The Instigator
monethys
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
yellown
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

The United Kingdom is better off leaving 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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/1/2014 Category: Economics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 621 times Debate No: 66121
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

monethys

Pro

The European Union (EU) is a politico-economic union of 28 member states that are located primarily in Europe. The EU operates through a system of supranational institutions and intergovernmental negotiated decisions by the member states. The institutions are: the European Commission, the Council of the European Union, the European Council, the Court of Justice of the European Union, the European Central Bank, the Court of Auditors, and the European Parliament. The European Parliament is elected every five years by EU citizens.
yellown

Con

I accept this debate.
Debate Round No. 1
monethys

Pro

Thank you for accepting this debate.
This section will have only one argument.
1. Opening statement.
2. Democracy deficit.

(1) Opening statement
The United Kingdom, in short, medium and long term - is better off outside of the EU. The relatively recent advancement of society can be attributed to many things: lassiez-faire capitalism, rational discourse and democracy have all been paramount to the rapid progression of society since the 19th century. These ideas have been, for many years, the sole protector of individual rights and innovation. I can think of nothing more disrespectful and detrimental to those ideals than the deplorable reality we face with the European Union. Although it was an organisation forged in order to unite Europe through democracy, its only achievement to date has been to divide it through bureaucracy.

(2) Democratic deficit
For some time, democracy has been a collateral victim of the EU's war on the nation state. This can easily be evidenced by the very nature of it's structure; there are three main bodies within the union, the European Commission, the European Council and the European Parliment. Curiously, the single one of these bodies that is fully elected by the people of Europe and holds democratic legitimacy, the European Parliment, is the least powerful as it does not hold legislative inititive[1]. The European Commision, however, a group of unelected beaurocrats chosen by member states[2] are able initiate legislation to their hearts content[3]. The president of the European Commision is elected undemocratically, with the European Council proposing a candidates to be voted on by the European Parliment[4]. Furthermore, the statistics surrounding the European elections shows unprecedented public apathy, with an all-time low 42.54% of Europeans turning up to vote[5], and for good reason, since the European Parliment cannot even legislate, why bother turning up? In conclusion, the European Union is an organisation that lacks democratic legitemacy, and is therefore a regressive step in terms of liberty for the people.

In your response, please refute my existing points and make an argument of your own.
References
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[6] http://www.ons.gov.uk...
yellown

Con

In this section I will argue against the points provided by my opponent and provide one argument for the UK remaining a part of the European Union. My arguments will be structured as follows:
1. Response to Opening Statement
2. Response to 'Democracy Deficit'
3. Benefits of Single Market
4. Notes and References

1. Reponse to Opening Statement
My opponent states in his opening statement that the 'recent advancement of society can be attributed to many things: lassiez-faire capitalism, rational discourse and democracy', and then goes on to argue that these are being disrespected by the involvement of Britain in the European Union. This debate is concerning the role of Britain within (or without) of the European Union, but I have a few short remarks to say about this statement:

The role of Laissez-faire capitalism is very disputable in the context of the advancement of society. In fact, many economists and political analysts argue that the lack of regulation of banks and corporations was one of the main reasons for the 2008 Wall Street Crash, which has in fact crippled society in the last half-decade, preventing the innovation, investment and enterprise we seek within our economy.

My Opponent states 'Although it [the European Union] was an organisation forged in order to unite Europe through democracy, its only achievement to date has been to divide it [Europe] through bureaucracy'. In fact the European Union has had many notable accomplishments to date, such as boosting trade between its members, helping the economies of all involved, leading the world in terms of climate reform, as emphasised in the recent G20 meeting, and allowing Europe to better respond to international crises such as the conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo through the use of European combat forces to co-ordinate missions, as well as countless other victories that will be covered later in the debate.



2. Response to 'Democracy Deficit'

The European Union is a Union of Countries to promote trade and co-operation between those countries. As part of the nature of any such organisation, to remain effective the organisation must be able to act. Any organisation that expects to be able to act effectively is not a pure democracy-there are countless examples of this, such as executive action in the US. In fact, organisations based purely on democracy are rendered unable to act: one merely needs to look at the Weimar Republic in 1929-32. Because of the system of proportional representation used, arguably the purest form of democracy, the government was not able to take any actions against the economic crash in Germany, leading to extremism and a dictatorship, the complete opposite of what was desired.

