BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The euro entrenches a strong centre and weak periphery

The answer to this is more integration not less; nations already accept large internal transfers for example in the United States over 20 years from 1990 Mississippi received the equivalent of over 250% of its Gross State Product from the US federal government having submitted $164.7 billion in taxes and taken $404.6bn in return.[1] The answer then is to make transfers much more formal and acceptable as occurs within nation states. As proposition demonstrates Germany gains immensely from selling to the periphery so should accept some transfers as the price for this. [1] Graphic detail, ‘The red and the black’, The Economist, 1 August 2011, http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/08/americas-fiscal-union
The euro brings economies closer together

A single currency does not prevent war; the southern states seceded despite being a part of a single currency with the rest of the United States. The amount of trade also makes little difference; just before World War I trade as a percentage of gross national product (GNP) was 38 percent for Germany, 52 percent for Great Britain, and 54 percent for France, Britain was the biggest market for German exports and a fifth of German raw materials came from the British Empire[1] there was even a proto single currency in the form of the Gold Standard[2] yet there was still no hesitation in going to war. [1] Papayoanou, Paul A., ‘Interdependence, Institutions, and the Balance of Power: Britain, Germany, and World War I’, International Security, Vol. 20, no. 4 Spring 1996, https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/papa.htm [2] Bordo, Michael D., ‘Gold Standard.’ The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics. 2008. Library of Economics and Liberty. http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/GoldStandard.html
The euro breaks down borders

As with a shared currency shared understanding and culture does not prevent conflict. There have been many examples of civil wars throughout history. Having particularly close cultures almost seems to encourage people to focus on what differences do exist thus Yugoslavia broke up in acrimonious conflict in the 1990s despite having spent more than half a century as one nation - which obviously includes a currency union. There was a focus on the minor differences of ethnicity (itself something that is mostly socially constructed so as to create a group) and religion. Throughout much of European elite has had a shared culture that often meant they often had much more in common with each other – thus both Catherine the Great and Frederick the Great both corresponded with Voltaire[1] this did not put them off conflict with their peers; Frederick the Great fought France twice. [1] Tallentyre, S. G., Voltaire in his Letters, being a Selection from His Correspondence, New York and London: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1919, http://www.whitman.edu/VSA/letters/
Euro creates a new non-military model of international interaction

The Euro simply means that there is no need for Germany to assert itself militarily because it has economically conquered the rest of Europe. It is precisely this problem that instigates opposition elsewhere in the Eurozone. Attempts to ‘tie down’ Germany have simply created a greater Germany than ever.[1] [1] Moore, Charles, ‘There’s no match for Angela ‘Merkiavelli’’, The Telegraph, 31 March 2013, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/9964441/Theres-no-match-for-Angela-Merkiavelli.html
Euro creates a common cultural identity

A common cultural identity, even being a part of the same nation does not prevent conflict. There are innumerable examples of civil war with the conflicts in the 1990s in the former Yugoslavia showing bringing peoples together in one nation can simply put the lid on a pressure cooker that will eventually explode; proximity sometimes “breeds contempt”.[1] A feeling of common cultural links is only beneficial when all believe they are gaining from being a part of that nation. Unfortunately it is clear that Germany benefits more from the Euro than the periphery does. This then simply leads to resentment as if everyone is a part of a single identity it is much more difficult to forgive an unwillingness to help or a determination to impose the will of one part of that community over another. [1] Auer, Stefan, ‘The end of the European Dream’, Eurozine, 22 February 2012, http://www.eurozine.com/articles/2013-02-22-auer-en.html
The euro helps to take away the people's democratic rights

The Euro takes away the national sovereign right to have one’s own currency. As the currency has an immense impact on the economic sovereignty, the state’s ability to influence its own economy, of a nation it is curtailing the sovereignty of that state and its parliament. In particular it prevents any depreciation to regain competitiveness so forcing countries to opt for austerity as the only way to make themselves competitive. They are finding that economic decisions are no longer taken in their own capitals but now the decision making is forced on them from Berlin.[1] The people have regularly demonstrated that they do not want more integration in Europe yet this is exactly what the euro provides. Just take for example the no votes against the Lisbon treaty in France and the Netherlands, countries traditionally near the core of the European project showing the dislike for further integration.[2] Most countries did not have referendums on joining the Euro, a decision that they are now finding has immense consequences on individual’s lives. This is then leading to extremism in many countries where the populace feels they no longer have control over their economic future. Even Germany now has an anti-Euro party, Alternative für Deutschland, and support for Eurosceptic parties throughout Europe has been rising ever since the start of the crisis in the Eurozone.[3] Most of these will be peaceful but there are already parties like Golden Dawn in Greece that use violence and intimidation in politics.[4] [1] Otero-Iglesias, Miguel, ‘A new Eurotreasury could help the Eurozone’s periphery to regain its economic sovereignty’, The London School of Economics and Political Science, 1 April 2013, http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2013/04/01/eurotreasury/ [2] BBC News, ‘EU constitution: Where member states stand’, 25 March 2007, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3954327.stm [3] Mylles, Richard, ‘What next for the anti-euro parties?’, The Spectator, 22 April 2013, http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/04/what-next-for-the-anti-euro-parties/ [4] See the Debatabase debate ‘This House believes that Greek far-right political party “Golden Dawn” should be expelled from parliament and banned from participating in future elections’ for more.
The Euro crisis has forced policy to be made on ad hoc basis.

