 Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. It's a nice afternoon to be inside rather than out. And we are here this afternoon to debate the United States of Europe. I'm Roger Cohen, a columnist for the New York Times. And before we start, I'll briefly tell you what's going to happen. We will have the argument for the motion, then against the motion. Then the two debaters will have five minutes or so, or perhaps a little more, in which to rebut and go at each other over their respective arguments. I will then abuse my privilege here and ask them two or three questions, at which point we will throw the debate open to the floor. So if you have any questions, please do prepare them while all that's going on. And then, at the end, you will be asked to raise your hands in a binding vote as to whether you are in favor or oppose a United States of Europe. And of course, this is happening at a moment of some gravity in Europe where for the first time since 1945 we have seen the annexation, or to use the rather emotive German word, the Anschluss, of a slice of European territory, Crimea, by Vladimir Putin's Russia. Now for the motion and therefore going first, we have Jörg Asmusen, who is Germany's Deputy Labour Minister and a member of the Social Democratic Party. Opposing him, we have Liam Fox, a former British Secretary of State for Defence, and he will be arguing that a United States of Europe would be a bad thing. Well, without further ado, let's begin. And Jörg, would you please lead the way. Thank you very much for inviting me to this place. I have to clarify at the beginning that I'm not representing the German government today. I represent my own views. I have a basic knowledge what the government thinks, but you cannot make every sentence that I say cannot make the government responsible for this. Yes, the Central Bank, you are much freer, so I have to re-adapt to this. A little louder, please. Yes, of course. I'm not going to making the case for the United States of Europe today, because I think the histories of our continents differ in many fundamental aspects, and this is why I think at least it's too early to work for the United States of Europe. But I do make the case for further integrates, political integration, economic integration, financial integration, and social integration. But we will be in the legal sense a very specific construction. It will be in Latin a construction sui generis. What is the reason that I argue for more integration? There are two arguments on the political side, two maybe on the more economic side, and then I will try to make this more practical. I think first it's true that unions like the EU can provide public goods that each country would not be able to provide on its own. And there is one most important public good, and this was the original case for creating the European Union in that space. And this year we have the 100th anniversary of the beginning of World War I. And I think this is time to remember us that this was the reason to create the European Union. And the events in Ukraine were mentioned, we had the Balkans a few years earlier, and this means war is not unfortunately a matter of the past. And we cannot take this for granted, so we should work on this. And here the EU is the best instrument, and I'm very glad that the Nobel Prize Committee shares this view and attributed the Nobel Peace Prize of 2012 to the EU. Secondly, on the political side, it's not just the shared desire for peace that we have in common, but we have a common set of values in common. And if you look at the Preamble of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, it states conscious of its spiritual and moral heritage. The Union is founded on the indivisible universal values of human dignity, freedom, equality and solidarity. It is based on the principles of democracy and the rule of law. It places the individual at the heart of its activities by establishing the citizenship of the Union and by creating an area of freedom, security and justice. And I'd like to stress that the UK has maybe in the past a bit more than nowadays played a central role in developing and defending European values. The UK is at the origin and the heart of European values and identity. Let me just remind you of its role for modern democracy, namely by proclaiming the Bill of Rights in 1689. And I think this is one group of arguments to defend further European integration, peace and shared values. But to look at it from another perspective, Europe is the indispensable answer to globalization. And this has two fundamental aspects. The first one, I think, against the backdrop of emerging markets in terms of power, Europe can only preserve its interest if it acts as one actor. If we want to set industrial standards or minimum standards for safety at work, we need to agree and enforce them on a European level to be resilient vis-a-vis global competition. Second and more importantly, in a globalized world, many challenges cannot be solved by a single nation-state anymore. For example, no nation-state can regulate Google or Amazon. No nation-state can deal with the challenges that climate change brings to us. No nation-state can deal with migration on its own because by nature they have overcome boundaries for decades and centuries. And in my view, the nation-state loses credibility if politicians pretend that they can solve these kind of problems at the level of the nation-state. The nation-state will not disappear, it will have its tasks, but it will not be able to solve these kinds of problems at that level. And I think in Europe we are at the crossroads. Either we integrate further or if we are not willing and are able to do this, we will disintegrate the currency area as well as the common market. And where we currently stand in economic terms, this is an unstable equilibrium. This is why we immediately start to swing if we are hit by an internal or external shock. So what we need to do is to make arrangements to get again to a stable equilibrium. Further integration can be one, but also disintegration can be in an economic sense a stable equilibrium, but at a much lower welfare level. So you would not wonder why I would argue that we reach more prosperity, more security, more freedom on the way of further integration. I would put this further integration especially at the level of the euro area. This means we will have in the future a Europe at different speeds. This does not worry me because we already have this. Some countries have the euros, others don't. Some participate in the Schengen area, others don't. 25 have adopted the fiscal compact, others have not. Some will be part of banking union, others will be not. So the Europe at different speeds is a reality. So I don't fear this. And in my view the idea of enlarging and deepening Europe at the same time did not work. So let's continue to enlarge the EU. That's fine. But let's move ahead in the integration with the euro area. The euro area for me is the core of European integration. But I want to be clear, it's an open core. Again, who is willing and able to join can join. As Estonia did recently, Latvia did recently, Lithuania has applied to be a member. So it's not a close chop. But then take the euro area and move ahead. And those who do not want or who cannot join the euro area should not be able to prohibit us to move ahead further. And I think the way to do this with the euro area is to start with the four unions that are famous report by four presidents, Mr Barroso, Mr Van Rompuy, Mario Draghi and Jean-Claude Juncker have written a bit more than a year, one and a half years ago. And these are the unions, banking union, fiscal union, true economic union and democratically legitimized political union. And to be brief, we can come back to this later. I think banking union is first to break the nexus between the sovereign and the banks. We are in the final round of negotiations with the European Parliament to finalize this with the existing parliament. The agreement which is now on the table is far from being perfect, but in my view it's better than the status quo. So we should try to get this adopted. This is a relatively easy task because this is possible within the existing EU treaties. But we need to move ahead. This means fiscal union where the fiscal compact is only the very first beginning and across the globe you can find very different types of fiscal unions. But this has to go hand in hand with the political union because there can be no taxation without representation. This means we need to strengthen, I now say the parliament. It could be the European Parliament, but I would make the case in one minute and then I come to an end that we need to do this at the level of the euro area. But clearly one should make the European Parliament a real parliament by giving it the right to initiative which it currently does not have. And we need a political union and an economic union. This together in my view is possible and necessary at the level of the euro area. So we should work for a euro area treaty. I'm very close to what a group of German economists, lawyers have developed. They are called Glinika Gruppe. And we need to develop the institutions for the euro area as well. We have made a start. The crisis management tour, the European stability mechanism ESM is the first institution of the euro area because the ECB by legal nature is an institution of the 28, not the 18. The ESM is the first real institution at 80. And then go ahead with the parliament at the level of the euro area, give the euro area its own budget, its own revenue resources controlled by the parliament. I think as I said, we are at the crossroads. We are in the midst of a crisis. The crisis is no longer challenging the existence of the euro area. We are able to deal with this. But I think it now depends on us to use this historic opportunity for further European integration. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Joerg. Liam, you're up. Well, thank you very much, first of all, for inviting me. And let me begin, ladies and gentlemen, by telling you what I want. I want to cooperate with like-minded European nations where it's in our mutual interest to do so. But I wish to be able to pull separate levers when my country's national interest requires it. I want to maintain the identity and freedom of the nation state, in my case the United Kingdom, a country that has exported its ideas of law, democracy, of rights, and defended alongside the United States those values in two world wars that have originated on the European continent and cooperated with the rest of our allies in winning the Cold War. And I want the peoples of Europe to be able to participate in the era of globalization unfettered by overbearing bureaucracy, regulation, and taxation. And let me remind you that the European Union currently represents 7% of the global population, 25% of global GDP, and 50% of global social spending. Not a model that I would exactly like to see promoted more widely. Secondly, being European is a geographical and cultural identity. It is not dependent on our acquiescence or in support of the political construct that is the European Union. And I deeply resent that the refusal to accept almost as an article of faith ever closer union based on the current European Union trajectory makes me in any way or shape or form anti-European. I want a different, open, outward looking and forward looking Europe. And I often think that one of the problems for European politicians is that they sit in their offices with maps behind their desks with the Greenwich meridian through the middle which only reinforces their view that Europe is at the centre of the world. When smarter politicians have maps behind their desks with the international dateline through the middle because that is where economic and political power has migrated to. I think really smart ones have a globe but that's a completely different argument altogether. Now, what does the nation-state do and what does the European Union currently do? Well, I think the nation-state has two real responsibilities. The protection of its citizens as the number one duty of government and the creation of prosperity so that its citizens can prosper by their own efforts. Before I return to that theme and ask whether the European Union can fulfil those tasks, why was the European project created? We went from the European Economic Community to the European Community to the European Union by a series of treaty changes. The aim was to diminish the tide of nationalism on the European continent that had led to two world wars by promoting economic interdependence and political cooperation. And there's no doubt that the European project had its spectacular successes. The way in which it was able to take Spain and Portugal and Greece from military dictatorships into the family of democratic nations was a great historic achievement. Even greater was the way in which the European Union was able to act as the destination for those countries that were under Soviet oppression. Those former East European countries who were able to move into the family of democratic nations. Great historical achievements but rather at that point having achieved those things rather than redefining its role it continued on a predetermined course in a blueprint designed in a different era. It is too rigid and has resulted in my view in an intrusive Union which rather than simply being about economics has got into areas of our social policy, our employment policy and is increasingly intruding into areas of foreign policy and security policy where it has no place to be. So the two tests of a nation state prosperity and security, let's begin with security. Can the current European Union or a progressive one or even a United States of Europe provide us with security? Well, first of all we already have an absolutely well proven means of determining our security. It's called NATO. It has a very proud track record and more importantly it holds the United States into the security of Europe with its great military might and let's remember that the European military budget is bigger than the next 14 global defence budgets put together not a bad asset to have alongside you in any organisation. And then let's talk a little bit about the truth of where Europe actually is because when it comes to European defence Britain and France, just those two nation states already are responsible for more than 50% of continental Europe's defence spend and they're responsible for 65% of continental Europe's research and development on defence which actually doesn't leave a great contribution coming from many of those others with these great political aspirations not to mention the fact that five of them are neutral and you try getting to go five type arrangement when five of your members are neutral I'm yet to be convinced that that's even possible and I believe that without the United States as part of that international security guarantee that it becomes a dangerous self-delusion and when you see how few continental European members actually make their 2% GDP defence spend for NATO it's a big worry. There's no doubt that the EU could have a possible role in security if it spends a bit more for a start and it could be a useful tool within a flexible NATO acting for example where NATO or the United States in particular does not want to or cannot operate and what about prosperity well the defining moment I think of the recent European Union was the introduction of the Euro now either the introduction of the Euro was going to be a leap of faith towards this great goal of political union or as many of us thought it was an act of historic folly that would lead to instability in the European economy and there were two models that it could have operated first purely political and say this is such an indispensable tool in our move towards European Union and greater integration that everything possible has to be done to make it work a bit like the United States did after the Civil War we need to have free movement of people we need to have free fiscal transfer we need to get consolidation in the way that the state debts were consolidated into a federal debt in the US economic unity in other words but that is very difficult to do when you have the disparities in the economies in Europe that we have today now the second model would have been to say it's purely an economic project it's not political and only the nations who qualify will be allowed to take part in the project but guess what they followed instead a dangerous hybrid was created the wrong countries were allowed to join the Euro and then having been allowed to join they followed economic policies fiscal policies that made them diverge even further from the position they were supposed to have and these huge divergences led to massive fiscal imbalances and the need for huge bailouts and with countries unable to make exchange rate adjustments the price for the introduction has largely been paid by unemployment and if you look at countries like Spain they have an absolutely unbelievable 58% youth unemployment and for 58% of the next generation to be sacrificed on the altar of the Euro I find completely unacceptable and when the bailouts did come largely from the German taxpayers was there great rejoicing from the countries that got the bailouts no, what they said was these are austerity programs being applied by Berlin no gratitude in it instead what it's done in Europe is to see the rise of some of the very forces of nationalism we saw when Chancellor Merkel went to Athens young Greeks waving Nazi flags that's exactly what the whole project was supposed to stop and yet some of the policies have actually redirected that and some of those forces now what's the reaction of the European governing elite to all of this well first of all in the Euro crisis do nothing and hope it goes away secondly when that doesn't work throw taxpayers money at it because of course they're not responsible for raising the taxes and then go to plan B oh I forgot there isn't a plan B because unlike all of us in this room where we to go on fire there's no exit in the European Euro project and it's never designed for anybody to leave which really does defy credibility and this very same political elite who got us into this Euro position now refuses to change direction and in just 10 weeks time we face elections for the European Parliament according to our polls will be a big rise in the representation of some of the populist parties on both left and right the national front party in France looked like winning the independence party looks like coming out on top the freedom party in the Netherlands it's already being very made clear to voters in Europe that the European elite will not ask if any of the grievances that are being