My opponent also states that 'The president of the European Commision is elected undemocratically, with the European Council proposing a candidates to be voted on by the European Parliment'. How is the European Parliament, elected by the people, having the power to vote in the president undemocratic? This seems to be a blatant contradiction. My Opponent also refers to the European Commision as a group of ' unelected beaurocrats', when in fact they are nominated by the government of the country they represent (this government being elected), and they are voted on by the European Parliament concerning their suitability as a whole before the election. Yes , the European Union's Structure is not purely democratic, and yes, steps should be taken to address this in the future. But because the system is not perfect does not mean that the UK should leave it; instead the most constructive thing to do is to work with other members in order to fix this lack of democracy (though nowhere near as large as my opponent suggests). Thus I do not consider this a valid reason at all for the UK to leave the European Union.


3. Benefits of the Single Market
The European Union is a single market. A single market is a free trade area (for goods) with some common policies on product regulation, and freedom of movement of the factors of production (capital and labour) and of enterprise and services. This brings huge advantages to the United Kingdom. By leaving the European Union the UK would no longer benefit from those advantages.

The first of these advantages is increased competition. The huge expansion of the market for UK firms means that they have huge more numbers of potential consumers, but they also have increased competition from firms all the way across Europe. This brings with it all of the advantages of competitive markets, such as greater innovation, higher quality goods and lower prices for the consumer. It also results in greater stimulus for the UK to become Internationally competitive. This increase in competition will also force underperforming firms to either improve their performance or fail, freeing up resources for other more advantageous uses.

Another advantage of the single market is specialisation. By having such a large market countries are able to specialise and benefit from absolute advantage, allowing more to be produced at lower prices for the consumer. This also allows the UK to concentrate on producing services and goods that it excellent at. These benefits far outweigh the unemployment caused by the specialisation, because hardly any structural unemployment was caused by the transfer into the EU. In fact unemployment steadily decreased for the first 5 years after Britain joined the EU. By leaving the EU Britain would no longer be able to benefit from the increased specialisation, meaning workers from the newly built up industries would have to go back into jobs producing goods that could be made with higher quality and cheaper prices in other countries.

Leaving the EU would also result in restrictions on the movement of labour. UK firms use workers for labour when there are no UK workers available, and leaving the EU would result in less availability of Labour for firms. My opponent may argue that this labour is in fact resulting in higher unemployment for the British Economy, but the workers from Europe entering the country have skills and qualifications that the unemployed do not; otherwise they would not be chosen over the British workers. In fact, migrant workers within the UK have a much higher unemployment rate than British-born citizens, so that is obviously not the case.

Being within the European Union also results in higher rates of FDI (Foreign Direct Investment), because of the attraction of the large market and potential number of consumers to foreign(non European) investors. These investments, such as using the UK for manufacturing plants, bring employment and new industries to the UK. If we left the European Union these investments would be withdrawn and placed in another country still a member of the EU, resulting in structural unemployment within the UK, a very serious type of unemployment that could not easily be combatted.

Therefore, for all of these reasons and more (such as lower protectionism, resulting in lower costs and making it easier for UK firms to trade and compete internationally) the single market reprsents a huge asset that the Uk asset that our economy is now reliant on. If we left the EU we could no longer benefit from all of these positives, and the Economy would be significantly weakened because of the interdependence between the UK and other members of the EU.



4. Notes and References

Within several of my quotations of my opponent you may find spelling mistakes. Those are not mine; I left them in for completeness. You will find them within his original piece.

References:
https://en.wikipedia.org...
https://en.wikipedia.org...
https://en.wikipedia.org...
http://ec.europa.eu...
http://www.bbc.co.uk...
http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk...
http://www.eubusiness.com...



Debate Round No. 2
monethys

Pro

monethys forfeited this round.
yellown

Con

By forfeiting the round, my opponent should have lost the debate according to standard DDO debate rules. Unfortunately we failed to clarify that is the opening round and so I am unsure of whether to continue with my arguments. I ask the voters to take this into consideration, as I am reluctant to write another 1000 word essay against an opponent who lacks the effort to reply. Therefore I shall now (briefly) sum up another argument.

