Should Britain Leave the EU?
Debate Rounds (5)
Many within the EU want to remove western ideals and replace them with eastern ideals, a prime example of this is gay marriage. The British government pushed the Church of England to allow gay marriages within their churches, no one has ever questioned the fact that the government refuses to ask Islamic mosques to do the same.
In terms of facts and figures, Britain pays "53 million a day to remain within the EU, this membership involves 75% of laws being made in Brussels. The free movement of people, in other words open-door immigration, which goes back to the point I made about the destruction of borders and strains our public services. The British people have also never being asked if they would like to be part of this political union. The 1975 Referendum was about the Common Market, not a political union and this is lie repeatedly used by Europhiles across Britain. The EU is also very undemocratic, which goes back to my point about the destruction of democracies. Unelected Eurocrats run the EU and create legislation which no elected body can control, the European Parliament cannot stop this.
Another lie which has being repeatedly used is trade. If Britain left the EU, she can still trade with the EU just like the USA, Australia and Finland. The EU sells more to us than we sell them and are one of their biggest buyers. Angela Merkel will not go to Mercedes, BMW or Audi and tell them not to sell their cars to Britain anymore because we have the left the EU. Also if Britain leaves, we are free to form our own trade deals across the world which are currently forbidden to do under EU regulations.
In terms of history about the EU, the phrase European Economic Community was invented by the Nazi Hermann Goring and the phrase United States of Europe was invented by Adolf Hitler. The EU is a Nazi idea which was created as a way to manage Europe once Nazi Germany had invaded it.
All these facts which have being proclaimed is more than enough evidence to show you that Britain must leave the EU for its own sake. We do not want to be part of a second Soviet Union, we do not want our national identity destroyed and replaced by with extreme left ideals.
The EU is not a Nazi idea because Nazis didn't exist anymore once it was created.
TheCityUK"s own research found that 84% of industry leaders want the UK to remain a member of the EU. [http://www.telegraph.co.uk...]
The fact of the matter is that trade truly is benefiting from Britain being in the EU.
It is true what you say about the majority of EU being left-wing by nature but they are not Socialists. Socialism is far more extreme than what the EU is proposing. it doesn't want the state to own all of currently privatized industry in the UK; it hasn't even made the UK convert from pound to euro. The EU respects UK's contribution to it and recognizes its authority for contributing so much. That is why Britain can truly remain independent and still be in the EU. The fact is that if one day USA attacked Britain, I'm pretty sure it would rather have the rest of the EU forced to back it up ran give them the choice not to. There is so much more tot the EU than simple economics, but even the economics is benefiting the UK.
In terms of your point in regards to point about the USA attacking Britain, the EU is not a defence alliance like NATO. Which leads to another point I forgot to mention about how some are pushing for the EU to form it's own army, once again ratifying that they want to create a United States of Europe.
In terms of ideology, the EU is predominantly Socialist. The President of the European Commission, Jose Manuel Barroso, was a member of the following parties, Portuguese Workers' Communist Party. The President of the European Parliament, Martin Schulz was also leader of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats. This therefore shows that the leading figures in the EU are Socialists and Communists, and they have a major influence over the politics of the EU and are currently dragging it to the left along with its members.
"Britain can survive without the EU when it comes to trade."
I am well aware of this. The question is whether its economy will thrive more or not, not whether it will collapse altogether.
Pro contradict himself/herself when he/she says the following
1. (R2) The EU is not a defence alliance like NATO.
2. (R2) Some are pushing for the EU to form its own army, once again ratifying that they want to create a United States of Europe.
3. (R1) The EU is nothing more than an International Socialist idea which wants to destroy nation states, their borders and democracies to create one huge super-state, the United States of Europe, hence the flag and national anthem.
If 1 is true, 3 cannot be. If 2 is true, 3 cannot be. If 2 and 1 are both true, it proves that the majority of the EU do not want a United States of Europe. In addition to this, you never proved why a United States of Europe would be a bad idea, nor why the UK should hold onto its independence as a nation. Perhaps submitting itself to the will of others within Europe has its perks.
After this, Pro makes another contradiction about the EU (all were stated in Round 1):
1. Many within the EU want to remove western ideals and replace them with eastern ideals, a prime example of this is gay marriage.
