The Instigator
mward95
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
Jevinigh
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

'Leaving the European Union and voting UKIP is not the way forward'.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
mward95
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/12/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,616 times Debate No: 55915
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (11)
Votes (1)

 

mward95

Pro

I don't mean to patronise any supporters, but if you vote UKIP you are ignorant. They are exploiting those who feel detached from the political system by spreading sensationalist lies. Their core voter, the less educated or the elderly wanting to reverse the last 50 years of globalisation, are unfortunately unable to question this UKIP dogma.

What has truly caused more damage to the economy of this country; the bankers who brought us into the economic crisis, the tax dodging upper class, Westminster's politicians who claim excessive expenses; or European immigration and the European Union?

It is certainly reasonable to be angry with the establishment, but voting UKIP or leaving the EU will not improve anything. Thankfully they will only gain a few seats in the 2015 election but it's both worrying and dangerous that people are listening to this group of Thatcherites.

(Note: please provide evidence with any statistics.)
Jevinigh

Con

As an American with Separatist Sympathies I have taken this debate despite only a general understanding of European Politics. How ever Given your opening points I believe that the general understanding is Adequate as separatism is at the heart of your desired debate rather than so much the intricacies of British Politics.


Your main point consisted of the problems England faces with a Misbehaving 1% A problem the United States shares... if not far surpasses England in. The contention to make is a Nationalist England would have an even harder time reigning in the 1% and as a follow up you contend the Separatist aim s mostly to undo the advances of globalism.


On the Secondary point you are correct, I will address this first because it ties into my response to your most practical concern. A (rhetorical) question for you is who of course do you believe is leading the push for globalism? - Who stands to gain the most from the current form and shape of globalism? ... The Economic 1% of course. The goal of True Globalism is one you and I share, but the current shape and form of Globalism is not "True" it is more of an excuse to exploit poverty in other nations with the added bonus to us ( in the west) of bringing some really cool communication devices. A broad argument against globalization I grant you, but consider the following more specifically to the EU-UK relations.

The EU rather than being a union of producer countries or of consumer countries, is a mixed bag of the two which creates some fundamental currency problems. It would be different if EU had a more leveled economic field which was probably the initial point but one which has not been executed well. Producer companies such as Germany thrive under different currency policies than does a consumer nation. It is in the interest of a Producing nation to have a Strong Currency while it is in the interest of the consumer nation to have a comparatively weak currency, also different trade policies benefit Consumer v. producer nations. The EU is an attempt to be a 1 size fits all solution against a highly diverse group of people. While diversities in ethnics are irrelevant, what is relevant is Diversity in what the people of Europe Expect their government to do, In truth a good government is one that does what's expected of it.

In the Current EU alignments the truly most benefiting industry across the board is the Financial... who like in the U.S. hold massive sway in politics and highly manipulate the currency to suite various ends~ this also includes manipulation of the debt public and private. This twisting of nobs and dials approach both in the U.S. and the E.U is wreaking havoc with 'natural' economics and is-in-truth the only thing propping up what we call in the U.S. "jobless recovery" or the "paper boom" ... in the U.K. I am not sure if you have a term for it but " Fuckall!" is appropriate.


By now you know some of the basics, U.K. spends alot of money to be apart of the European union and it is semi-forced to spend a whole lot more money on propping the E.U. up, as are several other of the more stable member countries. Yes, the U.K. is comparatively stable.... which isn't saying much but still.

With out the EU?


Now it all comes down to leadership. Nationalist leadership, Unconcerned with International opinion and un anchored to international agreements COULD competently and quickly institute strong reforms to the Tax system ( solidifying it and leveling it) In the U.S. the most popular Tax reform policy is the Fair tax, which eliminates some of the fiscal supports to the poor but creates a 'fair' system where by there are few tax exceptions and the misbehaving 1% has few-and-far-less-effective legal options to avoid paying taxes. Other social concerns caused by that policy are some-what besides the point to this topic. The U.K. has options and strong nationalist leadership could go along way in stabilizing the U.K. and than strengthening its domestic production and consumption balance.

Once again, leadership is the hinging factor in this side of the debate. Both in the U.K. and in the U.S. its hard to have faith in any of the politicians and its both fair and easy to be highly skeptical of them. How ever, collapse of the current fiscal regime is all but guaranteed and the question is: are you willing to risk your future on the gamble that a collection of loosely associated nations with vastly different needs,wants and expectations is going to pull it self together. OR... are you more comfortable making a stand in England,For England.
Debate Round No. 1
mward95

Pro

I will firstly respond to the following statement and then highlight my main argument:

"Are you willing to risk your future on the gamble that a collection of loosely associated nations with vastly different needs,wants and expectations is going to pull it self together. OR... are you more comfortable making a stand in England,For England."

I believe that the risk of removing ourselves from a supra-national power is far more dangerous than to remain a member. The European Union, I would argue, in fact benefits from these different needs and expectations because it allows compromise and for the UK to consider OTHER countries' opinions opposed to remaining the little island it would be without. Furthermore, I truly believe that making "a stand for" the United Kingdom, not England, would be to remain in the Union as a means to protect jobs and the rights of citizens that it entrenches.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union is far from perfect. The lack of accountability, the initially overwhelming membership fee, the unnecessary bureaucracy and the presumed immigration problems all tinge the immeasurable benefits and successes of this institution.

We are therefore obliged to ask the question, in true Monty Python style, "What did the Roman"s do for us?"