Social Benefits of EU
The European Union provides the citizens of its member states with countless benefits. The free movement of peoples is an integral part of the EU and it allows globalisation to really come into its own, sharing the cultures of each of its member states. This contributes to a more understanding and utopian society, whereby Britain can greatly benefit from the diversity this brings. By leaving the European Union the citizens of the UK would be unable to benefit from this and would also be ostracised from the greater part of Europe.

Debate Round No. 3
monethys

Pro

~ I must offer the most sincere apologies for forfeiting the previous round, although much of the argument was written, preoccupations prevented me from finishing and publishing the final piece. I should think it's best we continue the debate.

1. Opening Statement
Laissez-faire capitalism did not lead to the 2008 Wall Street Crash. My opponent has confused de facto corporatism with laissez-faire capitalism. How is the federal reserve system - supposedly a central regulatory banking institution, but in reality a lobbyist facade to promote self-regulation - an artefact of a laissez-faire economic system? Such a banking system is in direct violation of laissez-faire tenets - that the state implements law, not corporations. My opponent begins to list the EU's achievements, which I shall shortly refute: Firstly, international trade is promoted by trade agreements not political unions. Secondly, the EU, in terms of climate reform, has only shifted industry to developing countries by levying unnecessary tax, discouraging innovations and distorting the free market. The UN deployed one of its largest peacekeeping missions there, and thus they were largely responsible for the resolution in 2013. Very few articles of the conflict even acknowledge EU involvement, if you'd like some idea of how much impact the EU had during the crises.

2. Democratic Deficit
It's a bit of a struggle to determine my opponents actual position on this issue, given that he opens his rebuttal by vilifying and berating the nature of democracy, and goes attributing the rise of Nazism to proportional representation. And then shortly after this anti-democracy point he proceeds to argue that the European Commission is democratic, only moments later to backtrack and start conceding that 'the system is not perfect' and needs reform.
His first argument is dependent on the idea that pure democracy, is not able to act effectively, and he bases this argument on a historical event, but fails to provide proper context. The proportional representation voting system is not intrinsically doomed to dictatorship as the opponent suggests. In fact, the Nazi takeover of Germany was permitted through a loophole in the Weimar Constitution (Article 48), which allowed a certain Adolf Hitler to pass legislation without vote of parliament. It was not democracy, as the opponent suggests, that resulted in extremism, but the very opposite: democratic deficit. It's highly unlikely my opponent believes the parliament in Australia, which currently uses a proportional representation system, is wildly ineffective or bound for a Nazi takeover. I'll assume that was a lapse in logic, and my opponent is not promoting fascism to combat extremism.
In the previous argument, it was noted that the president of the European Commission is elected undemocratically, with the European Council proposing a candidates to be voted on by the European Parliament, to which the opponent responded 'How is the European Parliament, elected by the people, having the power to vote in the president undemocratic? This seems to be a blatant contradiction'. My opponent seems to misunderstand the concept of contradiction. The point made, was that the European Commission lack democratic legitimacy because a candidate is 'approved' the European Council. We might ask the opponent if he believes the umbrella revolution in Hong Kong is an unjustified affair, and if the people should not expect to be able to vote for a non-establishment approved candidates.
My opponent, also remarks that I 'refer to the European Commission as a group of unelected bureaucrats', which, in any way you look at it, still holds true. Not a single European voter posted a ballot to let these bureaucrats run Europe, even though the Commission is the only institution that matters. This is simply unacceptable, and suggestions that an organisation like the EU could ever be properly reformed are naive at best, when every directive has been subject to an unnerving ratchet effect and every has treaty lead to a more and more centralized Europe, removing further powers from nation states, without regard to democracy.
The point still stands strong; the EU is a structurally undemocratic political union, that the British public never voted to be in, and thus the interests of the British people are not properly represented within it.

