The Instigator
Con (against)
The Contender
Pro (for)

In two years, Will the UK actually leave the EU?

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
CookieSprinklez has forfeited round #4.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/7/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 month ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 183 times Debate No: 95254
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)




This is a debate to voice our opinions on what will happen in two years, when the UK essentially has to decide whether or not we are actually leaving or not. I think that in 2018 we will decide against total brexit.

R1. Acceptance
R2. Opening Statement
R3. Rebuttals
R4. Response
R5. Conclusion


The situation is actually complicated. At present (09/09/2016) the UK has not given intention to leave the EU - a process that is itself untried, and was added only recently. In theory once notice is given it is supposedly irrevocable, and it is from the time notice is given that the process must be completed in two years. No provision was made for a country that changes its mind within that time. To complicate matters further, the vote to leave was made in a non-binding opinion only referendum. It is therefore strange to see that Theresa May insists that it is binding and that Parliament won't be allowed to vote on it, an idea that runs contrary to the normal rules of governance of the country. Of course there are two fundamental alternatives to leaving, neither of which was explained or explored properly, largely because Cameron was too confident that the arguments for leaving were so feebly stupid that the Leave side wouldn't win. He didn't reckon with the largely untrue but very well managed and well timed campaign of the Brexiteers, and didn't therefore mount any real opposition to it. The two alternatives are to leave the EU entirely, and trade under WTO rules. This is an incredibly risky course that Australia, the USA, New Zealand and Canada have already tried to warn the UK against. The other alternative is stay in the single market, as are Iceland Switzerland and Norway. This means obeying all the rules, helping pay for the maintenance and operation of the single market, allowing freedom of labour movement between the UK and the EU, but having no vote or influence. In other words being still in the EU but pretending to yourself you're not.
Debate Round No. 1


OK... Thank you for that clarification? Anyway, there are a few main factors to why I believe that in 2018 after Article 50 is no longer in action the UK will have not fully left the EU.

Firstly: Many of the main brexit campaigners are no longer in places of considerable power, such as Nigel Farage and Michael Gove have all recently stood down, or been replaced by Theresa May's recent reshuffle. Some still stand in positions of power, like Boris Johnson, Liam Fox, and David Davis yet for reasons as I will explain later, this may not be for their advantage. Not only does this harm the legitimacy of brexit, but it also puts in the general public's mind that brexit is a bad idea. Considerable amounts of people have shown their distress at the result, four out of ten people wishing for a second referendum. The simple fact that this issue has separated the public means that despite May's claims, brexit may not mean brexit.

Also, not even the Prime Minister is pro-brexit. Theresa May, despite her current standings, strongly campaigned against brexit, showing that, if the new prime minister can be one who was very pro-remain after David Cameron resigned, then at least the ruling party (conservative) is pro-remain. Despite how there is no proof of this next theory, considering Cameron's actions, it is a fair assumption to say that, just as Cameron used the referendum as a bargaining chip, so is May with her brexit means brexit policy. Instead of just leaving now, it is much more likely that May will call a 'This is actually serious now, do you want this to happen?' referendum, after the likely dispute over the promises of brexit arises. As I said earlier, about the few pro-brexit campaigners still in power, this is probably May's plan as well. (At this point, I must clarify that I do not support Theresa May, nor do I her policies.) With Johnson, Fox and Davis all being in brexit related positions, Theresa May is just trying to share the blame with people who actually support brexit. The choice of Johnson as her foreign secretary is laughable, and Fox,who previously abused his position, as Minister for international trade is a hugely poor decision for anyone who wants them to do well. Who knows, maybe she doesn't. That or she is completely incompetent, which is just as likely.

For my final argument, I will only need to use one statistic. 350 million pounds a week. Where is it? Oh wait of course Farage said it had no standing whatsoever. Every day more and more false statistics are revealed, eventually the majority will say enough. They will ask for an honest referendum, which will definitely go a different way.

Therefore, come 2018 if Article 50 is even mentioned, nothing will come of it. If you have the population against something, the prime minister against something, and the only ones for something are in shambles, how can you expect it to go through?

*Drops mic


Again this situation is slightly complicated. Theresa May did not campaign for "Remain". In fact she was known as a "Rino" - Remain in Name Only. I think actually that she was in favour of Brexit, but didn't have the guts or the integrity to say so while Cameron was Prime Minister in case it damaged her prospects. So there are two possibilities now.

The first is that she truly was against Brexit, and deliberately put the ball firmly in the court of the Brexiteers, knowing that two of them (Fox and Bojo the Clown) are incompetent intellectual lightweights who couldn't win a quiz competition in a Primary School, and will have absolutely no chance of coming up with anything coherent in the Leave negotiations. (Bojo has incidentally changed his stance on the single market for the third time in less than a year. He initially said that he was in favor of staying, then just before the referendum he announced he was in favour of leaving. Immediately after the referendum when he realised to his horror that he might be called upon to take the UK out he announced again that he was in favour of staying - and hastily withdrew his leadership candidacy, - and yesterday, Saturday, he changed again and said he was in favour of leaving. How anyone can take this buffoonish charlatan seriously is beyond my powers of comprehension).

