The Instigator
JacobGibbsDofE
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
CJKAllstar
Pro (for)
Winning
5 Points

European Union

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
CJKAllstar
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/8/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,503 times Debate No: 58712
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (14)
Votes (1)

 

JacobGibbsDofE

Con

Hello, this is Jacob Gibbs (jacobgibbs1) and this debate is part of my Duke of Edinburgh Award Scheme.

Resolution: "The United Kingdom would be better off inside the European Union than outside of it."

I will be arguing the opposite, that the UK would be better off outside the European Union than inside of it.

Rules of the debate
1. No abuse of semantics.
2. No resorts to insults or personal attacks.
3. Plus, all ToS (Terms Of uSe) apply.
4. Breaking any of the rules constitutes a forfeit and the voters are then not justified in giving that person any points.

Structure of this debate
Round 1 - Acceptance
Round 2 - Arguments
Round 3+4 - Rebuttals

Thank you.
CJKAllstar

Pro

I accept all terms and conditions. I actually think we are better off now as it is, but will be devil's advocate here. All the best for your Duke of Edinburgh, and good luck.
Debate Round No. 1
JacobGibbsDofE

Con

I'd like to thank my opponent for accepting my challenge.

#1: The net contribution from the UK to the EU budget
In 2013, the United Kingdom's net contribution to the EU Budget was over £10.5 Billion [1] (Government Statistics).

#2 There is no trade benefit to the United Kingdom in staying in the European Union
A report from Civitas from just a few months ago has shown that there is no trade benefit to the UK in staying in the EU [2]. This is especially bad when you consider the cost of EU membership.

#3 There is trade benefit to the United Kingdom in leaving the European Union
Outside of the EU, we would be able to trade on our own terms with countries outside of the EU [3]. This is reflected in the fact that food bills in each UK household would go down by £400 [4], which is partly because of the EU blocking cheaper imports from outside of Europe.

#4 If we left the EU, there'd be a significant decrease in Fuel Poverty
Outside of the EU, every UK fuel bill would be £112 cheaper [4]. This is important because of the scale of people who are either in fuel poverty or who will be in the near future [5].

#5 The European Union is not responsible for peace and puts us in risk of having a war/riots
It is a common myth that the EU is responsible for the 70 years of peace. However, this is incorrect. There was no war between the European countries from 1945 to 1956. If anything is keeping the peace, it is NATO. It was NATO that stopped the violence in the civil war in Yugoslavia, which killed 100,000 people [6].
The European Union also caused the massive debts in Greece, which resulted in serious riots with over 300 injuries and 5 deaths [7]. We run risk of something like this happening in the future if we stay in the EU for much longer, as all EU countries will have the Euro forced on them in 2020 [8], the cause of the situation in Greece.

#6 The EU has destroyed over 97,000 UK jobs.
A report by the TaxPayers' Alliance has found that the EU has costed the UK 97,000 jobs with its fishing policy [9] - 9,000 in fishing and 88,000 in dependent industries onshore. We cannot change this EU policy [3] and are restricted by it until we leave the EU.

#7 Outside of the EU, we will be able to have a fair and sensible immigration policy
It is clear that we cannot control immigration from EU countries whilst inside the EU [3]. This is what has led to the current system, where we have border controls but only for people from non-EU countries.
Government statistics show that net migration is at over 200,000 [10], and other statistics show that nearly 40% of new housing in the future will be as a result of immigration [11]. If we were to leave the EU, we'd be able to only let in people who'd be able to really benefit our economy and fit a number of regulations, meaning that net migration would either be negative or insignificant and immigration would be responsible for not even 1% of new housing, which would be tackling the issue of overcrowding/overpopulation.

#8 Outside of the EU, we would be able to restore democracy to our country
The European Union was clearly not designed to be democratic. European Comissioners are not democratically elected [12], MEPs do not have the right to initiate legislation [13], and the EU has complete control over certain areas of law [3] - if a UK and an EU law disagree on a certain subject, it's the EU law that stands.
Senior European Comissioner Viviane Reding has admitted that 75-80% of our laws are made in Brussels [14].

I think I have provided eight good reasons for the United Kingdom to leave the European Union.

Thank you.

Sources
[1] https://www.gov.uk...
[2] http://www.bbc.co.uk...
[3] The Treaty on the functioning of the European Union, a consolidated version of which is found here: http://en.wikisource.org...
[4] http://www.ukip.org...
[5] http://www.poverty.org.uk...
[6] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[7] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[8] http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
[9] P. 25, http://www.ukipmeps.org...
[10] http://www.ons.gov.uk...
[11] http://www.migrationwatchuk.org...
[12] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[13] http://www.finance-watch.org...
[14] http://www.ukip.org...
CJKAllstar

Pro

Rebuttal

#1: The net contribution from the UK to the EU budget


Last May, exports from the EU were 12.2 billion pounds[1]. Imports were 17.4 billion pounds[1]. There is not a net contribution in the recent months, but rather a net balance of payment surplus in regards to the EU as we gained an extra 5.2 billion pounds. April we had an EU surplus of 5.1 billion pounds[2] and in March that was 5.3 billion pounds[3]. We gain more than we lose in regards to the EU.

#2 There is no trade benefit to the United Kingdom in staying in the European Union

No trade benefits? The information above, in times of a recession is in itself a large benefit. Let us not forget that there is reduced buraeucracy and paperwork as well as standards which have been harmonised to make sure that safety, anti-monopolisation and anti-nepotism is a factor[4]. There are clear benefits.


#3 There is trade benefit to the United Kingdom in leaving the European Union

Outside the EU, it would be impossible to trade on the same level we do now. If we rejoin the EEA, we will still have to pay and live in accordance with their rules. We'd need to pay about 2 billion euros per annum if we wanted to actually have access to the trade we do now[5]. If you leave the EEA, then expect no trade with the EU and we'd have to cut exports in order to have a balance of payments then. This is certainly not good for other economies.


Fundamentally, economics is about safety. It is why people like demand/income-inelastic items and why a body like the EU has the highest nominal GDP[6]. A body which is doing successfully one could argue, and is likely to produce good results, people will trade with. One that is likely not too, people will not. Staying as a part of the EU means that for the sake of safety, we'd for certain benefit from international trade.

The point however, at which we leave the EU we are left with multiple situations. We could join the EEA, still pay large amounts, still be stuck under bureaucracy just on a lesser scale, which includes our imports from the EU as seeing as we aren't as close with the EU we are on more dangerous, volatile ground and there is likely to be less trade. Or we could leave the EEA and miss out completely. I concede that certain bills would decrease if we left the EU, but frankly it is not worth the billions we earn, the security of trade we have. Countries from around the world trade when there is safety and security. When we leave, our options aren't steady.

#4 If we left the EU, there'd be a significant decrease in Fuel Poverty

Once again, I concede this. But there is a fundamental problem with arguments such as these. We, in this country could increase the GDP by killing the elderly. We'd have more homes available, do not have to spend money on pensions, as well as have a largely productive population which gives back. But there are ramifications here, largely morally.


The same applies to your arguments. Yes, there are bonuses to the leaving of the EU, and I concede they exist, but what I do not concede is that this means we should leave for there are a host of ramifications I have mentioned above, both fundamentally and actually, which outweigh the extra cost we have to pay.

#5 The European Union is not responsible for peace and puts us in risk of having a war/riots

I don't believe I understand your argument. The EU does not prevent wars, NATO does. If you are trying to say that because NATO does a better job, we should leave the EU then this is a blatant fallacy of relative privation and holds no ground in formal debate. NATO does do a better job and preventing war. After all, it is their job, and not even the job of the EU. This shouldn't at all affect out position within the EU. The EU do not also produce medicine for disabled people, thus should we leave?

This too is a non sequitur. Do the EU have responsibility over peace-keeping? They aren't a foreign policy, nor should they be. It was an economic agreement and it makes no sense to say we should leave because they aren't doing something that they shouldn't be doing in the first place.

And the issue with Greece is appealing to one example. Firstly, the issue in Greece was due to already very high growth, with Greece already being an "economic miracle" in the 1950s - 1970s[7]. But this was helped by excessive Keynesian policy with borrowing and spending, lying about their deficit so to get into the EU and huge tax evasion[7][8]. The 2009 crisis only amplified this so that Greece was forced into borrowing even more, increasing their huge deficit, forcing more tax evasion which only forced more borrowing, and increasing their debt.

The only part the EU had in this was that the euro, because of how successfully the euro was in that it caused spending to increase and inflation to soar.[8] The EU howver in no way had any direct part to play in the failings of the Greek economy.

#6 The EU has destroyed over 97,000 UK jobs.

Yes. 100,000 jobs were lost because of the fishing policy. But 4.2 million jobs are EU related in total. The scale tips in my favour, celarly, as this means that £211 billion is coming from that[9].


#7 Outside of the EU, we will be able to have a fair and sensible immigration policy

The cause of immigration to the UK is simply a matter of the fact that countries like Romania, Bulgaria, Estonia, etc, amplified due to the recession, are in a state that people are flocking to other countries. I believe that we can both agree with this. Britian is a country with lots of opportunity and which appreciates cheap labour. Eastern europeans and immigrants come here because our country is better than theirs, and has better opportunity for them.


So, what do we want to do as a response? Run away from the issue. The thing is, we impose harsher legislation then the immigrants will flock to Germany, France, etc. The problem is, the same economic problems that we are facing due to immigration are then transferred to another country. We will be better off, but then out trade opportunities with other countries will decrase. As other MEDC's are earning less due to having to spend so much and suffer so much due to immigration, then our trade chances will simply decrease.

They'll too run away from the issue, worsening another country and it becomes cyclical until the point that these immigrants are forced to starve and suffer and we only further worsen humanitarian crises. Now, the problem is that this means aid of some sort will have to be increased. We can't simply run away because these people suffering one way or another we are paying for them. Poverty is one of the largest economic exteralities, and as we allow immigration levels to increase elsewhere, not only will we have to suffer in the long term as we will pay these externalities via tax, or aid, etc but we also lose on trade imports as countries suffer, in which we have to balance the payments by cutting imports.