3. Benefits of the Single Market
Free markets are wonderful. They promote competition, innovation and are arguably one of humanities greatest achievements. Unfortunately, being a member of the EU, Britain has not been able to pursue a free single market. In fact, it's ludicrous to suggest that a single market is only made possible with a political union, such as the EU. My opponent might suggest that the EU would withhold such an agreement in order to delay the UK's departure from the EU, but this statement would be downright naive and not supported by statistics, given that the UK imports much more from the EU than it exports. The Better Off Out campaign notes that: "In 2009 there was a trade deficit of "34.9bn; in 2011, it was nearly "50bn. In the very worst case scenario, if trade stopped with the EU, the United Kingdom would lose 3 million jobs which are dependent on trade with the EU. The EU however, would lose 4 millions jobs, so it would be nonsensical for them not to trade with their biggest customer. Moreover, the Lisbon Treaty stipulates that the EU must make a trade agreement with a country which leaves the EU."
I enjoyed reading my opponent's thesis in favour a free, global market, I can't help but wonder if the opponent believes that the 3,600 new laws from the EU since 2010 have helped or hindered a free, global market. Increasingly, eurocrats are legislating on non-issues, banning any new innovation they don't warm to, and hurting production in all EU economies. It's this draconian legislation that leads to monopolies and lack of competition - the very of opposite of the free, global and competitive market my opponent advocates. The same legislation that has deterred numerous non-EU countries from considering free trade agreements with the EU. In fact, little Switzerland has more free trade deals than the EU, and the difference her and the United Kingdom is that she wasn't forced to signed away her sovereignty to Brussels in doing so.
And so, if my opponent really believes in a free United Kingdom, trading with Europe and once again playing a role in world politics, I can safely say that leaving to EU will get you quite a bit closer to those aims.

4. Open Borders
Leaving the EU may or not result in restrictions on the movement of labour. The United Kingdom might choose to leave it's borders open, and receive the supposed benefits of immigration, or the United Kingdom might implement a heavily restricted immigration policy in order to combat the supposed costs of immigration. Leaving the EU would guarantee nothing but that the United Kingdom would be able to choose and implement it's own immigration policy.
The current free movement of labour prevents the United Kingdom from controlling the quantity and quality of immigration has already lead to numerous tragedies of Health Tourism, a Romanian Crime epidemic and high profile murderers who have been permitted to use the United Kingdom as a haven. This lazy approach to immigration has had significant impact on the wealth of the poorest in Britain through wage compression, while overall wages have gone up for the upper and middle class, for every 1% rise in the share of migrants in the UK-born working age population, there was 0.6% trimmed off the wages of the bottom 5% of earners and a 0.4% fall for the lowest 10%.
In fact it can also be argued that the EU labour market has discriminated against non-EU workers with greater skills, simply based of race and nationality, given that a quality controlled immigration system would ensure that skilled working immigration can occur. This year 260,000 largely non-skilled workers have immigrated to a small country with already failing infrastructure and there is nothing the people can do about it as a member of the EU.

5. Social Benefits
Free movement is addressed in the previous argument. The EU recently orchestrated a vile political coup d'etat within Ukraine, by toppling a democratically elected government and then instigating aggressive overtures from the IMF and/or World Bank. How is purposefully destabilising a democratic nation in order to play geopolitical war-games with Vladimir Putin, creating social benefits for the people of the EU.

References:
http://www.responsibilitytoprotect.org...
https://en.wikipedia.org......
https://en.wikipedia.org......
https://en.wikipedia.org......
https://en.wikipedia.org......
https://en.wikipedia.org...
https://www.uktradeinfo.com...
http://data.worldbank.org...
http://data.worldbank.org...
http://www.breitbart.com...
http://www.ons.gov.uk...
https://en.wikipedia.org...
https://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.betteroffout.net...
http://www.theguardian.com...
http://www.neurope.eu...
http://cream-migration.org...
http://www.storyleak.com...
yellown

Con

1.Opening Statements
2. Democracy Deficit
3.Single Market
4.Open Borders
5.Social Benefits
6. Political Power
7.References


1. Opening Statements.

Apologies for taking this minor clash with no real relevance to the debate so far, but I could not let my opponents statements go unanswered:
During my previous statement I argued in return to my opponent's statement that lassez-faire capitalism was one of the reasons for the advancement of society by starting that in fact lack of regulation(lassez-faire capitalism at its finest) was partially to blame for the 2008 market crash, as banks could gamble on sub-prime mortgages and so on with no regard for the consequences. My opponent then proceeds to admonish me for something I never stated and claimed I mistook de facto corporatism with lassez-faire capitalism. I never claimed that the US's socio-economic system was purely lassez-faire, I merely pointed out some detrimental consequences of a lack of regulation, which my opponent did not even attempt to deny. My opponent also has intermittedly inserted his own biases into the debate. Such statements as 'supposedly a central regulatory banking institution, but in reality a lobbyist facade to promote self-regulation' when reffering to the federal reserve make this debate less proffessional, and are merely imposing his own biased viewpoints on the debate, which is not necessary. In fact, constantly insulting my intelligence ('My opponent seems to misunderstand the concept of contradiction',' I'll assume that was a lapse in logic' etc.) only serves to detract from the arguments at stake and the overalll proffesionalism of the debate.

I ask my opponent in the future to: a) carefully read my statements before he attempts to refute them, so he is actually aware of my arguments, b) refrain from allowing his biases into the debate, and c) refrain with the petty insults and concentrate on the points.

2. Democracy Deficit
To be honest, I grow rather tired of my opponent's abuse of semantics and his leaping upon every errant word as a game-changer, so I will keep this brief and to the point, refraining from a long explanation of why I did not 'vilify' the nature of democracy, just stated that pure democracy in any system is most likely uneffective, and how I was not reffering to the exact mtoment Hitler took power, but how the ineffectiveness of the proprtional representation system drove the German people to vote for his partyin the first place, just for the mere hope that a strong party could actually get something done to clear out the mess Germany was in at the time.

I am not going to argue the fact that a democracy deficit exists within the EU. My opponent may be exaggerating its effects, but it does exist. And yes, MEP's should have a chance to vote for non-estamblishment candidates. But I do not consider this to ba a valid reason for Britain to leave the EU. Any system can be reformed and there are thinktanks devoted to Eu reform. In fact, the EU has been constantly changing since its formation. My opponent even cites the impact of the Treaty of Lisbon, the latest ammendment to the EU which changed the terms of membership, and came into force as recently as 2008. What is more, there is no better alternative than the EU for Britain. The UK has to accept the structure of the EU as there is no other alternative for it to join, seeing as it also wishes not to lose out from leaving it.

3. Single Market
My Opponent states 'it's ludicrous to suggest that a single market is only made possible with a political union, such as the EU', which I agree with. However, that is not the point we are debating. It is just as ludicrous to claim that Britain would still remain within the single market if it left the political Union of the EU. My opponent suggested that this is naive. Of course it is not. My opponent cites the Better Off Out campaign, which claims that the EU would lose 4 million jobs compared to the 3 million jobs lost in the UK if it were to leave. Let us compare these figures. Britain, which currently has an unemployment of around 1.96 million, would lose 3 million jobs according to the Better Off Out Campaign. This would reult in an increase to nearly 5 million Britons unemployed (15%), nearly double that of Britain during the worst of the great recession and an virtually unheard of number. Mind you, this is with the statistics of the Better Off Now campaign, an unreliable source at most. It could be even more. Meanwhile the 4 million unemployed (out of roughly 400 million in the job market) in the EU would be a much less serious problem for them, seeing as it would only result in roughly a 1% increase in unemployment, so this would not be a serious disincentive for the EU to cancel a trade agreement, as my opponent claims. In fact the EU may well have an incentive to exclude Britain from the single market, as a deterrent for other errant countries who wish to keep the economic benefits of being a member of the EU without actually being a member of the EU, as the EU establishment certainly wish to remain a political union. The famed article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon says notrhing about how large a trade deal would be, so the UK could lose many of the privelages it has today. One thing is for sure; The new trade agreement would be controlled by the EU establishment, and they would not be pleased by Britain's exit.
As for the "3,600 new laws from the EU since 2010" that my opponent speaks of, are they relevant to this debate? If Britain remains in the EU, it will at least have a say in their creation and can attempt to change them. If not, Britain will be forced to deal wth the restrictions anyway should it wish to trade with the EU within the single market, and being outside of the single maket would not bring Britain closer to the free, global market, my opponent advocates, but push it further away.

4. Open Borders
My Opponent blames increased immigration from the EU as resulting in a influx of 'Health Tourism', a 'Romanian Crime epidemic' and high profile murderers using the UK as a safe haven. 'Health Tourism': The evidence for this is circumstantial and sketchy at best, with none provided by my opponent, and while the NHS is experiencing more and more pressure, as much of that is due to government cuts as to immigration. The claim of 'A Romanian Crime epidemic' is based completely on bias and personal convictions; no impartial evidence whatsoever exists for this. And the claim that the UK is a 'safe haven' for murderers as a result of being an EU member is also false. The Open Borders system has in fact allowed the governments of the EU to combat organised crime, most notably in spain, by allowing countries to co-operate in finding and convicting criminals, whichever borders they cross, yet another social benefit. Having open borders does not result in more criminals taking refuge in the UK, as the same border checks apply. Rather it allows nations to co-ordinate operations against criminals and reduces criminals taking haven sucessfully.

