Debate Rounds (5)
Octavion shall argue for the English to leave the EU.
I would first like to thank you for accepting this challenge., now it would be time to "school" you whilst in school.
As I have stated in the challenge, I firmly believe that the United Kingdom (UK) whom reconstructed the structure of the European Union (EU) should remain in the EU in order to provide support for the less fortunate. As the EU grows than the more benefits will arise for those whom remained members of the EU. The current issue arises that if the UK leaves than many countries follow which will lead to the collapse of the EU. For the countries that benefit from this system of currency which can further develop in to a blossoming alliance, this system provides life for the lesser fortunate. Angela Markel, Chancellor of Germany, has been funding and trying to provide a sense of stability to countries such as Greece. This is the kind of relationship that Europe desperately needs in order to repair relation damaged by the two world wars and the tension Russia has caused after the world wars.
I shall leave this off with one final note,
Even though the EU has caused more damage than good in the past years, it is never too late to correct and provide a stable economic sense for the countries that are having economic issues. What's good for one is good for all, is it not? We all live on one planet anyways.
Worn hard by the cold North Atlantic sits an island race. Proud of thier heritage, the people of the United Kingdom now face a simple choice, should they secure there own destiny or allow themselves to be subjected by the forces of continental Europe. In the face of Napoleon, they stood resolute. When Hitler hurled his terror from the air. When the IRA brought their terror to this sceptered isle, the British people stood defiant.
So now, after sacrificing so much to free Europe, the United Kingdom stands at a crossroads. In a union that holds in contempt the values of freedom, the United Kingdom has no choice but to leave the sinking ship, escape the slowly enclosing claws of Federal Europe before they are forever more trapped in the United States of Europe.
We now will turn to the facts. In the European Union, the average citizen of Luxembourg, population 543,202, has more power than the United Kingdom , population 64.1million. How? The way the European Union is organized allows for countries with smaller populations to have a fewer number of people per representative, thus meaning that Luxembourg can have a very small, vocal, pro Europe faction which could easily elect an MEP, while the United Kingdom may have an even larger anti-Europe faction but because of the higher person per representative ratio they would not be able to elect an MEP.
As well, the European Union is able to force its will unto member nations, so even if nearly every United Kingdom MEP votes against a measure, it could still easily pass. This form of government clearly violates the sovereignty of the United Kingdom, and as mentioned above, the voice of the UK is greatly reduced in importance by the power vested in the smaller nations. It should also be noted that the elected parliament of the United Kingdom is powerless to prevent the implantation of EU law, even when it affects the citizens who elected them to defend there interest.
The European Union is also not beneficial to those members who have large economies (unless they are France, Germany, Belgium, or Luxembourg). In 2014, the United Kingdom paid $11 Billion to the European Union, and in return was forced to comply with heavy regulations that have for years made the UK uncompetitive. Years of over regulation and intervention have killed the UK coal and manufacturing industry, which, though already in decline, were finished off by emissions regulations that made the UK economy uncompetitive. The fact of the matter is that, the EU has made Europe uncompetitive, and has sent jobs elsewhere.
What is $11 Billion exactly? That's almost 450,000 new nurses, many new schools, enough money to overhaul infrastructure in the UK. With $11 Billion, the UK could afford to get the North and Scotland back on there feet, they could expand Internet access to remote regions, they could give every family a tax break. But instead of any of these happening in 2014, that $11 Billion went to Germany, an already wealthy nation, who got nearly $11 Billion from the EU. In other words, though the UK budget didn't all go to Germany, roughly the same amount went to Germany as the UK contributed in 2014. So, when the UK withdraws, it would not be hard at all to make up the shortfalls, as Germany and France received a total of roughly $30 Billion, while Croatia, Bulgaria, Estonia, Czech Republic, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia, the countries most in need of development within the EU, received only about $27 Billion Combined. So, to clarify, France and Germany, with a combined GDP of about $5 TRILLION received $30Billion, the other countries listed above, with a combined GDP of only about $510 BILLION received only $27 Billion!
Let us now turn to Luxembourg, a small, very wealthy nation just south of Belgium. Luxembourg has the highest GDP per capita income in the world, an unemployment rate of 6.9% and GDP growth of 4.5%. It comprises .1% of the EU population and received just over $1 Billion Euros last year. Meanwhile, Estonia which comprises .3% of the EU population and ranks 41st in GDP per capita, has an unemployment rate of 7.2% and GDP growth of 2%, got only $600 Million. The EU clearly is not seeking to help those nations that are suffering, when it gives more money to the one of the worlds wealthiest nations, with one of the strongest economies more money than a relatively slow growing economy that ranks 41st in GDP per capita.
Belgium is yet another example of how wrong it is to think the EU is fair. Belgium has a GDP of $400 Billion and a population of 11,000,000, contributing $3 Billion to the EU. In 2014, it received $7 Billion. This means Belgium received about $600 per citizen. The UK, on the other hand, contributed $11 Billion but received only $95 per person.