In short, immigration needs to be tackled head on, by helping in the process of developing these countries. Globalisation has to infiltrate these countries and hope to improve standards of life there, we need to not run away from immigration nor push it away, but cut it down. We need to prevent movement in the first place and we cannot do this whilst we are apart. Only a collective body, which is very wealthy and has trade capabilites and the power of legislature to help Romania for example further develop. Only the EU can create policies to insentivise continental trade and business. We need the EU so that we don't end up paying huge externalities. We need to come together and solve this problem head on.

#8 Outside of the EU, we would be able to restore democracy to our country

Firstly, the legislative figure you quoted is flawed. This is an issue that really cannot be answered straightly. Estimates range from 6-84%, and all are reliable sources[10], MEPs' themselves in a lot of cases.


As for restoring democracy, MEPs do not directly have the ability to enforce legislation, but they still have the democratic right to help with the voting and have asisted in helping in a host of legislature. Including, as taken from the europarl website[11].

  • Work and holiday time.
  • Which pesticides are safe to use on the food grown in the EU;
  • Roaming charges.
  • How to use and label Genetically Modified Organisms;
  • Making children's toys safe;
  • Saefty with chemicals.
  • Cleaning up.
  • International healthcare.
  • Easier international studying.
They do have powers to do all of this, and clearly have done. Whether it is truly democratic makes no difference as that is only for the sake of a goal which is already being met.

As for the issue of the commssioner, they are democratically elected, just not in a traditional manner. Due to a lack of space, I urge the floor to read for themselves, but in short they are elected by members.
http://en.wikipedia.org...


My contentions are present in my rebuttals. We are better off in in a multitude of ways, and I urge the floor to side with Pro. Thank you.


Sources:

[1] http://www.ons.gov.uk...
[2] http://www.ons.gov.uk...
[3] http://www.ons.gov.uk...
[4] https://www.gov.uk...
[5] http://www.jcm.org.uk...
[6] http://en.wikipedia.org...(nominal)
[7] http://blogs.economictimes.indiatimes.com...
[8] http://www.bbc.co.uk...
[9] http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk...
[10] http://www.parliament.uk...
[11] http://www.europarl.org.uk...
Debate Round No. 2
JacobGibbsDofE

Con

Rebuttal

#1 The net contribution from the UK to the EU budget

I think this information is compatible with what I have been saying. My sources from the last round prove that there is no trade benefit with staying in the EU [round 2, source 2] that we wouldn't get from leaving the EU. So, we would save money if we left it.

#2 There is no trade benefit to the United Kingdom in staying in the European Union

I understand pro's confusion in this, so perhaps I didn't express my point clearly enough. The report that I linked to in the second round is saying that there is no trade benefit from the EU [round 2, source 2] that we wouldn't get if we were to leave the EU.

#3 There is trade benefit to the United Kingsom in leaving the European Union

All of the current countries who are members of the European Economic Area {EEA} but not the EU itself are all very small countries. Iceland has a population of 320,000, Liechtenstein has a population of 34,237, and Norway has a population of just over 5 million [1]. We have a population of over 63 million [2]. Not only that, but you mentioned in your argument the trade deficit between the EU and the UK - it has been estimated that if the UK lost 3 million jobs, then the EU would lose 4 million jobs [3]. Britain is important enought that they'd be able to create a trade deal with Europe that doesn't include any of the membership fees or limitations of our current trade restrictions.

#4 If we left the EU, there'd be a significant decrease in Fuel Poverty

It's true that there'd be more elderly people dying if we were to stay in the EU, and I can feel the tory voters reading this and nodding their heads in agreement - not me, though! I care for our old people, and if there are better groups of people to suffer from the consequences of dealing with this problem than the elderly. After all, a significant number of old people live in old peoples' homes, which young people may not find very "rad".
The solution is to stop all the immigrants with nothing special to offer this country from entering this country, because as I said in the last round, if we left the EU, we'd be allowed to have a real immigration policy. Not just that, but we'd also be able to deport illegal immigrants and terrorists without taking ages.

#5 The European Union is not responsible for peace and puts us in risk of having a war/riots

I'll just clarify - here, I was dealing with the common argument from Nick Clegg fans that if we left the EU, there'd be a third world war.
Pro gives us no reason why similar circumstances could not happen in the UK after a few more years of staying in the EU. As proved (Round 2, source 8), it is most likely that the UK would have to adopt the Euro if it were to stay in the EU until 2020. This is especially bad as one of the main reasons that the UK's economy is growing (and even to overtake France by 2020 [4]) is because of the pound's strength against the dollar compared with the Euro [5].

#6 The EU has destroyed over 97,000 UK jobs

But those EU-related jobs aren't specifically EU-related. They are Europe-related. We'd still be able to trade with Europe if we left the EU, and if anything, we'd have more jobs, as we wouldn't have the EU blocking cheaper imports. So, the point still stands.