As for wage compression several things need to be taken into account. While wage compression may exist as a result of migration, its effects will be negligable. In fact, there is strong evidence that British employers prefer British workers to EU immigrants. As well as this, it is important to remember that correllation does not mean causation, so while these trends may correllate over time, there is yet to be hard evidence that the increase in immigration causes the wage decrease.

5. Social Benefits
Once again my opponent a) goes off topic, and b) allows his bias to take control of his arguments, making a unclear point with seemingly no real relevence to the debate. The social benefits such as increased diversity, greater ability in fighting crime, travel through open borders etc. have not been adressed.

6. Political Power
My opponent states that the UK will gain in political power in leaving the EU. However, it shares its foreign policies and greater world viewpoints with most of the countries in Europe, particularly the ones with power in the EU (Germany, France, etc.) and so has more authority and international power acting in this coalition. As for the matter of Climate Change deals, while it may be the case that the EU is shifting industry to other countries it does not affect Britain that much, because we are no longer a manufacturing country, and it is setting an example to other countries around the world. Like it or not, in the long term Climate Change is extremely harmful for the British citizen and it can better be combatted as part of a political union.

7.References
http://www.cer.org.uk...;
http://en.wikipedia.org...;
http://somo.nl...
http://ec.europa.eu...
http://www.lisbon-treaty.org...
http://ec.europa.eu...
http://en.wikipedia.org...;
http://www.bbc.co.uk...;
http://www.ons.gov.uk...;
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://news.sky.com...;

Debate Round No. 4
monethys

Pro

Opening Statement
This section is losing relevance, so the rebuttals will be brief. My opponent argues that lack of regulation, which is an artifact of a laissez-faire capitalism, was partially responsible for the 2008 market crash and thus the percieved movement away from laissez-faire policy within the EU is justified. Since inception, banks have faced more and more regulation - most notably in modern times, leading to a scenerio in which it is fundamentally impossible to setup a banking institution, which has led to horrible banking practices and inefficiences. This hypothesis is evidenced by periods of free banking, like in Scotland during 1716 and 1845, which resulted in 'highly stable and competitive' banking system. It remains true that a generally laissez-faire system has presided over the greatest periods of growth in human civilisation, and therefore it would be a mistake to move away from such a system.

Democratic Deficit
Not a single word in the article you cited that documents Adolf Hitlers rise to power suggests that the rise of NSDAPcan to attributed to 'pure democracy'(proportional represenation) and the Weimar economy was in a mess because it had just lost a war and faced heavy sanctions, not because it was too democratic. Besides, my opponent ignores the fact that countless modern democracies use proportional representaion, and remain wealthy and free nation states.
My opponent concedes that a democratic deficit exists within the EU, but remarks that I am exaggerating this. I'd love to defend my viewpoint, but the opponent provides no further refutations to my points. As my opponent says, the EU has been changing since it's formation, as I mentioned previously: every new treaty lead to a more and more centralized Europe, removing further powers from nation states, including the treaty of Lisbon. There is a 'better alternative; for Britain, and that's becoming a sovereign nation once again, and the supposed costs of leaving have been addressed within the other sections.

Single Market
Firstly, how is it ludicrous to suggest that the United Kingdom could remain in the single if it left the EU, given that Switzerland and Norway both enjoy access to the EU single market without being members of the union.
Secondly, as the collective EU has a larger population, it's labour markets are proportionally less affected by such layoffs, despite more EU citizens becoming unemployed and an extremely high unemployment rate of around 11.5% in the EU, which would be 13% if the UK was not a member - given that the UK's unemployment rate is only 6%. None of this changes the fact the it is in the interests of both the United Kingdom and the EU to preserve a trade deal between each other. Although trade with EU woud be restricted by EU legislation, the other 80% of the United Kingdom's GDP would no longer be hindered by EU legislation.