expressed are legitimate and either deal with them or say they're illegitimate and point out why it's about containing them they've already said we will continue exactly in the direction in which we're already heading to our cabinet ministers and a former EU commissioner talking about a potential referendum in Britain said it's much too important an issue to be left to a lottery in other words only the sophisticates in the corridors of Brussels are actually able to determine these important issues on our behalf we the citizens are too stupid to understand the issues that actually affect our own countries and it is that arrogance and condescension which is actually causing a greater dislocation between the citizens of Europe and those who are running our institutions our greatest achievements in the free world have been when we have cooperated as sovereign nations we still do it today in the G7, in NATO in the UN we act together when we can sometimes acting as coalitions of the willing process matter to us I want to be able to take advantage of the opportunities and challenges of globalization with maximum flexibility offering the greatest opportunity especially to future generations I do not want them to be held back by rigid structures outdated philosophy or coercive politics and of all places in which to hold this debate Williamsburg understands what it is to defend identity and values against an externally imposed authority so let us work together grow together prosper together but never let us be forced together let's embrace the era of globalization as free cooperating nations and peoples rejoice in our diversity no to a united states of Europe you both for that you have the first right of response you've been presented with a picture of a bungling bureaucratic overreaching and largely redundant European Union what do you say to that? now I say this with all respect to Liam we are a bit debating different things I have put forward an idea to integrate the Euro area further and Liam has made his views known how he would like to change the European Union so we are a bit at different levels but I will try what I can deal with it first yes the figures are correct about population of Europe GDP and social expenditure but for this one cannot blame the EU and this is often happening because currently social security contributions as well as social expenditure is fully in the hand of the member states it's not in the domain of the European Union so if one dislikes this which one can do this is nothing that you can blame Brussels for I very much like a look at the map 20 summits in Korea where we were sitting in a meeting room and the whole wall at the end of the room was a map of the world which put Korea in the center and Europe was far away at the margins but we were also tiny so if we look at the map and if you want to shape globalization if you want to deal with rising powers like China India, Brazil with existing powers like the US then we need to unite our forces the view on the map clearly shows this to us and I think one cannot make the case when it comes to defense to NATO that one can say who is very much pro-European for further European integration is automatically against strong transatlantic ties this is absolutely not the case this is not mutually exclusive if you look at great statesmen like Helmut Schmidt it's very clear you can be both to the Euro I think we will come back to this again and again in this debate the Euro is not the root cause for the crisis that some member states in Europe are in we have a combination of four different types of crisis in countries public debt private debt difficulties in the banking sector and loss of competitiveness and you have different mixtures of crisis in the Greek case for example you had a combination of public debt plus loss of competitiveness at the beginning for example in a non-shape Ireland for example is a completely different case you had a real estate bubble burst that means difficulties in the banking sector combined with high private debt at the beginning of this the public debt of Ireland was ok this is why the adjustment programs are tailor made to the country specific circumstances they are not one size fits all this different combination of crisis have led to a crisis of confidence in European institutions and in European decision making undisputed but it has not led to a crisis of the Euro and the confidence in the Euro is high it's a stable currency internally and externally and to come to an end I think one cannot say that something was imposed by Brussels to someone I mean the number of civil servants that work in Brussels for the European Union are smaller than the civil servants that work in the city of Munich and it's only in my view by sharing sovereignty that we regain sovereignty I mean the nation state has lost sovereignty in the market to globalized power so if we want to shape globalization if we want to put people first if we want to put politics first we have to unite our forces and share sovereignty this is regaining a way to govern the world Liam share sovereignty to gain sovereignty it's been suggested there that you've set up a European straw man to conveniently attack for more or less everything but the European bureaucracy is in fact small that the Euro crisis has other roots than you suggested that Europeans can be pro-European but also support NATO why not? What do you say to that? Well first of all I'm not setting up any straw man as far as I'm concerned the motion we're debating is that we want to see a move to European Union which I absolutely don't on this argument that the EU can't be blamed for a loss of competitiveness on the continent I find that very difficult to reconcile with the comments that we actually must harmonize our labor costs and practices we must harmonize our health and safety we must be equally competitive or in my view equally uncompetitive in a global context why should we all do the same why should we be bringing in these elements of harmonization of costs into our businesses who are having to compete with the Indonesia's and the Malaysia's and other countries who are not adding these uniform costs these arguments might be even credible if we only traded with the rest of Europe but we've got to trade in an increasingly cut through global economy and the argument's already been made that we move in different speeds in different areas on Schengen and on Banking Union there's an argument in Europe that if we don't integrate further then we will disintegrate in other words we must keep going relentlessly in one direction even if that one direction is simply pulling the catapult in one direction and this argument that the Eurozone is the core is probably the one area where we can agree I agree that the Eurozone has become the core now that is the single biggest threat to the integrity of the European Union because others should not be able to force upon countries like the United Kingdom who are not in the Eurozone by their qualified majority voting and their strength economic measures that might be good for the Eurozone but are bad for us and the idea that you have a treaty in Europe that only affects the Eurozone outside the rest of the European Union is a major departure because for the first time treaty law would apply only to some countries and not to others and if you go further as you suggested and have a parliament based on the Eurozone what's the role of the European Parliament what do the rest have a non-Eurozone parliament this is the breakup of the institution that we've had so far now on globalisation I simply don't buy this argument that unless we are absolutely harmonised in every element of our economic behaviour we cannot affect the trends of globalisation in fact I think that is to misunderstand what globalisation is we've moved away from the block mentality of the 20th century I think we're moving away from the trading block the political block in some ways even the military block and we require flexibility and I think a nation state is far more able to take advantages of those trends in fact I sometimes think if Francis Fukuyama had called his book the end of geography not the end of history he would have given a far greater understanding of what globalisation is and I think that this argument is that because our sovereignty is diminished which undoubtedly is in globalisation and politicians have a lot of trouble coming to terms with this because our sovereignty is unavoidably diminished by the forces of globalisation we should give it all away I feel to see any logic in that two other points the Nobel Peace Prize being awarded to the EU especially on the basis that it kept peace in Europe no doubt it has contributed to political stability but in terms of the great achievement of the post-war period in other words protecting Europe from the advances of communism and the threats from the Soviet Union again it was NATO that kept the peace and NATO let's just remember includes not just the United States but Canada and Norway and Turkey who are not members of the European Union and nonetheless are integral and the last point about the euro not being the root cause of some of the economic problems in Europe well it's absolutely clear that those of us who are debt addicted including the United Kingdom and the United States as well as countries in the EU really only have our selves to blame but we in Britain and