#7 Outside of the EU, we will be able to have a fair and sensible

Pro's point here is very wobbly as he doesn't five any statistics on what % of people who migrate to the UK come from unpreviliged countries, or even the reasons migrants give for coming to this country. Even so, 200.000 divided by the number of alternative comparably pleasent places to migrate (The US, France, Germany, Spain, Japan, Russia, the list goes on) does not make for a significant burden on other countries, especially when you factor in their size.
Moreover, the UK needs a real (fair and sensible) immigration policy, as is evident from the fact that England is the most crowded country in Europe and has some of the highest levels of net migration [6]. This problem needs a solution, and urgently.

#8 Outside of the EU, we would be able to restore democracy to our country

Pro's statistics do not do much to deny that there is a democracy deficit in the UK as a result of the EU. He says that a lot of MEPs dispute legislative figures, however I am talking about someone who'd have more authority to know about things like these than an MEP - a senior European Comissioner, as I linked to in the second round. The question has to be asked - why would a senior European Comissioner get such a thing wrong, and if it has an equal chance of being anywhere between 6-84% as you implied, why did she go for the very high figure? Wouldn't she want Britain to think better of the EU if she wanted to do that?
The point still stands that MEPs cannot initiate legislation and therefore the EU is not a fair democracy - one of many reasons why we should leave it.
On the European Comissioners - a majority of people elected (MEPs), people in Britain would have no say over whatsoever, therefore they aren't elected democratically. (I am in favour of an AV system) If we elected 50 people in the house of commons, and the other few hundreds are not. Then, they have to elect people to represent them. Would that be democratic? No, exactly.

I think I have maintained a strong case for the UK leaving the EU.

Thank you.

Source
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] 2012 figure, https://www.google.co.uk...
[3] The first Myth, http://www.betteroffout.net...
[4] http://m.bbc.co.uk...
[5] ibid
[6] http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
CJKAllstar

Pro

Rebuttal

#1 The net contribution from the UK to the EU budget

I think this information is compatible with what I have been saying. My sources from the last round prove that there is no trade benefit with staying in the EU [round 2, source 2] that we wouldn't get from leaving the EU. So, we would save money if we left it.

No? You testified that our net contribution to the EU was 10.5 billion, as an argument against the EU. I showed you that in the recent three months, we've actually gained about 5 billion a month worth of imports, which is a benefit. You said we exported more, I showed you recently this is false and that we'd lose that £5 billion pounds a month if we left, which is especially useful for stimulating the economy in times of a recession. There is a trade benefit, because we earn more from the EU than we give.


#2 There is no trade benefit to the United Kingdom in staying in the European Union

I understand pro's confusion in this, so perhaps I didn't express my point clearly enough. The report that I linked to in the second round is saying that there is no trade benefit from the EU [round 2, source 2] that we wouldn't get if we were to leave the EU.

Yes, I know what your source says. My rebuttal was one fundamentally going against the argument, "there is no trade benefit". To rebuttal it, all I needed to do was show benefits, which I did, and which you did not rebuttal.


You can never simply rest your argument on a source and expect to win. I have showed there are multiple benefits, therefore your claim, the title of your argument is flawed.

#3 There is trade benefit to the United Kingsom in leaving the European Union

All of the current countries who are members of the European Economic Area {EEA} but not the EU itself are all very small countries. Iceland has a population of 320,000, Liechtenstein has a population of 34,237, and Norway has a population of just over 5 million [1]. We have a population of over 63 million [2]. Not only that, but you mentioned in your argument the trade deficit between the EU and the UK - it has been estimated that if the UK lost 3 million jobs, then the EU would lose 4 million jobs [3]. Britain is important enought that they'd be able to create a trade deal with Europe that doesn't include any of the membership fees or limitations of our current trade restrictions.

No? You say because we have a larger population we are more valuable, but this is a ludicrous statement. The EU, as an economic pursuit, likes money, and it wants more money. There isn't a correlation between wealth and population, clearly, as Qatar is the world's richest country[1]. As it wants more money, countries which are important to the EU are those that are rich, and Norway is the 4th richest country in the world.

Clearly, as Norway is so rich and the oil they own is so valuable to the economic wealth of the EU, that the EU will do everything they can to keep them as an ally. It is fundamental economics, yet my link beforehand showed that Norway still pay into the EU. If Norway, the 4th richest country in the world, a country which exports a lot of oil, a very successful economy still has to pay, then the UK will certainly have to pay. We are economically inferior to Norway and it is ridiculous to say that in any way we are more of a valuable asset to the EU than Norway.

#4 If we left the EU, there'd be a significant decrease in Fuel Poverty

It's true that there'd be more elderly people dying if we were to stay in the EU, and I can feel the tory voters reading this and nodding their heads in agreement - not me, though! I care for our old people, and if there are better groups of people to suffer from the consequences of dealing with this problem than the elderly. After all, a significant number of old people live in old peoples' homes, which young people may not find very "rad".
The solution is to stop all the immigrants with nothing special to offer this country from entering this country, because as I said in the last round, if we left the EU, we'd be allowed to have a real immigration policy. Not just that, but we'd also be able to deport illegal immigrants and terrorists without taking ages.