Open Borders
I have provided evidence for all three of those claims in the list of references, my apolgies for not inserting them earlier. With regard to the Romanian crime epidemic, several established statistics can outline the scale of the problem: “92 per cent of all ATM crime in London is committed by Romanians national gangs.” and “28,000 Romanians were arrested in the last five years in the Metropolitan Police area alone. Even though the Romanian national population in the UK is around 95,000.” Free movement of labour is not viable between countries with massive economic and welfare disparity.
It is undisputed that excess supply of unskilled workers will lead to wage compression and unemployment. As previously stated, a study showed for every 1% rise in the share of migrants in the UK-born working age population, there was 0.6% trimmed off the wages of the bottom 5% of earners and a 0.4% fall for the lowest 10%. Another study showed that EU migration has a significant negative effect on lower wages. Both these studies are extremely reputed, and they go quite a bit more in depth than correlation equals causation.

Political Power
The United Kingdom can no longer control it's own rules, so how could joining the EU have increased political power. Far from increasing British influence in the world, the EU is undermining UK influence. The EU is demanding there is a single voice for the EU in the UN and in the IMF. The EU has also made the British economy and City of London less competitive through overregulation, and negotiates more protectionist and less effective trade deals on behalf of the UK. Global warming is not relevant to Political Power, but I will address it nonetheless. The reason the United Kingdom is no longer involved as involved in manufacturing partially due to the Climate change and protectionist legislation that have only served the large energy corporations. By shifting manufacturing to India and China, these companies have just avoided enviromental taxes and started paying lower wages to cheaper workers. Any tax or legislation has consequences, largely for the medium and small-sized business that are the foundation of the British economy and implementing such legislature has only cost our economy under the pretense of protecting the enviroment.

References
http://economics.about.com...
https://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.tradingeconomics.com...
http://www.met.police.uk...
http://www.bbc.co.uk...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
http://blogs.channel4.com...
https://ideas.repec.org...


Thanks for the debate. It was relatively enjoyable.
yellown

Con

Democracy Deficit
Regardless of any lack of democracy within the EU this is not a major concern and is not a vaid argument for Britain to leave the EU. My opponent has concentrated on picking apart the details of my aergument, but has failed to refute the point that no system that needs to act decicivly at times is a pure democracy. Whatever lack of fairness this may entail affects other EU members just asmuch as Britain and so Britain will not gain any huge international political power if it leaves the EU; In fact, it may even lose power as it is no longer part of a coalition that acts together. My opponent states 'every new treaty lead to a more and more centralized Europe', but fails to provide any evidence, and then claims that Britain acting independantly is a batter alternative without providing any reasons why.

Single Market
Neither Switzerland nor Norway were ever members of the EU. My point was that the EU would likely resrtict Britain's acess to the single market as a deterrant for other countries considering leaving the EU, as the European Union is built as an economic and political union, not just an economic union, and the EU wants to preserve that dual function. This also applies to the shared interests argument.
As for legislation, as I already stated most of those legislations are a) necessary, b) would have been passed in the UK anyway, and c) Do not hinder free trade to such an extent that they would reduce Britain's International competitiveness.

Open Borders
I feel difficulty in replying to this section, seeing as my opponent's main sources included the Daily Mail and a blogsite. My opponent provides 'established statistics' (whatever that means), and as I read on in the source he provided I find the same source also states 'The figure of 28,000 is for the number of arrests made over five years from 2008 to 2012, not the number of people. One shoplifter can be arrested and re-arrested dozens of times and each one of those arrests counts towards this total.' As well as this, I am sure that my opponent could find an EU minority group within the UK that had a much lower crime rate than the UK citizens. These statistics mean nothing.
My opponent provides evidence for EU immigration causing wage compression. I provide evidence against it (see references), where a study found that any wage compression caused by EU immigration is statistically insignificant.

Political Power
Being a member of the EU allows Britain to decisivly act on International issues as it shares foreign policies with virtually all member states, and if the policies disagree it allows a healthy, intelligent discussion to take place, definately a good thing for Britain and the world.

Conclusion
Burden of Doubt lies on my opponent; his task was to show that Britain would be better off leaving the EU and I do not believe he has decisivly proven that the case. The costs of Britain leaving the EU far outweigh any potential benefits (his main arguments rest on Britain gaining acess to the single market, definately not certain).

Thanks for reading this debate, and please take the time to vote.

References
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://blogs.channel4.com...
https://ideas.repec.org...
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk...
http://www.dartmouth.edu...
http://www.bbc.co.uk...



Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by monethys 2 years ago
monethys
Do I have your consent to remove this debate?
No votes have been placed for this debate.