The Euro crisis has forced the Eurozone members into making policy on the fly without the support of the electorate. For example national politicians, who are of course democratically elected, have been making a series of promises against bailouts that they have then broken; a promise by German Chancellor Angela Merkel that “An extension of the current bailout funds will not happen on Germany's watch,” lasted all of two months.[1] The voters of the countries that are providing the bailouts have not voted for the packages that are using their money and they were certainly not in the manifestos of the governing parties. Parliaments have voted on the measures but have often been given little choice and little time to debate complicated measures. On the other hand in those who are being bailed out the conditions that are being attached are unpopular, in particular the demand for austerity has caused riots. The parliaments of the recipient states have generally voted in favour so opposition has come from the streets. Cyprus is the first country to reject a bailout as a result of its attendant conditions; although when faced with no other option the politicians buckled it could be simply the first country to try to escape the straight jacket. When the option is take conditions the public won’t accept, such as savers having their money taken as in the Cyprus bail out,[2] or exit from the euro then the relationships within the Euro are going to be increasingly conflictual. [1] Spiegel Staff, ‘Time for Plan B, How the Euro Became Europe’s Greatest Threat’, Spiegel Online, 20 June 2011, http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/time-for-plan-b-how-the-euro-became-europe-s-greatest-threat-a-769329.html [2] Charlemagne, The Cyprus bail-out A better deal, but still painful’, The Economist, 25 March 2013, http://www.economist.com/blogs/charlemagne/2013/03/cyprus-bail-out
The euro encourages regional separatism

In the 1990s the European Union introduced the principle of subsidiarity in order to try to placate fears about too much power moving to 'Brussels' from national parliaments. Subsidiarity means that power will reside at the appropriate level that is closest to the citizens, be that regional, national, or European.[1] It is questionable whether this principle has stopped the European level from accumulating power, even the tenth amendment in the US that reserves power to the states when not explicitly given the federal level has not stopped the moment of power to Washington.[2] Subsidiarity has however boosted the power of the regions and provided a cover for separatism. The existence of the Euro provides a kind of safety net for nations that desire independence from the current unions they are in, particularly Catalonia and Scotland. The leaders of pro-independence parties can claim that they will be no worse off for leaving their current Union as they will still be a part of the Euro and the European Union. Artur Mas, Catalonia’s President, has even suggested that its referendum question would be “Do you want Catalonia to become a new state within the European Union?”[3] There have been hints regional independence movements could lead to violence Pujol the General secretary of the governing Catalan party says “There will be no way to avoid it. If we don't deliver it someone else will. More radical parties. But in a negotiation… it's not the best thing to reveal what you are going to do next”.[4] The result then may be a more violent campaign as happened in the Basque country. [1] ‘Subsidiarity’, Glossary, accessed 23 April 2013, http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/glossary/subsidiarity_en.htm [2] Feldstein, Martin, ‘EMU and International Conflict’, Foreign Affairs, Vol.76, No.6, November/December 1997, http://www.nber.org/feldstein/fa1197.html [3] Tremlett, Giles, ‘Catalonia leader threatens to draw EU into independence row with Spain’, guardian.co.uk, 15 October 2012, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/15/catalonia-leader-threat-independence-eu-spain [4] Mason, Paul, ‘Catalan leaders seek independence vote, legal or not’, BBC News, 5 October 2012, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-19847252
The euro entrenches a strong centre and weak periphery