What? That was not what I stated whatsoever. It was an analogy to state that because a benefit exists does not mean it is worth doing. I do wonder if you read my arguments for that round, but I conceded that there will be a reduction in fuel poverty, but that is miniscule in comparison to the negatives which I state. The elderly has nothing to do with this, immigration has nothing to do with this argument, what does is the fact is that your fuel poverty argument is a speck in comparison to the grand scale of things.


#5 The European Union is not responsible for peace and puts us in risk of having a war/riots

I'll just clarify - here, I was dealing with the common argument from Nick Clegg fans that if we left the EU, there'd be a third world war.
Pro gives us no reason why similar circumstances could not happen in the UK after a few more years of staying in the EU. As proved (Round 2, source 8), it is most likely that the UK would have to adopt the Euro if it were to stay in the EU until 2020. This is especially bad as one of the main reasons that the UK's economy is growing (and even to overtake France by 2020 [4]) is because of the pound's strength against the dollar compared with the Euro [5].

What? There is no status quo regarding that if we left the EU, there would be a WWIII. That is nonsense, not what I argued and a rebuttal to a point that is non-existent. You seem to not realise that you are arguing for us leaving the Uk. You are the withholder of BOP and the advocate here. Arguing against a rebuttal which has not been stated does not help your argument in any way because in regards to helping your overall case, it does nothing. I had not stated this point, it is irrelevant, and thus serves no purpose at all.

#6 The EU has destroyed over 97,000 UK jobs

But those EU-related jobs aren't specifically EU-related. They are Europe-related. We'd still be able to trade with Europe if we left the EU, and if anything, we'd have more jobs, as we wouldn't have the EU blocking cheaper imports. So, the point still stands.

They are EU related though. The source I had for this was from a think tank, the CEBR and they stated that[3].


"Within the 4.2 million jobs, an estimated 3.1 million were directly supported by exports to the European Union in 2011 and 1.1 million jobs were indirectly supported, for example through spending income earned from exporting."

You are refuting a sourced claim with an unsourced claim. These jobs are linked to the EU.


#7 Outside of the EU, we will be able to have a fair and sensible

Pro's point here is very wobbly as he doesn't five any statistics on what % of people who migrate to the UK come from unpreviliged countries, or even the reasons migrants give for coming to this country. Even so, 200.000 divided by the number of alternative comparably pleasent places to migrate (The US, France, Germany, Spain, Japan, Russia, the list goes on) does not make for a significant burden on other countries, especially when you factor in their size.
Moreover, the UK needs a real (fair and sensible) immigration policy, as is evident from the fact that England is the most crowded country in Europe and has some of the highest levels of net migration [6]. This problem needs a solution, and urgently.

My argument isn't wibbly wobbly. My argument is fundamental. But you want figures?

Romanian and Bulgarian workers
In the recent years, this is how much immigration there is to the UK. Considering a net immigration of 212,000, and the total figure for immigrants coming in at around 500,000[4], we have about 1/4 of all immigrants coming from these countries. Source number [4] shows that 37% of immigrants come for work. And it will be a burden, because so many immigrants come to this country for reasons which specific country's can second, i.e. an acceptance of cheap labour and competition.

#8 Outside of the EU, we would be able to restore democracy to our country

Pro's statistics do not do much to deny that there is a democracy deficit in the UK as a result of the EU. He says that a lot of MEPs dispute legislative figures, however I am talking about someone who'd have more authority to know about things like these than an MEP - a senior European Comissioner, as I linked to in the second round. The question has to be asked - why would a senior European Comissioner get such a thing wrong, and if it has an equal chance of being anywhere between 6-84% as you implied, why did she go for the very high figure? Wouldn't she want Britain to think better of the EU if she wanted to do that?
The point still stands that MEPs cannot initiate legislation and therefore the EU is not a fair democracy - one of many reasons why we should leave it.
On the European Comissioners - a majority of people elected (MEPs), people in Britain would have no say over whatsoever, therefore they aren't elected democratically. (I am in favour of an AV system) If we elected 50 people in the house of commons, and the other few hundreds are not. Then, they have to elect people to represent them. Would that be democratic? No, exactly.

They aren't elected by the British people, but my source showed they were elected nonetheless by MEP's themselves, and that they make a difference. This is simply because us Brits are not informed about the MEPs, and it is ludicrous to allow people who are not invested nor informed in an institution to have democratic right.


I urge the floor to side with Pro. My contentions are clear, direct, sourced, and I have proved, without opposing refutation, that the EU has benefit. Thank you.

Sources:

[1] http://www.forbes.com...
[2] http://www.forbes.com...
[3] http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk...
[4] http://www.ons.gov.uk...

Debate Round No. 3
JacobGibbsDofE

Con

Thank you to Pro for responding.

