Cruel To Be Kind?: A Smaller Eurozone

Months of austerity cuts and protests have dragged on into years, and despite regular meetings among the European elite on the issue it still appears no closer to being resolved. Whilst half of the Eurozone is enduring radical spending cuts, so drastic that they have encouraged frequent riots, the other half is relatively stable, though increasingly bitter that their responsibly-saved Euros are being spent on countries that are less fiscally-responsible. Moreover, the crisis has had more far-reaching impact, as other developed and developing economies worldwide rely on European custom and investments to prosper, which prolongs global economic turmoil. There is infrequently speculation on the breakup of the Eurozone- and even less frequently on the end of the Eurozone altogether. Whilst I don’t believe the Euro will be eradicated altogether, at present a dramatic change in membership seems to be the best solution to bringing this crisis towards a conclusion. All sides in the Eurozone are currently hampered by shared exchange rates and substantial economic integration and interdependence; a problem which, with hindsight, clearly should have been avoided by greater enforcement of budgetary spending and borrowing in Eurozone member states from the offset. By exceeding the borrowing limits agreed for the Eurozone, member states jeopardise the economic stability of other member states as well as their own. Consequently, it would seem fair if, once a state exceeds those limits for a certain period of time, all Eurozone member states were entitled to a vote on whether that state should be expelled from the Eurozone as a result, with a super-majority passing the decision. Expulsion of fiscally-irresponsible states means that, whilst those states will suffer dramatically in the short-term, in the longer-term, by restoring their own currencies, supply and demand will rebalance their economy quicker than if they try to do so with a shared currency. Currently, Greece is trying to encourage investors' confidence in their weak economy, which uses the strong and expensive currency, the Euro. If Greece had a restored Drachma, it would be cheaper than a Euro, and investors may wish to seize goods in this cheaper currency, and ultimately rebalance the economy. Exclusion of irresponsible states also reduces the burden on those that abide by the rules. A smaller, more efficient Eurozone would benefit those within it by restoring its collective reputation as a reliable investment hub, whilst those economically-weaker states will be able to recover at their own pace, and the prospect of stability and growth should give the world economy a boost. It would also provide Eurozone states with an incentive to abide by the borrowing guidelines, and deter states from joining if they feel they are unable to meet these requirements.

Who decides the "Future of Europe"?

Last week, a group of foreign ministers from 11 different European Union (EU) member states, called the "Future of Europe group", issued a report calling for closer integration between member states, with key points being reference to a European Army and the greater use of "super-majorities" in decision-making (decisions made only with the backing of representatives of a majority of member states and a majority of the EU's population). Whilst there are merits to some of the points agreed in the report, with super-majorities being much fairer and more representative, and the need for greater European clout in economic matters, given how the weak oversight of national budgets has completely undermined the Eurozone's unity and effectiveness, is also crucial if the Euro is to have a future. What is troubling is that a seemingly self-imposed elite group of member states have decided they will direct the EU's "future", rather than including ALL foreign ministers or at least just Eurozone members. There seems to be no logic to the choice of this 11, except perhaps that they mostly represent countries usually favouring further integration. Britain and Ireland are amongst the oldest EU member states (or EEC as it was then) yet have been excluded from contributing to this report. Greece has similarly been in the EU for a long time, and both Greece and Ireland are in the Eurozone, yet have been excluded. Countries such as Britain, Sweden, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Finland have far larger populations and contribute more economically to the EU than Luxembourg, yet the latter is the only one of this list of member states to have an input on Europe's future. If the EU is to get greater respect and legitimacy from all European states, it should extend the fairness that it preaches to what it does in practice.

From GCSEs to English Baccalaureate

British Education Minister, Michael Gove, has decided that the British General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE) is no longer an adequate qualification, and is due to replace it with the English Baccalaureate. In practice, rather than representing the culmination of work on coursework (usually essay projects) and modular exams over a two-year period, the focus will be on the final set of exams instead. For me, this is damaging in two key respects: firstly, by saying that the GCSE is inferior and the new qualification is superior undermines the generations of job-seekers today who are armed with GCSEs through no choice of their own. What would have been better was to improve GCSEs and keep their name. Secondly, I do not personally consider an exam-focused replacement as an improvement, given that not everyone deals with exams well (which doesn't make them less intelligent) and a focus on exams means that new generation's qualifications will be based more on memory (through exam revision) and having a good day and good luck with their exam papers, rather than getting the overall evidence of genuine understanding that more staggered and varied examination methods provide. What should be the focus of the government is not examination methods, but the nature of school education in general. The national curriculum needs to focus more on equipping pupils for the real world, including more actual experience in the workplace and skills they can use there, rather than basing education on knowledge, probably over 80% of which is not useful and forgotten by pupils a couple of years after leaving school. Wouldn't a greater understanding of loans, interest rates and mental arithmetic be more useful in maths lessons than algebra and Pythagoras' theorem? Equally, wouldn't perfecting the art of letter-writing be more useful than squeezing in numerous Shakespeare plays? Knowledge is important, but in this more competitive world British pupils need to be better prepared for the world of work than they currently are, a world which generally favours experience over knowledge.