in the United States have the ability to alter our monetary policy have the ability to see our currencies float on the international exchanges as shock absorbers in the economic process and the trouble in the European Union is that too many of the countries are tied into a single and utterly inappropriate monetary policy and has consequently the pressure has largely been taken up by those especially young unemployed people but last point I want to make is this that I still don't think a lot of the EU leaders genuinely understand some of the problems relating to the euro because they are not dealing with a fiscal crisis and many of them seem to still believe they are dealing with a fiscal crisis they are dealing with a cultural and economic crisis and by that I mean the gap between productivity levels export performance between countries like Germany and countries like Greece are currently almost unbridgeable and to be applying the same policies the same monetary policies to these countries strikes me as absurd and you can pour as much European taxpayers money as you like into it and Thessalonica is not going to be Dusseldorf any day soon and the failure to understand that lies at the root of many of the problems that are being faced in the eurozone Thank you I have a few questions of each debater in turn and then I will throw it open to the floor so if you have any questions please do think about those now I'll start with you, York Liam mentioned the insulting posters that greeted Chancellor Merkel when she traveled to Athens and he also mentioned the extraordinary extent of the German bailout undertaken despite the misgivings of many German citizens I think this raises the question can Germany lead toward the more integrated European Union that you are proposing it is almost unimaginable that the Union could move in that direction without the forthright leadership of what is today by far its most powerful nation but given the history given the potential misgivings do you see that happening? I mean to your first point the posters you describe this is part of a resurgence of national stereotypes which I thought my generation had overcome but you can see this across Europe it's not just that the Chancellor is shown with a Hitler beard on a photo it's you have the same in Germany people saying all Greeks are totally lazy they are just sitting in the sun on the beach are not working at all both is absolutely not correct but it worries me it worries me that at least we have a perceived and I would do the utmost that we can overcome this on the leadership question even if it's disputed I would say the Chancellor has shown tremendous leadership in the last years by combining what was economically necessary and politically feasible I know of course that many journalists and academics like grand design solutions a bold move but reality is very different you have to convince people you have to take your constituencies with you you have to make alliances and it takes sometimes time politics is always slower than markets are but at the very core is that we need French, German leadership I think only together they fulfill the definition of a superpower that means you're damned if you are act and you're damned if you don't act this is exactly what happens in all European Christ's meetings when one is stuck at 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning everybody lays back and looks at the German representative and say now do you have a proposal what to do if there's no proposal nothing happens if there's a proposal it's criticized but they only can do this together a French, German agreement is a necessary not a sufficient condition for European leadership and therefore for further European integration so I think there is time especially this year where not much happened in Brussels due to the elections, due to a new commission to find common ground between France and Germany and then to then reach out to other partners to smaller member states to what is formerly called new member states so this is the leadership that I see it's concentrated on France and Germany this is necessary not sufficient to then reach out to other European partners Liam, given your scathing portrait of Europe how do you explain that so many countries want to get into this club, how do you explain that Serbia, that Kosovo that Georgia, that Ukraine should want to be members of something that you've described in the most dismissive terms, you also ridiculed the notion of the European Union winning the Nobel Peace Prize well if you asked Serbs and Kosovars or indeed perhaps Hungarians and Romanians how they've managed to resolve their difficulties it's precisely because they both want to get into the European Union and they know that a condition for that is resolving their differences it often seems that the European Union is in fact a peacemaking machine what do you say to that well I think they want to join the European Union because it's better than what they've got at the moment and who can blame them and I think that the point I made earlier that one of the great successes of the European Union has been able to take countries from non-democratic backgrounds into the democratic family of nations I mentioned Spain, Portugal and Greece great success and the former East European countries that doesn't mean that once just because we have been able to create that structure has been a great encouragement for democratic states that everything inside this European family is all lovey-dovey and cosy there are big problems inside it and we really need to deal with them and you know Spain was taken from a long standing fascist background taken into those democratic families that's really not a huge consolation to the 58% of young Spaniards who are unemployed there needs to be done about that it's clearly unacceptable and I think that because Europe has been able to do some things well and it still is a good destination for countries that are currently feeling in some of their democratic credentials that doesn't mean that what's happening inside the European Union is acceptable to the rest of us and I think for many of us there are huge worries about whether Europe is stable and I have a real problem frankly about this idea that this is a Franco-German project and all of the rest of us in Europe which by definition seems to include the United Kingdom all have to wait for Paris and Berlin to come to some combined view then the rest of us can be told about it or the phrase was we reach out to them well that's very nice that Berlin and Paris will reach out to us that some of us have a very different view and some of our intentions are being supplicants Britain has hardly chosen a more active role I think that if you're looking at the what we're setting we're setting out as a role and as again I don't necessarily speak for the management I have to say on this point but what I think that Britain and a lot of people in Britain are doing is to saying there might be a different destiny for Europe we'd be able to take advantage better of some of the opportunities of globalization rather than one that's looking increasingly and spending huge amounts of time looking inwards and backwards what about one that looks outwards and forwards and I think that the United Kingdom's long standing free market history is a natural advantage to us in that Jörg how do you forge greater union what you've been proposing if Europeans don't want it the first thing there is one thing that I would agree with Liam I want a Europe and a Euro area that is outward looking that takes advantages of globalization we should not look inward this is not a way forward and I deliberately said the Euro area is the core of the integration but it's an open club the EU is willing and able to join can join the UK decided to opt out they are not willing to join this is up to their citizens to decide but the Euro area itself is open to those who want and those who can join this is very very clear and the rules for entry are unchanged since the Euro area started there is no fudging it's a rules based but to your question I hear this quite often when I especially in countries that I know quite well put forward these ideas after there are always nearly 50 minutes someone shows up and says Jörg listen that might be very nice to some intellectuals what you have put forward but the people simply don't want this I say yes if I look at the polls there is a certain distance to these ideas but then I ask myself is this real political leadership if you look at polls and say okay the people don't want this then I simply do not try this is not leadership in modern times one should define a goal the steps how to get there and then fight to reach this goal one can lose this the way that I propose would mean to change the number or in a number of countries to change the constitution to change the constitution for example in Germany in this respect would need a referendum is a success taken for granted no but let's go out and fight and make sure what are the real alternatives I mean Germany is exporting 40% of its goods and services to the euro area we are exporting 60% to the EU and I mean for the UK the trade figures are 50% so is it in real alternative to leave this union is it a way to more prosperity I doubt this but you are right for the time being there is moderate support for the idea of further integration but let's go out put