We also see this blatant unfairness in the case of Ireland and Croatia, Both nations are roughly equal in population. Ireland has a GDP of $185 Billion, while Croatia has GDP of $43 Billion. Ireland has an unemployment rate of 9.4%, and Croatia has an unemployment rate of 19%. Ireland has GDP growth of 4.8% while Croatia has GDP growth of .8%, having just stopped falling. And which gets more money?
Ireland gets nearly double what Croatia gets. $1 Billion compared to $500 million.
And now to Greece.
For years, Greece hid its debt, spending and spending and spending. Finally, the system went belly up, and the bottom fell out. The global economy reeled. Reading my opponents argument, one would think Greece then came groveling to Angela Merkel, who showed mercy and saved Greece, no strings attached. In reality, Germany took sweeping power to demand that Greece, a sovereign nation, make all cuts the EU told them to make. While cuts were needed, the simply fact that the Greeks where forced by a multi national super country to do what they say or face economic Armageddon should be enough to show that the EU is no force for good. Also, let's remember this is the THIRD Greek bailout, so clearly there a pattern here. Three bailouts, a takeover by the IMF, and a EU wide debt crisis later, it is clear to see this thing isn't getting any better.
Only one option remains. The UK must leave so that it is not sucked into the crooked United States of Europe, a German dominated multinational super power.
So let's be clear here. The EU isn't Robin Hood, it's the Sheriff of Nottingham, taxing everyone for the benefit of Queen Merkel.
Verethragna forfeited this round.
To illustrate not only the extraordinary power yielded by the EU but it's unfairness, we will turn to agricultural policy. 1.6% of the EU GDP is derived from agricultural, but 40% of EU funding goes to farming. If we are to assume this division is the same in every country, then roughly $2.5 Billion of the UK's payments from the EU is paid to farmers, even though agriculture makes up only .7% of the UK's GDP. That also means that the remaining $3.5 Billion is split between 99.3% of the UK's economy. In addition to this very disproportionate funding, the UK economy is also hurt by the previously mentioned EU regulations. But it is not just the regulations that make the UK and the rest of the EU uncompetitive, it's the free trade deals and restrictions on trading. Not only is the UK running a trade deficit with the EU, but its economy is falling behind the rest of Europe. Of the top three nations in Europe by GDP per capita, two are not in the EU. Both Norway and Switzerland have a higher per capita GDP than France, Germany, and the UK, and both are outside the EU. As well, while the UK has a trade deficit with the EU of roughly $6 Billion, Norway has a trade surplus of over $35 Billion.
The EU also faces frequent challenges that are created by the Euro, which is becoming increasingly unstable. With so many nations tied to one currency, instability is sure to occur, and the Euro is no different. My opponent argues that the Euro provides stability for developing nations, when in reality it robs them of the ability to control monetary policy, which is essential for development. Not only is the pound more stable than the Euro, but it is also more valuable and by staying out of the Euro, the UK has avoided becoming embroiled in the worst part of the debt crisis across Europe, which is the effects it has on money.
Another issue of concern is the inability of the UK parliament to opt out of Defence or Environmental policy, two very important areas of policy the EU is very concerned with. Though the EU does not yet have the power to declare war, Foreign policy is one of the most fundamental policy areas, and failure by the EU to allow for member states to have more leeway on it is concerning. The EU has clearly shown a lack of concern for democracy, and seems to hold the nations not completely supportive of their ideas and ideals in contempt. When the EU offered the Lisbon treaty up, Ireland held a referendum to approve or reject it. When the final votes were counted, the nays had won and Ireland rejected the treaty. Yet Europe was not satisfied, and so they changed the rules and Ireland held a second referendum, after already voting no. On the second ballot they voted yes, but only after being told,by the EU it would not affect there social laws. Though on its surface this is a perfectly reasonable move, in reality, by ratifying the Lisbon Treaty, Ireland vested even greater power in European courts which have the power to hear cases against Sovereign nations and to change the interpretations of EU law across national borders.
It is the very same multinational, unilateral approach that should worry the UK about Europe's growing power. Every day, with every vote, every treaty, the EU grows in scope and power. It has shown its ability to force nations to change their budgets against the will of the people. As well, the push for open borders puts anyone who has the common sense to support some form of immigration controls in the position of a xenophobe. It is not racist or xenophobic to want immigration control, but it is in Angela Merkel's Europe. It is not unreasonable to demand the UK be allowed to control there own monetary policy, but in Angela Merkel's Europe that makes you a "Little Englander"
But what, I ask you, is what is wrong with national pride. Why is it wrong to desire to see the UK chart its own course? It is time the UK steps up and demands that Brussels stop telling them what to do, and let the citizens of the UK govern the UK.
Verethragna forfeited this round.
Octavion forfeited this round.
Verethragna forfeited this round.
Octavion forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.