#1 The net contribution from the UK to the EU budget

"You testified that our net contribution to the EU was 10.5 billion"
Our net contribution to the EU budget last year, and I backed it up with government statistics.
I have proved that we could save money if we were to leave the EU.

#2 There is no trade benefit to the United Kingdom in staying in the European Union

This is just semantics. By "trade benefit", it means "Net trade benefit compared with not being a part of the EU".

#3 There is trade benefit to the United Kingdom in leaving the European Union

Even if valid, pro's points do not make the case for it being favourable to stay as a part of the European Union. In a previous round, he cites 2 billion euros per annum being the fee in the EEA to have access to the same trade, which means it would cost less to just be a member of the EEA.
There are other benefits to just being a part of the European Economic Area, rather than the EU. Norway have been able to opt out of the common agricultural policy, the common fisheries policy (that has costed tens of thousands of jobs to be lost), justice and home affairs, and foreign policy decisions [1 (the video)].
As Farage references, the Swiss have been able to have a lot of benefits that they wouldn't be able to if they were a part of the EU. Last february, a majority of swiss voters voted for stricter immigration laws [2], and as Nigel puts it so well, "If they could have their own [trade] deal, we could have a better one".
And as I proved earlier, we are very important to the EU trade-wise.

#4 If we left the EU, there'd be a significant decrease in Fuel Poverty

To just say "what?" and just claim everything I said had nothing to do with my point does not disprove what I said.
• I proved that leaving the EU would be a good thing because there'd be less Fuel Poverty.
• You conceded that there'd be less Fuel Poverty, but said that it wouldn't be a good thing because less elderly people would die and so there'd be less housing available.
• I pointed out the facts that
  • a) if we left the EU, we'd be able to have stricter immigration, so the housing situation would definitely be better if we were to leave the EU. As a link I sourced showed earlier, 40% of future housing in the UK will be due to immigration.
  • b) That a lot of elderly people live on old people's homes, and not many people who aren't elderly would be willing to live in them.
  • (earlier) c) That Fuel Poverty is going to be a serious and growing problem for households in the UK in the future.

#5 The European Union is not responsible for peace and puts us in risk of having a war/riots

In this rebuttal to my point, pro does not seek to prove that we would not see a situation comparable to Greece's just a few years ago (in fact, he completely ignores it), but he says that the fact that the EU does not insure peace is not a positive argument in favour of leaving the EU, which it isn't, it is a rebuttal of a common argument in favour of staying in the EU.

#6 The EU has destroyed over 97,000 UK jobs

I find pro's argument incredibly weak here. My point was about the "EU-related" jobs is that we'd be able to maintain them by just, say, being a member of the European Economic Area [EEA]. We would still be able to do trade with EU countries if we weren't a part of the EU.

#7 Outside of the EU, we will be able to have a fair and sensible immigration policy

Even taking your argument into consideration, that means the number of migrants who'd instead be going to other countries rather than their own due to no weak immigration policy in the UK is 500,000/4/the number of other comparably desirable countries (France, Germany, Spain, Russia, the US, Japan, etc.) per annum until those countries get developed enough is very insignificant.
But, that's assuming that we don't also work to combat the reasons why people migrate to more desirable countries AND have a sensible immigration policy. The reason why we'd want both is

• Once that number of people who would have not bothered coming to this country if they could easily find work in their own country would actually stay in our country once they were settled (and so there'd be no point coming back!), and then the housing situation would be worse (they'd feel no reason why they should leave any more than a British person should, by the time their country's economy is comparably good to Britain's).

And also,

• A lot of migrants would come from quite well-off countries, such as the ones I've listed above. A vast majority of them wouldn't be tempted to stay in their own country by the same methods anyway. Don't forget that there's also a lot of Britons that leave to go to other countries for employment.

#8 Outside of the EU, we would be able to restore democracy to our country

Pro ignores most of my arguments I made about this point in the last round, but that can be expected when he's responding to paragraphs of my arguments with only a small one of his. He doesn't even a refute a point I made which was relevant to the particular argument he was criticizing, that

i) British people have no say in a vast majority of elected MEPs
ii) The MEPs elect the European Comissioners
iii) The European Comissioners initiate legislation and have way more power than MEPs
C) Therefore, there is a lack of democracy in the EU.

Conclusion: I have maintained a strong case for the UK leaving the EU, partly because my opponent is conceding/ignoring a lot of my points.

Thank you.

Sources
[1] EEA: Farage's response to PM Cameron, https://www.youtube.com...
[2] February 2014, http://www.bbc.co.uk...



CJKAllstar

Pro

#1 The net contribution from the UK to the EU budget

"You testified that our net contribution to the EU was 10.5 billion"
Our net contribution to the EU budget last year, and I backed it up with government statistics.
I have proved that we could save money if we were to leave the EU.

Yes, from last year. I have figured which are sourced from the last three months, which are much more relevant.


#2 There is no trade benefit to the United Kingdom in staying in the European Union

This is just semantics. By "trade benefit", it means "Net trade benefit compared with not being a part of the EU".

This is not an argument. Net trade benefit is just benefits - negatives. I have testified that there are benefits above.