the alternatives on the table and then have a vote at the end Liam you quoted Angela Merkel in theory your ideological opponent on and you quoted her approvingly on the fact that the European Union accounts for 50% of the world social spending of the economic inefficiency within the Union rather than proposing to diminish the Union shouldn't you and Chancellor Merkel put your shoulders to the wheel together Britain and Germany in order to change this in other words aren't you proposing a direction that goes against achieving the kinds of economic changes in Europe that you want I don't see them at all as being exclusive concepts whether we Britain stays in or leaves the European Union whether we move to greater European integration or not we're still going to have to compete in the global economy and we're still going to have to bring these costs down because there are in the long term unaffordable the imply a burden of taxation on the next generation that's going to be largely unsustainable so we'll have to deal with them anyway I actually am a big admirer because she has handled some of the difficulties extremely well given the constraints placed upon her by the willingness of German taxpayers to write a blank check for countries whose economic performance is to let's put it politely substandard so we change will have to come and change in terms of our social costs and that huge disconnect between our share of global GDP and the costs we have in social programs will have to come irrespective of whether we have more integration or less integration or countries like United Kingdom because we are not competing only inside the European Union we are competing in a global economy which will require us to be as competitive as is possible but if you're competing globally to take what's happening today wouldn't Europe and Britain be in a stronger position if there were a European energy policy and if the EU were negotiating with Russia, with Putin with Gazprom over energy rather than having President Putin able to cherry pick what deal he wants to make with which country isn't that a very clear example of where Europe is stronger more integrated and more together and why do we have to have greater political integration and less national autonomy in order to achieve that we're able through NATO to create a security arrangement which is done entirely by sovereign nations cooperating with other sovereign nations doesn't require transnational legislation to compel us to do it so there's no reason why we couldn't have a better integrated European energy policy and if Germany's got a real problem with its energy policy because Gerhard Schröder made an arrangement with Russia that has put Germany in a very disadvantageous position by extension much of the rest of the European economy I have to say with the exception of the United Kingdom I'm going to ask two more questions and I'm going to throw it open you Americans know exactly what they're celebrating on July 4th do Europeans need a July 4th and what might it be yeah I think it it would help I think we are on the way in building a European identity but this does not mean that one loses let's say in my case the German identity I feel myself as a German European and I know Mario Draghi feels of himself as an Italian European but there is in my view an emerging sense of European identity we are very carefully starting to establish a political space in Europe it's hindered very much by language differences yes the most influential newspapers are based outside the Euro area so there is not a media space but if you look at the election campaigns for the European Parliament you can see very clearly political families emerging that goes across borders of nation states so very very slowly we are creating these kind of European identity especially with the young people they are used to this you travel without passport I call this easy jet Europe you don't need a passport for 20 euros for a weekend you can study half a year wherever you like and this has to materialise at the end I fully agree that you have some kind of rituals memory dates I have to think what this could be we have a a European day it's the Schumann day but again as you recognize I'm very bad it's 8th or 9th of May well there you go Liam it was Winston Churchill who spoke of a United States of Europe do you really want to argue against him? I want to argue against the concept and what was appropriate and what people thought was inevitable to some extent at the end of World War II is not necessarily what's appropriate for what we have today we are in a very different era it's very hard for people to ever have imagined what globalization would mean Bill Clinton pointed out that when he became president of the United States there were 130 websites in the world at the end of last year there were 656 million the rate of pace of change would have been absolutely unthinkable in fact for many of us had we gone back in terms of the clocks back 30 years we would have found where we are today difficult to fathom and find what Winston Churchill would have wanted but what Churchill clearly wanted was a Europe that cooperated peacefully together and that did diminish those strains of nationalism that had led to where we were I think a lot of that has been achieved I don't think that you achieve it any further by trying to submerge some of those identities further into a wider European identity I have no trouble being Scottish some of you might have gathered that already being British at the same time and particularly in North America recognizing that I'm European but if someone told me that I had to be European first and British second I tell them to get lost because I know what I have my greatest affinity to and breaking that affinity of people to their identity I think is a reckless thing to do and I think history suggests that we hope you can be Scottish and British beyond September 18 me too and I'll happily take a bit of it may I just ask you assuming there is a referendum in three years time may I ask you how you currently think you might vote and why a referendum that is on British exit from the European Union I thought you were going to ask me about the Scottish referendum that was such a no-brainer nothing that easy well it really will depend on what the offer is on the table I think David Cameron our Prime Minister is absolutely right to try to get a renegotiation of the relationship in Europe I hope that's a renegotiation that makes a looser relationship for all of Europe because I think that's to the advantage of all of Europe something that was simply a better deal for Britain in relation to the European Union I think it would be harder to sell because I think in fact then what you're saying is in the membership terms for a club that's not working very well that's much harder to sell than we've got a better club currently if I was to make a choice between ever closer union as it is today and leaving the European Union I would probably choose to leave the European Union if the choice was the European Union with a looser relationship that gave us the opportunities currently provided by the European Union without some of the pitfalls that I currently see I'd probably choose to stay so it's all a question of what those negotiations look like and a lot of people a lot of conservatives like me I think will be in exactly the same boat and that will be reflected amongst a lot of voters in Britain. Right, I saw Reginald Dale I'm Reggie Dale I'm the director of the Williams-Bose CSIS Forum just first of all on the point of what Winston Churchill said he was actually totally in tune with Liam because when Winston Churchill proposed the United States of Europe he made it quite clear that Britain would not be a member of the United States of Europe but would it help and encourage and foster it along in a rather sort of paternal way of course it hasn't worked out quite like that but Churchill was not thinking of Britain in the United States of Europe I'm standing up because I'm a bit confused about how to cast my boat because Liam is against the United States of Europe and I'm against that Jörg is in favour of closer coordination in the Eurozone and that seems to be necessary so it's a question of choosing between two yeses at the moment Maybe the United States of the Euro United States of the Euro that would be even worse I couldn't vote for that so perhaps I could clarify by asking Liam what he's been disparaging about the Euro and for the European integration where does he stand on the Euro should it be more integrated and stronger currency involving more union and transfers of sovereignty inside it or not and to Jörg if that happens and the Euro members become more integrated politically and share sovereignty and become much closer unit what is the left for the people who stay outside the Euro but remain within the union what is the advantage to them aren't they sort of second class members thank you Well Liam why don't you go first in terms of the Euro if you accept the argument I was making that the current situation is untenable and certainly unsuitable for some of the members clearly something's got to give either they exit the Euro and find a way to do that although currently there's no legal or treaty mechanism as I said earlier for doing so or you move to full integration full integration might be a logical political step to take but what does