Many have argued that the Euro inevitably leads to a transfer union, where there are large transfers of money between the members (far larger than the tiny EU budget),[1] but so far the Germans have been implacably opposed. There has been opposition to bailouts precisely because it is seen as the start of a union transferring money from the core countries, such as Germany, to the poorer periphery.[2] Inability to help those areas that are less competitive is the main problem of a currency union without accompanying fiscal union. The Euro has therefore built in the competitive advantage of Germany; it exports huge amounts to the Euro's periphery because these countries cannot devalue their currency to make their products competitive. It is therefore inevitable that these countries will go into debt paying for these goods. The is then a cycle of conflict between competitive countries and those who are not competitive in which as we have seen those who are uncompetitive are seen as lazy while the competitive as bullying. This tension will eventually either lead to a split or conflict.[3] [1] Feldstein, Martin, ‘EMU and International Conflict’, Foreign Affairs, Vol.76, No.6, November/December 1997, http://www.nber.org/feldstein/fa1197.html [2] Spiegel Staff, ‘Time for Plan B, How the Euro Became Europe’s Greatest Threat’, Spiegel Online, 20 June 2011, http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/time-for-plan-b-how-the-euro-became-europe-s-greatest-threat-a-769329.html [3] Auer, Stefan, ‘The end of the European Dream’, Eurozine, 22 February 2012, http://www.eurozine.com/articles/2013-02-22-auer-en.html
The euro brings economies closer together

A single currency encourages trade. Since the start of the Euro in 2000 trade between the Eurozone countries has increased by 10 to 30%.[1] The original idea for the creation of the then European Coal and Steel Community was that the organisation would create joint control over the vital war resources of coal and steel so making conflict between the member states much more difficult.[2] Today the Euro helps to make sure that the member states are dependent upon the other members for various goods and services so providing a powerful incentive to cooperate. This dependence helps prevent even more localised conflict; Greece for example still wants tourists from Germany even as it objects to the measures being imposed on it as tourism accounts for a fifth of GDP while Germany is a major spender.[3] [1] Jagelka, Tomáš, ‘Bilateral Trade and the Eurozone: Evidence from New Member Countries’, The World Economy, Vol.36 Issue 1, pp.48-63, January 2013, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/twec.12013/full [2] Alter, Karen J., and Steinberg, David, ‘The Theory and Reality of the European Coal and Steel Community’, Buffett Center for International and Comparative Studies Working Paper Series, January 2007, http://www.bcics.northwestern.edu/documents/workingpapers/Buffett_07-001_Alter_Steinberg.pdf p.3 [3] Rayasam, Renuka, ‘Vacation Crisis: Greece and Egypt Try to Woo Back German Tourists’, Spiegel Online, 8 March 2012, http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/vacation-crisis-greece-and-egypt-try-to-woo-back-german-tourists-a-820107.html
The euro breaks down borders

The Euro encourages interaction between the peoples of member states. Having the same currency makes visiting another country simpler and less costly as there are no problems with changing currencies and no transfer costs. This makes interaction between the member states simpler and easier, whether it is transferring money, buying a house abroad, or simply going on holiday – the number nights spent in hotels in the EU increased 15% from 2000 to 2011 despite the impact of the financial crisis.[1] Businesses and people can quickly and simply relocate should they wish to do so.[2] The advantage of increased interaction is that people from different countries get to know each other, learn about their cultures, their similarities, and differences. This interaction will make it less likely that the other nation will simply be considered to be an outsider group that is somehow different, that can be reduced to simple stereotypes. This increased understanding then makes it more likely that the people's from the different European nations will understand each other's perspectives and positions making it easier to give ground in negotiations and defusing conflict. [1] Eurostat, ‘Tourism Statistics’, European Commission, http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php?title=File:TS_FR_1206_F5.png&filetimestamp=20120629085236 accessed 23 April 2013 [2] Speck, Ulrich, ‘Why the EU deserves the Nobel Peace Prize’, Opendemocracy, 10 December 2012, http://www.opendemocracy.net/ulrich-speck/why-eu-deserves-nobel-peace-prize
Euro creates a new non-military model of international interaction

Since the two halves of Germany united Germany has obviously been the dominant country in Europe, it clearly has the strongest economy, and the Eurozone provides a peaceful outlet for that dominance. While some may worry about this dominance it is difficult to see how this is in practice different to London’s dominance of the UK economy, it is 21.9% of UK output,[1] or Paris the French. While there may be complaints about London’s economic dominance there would never be any contemplation that London would militarily dominate the rest of the country. What the Euro does is the same as how the most powerful regional components of states are tied into that state. The Euro and the European Union more generally create a network of politically, legally, and economically interconnected states that makes the use of force between these states obsolete. Instead as happens within states hierarchically so the members of the European project do intergovernmentally creating law and international institutions such as the European Court of Justice and European Central Bank to manage and resolve disputes.[2] [1] Heath, Allister, ‘London has never been this important to the UK economy’, City AM, 14 March 2013, http://www.cityam.com/article/london-has-never-been-important-uk-economy [2] Leonard, Mark, ‘The EU’s Nobel: but can peace survive the euro crisis?’, European Council on Foreign Relations, 12 October 2012, http://ecfr.eu/blog/entry/congratulations_on_the_nobel_prize
Quota-led gender equality in executive boards will help shape a gender sensitive and highly performing business environment.