#3 There is trade benefit to the United Kingdom in leaving the European Union

Even if valid, pro's points do not make the case for it being favourable to stay as a part of the European Union. In a previous round, he cites 2 billion euros per annum being the fee in the EEA to have access to the same trade, which means it would cost less to just be a member of the EEA.
There are other benefits to just being a part of the European Economic Area, rather than the EU. Norway have been able to opt out of the common agricultural policy, the common fisheries policy (that has costed tens of thousands of jobs to be lost), justice and home affairs, and foreign policy decisions [1 (the video)].
As Farage references, the Swiss have been able to have a lot of benefits that they wouldn't be able to if they were a part of the EU. Last february, a majority of swiss voters voted for stricter immigration laws [2], and as Nigel puts it so well, "If they could have their own [trade] deal, we could have a better one".
And as I proved earlier, we are very important to the EU trade-wise.

It would cost less to be a member of the EEA, but we'd secure less trade due to the nature of economic safety fundamentally, as well as still have to adhere to a level of bureaucracy. The Swiss do not suffer so much due their economic success, but our position is one more volatile and we can't afford to lose out on trade. Centrally, countries like safe trade where they can get more money. And what safer is the largest economy? Britain are in a position of frailty in regards to trade since the recession and unless out situation is analogous to the Swiss, it is a slippery slope fallacy to say we'd also get trade. What we can infer is that when trade is likely less than secure if we leave the EU, there is an increased risk.


#4 If we left the EU, there'd be a significant decrease in Fuel Poverty

To just say "what?" and just claim everything I said had nothing to do with my point does not disprove what I said.
• I proved that leaving the EU would be a good thing because there'd be less Fuel Poverty.
• You conceded that there'd be less Fuel Poverty, but said that it wouldn't be a good thing because less elderly people would die and so there'd be less housing available.
• I pointed out the facts that
  • a) if we left the EU, we'd be able to have stricter immigration, so the housing situation would definitely be better if we were to leave the EU. As a link I sourced showed earlier, 40% of future housing in the UK will be due to immigration.
  • b) That a lot of elderly people live on old people's homes, and not many people who aren't elderly would be willing to live in them.
  • (earlier) c) That Fuel Poverty is going to be a serious and growing problem for households in the UK in the future.
I did not say less elderly people would die. I was making an argumentum ad absurdum, that saying it has a benefit means we should go forth with it can be used to justify something as radical as killing all elderly. My point was that fuel poverty is an added bonus, but when arguing to leave something, it is the negatives that should be the focus of your argument. You did not read my argument carefully at all.#

I do not deny we'd have more autonomy over immigration, but it doesn't solve the problem of immigration in the first place which I believe fundamentally, needs to be tackled. As population grows, I believe governments have a collective responsibilty to not shirk away from problems and leave them outside their bubble and in another one, because when their bubble pops we'd be paying large economic externalities as this level of immigration in total is going to slow growth in the long run from all parties.

#5 The European Union is not responsible for peace and puts us in risk of having a war/riots

In this rebuttal to my point, pro does not seek to prove that we would not see a situation comparable to Greece's just a few years ago (in fact, he completely ignores it), but he says that the fact that the EU does not insure peace is not a positive argument in favour of leaving the EU, which it isn't, it is a rebuttal of a common argument in favour of staying in the EU.

That is not what I said. The problem is, you are arguing to leave the EU therefore challenging the status quo. Therefore, saying 'contrary to popular belief' isn't a viable argument. Refuting a point which was not brought up and isn't proposing the motion as you should be doing does hold place in formal debate. You have BOP therefore should be proposing reasons why the EU is bad and leaving is good, and your role on the table is not to debunk, is not to refute an argument which is apparently within the status quo on the opposition side although I have never seen it used commonly, which defeats the idea of a status quo. This argument is irrelevant for your case therefore.

#6 The EU has destroyed over 97,000 UK jobs

I find pro's argument incredibly weak here. My point was about the "EU-related" jobs is that we'd be able to maintain them by just, say, being a member of the European Economic Area [EEA]. We would still be able to do trade with EU countries if we weren't a part of the EU.

But then there would be more bureaucracy in instigating multinational trade. The EEA is in regards to governments, but private trade is now at a deficit in that it has to go through red tape which I have showed in a source beforehand that the EU is helping ot reduce. There wouldn't be an increase in jobs, but rather a decrease.


#7 Outside of the EU, we will be able to have a fair and sensible immigration policy

Even taking your argument into consideration, that means the number of migrants who'd instead be going to other countries rather than their own due to no weak immigration policy in the UK is 500,000/4/the number of other comparably desirable countries (France, Germany, Spain, Russia, the US, Japan, etc.) per annum until those countries get developed enough is very insignificant.
But, that's assuming that we don't also work to combat the reasons why people migrate to more desirable countries AND have a sensible immigration policy. The reason why we'd want both is

• Once that number of people who would have not bothered coming to this country if they could easily find work in their own country would actually stay in our country once they were settled (and so there'd be no point coming back!), and then the housing situation would be worse (they'd feel no reason why they should leave any more than a British person should, by the time their country's economy is comparably good to Britain's).