it mean for the citizens of those countries and what would further centralizing effectively under a German economic model look like for some of those countries of southern Europe now we've heard that it's wrong to have excuse me it's wrong to have a stereotype of north and south Europe but let's be very frank there is a difference in the economy between north and south Europe southern Europe with higher levels of unemployment lower levels of productivity very often poorer export performances compared to those in the wealthier north and what is the model to be is it to disadvantage Germany to diminish the gap with the southern European countries or far more likely does it apply conditions to many of those southern European countries to get them to conform closer to the German economic model of the European economy in Europe I would have thought the latter would have a very high potential social price but the difficulty is in the point I made earlier while I think exit might be the logical step for some of these countries how does it actually happen in a project where there is none and I remember when the Maastricht Treaty was being passed going through the division lobbies in the House of Commons with John Major who was Prime Minister of the United States of America said who on earth in life chooses to go into anything where there is no way out and that is one of the problems that we are facing now you never go to a wedding maybe if you raise your mic a little you this is the description of a wedding no there is something called divorce in that case if it goes wrong there was no divorce ever written it was easy Jörg you were asked what is in it for the others who are not not inside the Europe but are inside Europe let me say first I try to follow the UK debate as good as I can but what I until now fail to understand is what is this renegotiation of power about what we want back and for what reason and why should the others do this so I understand there might be a referendum two years from now under certain conditions but what is it about and what should happen in the meantime so what really is at the core that one wants to have back this is I think unclear to many European partners and I want to be clear but it's not totally not up to me to decide the EU is stronger with the UK but at the same time the UK is stronger within the EU I mean roughly 50% of all foreign direct investments in the UK comes from other EU countries and do you think they will invest in the UK if they have no access to the common market afterwards I think this is difficult to understand about the stereotypes of North and South again would be very careful about who works and what are the business models of a country because we had a number of program countries one of them was Ireland and you have to have a very strange point on the globe to say that Ireland is a country of the South so it can happen that you are in economic difficulties irrespective where you are located in Europe but the euro area is and will be the inner circle of integration this is not a new concept I mean the it has had different names in the past it goes back to a famous paper that was written in 1994 by Wolfgang Schauble and Karl Lamers and of course yes you have certain benefits as you are part of the inner circle you have certain responsibilities it's both you have a seat at the table you decide but at the same time if you are part of a currency area your fiscal policy must be adjusted to the stability needs of the common currency so it's both it's not for free that you are part of the inner circle and this is why I have said the inner circle is open and it has different rules but one has to be willing and able to join then one is welcome or if the treaty says then you must join unless you have an opt out like the UK and Denmark and my Swedish friends have an half illegal opt out yes maybe just to clear up that point I'm very succinct Ilya what do you want back from the EU it depends really where you are talking to on the political spectrum but let's say in general what I would like to see is having control of our borders I think you are not a proper sovereign country unless you have control of your borders I would like to see less interference in labour law in social provision I think these are matters for individual member states and I totally reject this view that we need to harmonise all of these to help us compete in the global economy because we are better to have differences that give us a competitive edge and the idea that we harmonise all our costs pushing up these social costs that I mentioned earlier and say that that's helping us all to compete what it's doing is equally handicapping as all in the global economy and that's one of the economic reasons why I think we need to have a much looser relationship and the question was asked why do we want this because we think it's better for the future in competing in that global economy that they have fewer restrictions fewer regulations and therefore less taxation enabling them to compete with some of the emerging and now some of the fully emerged economies particularly in Asia Europe is not the centre of the world we have no right to a standard of living that we cannot gain by global competitiveness Yes sir and then Heather Thank you Rather like Reggie I feel that we've veered off the track a little bit because I thought this was going to be a debate about the United States of Europe pure and simple and we seem to be talking about all kinds of other interesting things but not what it says on the invitation Jörg very kindly you've seemed to have conceded the point because you said you didn't want the United States of Europe but you do want a more integrated Europe so Liam could have just flounced off the stage and collected his winnings straight away thankfully he stayed there but I wanted to ask you Jörg something very specific about what seems to be a hallmark of either United States or a more integrated Euro area and it applies to the institution that you've just left the European Central Bank it seems to me that an integrated or a united Euro area would need a properly constructed and properly functional Central Bank which is not at the moment a Central Bank which is able to go on to markets if need be and buy up quantities of bonds let us say without having to be beholden to all sorts of different governments in all sorts of different sovereign countries about the risks that might ensue therefore you've put forward this idea of a referendum which I think is a good one should there not be a rule that the ECB becomes a proper fully fledged Central Bank owned not by the individual Central Banks but by the governments that are actually inside that would give it the power to be much more assertive on world markets at the moment you're in a kind of interim stage rather like the Bank Deutsche Lende was up until 1955 which was owned by the Lundest Central Banken in which was manifestly an interim phase the Bundesbank only became fully fledged when it was joined and it became when it was formed and it was owned by the German government therefore should you not as an ex ECB person be pushing for the European Central Bank to be made a proper fully fledged Central Bank as part of this march towards a more integrated Euro area which you absolutely right is needed let me first state Liam you argued three times against this full harmonisation of labour cost I didn't argue a single sentence with harmonisation today I think we are united in diversity in Europe but David I am deeply convinced that the European Central Bank is a fully fledged Central Bank because the bank has been able to do everything that was necessary to ensure price stability in the Euro area as a whole even in very difficult times whatever was necessary the bank has taken the necessary decision undisputed the bank was at certain moments in the last three years the only European institution that was able to act because the governing council can decide by simple majority that's relatively easy you have a huge uproar then in newspapers why that was the case and who voted against it for that's not the point the governing council is always able to take a decision in my view when we think not only what we do in the crisis but what we make out of the crisis we must enable other European institutions to be able to act because if the Central Bank is the only institution of the Euro area that is able to act you are a bit over stretching what you can do by this you lose credibility this in my view then means to empower in the future the European parliament or specifically a Euro area parliament give them a budget give them the right to tax under democratic control give them the right to initiative make them a full fledged parliament I don't want to give accountability away but I want to shift it to a European body and it means enabling the executive branch the European commission yes I would immediately acknowledge the commission's work was not perfect in the last months if one has been given granted certain powers one should also use them if necessary take one example we have introduced the so called macroeconomic imbalances procedure in Europe because we had a blind spot in dealing with loss of competitiveness inside Europe we had the stability growth pack that was dealing with fiscal indicators you had some convergence criteria that were mainly monetary indicators but we had a blind