It is difficult to evaluate whether a business institution change its values due to the increased number of women on board. On the contrary, companies stick to their values and hire people who behave according to them. Also, it may be early to measure the positive impact of the quotas in Norway. A University of Michigan study found that the increased presence of women on boards in Norway led to slight losses in companies’ value.[1] One of the possible reasons is that women hired after the quotas implementation often had less upper management experience than the employees hired before that and who had to leave their posts, so companies could fulfil the quotas. [1] Sweigart, Anne. "Women on Board for Change: The Norway Model of Boardroom Quotas As a Tool For Progress in the United States and Canada." Northwestern Journal of International Law & Business 32.4, 2012
There is no clear link between gender quota and economic growth

Gender equality in the work force will most certainly have a positive effect on the economy. The US economy would have been 27% smaller without women expanding their job share from 37% to 48% between 1970 and 2009, women went from holding 37% of all jobs to nearly 48%.[1] In addition, the economic history of OECD shows that a large proportion of post-war economic growth was due to the increased presence of women in the labour market.[2] The introduction of quotas will ensure this more skilled women working in many industries which will help these industries expand.  A study by Asa Löfström on the links between economic growth and productivity in the labour market argues that if women’s productivity level rises to the level of  men’s, Europe’s GDP could grow 27% which makes women’s participation is of crucial importance to Europe’s economy.[3] Such growth is crucial for the EU in the context of the economic crisis. [1] Barsh, Joanna, and Lareina Yee. "Unlocking the Full Potential of Women in the US Economy." McKinsey & Company. N.p., 2011. Web. [2] Sweigart, Anne. "Women on Board for Change: The Norway Model of Boardroom Quotas As a Tool For Progress in the United States and Canada." Northwestern Journal of International Law & Business 32.4, 2012 [3] Löfström, Asa. Gender Equality, Economic Growth and Employment. Swedish Presidency of the European Union, 2009. Web.
Public and private institutions should hire people based on skills not gender to achieve positive economic impact

Inefficiencies related to outcomes are not necessarily related to the quotas. There are other factors affecting a company performance regardless of changes in staff, such as the general conditions of the industry, national and world economies.  The quotas allow for flexibility in terms of technical solutions to different types of companies and ensure women candidates are successful in being selected for a certain share of eligible places. It does not aim to undermine advantages of existing decision-making, but to bring a change in the corporate world and to strengthen EU’s competitiveness by using the full capacity of its talent pool. There are more women (59%) than men graduating from European universities[1] and their talent is underutilised at high decision-making levels where they are necessary. Quotas that are legally binding will bring quick results in that regard. [1] European Parliament, “Gender Quotas in Management Boards”, 2012
There are other policy options that are less distortive and more advantageous for the economy.

Binding quotas are more effective than most of the other tools, particularly voluntary quotas. Member states, however, could implement any other policy instrument they find suitable alongside the quotas. Yet, binding gender quotas bring quicker results especially in the short run. According to the a report on gender quotas published by the European Department, they are the most successful mechanism to narrow the gender gap in corporate boards and achieve the economic targets by giving the progress on women’s participation on boards. Once targets are reached, policy instruments of positive discrimination will be abolished; therefore, gender quotas are the optimal solution due to their quick effects as in the case of Norway.[1] [1] European Parliament, “Gender Quotas in Management Boards”, 2012
Gender equality is based on fundamental human rights endorsed by the EU which needs to be addressed

Gender equality at the workplace is an important principle that businesses should follow. If we consider men and women to be equal then they should be equally represented at the top levels of politics, society, and business. This is not simply a national issue, but a pan-EU problem of justice and equal rights. Gender equality is linked to the fundamental human rights that the EU endorses and the lack of progress in terms of women in high positions of Europe requires a proactive stance. As Morin-Chartier argues, the EU directives are about being a model for one another and the quotas will serve as an archetype for others worldwide.  Therefore, the quotas are necessary to encourage progress in this field as other tools have not brought equal gender representation.