The second possibility is that she did want and intend to go through with Brexit. But of course having already been told by most of the countries that the ludicrous Farage insisted would be lining up to trade with us that they weren't interested, and having had her butt severely kicked at the G20 summit by the USA and Japan, in language that was unprecedentedly undiplomatic, she must now be suffering from severe doubts, even though she maintains a stolidly intransigent stance in public. If she did indeed want to go through with Brexit, as I suspect, then her choice of collaborators seems to show that she is neither intelligent nor competent (which I also suspect, incidentally). However never underestimate the stupid intransigence of the weak. This may seem preferable to their limited intellect than what one person has described as the 'Protracted Embarrassing Climb Down'. The demonstrably falseness of the claims of the Leave campaign (on immigration, the cash windfall, and the supposed wonderful terms the UK would get) are now slowly beginning to get through to the general public, not in the least helped by the useless weak-kneed namby-pamby Corbyn.

However I think we are not on different sides of this debate. I think leaving didn't really appeal to anyone much, except that section of the population that are uneducated and struggling, and were given a chance to get in a dig at the faceless people that they perceive as rendering them powerless. As Hitler said 'The masses are yearning for a sense of power. They are looking for a new explanation of life based not on science but on the will". In my view the 'Leave' vote was a manifestation of this yearning, and was the most self-destructive act since Hitler turned to Goebbels and said 'Ya know, Joe, I think we could take on the British and French Empires, the Americans and the Soviets all at the same time and still win.' I just hope that common sense prevails and we stop this ludicrous farce before too much damage is done to the UK and to the European co-operation that has been so carefully constructed since WWII.
Debate Round No. 2


To clarify my position, I don't think that we will leave the European union when 2018 comes around. I'm getting the feeling we are in the same boat. So that kind of makes this more of a discussion. Actually I was, just the other day relating brexit to one of the causes for Hitler's rise to power, and how brexit might lead to another Hitler, but that is way too theoretical for this so I'll leave it out.

Maybe we can take Round 3 to debate how we think Theresa May is gonna act in 2018? I think this is a bit skewed now, and we have two rounds left so, best make the most of it.

Personally, I think that she'll change her mind about a second referendum, when parlaiment actually realises what they are doing and votes on no brexit. She'll compromise in an essence. Remain democratic, yet appease parlaiment. I'm certain however that the worse that will happen in 2018 is that brexit kinda happens. Like in Norway, where we are made subjects rather than members, as that does 'technically' mean brexit, as we are leaving the common market, but it also stops any drama that could happen when we leave Europe (20-30 nations no longer trading with Britain, as if you think about it, we produce basically nothing that no where else produces). Which, if you can't tell, would be worse than just staying in. Honestly there's no real way in this situation that, in 2018, we can do this without hurting anyone's feelings. All for a couple more votes. Oh David, why were you, ironically, so poor at your job?

Anyway, if you want to continue this, more as a discussion of sorts, I'd be more than happy.


Yes, I'm sure we're not disagreeing about the fundamental senselessness of pulling out following a non-binding referendum. Whether we will or not is another matter. If article 50 is invoked next year (which is far from certain) that would mean the final break would be in 2019. A large part of the problem now is that the UK economy has already been grievously damaged by the mere fact that the referendum ever took place. As you say the UK doesn't produce much that isn't produced elsewhere, but what it did have was a big financial services section. Most of these are held as fixed-term deposits, so investors can't take their cash out instantly, but it can hardly have escaped their attention that the pound has lost 15.5% of its value against the euro since the announcement of the referendum. In a rational situation this would already have triggered a statement that Parliament has no intention of proceeding with Brexit, and that if the nation really wants it then there must be a new election in which they return a majority of MPs in favour of it, and that furthermore those MPs must declare if they want to leave the EU altogether, or remain in the single market as you correctly say as subjects rather than members (but in my view this would probably be far more advantageous than leaving completely).

Now what worries me about Theresa May is her irrational intransigence. Her various statements that Brexit is Brexit,there will be no second referendum, there will be no staying in via the back door, there will be no vote in Parliament, and that no-one is even going to be told what's happening while they are "negotiating' (which incidentally they can't do effectively until they actually invoke Article 50) strike me as outlandishly stupid. I am amazed that no-one is challenging this nonsense in Parliament. It's no good saying Brexit is Brexit when no-one has a clue whether they mean stay in the Single Market or not. Why should there be no vote in Parliament? I thought we were a parliamentary democracy, and it goes against all precedent that such an important decision should be taken by a small cabal behind the scenes and in secret. One hesitates even to mention the dubious intellectual qualities of such as Bojo and Liam Fox, when the person who appointed them seems so direly lacking in integrity and common sense herself. When you give fundamentally weak people power they can often be very stubborn in adhering to bad decisions, as sometimes they need to try to prove to themselves that they really are leaders, and not nincompoops who got there more by luck than merit. This is how I see May. As the fixed-term deposits start maturing and moving out in ever increasing numbers it should be enough to convince any sensible person to change course - unfortunately I don't see her as a sensible person.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by CookieSprinklez 1 month ago
Just out of character here for a second, do you think that brexit will happen? You aren't making it too clear. I mean I'll carry on but just in case.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.