2. The British government pushed the Church of England to allow gay marriages within their churches, no one has ever questioned the fact that the government refuses to ask Islamic mosques to do the same.
3. The EU is also very undemocratic, which goes back to my point about the destruction of democracies. Unelected Eurocrats run the EU and create legislation which no elected body can control, the European Parliament cannot stop this.
4. Britain pays 53 million a day to remain within the EU, this membership involves 75% of laws being made in Brussels.
4 contradicts 1
The first contradiction made is that if the majority of decisions are made in Brussels then why would the second country in the world to legalize gay marriage [http://brussels.angloinfo.com...] not push for this made?
1+2 contradict 3
The second contradiction is that if the "unelected Eurocrats" running the EU are making decisions, as opposed to democracy taking place then why isn't it that despite many within the EU wanting gay marriage to remain illegal, the Eurocrats forced them to shut up about it and legalize it? The "Eurocrats" as you put them, who control the EU, are most likely the six founding member states that formed it. These states are [http://europa.eu...] Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg. France even went as far as to outlaw the Burqa/Burka [http://www.dailymail.co.uk...], so this "Eurocrat would surely not value Islam over Christianity. Belgium was the second nation on Earth to legalize gay marriage so that would surely be passionately for it[http://brussels.angloinfo.com...]. Not only was Belgium the second nation to legalize gay marriage but the Netherlands were the first [http://www.bbc.co.uk...]. have three countries of the founding member states of the EU distinctly in favour gay marriage and against Islamic values. Germany prefers gays to stick to civil unions but gay marriage is possible of all the legal documents are signed [http://berlin.angloinfo.com...]. Germany has outlawed circumcision, a valuable tenet to Islam [http://www.reuters.com...]. Luxembourg only recognizes civil unions [http://luxembourg.angloinfo.com...] but is 87% Roman Catholic [http://www.religionfacts.com...]. Italy is 90% Roman Catholic [http://www.religionfacts.com...] and, although rare, gay marriage is recognized in Italy somewhat [http://www.thelocal.it...]. Thus, the EU must be democratic and not be control by "Eurocrats" as my opponent suggests.
The actual reason that UK fears outlawing anything Islamic is because a huge proportion of investors in British Business are Middle Eastern immigrants who come from rich families due to the oil. There is also a very substantial British Arab community , especially in London, where a lot of decisions, regarding laws, get made. The source for both these claims is here: [http://www.naba.org.uk...]
The final contradiction made in Pro's case is the following (all were stated in Round 1):
1. The EU is a Nazi idea.
2. We do not want to be part of a second Soviet Union, we do not want our national identity destroyed and replaced by with extreme left ideals.
3. The EU is nothing more than an International Socialist idea.
Hitler was a Fascist, not a Socialist[http://sitemaker.umich.edu...]. The Soviet Union were not aligned with Nazi Germany ideologically whatsoever and the only Pact they ever made was ruined by Hitler [http://history1900s.about.com...].
I conclude that Pro has not upheld their BoP to prove that Britain should leave the EU.
To your argument that Hitler was a fascist, not a socialist. This is wrong, another word for fascism is National Socialism which is simply another form of socialism. Communism is in fact the correct term and this does have similar links to Fascism. Think of like a circle between the two ideologies.
I conclude to say that by twisting my words isn't how you win a debate.
All of my arguments other than the Fascism vs Socialism one went uncontested.
Fascism revolves around Nationalism, while Socialism is about turning all the world into 'one nation', as Pro correctly puts it. Fascism has a national religion, high levels of censorship and severe power given to the state in all areas but very often the state will be most lenient economically. European Socialism, on the other hand, is only strict economically relinquishing power in most other areas.
DisaterX forfeited this round.
BlackPanther forfeited this round.
DisaterX forfeited this round.
BlackPanther forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Themba 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||5|
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct was equal as both forfeited the last 2 round. However, both arguments and sources on Con because a) Con managed to show actions of the EU on marriage as source while Pro's case was without b)Fascism and Socialism were refuted by Con as it is backed by adequate sources while Pro was arguing in general terms without examples and elaboration and c)Unelected bureaucrats contention was leaning towards Con because Con made examples through Netherlands and Belgium legalizing gay marriage.
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.