spot to come competitiveness now we have a procedure here but then one must also use this power and take some countries in the corrective arm of that procedure then one must be brave and not if one minister calls the relevant commissioner immediately drop this kind of procedure so I think the European central bank but we need more European institutions that are able to act we have the ESM that has filled an institutional gap but now it's up to have a parliament at the same length and the commission to be empowered it's quite important to understand the sheer importance of what Jorga is saying that the eurozone should move to full monetary and economic union there should be a parliament that represents the eurozone countries only that the current EU structures including the commission should be altered to reflect some of that this is a united states of Europe but only for the eurozone countries what we're talking about here is the splitting of the European Union and it's a very important it's a very logical case I have to say but you need to understand that it's the end of the European Union as we have understood it since its inception it is a quantum leap from what we've had at the present time and I think that we need just to be aware of the moment here of what's being proposed Heather and then you sir and then you sir thank you so much to you both a wonderful discussion I have a question for Jorg and then a question for Liam I'm sorry Jorg if I understand correctly the concept of a more closely integrated eurozone would that mean that Germany would then accept the premise of a transfer union to be a complete monetary union that that would be in fact the acceptance of a transfer union I just want to clarify that Liam I'm one of the conversations that we've been having in the robust conversation in the United Kingdom is about immigration and immigration and Europe immigration to me seems to be more of a national competency but yet it's been very blurred with the European debate I wonder if you could help us understand some of the concerns in the United Kingdom about immigration and perhaps why it's turning into an anti-European approach the question to you both what Roger talked about today the historical event of Russia's annexation of Crimea puts Europe in a completely new and different geostrategic position do you think this seismic event will have any impact on this debate that you're having within Europe will it quiet tensions and put focus on this new and extremely challenging moment or will you continue to have this conversation the energies of Europe focused on this conversation and not adequately addressing perhaps the most significant crisis since the onset of the Cold War thank you thank you Heather well there are three questions there one to each of you and then one to you both I would ask you at this stage to be succinct in your responses because there are still several questions and perhaps we could begin with the Ukraine question which is a very big and important one would you go first on that please yes I think what lessons have we immediately learned number one appeasement doesn't have a great track record and since the Georgian crisis in 2008 we have sent signals to Russia that we will not resist what is effectively territorial expansion the point was made in an earlier debate we had that Mr. Putin has behaved irrationally while reading the signals that have come from the west who is to say that his interpretation was irrational what influence and what change will it bring I think and I hope that it makes the western allies more united than they've been for a long time and that we will not have these artificial distinctions between the European wing of the west and the North Atlantic wing of the west and we will recognize that when it comes to big security issues and this is a big security challenge we have to act together and we are much stronger if we are acting in concert with our North American allies in the United States and Canada than we could ever be with Europe acting alone not least because of the economic strength of the United States and by extension the military power of the United States we are much stronger as a transatlantic alliance than we can ever be separately I don't have much to add or to contradict on this because I think the recent events show again that peace in Europe at our borders cannot be taken for granted I mean many people have forgotten what was the first and the main reason to create the European Union and this reminds us that it still can be a case even in 2014 and I fully agree on the necessity of a close transatlantic partnership despite all the difficulties that we have on the number of issues this is unchallenged even in the 21st century that we need a close US-European type There's a clear distinction there Jörg is saying that insecurity at our borders makes the case for the European Union in some form and Liam is saying that insecurity at our borders makes the case for NATO there were two other questions there Jörg would you go first Yes first there was a great European before you Liam who spoke about the quantum leap that was necessary this was Jean-Claude Trichet and I think he is right but I want to be clear the new construction that I am arguing for this is not a close job I want to be very clear so who wants to join and is able to join is more than welcome and I think countries like Estonia know that they have a greater influence in than they had before the transfer union I don't like this phrase because it's a highly disputed phrase in a political environment we have already in the EU a limited transfer union with the regional and structural funds so it's nothing completely new in a monetary area you have by definition you share certain risks and if necessary losses this is by nature you cannot avoid this what I don't like is the phrase and the concept this is then maybe embedded in the short term of Euro bonds there are 25 different concepts of what Euro bonds can be but the idea it sounds a bit like you have a common credit card and everyone can spend what he or she wants but there is no joint control over this card this I don't want if this is a transfer union at the very end of a fully integrated monetary union a kind of Euro bond is a natural concept but it has to go hand in hand when you have joint expenditure you must have joint control over income and expenditure it's not that you can say okay we have a joint debt issuance but the expenditure is with the nation state and the revenue is with the nation state only the debt instrument is a common one this does not function this is a triangle and what I would propose to move forward very carefully step by step in a limited way to share these three corners of the triangle don't go with big bang there is no acceptance for this it will probably practically not work but if one takes one element of the banking union the single resolution fund this is a kind of limited approach there is no debt issue in its capacity so the triangle is reduced to only two corners but you have the payments to the single resolution funds but they are limited by nature they were approved by parliament but they are limited and there are clear rules and decision making processes about the expenditure when the money of the single resolution fund can be used so I would think the pragmatic perspective start with this kind of limited and controlled controlled ways forward this means if one takes a step backward you always have to combine elements of a fiscal union with the elements of a political union goes hand in hand and this is where I think there is common ground for France and Germany to agree upon thank you Liam very briefly because I want to get unfortunately there will only be two more questions but I do want to get them in if possible on the question of immigration it is a very, very big issue not just in the UK but really across Europe at the present time let me deal purely from a British perspective from which I think I am probably more able to answer we have a very proud history in the United Kingdom of integrating a whole range of different groups we have been very successful in our immigration policy we have been very rich to our country as it does to many others the problem has been the scale of immigration in the United Kingdom during Tony Blair's tenure as Prime Minister one immigrant came to Britain for every minute that he was Prime Minister now the problem with that rate of immigration is that for it to be successful two things need to be in place one those coming into the country need to want and be able to integrate number two the host population has to be willing to allow them to integrate if it is too high that becomes much more difficult where it has become tied up in the European argument is that particularly with the accession of Hungary and Poland a lot of East European workers came to the United Kingdom I differ from many in my reaction to that because in London you were able to find a plumber and an electrician and get a drink served on time for the first time in some considerable time and at reasonable cost and my experience of many of those was they were hard workers they filled areas of our economy that otherwise might not necessarily have been filled and when they had reached a certain level of income they tended to go back to their own countries and restart the businesses there that seems to be an enriching element