And also,

• A lot of migrants would come from quite well-off countries, such as the ones I've listed above. A vast majority of them wouldn't be tempted to stay in their own country by the same methods anyway. Don't forget that there's also a lot of Britons that leave to go to other countries for employment.

Your former argument was exactly in support of my case. We'd be better off if we focused on disincentivising actors in this case not to immigrate. We have a points-based system in which we do regulate who can come in and who can't, but to say it needs to be improved begs the question about what is actually wrong with our system, which you have not tackled, and exactly what needs to be done. There is no such thing as an inherently sensible immigration system. It is subjective and you have failed the BOP to prove otherwise.

#8 Outside of the EU, we would be able to restore democracy to our country

Pro ignores most of my arguments I made about this point in the last round, but that can be expected when he's responding to paragraphs of my arguments with only a small one of his. He doesn't even a refute a point I made which was relevant to the particular argument he was criticizing, that


i) British people have no say in a vast majority of elected MEPs
ii) The MEPs elect the European Comissioners
iii) The European Comissioners initiate legislation and have way more power than MEPs
C) Therefore, there is a lack of democracy in the EU.


Unfortunately, you are begging the question here. Why do they need to be elected? The level of interest from the public is not high enough for important decisions in regards to the future of 28 countries or so. The amount of erudition needed is the same reason our judiciary isn't democratic, we don't directly vote for policies, we don't vote for civil servants and we don't vote for higher bosses in certain businesses.


The sagacity needed is one that the British public does not seem to show. But then you also begged the question about the need for democracy. Democracy isn't inherently good, that is western indoctrination. You must explain what purpose democracy serves here, because there is democracy. Not on the same level, but then you must explain why the more the democracy the better.

Unless you do this, you infer than democracy is intrinsically better in all situations and is fundamentally better to have, in which case I ask you whether we should vote for every last decision in every public scenario. The judiciary, civil servants, policies, teacher payments, etc. It is impractical for this to happen however, but you have failed BOP for why it is better solely in the EU or in any sort of specification.

I urge the floor to side with Pro, thank you for this debate.
Debate Round No. 4
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by JacobGibbsDofE 2 years ago
JacobGibbsDofE
@CJKAllStar CJ, please don't. What medium, anyway?
Posted by CJKAllstar 2 years ago
CJKAllstar
Jacob, please don't. It was a good debate and what's done is done. I probably made mistakes, I rushed these rounds due to other commitments, but only the voter can decide.

But if it is bothering you so much, seeing as now I'm finished with what I had to do, I'll debate you properly.
Posted by NiamC 2 years ago
NiamC
If you dont like my vote or his arguments, go report them. Good luck.
I dont like your attitude, I understand that this is for your DofE, but just calm down.
Posted by JacobGibbsDofE 2 years ago
JacobGibbsDofE
In his last round, he made all the fallicies that I pointed him out making in the previous round, and yet all he had to do to win was make them all again, use the phrase Burden of Proof a few times, and declare victory.
Posted by NiamC 2 years ago
NiamC
CJK is a brilliant debater.
Posted by NiamC 2 years ago
NiamC
Excuse me, I did not vote for CJK because I agreed with him. That is very rude.
Bladerunner is one of the most respected people on DDO, you should comply with him and his vote.
This is the thing with people like you, someone votes against you and you start complaining. Suck it up.
Posted by JacobGibbsDofE 2 years ago
JacobGibbsDofE
Great voter turnout. One guy who voted for who he agrees with and another guy who voted for no reason as of yet.
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
wow. this noob is good. And brave, although he doesn't know who CJKallstar is.
Posted by JacobGibbsDofE 2 years ago
JacobGibbsDofE
I am doing multiple debates for my DofE (the hours wouldn't add up if I just did one debate!). My goals in this are to develop my debating skills and through research, learn about a variety of different issues.
Posted by CJKAllstar 2 years ago
CJKAllstar
Just out of interest, how are you doing this for the DofE? Are you showing this one debate? Is it only this? Are you doing multiple debates? Is it getting judged on whether you win or lose or how you do? How does it work?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by NiamC 2 years ago
NiamC
JacobGibbsDofECJKAllstarTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Ok, this was an interesting debate to read. No conduct or grammar violations etc. Con is the instigator of the debate and had to fulfill the BOP. Con presented a variety of points with context for his OP but did not go into much further detail in his OP. Pro was had negated the majority of these and therefore con had not fulfilled the bOP at that time. By the end of the debate, Pro had negated cons points successfully thus rendering con's BOP fulfillment null. In his arguments, Con had presented a range of matters such as fuel, war and immigration etc, this is good because it can strengthen an argument. Unfortunately, Pro had addressed these effectively. Cons argument was good and interesting to read, but ultimately, Pro won. With these, are the sources cited by both sides. Both sides had presented legitimate sources but Pro had utilised them more effectively - and also that chart to prove a point. Sources to Pro. I would write more but my character limit is full. Pro wins!