different histories. and ways of doing things. and if you don't believe me that these cultural differences can be overcome, just look at the four of us, the way we debate here.

>> so lord mandelson, i'm going to have you end the question and answer session by giving your reflections on which of niall's and joseph's arguments do you give credence to in the context of this discussion. >> well, i'm trying to give credence -- >> you haven't heard a good argument, correct? >> you are like a little child. >> gentlemen, let's not make this personal. let's not make this personal. >> i don't agree with that argument. >> lord mandelson, you have the final word here. >> what i was trying to say was that -- what i'm trying to do is give you credence to the 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 in the creation finally of the single market in the late '80s and the early '90s. and by the way, the architect was the then commissioner in brussels and during the course of the 1980s, thank you for all your sneering remarks about the british in europe. but the point i'm making, yosef, is -- or the question i want to put to you is 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've acknowledged those. and i think they're very serious. and we've got to put them right. i happen to think that we can put them right. niall disagrees. he thinks it's impossible to do so because he thinks the germans will always say no. and i hope i'm trying to persuade him that the germans are actually in the middle of saying yes. but they want certain things to be put in place beforehand. and they want a little more discipline, and 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. but i go back to my point to yosef. if you think it's so terrible, this european experiment, what effect do you think it will have on our economy, on businesses and jobs if you just let the

whole thing fall apart? i don't understand your point. >> i didn't argue for it falling apart. >> gentlemen, conscious of the clock, we're going to move to closing statements. i'm going to change the order slightly. danny, you're up first with closing arguments. you have three minutes on the clock. >> well, i want to make it simple. i agree totally that europe and the sinking currency is in difficulty. i would sign the article from niall ferguson of "the financial times." we have to go on. now, the problem is that germany will say no, no. she wants to get the fiscal compact. she needs a certain majority. she needs the votes of the social democrats and the greens. and the greens and social democrats say we have to make a step for more solidarity, redemption fund, it's call ed o

part of the debt. second, then you get euro obligation. second -- and get europe and there germany. we need a common future. and i want to say it is going in this direction. what i can't understand, it's knowing the european history. of course it is very difficult but we are in a situation in europe where really we see that the majority of the population wants to go forward even if they are afraid. he is right cht france and holland voted against the project. you're right because we made mistake. i never said europe didn't make mistake. i just say because the crisis is like this the step out of the crisis is more euro and now we are debating.

it is an interesting and complicated debate how to do it. it takes time. it is difficulties. but to say the european project is going back, if you have scrambled eggs you don't get the eggs back. you can't do it. now if you have scrambled eggs you have to try to organize it that everybody can eat it. i really want to say to everybody here, don't fool yourself or don't let you fool. europe is a vision, a prospective, historically something completely year and i am proud that i could 20 years work in this project and a little bit change the history of europe. today we are european with the

feeling that together we can in the future be something because any single state in europe in the next 30 years will be nothing. we will be something together. we will run our country different or disappear. it's why i defend europe. >> well done speaking in your third or fourth language you just had three seconds left on the clock. >> let me dispense with the issue that europe guarantees the peace. that is historically false and conceptually false. the problem is that security and

peace were short before we started integration. we couldn't have started unless there would have been somebody else in the game stronger than france, germany and the united states that protected each against the other and guaranteed each security against each other. once the security problem is solved we can go on to build europe. second point, i agree with the point that europe has to be part of the solution. but you know what we have heard from the two other debaters, you have heard them restate and restate what is desirable. it should be. that's why i will defend europe. it should go on and climb. said how it shall be done and can be done given that we talk

about 27 nation states. so let me stick with a metaphor for a moment. one could climb the cliff but the problem is we need somebody who leads and somebody who follows. the problem with europe is most of us are much better at saying no and nobody wants to accept anybody as a leader to rule the roost and to rule the rest. if you look at it that way then you necessarily become more modest in what europe should and cannot do. there is no bismarck to pommel and beat the rest. thank god for that, by the way, that we don't have that. there are certain french deputies i would not want to be led by.

now, as to the more prudent argument of peter would you want to live in a europe that is not europe. that was not the issue of the debate. the issue of the debate was has the experiment failed. it seems to me that you see that it has failed. that does not mean that we want to dismantle the whole thing. nobody in his right mind would argue. what follows 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 are not going to be -- >> well done. >> i spoke too long.

that's all. oh, my god. i'm leaving. >> it was a very good closing. now, your closing argument, please. >> well, i don't expect people to show blind faith either in the euro, the single currency or it european project y. ask people not to accept the view of those who have proposed this motion. that everything that is wrong in the eurozone in the operation of the single currency will remain wrong, that every statement made is irreversible, in other words that all paolitics is -- it's nt academic but it is politics. i think that so much of what we

have heard from the other side is quite frankly sort of council of despair. i don't exsect you to share my commitment and i don't expect you necessarily to agree with my pro european views although some pointed out you did say 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. we are talking about people's livelihoods. we are talking about people's jobs. we are talking about people's futures and a whole generation of young people who need this to succeed and 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 stape on the road for two reasons. one is that there is no such thing if this thing gets into worse trouble, no such thing as a velvet divorce in the eurozone. the fallout would be absolutely tremendous for all of us in europe. secondly and equally importantly we are talking about in the european union as a whole we are 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. that is why we have got to

combine to make this thing sort itself out. i believe it can and there is leadership and germ skpaen a very good president who has just been elected in france. and while it is true that britain is not at the moment in thefore front of europe's leadership i wish it was. you have the final word. >> in february of 2009 i gave an interview in which i had said that there would be blood. that in the financial crisis there would be such political upheaval and social dislocation that the result would be violence. i believe that tha