for me the problem has been the fears of the numbers coming from Romania and Bulgaria shared by a number of European countries and I think that part of the problem in the UK has been our obsession with numbers about immigration and not who comes to the country and I would like to see it's a controversial view in Britain I'd like to see what I would call an open and shut policy on immigration in other words more open to people who will bring talent to create wealth in my country and who have jobs and as long as they're able to do that they're welcome and more shut to people who are simply coming to the courts of the world and becoming a burden on our welfare system or our healthcare system and I think that has the benefit of being a fair and reasonable policy and what I'm going to do is I'm going to take in fact three questions and then ask you to answer them each of you take one of them rather than both answering them all that's the only way we can fit it in so you sir and then get in the topic of today was think of us as your electorate with some highly knowledgeable people in the front row and some people who are less knowledgeable in the back row and it seems to me to echo some of the questions that have been raised before there is a pragmatic view and there is a theoretical view the pragmatic view if you like the heart view is gosh that sounds like a good idea people coming together etc etc the theoretical view is can you do that without a common fiscal policy and can you have a common fiscal policy as the common market is now established in America we've got these things it's not Georgian it's not Virginia it's not New York it's an American currency we have that because we have a common fiscal policy between our member states and we have a central monetary authority that doesn't exist in Europe either from a pragmatic or from a theoretical view can you have a United States of Europe if we voted now half of us would say yes it's a good idea and an emotional viewpoint but from a technical perspective is that possible given the prison structure thank you yes there was a question I was just thinking that probably 225 227 years ago people in this country were listening to similar debates and the solution that was embodied in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights was a concept that I think we've we struggle at times to stay with it but essentially enumerated powers specifically the 10th amendment enumerated powers for federal government and everything else that's not illegal in the United States my question is is there anything like that in the current EU and would that be possible would you see the nation states being able to reach that kind of a compromise Gideon I think there's a mic coming Gideon Rachman it's just a quick question for York you laid great stress on France and Germany and you also alluded to it as a kind of marriage the euro but with the politics the French side sitting next to me does France look currently like a country you would want to marry I mean the European Parliament elections I'll explain what I mean the Front National look like they're going to get about about one in four votes in the European Parliamentary elections this far right party is prospering the French economy by the accounts of the French themselves but in fact an excellent book by Francois is not in good shape unemployment's high, debt's rising and there's a crisis of confidence within France which you see reflected in plummeting support for the European Union lower actually now than in Britain so it may be a nice idea in theory but in practice when you get to the altar you can say yes Jürg why don't you take the first question on heart and head I would just note sir that from Berlin to Madrid people are taking the same money out of their pockets these days so Europe has taken a quite considerable step in that direction already the question is what are the structures that lie behind that and can it be sustained yes Jürg on the first question please I also would like to answer the last question you will do that and that will be the end of the debate I think technically it is possible to integrate further it's a question of political will and if we have the citizens in support of it but we can technically do this but you rightly reminded us that the European Union and especially the Euro area compared to the US are quite young the institutions if you look how old the US fat is and how young the European Central Bank is this is why for me it's too early to speak about the United States of Europe yeah we will move closer together it's much more than a loose bundle of nation states but we will not be like the US in the future but I want to move in this direction I think technically that's possible but one has when banking union is there has to move on the fiscal and on the political union that's key am I allowed to answer who I want to marry that will come at the end will you take the second question please on our hearts and minds we don't live in a technocratic world we live in a democratic world and therefore what our people think and feel actually matters and we do need to take account of that and one of the things we have to take account of is what they feel emotionally about their national identity and national identities do matter they matter more in some countries frankly than others and it's worth pointing out that of the 28 European member states 13 of them have been nation states for less than 100 years and therefore there are different affinities to different identities across Europe but identity does matter and the concept of continuity of history does matter and you have to have a very good reason to make a complete break with that and I don't think that that reason has been given sufficiently when we didn't join in Britain the single currency many of us in parliament who voted not to join the single currency because we believed that it would be used as a stepping stone over a period of time to move towards the exact European Union that we were promised wasn't the end destination now I'm hearing a description of exactly how that monetary union will be used to create fiscal union new political institutions which are not currently part of the European Union it will be a split European Union and for those countries that are part of it relatively they will lose what is currently their national identity because they will lose control of supply entirely and they will be part of a bigger entity they may choose to do that but that's a very different Europe from the Europe that I grew up in and the flexible Europe that I want to see more able to compete in a global economy I want us to grow together as I said to work together, to prosper together but not be forced together and I think some of these plans in Europe and possibly the return to some of the things that the whole project was designed to avoid in the first place and finally a French bride he's fully right it needs two to tango yes I mean Gideon you are fully right not just reading one book also reading the recent one of Pascal Lamy very sharp description of his own country I think only a Frenchman can write such a book about his own country so it's clear that there are things to do but what I would not do is to look at let's say current economic strength just at this state if you go back 15 years I remember we had in Germany why is France growing stronger than we are we had this for a number of years consumption was strong in France it was weak in Germany now we have growth rate a bit in the opposite this is not how such a relationship can be defined I would look at a deeper and longer historic horizon and this why my answer would be from one side clearly a yes because if you have you have this quite often if you go out in Germany in Finland and the Netherlands and discuss about the future of the Euro area at a certain point after an hour someone raises his hand and says listen this with the common currency is maybe a good idea but only let's do us Germans this together with the Netherlands, Austria, Luxembourg maybe Finland but then what about France I ask the person and the answer is always they belong then to the southern Euro and I think this is totally wrong it neglects the whole history it neglects the whole origin of the European Union this is why in my view France and Germany are at the core because if one for a moment accepts the notion of north and south if you have France and Germany together you have this bridge and what is more important I try to say this to some top French politicians they should not limit themselves to describe their role as a country of the south because France itself is both if you travel through the country if you look at its structure its economy it's both if one for a moment accepts these north south notions so I think it goes beyond who grows better in 2013 or 14 is it really this is for centuries for decades at the very heart of European integration thank you that sounded like a slightly reluctant groom to me but so the moment has come I trust you've reflected deeply on your vote the motion is a united states of Europe question mark I would just note that it says a united states of Europe it does not say which one nor is there a time frame so who would those in favor of a united states of Europe of the Netherlands are we going to count these or just go and now against I think against has it thank you very much everybody thank you