We have been a member of this Union since 1973 with the same 5 simple aims;
"To promote economic and social progress
"Speak for the institution on an international level
"Introduce entrenched rights for European citizens
"Maintain laws which protect these rights
"And develop an area of freedom, security and justice

These intentions are OBJECTIVELY good things. These intentions have all been achieved.

Say we place ourselves in the shoes of an investor or exporter in China; we would view this continent as the EU, not 28 separate member states, we would recognise that it is the worlds largest economy, the worlds largest internal trading market with a potential half a billion consumers and be intent to sell to this market. If we absconded, we would be viewed as a single state with much less potential and opportunity.

Let"s look at our trading partners. 48% of our trade is with the EU, 16% is with the US (whom we are close to striking a free trade deal with as we speak), 3% with China and 2% with India. No other country comes close, trade wise, to the EU. If we were to leave and do what UKIP propose by joining the World Trade Organisation, trading more internationally and consequently dropping the free market, export tariffs would be extremely high. For example, currently our exports to India are at 20% but by giving this up and joining the WTO it could potentially be as high as 150%. A clear disaster for employment and business.

The Euro-sceptic media, most notably the Daily Mail, so often portrays this proud British nation who is a small, feeble country which was once great being held back, pushed around and forced to implement legislation by the German bullies in Brussels. I will firstly say that the hold the EU has over our laws is exaggerated to the extreme with only 7% of the UK"s PRIMARY legislation coming from Europe. But also, the UK is extremely powerful. We"re arguably the second largest influence in a Union with allies who listen to and respect us. Which of course answers the question over could Britain renegotiate our terms. We are a great power in Europe because it is known by every member state that the City of London is its economic hub. We have benefited massively from inward investment from foreign companies who use the UK as a base for exporting and providing the UK with jobs and expertise.

If we were to leave, these investors would be deterred by the export tax that would ensue which is something Nissan has highlighted in the past week. The Japanese car companies would move to the suddenly more appealing Germany, who would not have to issue a 5-10% export tariff on motor vehicles. This would have rippling effects on the 3 million jobs directly linked to the EU and the money it creates.

It has also been, I would argue, the most effective Union in history. It is without a doubt the most warred continent in the world and to maintain peace and stability in this area has been a phenomenal success and something that should not be ignored. This continent in the last 50 years has been home to the vilest dictatorships. The people of Spain, Portugal, Greece and all the Eastern European countries had no opportunities to determine their own future and lacked all of the liberties that we take for granted. Thanks to the European Union and the Copenhagen Criteria none of these countries will ever be able to introduce the death penalty or repress basic freedoms of speech, of assembly, sexuality and of religion in the ways that were present not long ago. It is no coincidence that these countries have all democratised since the EU was created.

If we look into the future; what will this country need most? It is conceivable that the acquisition of resources will be crucial. If we were to target climate change by ourselves it would be to no avail. The United Kingdom itself is only liable for 1.5% of the worlds Co2 emissions. The European Union is, however, accountable for 11% of the world"s green house gas emissions. Bulgaria, Italy and the Czech Republic, for example, all emit more pollution than is deposited in their countries because of the prevailing wind. Even if we gained, that oh so important, national sovereignty over our environmental policy which is currently 90% EU based (secondary legislation), it would do nothing to prevent acid rain coming over from the EU. Integration, targets and universal legislation amongst every member state is a necessity for a greener future, which if we leave is something we would simply jeopardise.

Being part of any team, or Union, implies some restrictions on personal freedom and there is, I will concede, much room for improvement. But to leave the European Union would undermine employment, dilute our international standing, and relationships, and subsequently be the abandonment of a Britain that is richer, stronger, safer and greener.
Jevinigh

Con

Jevinigh forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
mward95

Pro

Waiting for a response...
Jevinigh

Con

Jevinigh forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
mward95

Pro

And that's that!
Jevinigh

Con

Jevinigh forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Osiris_Rosenthorne 3 years ago
Osiris_Rosenthorne
You know, it's funny that Farage himself said on the BBC that leaving the EU would hurt the economy, but would be worthwhile regardless. He should admit that he just hates people who have a different language or accent to his own.
Posted by mward95 3 years ago
mward95
No problem. Hope you have the time for this one
Posted by mward95 3 years ago
mward95
No problem. Hope you have the time for this one
Posted by mward95 3 years ago
mward95
No problem. Hope you have the time for this one
Posted by Jevinigh 3 years ago
Jevinigh
Sorry I had to miss the last round, stuff got crazy
Posted by mward95 3 years ago
mward95
If needs be I can provide citations for the statistics I have provided. Was in a rush with the time limit and had to refer quickly to past notes of mine. Will do so in the next round.
Posted by Jevinigh 3 years ago
Jevinigh
See as how you provided only talking points in your opening statement I assumed just as well to open the debate with a conceptual argument and will bring forward a more statistical argument in the 2nd round.
Posted by mward95 3 years ago
mward95
In what way were there "personal attacks"? If you mind me asking..
Posted by Kc1999 3 years ago
Kc1999
I'm not going to accept this debate due to the fact that the opponent has already used personal attacks before the debate has even started.
Posted by mward95 3 years ago
mward95
Not true. The European Court of Justice, for example, seeks to defend and protect the European rights of the individual against big business by balancing interests. But if you want to continue- accept the debate.

Writing the assertion-clause, being the relaying of "facts", was a protection against the inevitable UKIP voter providing unsubstantiated claims. I said nothing that was factually incorrect. You, on the other hand, are talking about "opinion" which of course is subjective.

You're so cold-minded (and pedantic).
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 3 years ago
lannan13
mward95JevinighTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture.