The Instigator
Pro (for)
7 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

This House Supports the Brexit

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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...
Voting Style: Judge Point System: Select Winner
Started: 5/9/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 876 times Debate No: 90882
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (1)





Hi, everyone. The main purpose of this debate is to motivate me to increase my reading on current issues. It's a 5000-character-per-round debate. 24 hours per round. I have nominated 5 judges to judge this debate.

I think the topic requires no further definition. Looking forward to a good debate!


I accept this debate
Debate Round No. 1


Good day to my formidable opponent and esteemed members of the jury. I would first like to thank my opponent for accepting this challenge and the judges for agreeing to vote on this debate.

I will be arguing for the Brexit which is Britain leaving the EU. My stand is that "leaving Europe is in the best interest of the British people".

I think everyone will agree that Britain is one of the most important countries in the world. It was once a great empire and it still continues to be a massive influence in terms of economy and military in Europe. For Britain to remain influential, it must not be restricted by the rules and laws drawn up by the European parliament in Brussels.

An example of such laws that Britain has and will continue to have to abide to should they remain in the EU, are laws regarding trade. These past few years, Britain has had to contribute more and more financially into the EU purse for the benefit of enjoying free trade with members of the EU. If we look at the net sum, indeed Britain has lost money for the supposed benefit of business advantage. To put this figure into perspective, the net amount of money Britain has had to spent is slightly lower than the government's medical expenditure. To make matters worse, Britain is one of the countries which receives far less money from the EU with countries like Greece and France receiving much higher which is understandeable considering their economies are not doing too well.

It is the believe of the instigator (which is me) in this debate that it is better for Britain to draw up new trade agreements with the EU without having to contribute to the 'kitty'. Why should Britain continue to be played as 'big brother' to bail out other countries? If Britain is out of the EU, yes they will still need to abide by EU laws to trade with the EU, but we find that this situation is not too far different from remaining in the EU and still having to abide by these laws while incurring a tonne of expense. Countries like Norway and Switzerland enjoy the benefits of European Free Trade while still keeping their dignity (for lack of a better word) as countries which are brave enough to stand alone.

Secondly, the migrant crisis in Europe is going to impact Britain in a very damaging way. The instigator of this debate believes that the EU will at the very least, put pressure on Britain to accept large numbers of refugees should Britain remain in the EU. Countries like Sweden and Greece are already struggling with the influx of refugees with tens of thousands arriving on the borders every week. It is not so much an economical impact as it is a cultural one. I believe that Britain is not ready to be coerced to take in a large number of a foreign people. Even if Britain were to help out with the crisis, it must do so of it's own accord instead of being seen as meekly having to follow Brussels's orders. This will even create a precedent that migrants can simply enter and be relocated into countries of the EU, of which Britain would most likely be one of the main destinations because it's economy is one of the best among the EU countries. The GBP is a stronger currency than the Euro.

Finally, I am going back to what I alluded to at the very start. It is time for Britain to stand alone just because it needs to. President Obama has called for Britain to remain in the EU. But the US would never choose to remain in a pact where it's powers will be far reduced. This is hypocritical of a country which wants to put up walls on the Mexico border. For Britain to be have a big say in economical, military and other matters not only in Europe but also globally it can no longer stand behind the shadow of the EU. Just like Russia, North Korea, China and even Iran who are global powers that are not afraid to stand alone, so to must Britain.

We must stand behind the idea that Britain can stand for itself without the crutches of the EU. We must stand behind the idea that Britain can stand for itself without the restrictions of the EU. America and Germany want Britain to stay but that's a testament that they are afraid of Britain should it choose to go alone.

I apologise if I have been considered to make arguments without the relevant links. I was writing this under some time constraint.

Over to my opponent.


I bid thank you to the fair proposition with their weak case, and loose ends. I stand on the opposition side for today, arguing for Britain to remain in the European Union (EU), I accept the definition given by the proposition on what Britain is, and will argue with the same spirit of the debate introduced, that whatever consensus that we come to, that it should be for the best interests of the British people.

I will start with rebuttals, attempting to unravel the loose threads by the proposition. Firstly, when it comes to the matter of economics and specifically trade, it shows that the proposition had been brainwashed by Eurosceptics, with their fancy numbers that do not illustrate the real picture. The most basic concept in economics is opportunity cost, as long as the proposition do not understand this, and to and extent, the Eurosceptics, their figures should not be taken as an accurate representation of the costs incurred by remaining in the EU. The proposition talked about 'free trade' as it is something petty, when governments around the world are trying to lower transaction costs through Coase theorem in achieving Pareto efficiency. By remaining in the EU, Britain has free access to the single market without needing to negotiate treaties with respective countries they trade with. Yes, there would be issues that will arise when we remain in the EU, and I do not deny that, but I will continue with that rebuttal in my points as it relates a lot.

The example of countries provided by the proposition is also very unfair, as it is very one sided and truthfully entirely irrelevant to the point that the instigstor is trying to make. Norway and Switzerland, yes, Switzerland, follow an economic model that is extremely unique, the Nordic Model. The Nordic Model follows the aspects of capitalism but is modified to comprise of socialist values. As that, to compare Britain and these Scandinavic economic countries is extremely irrelevant, as Britain follows a more liberal capitalistic economic values, and these values are not extinguished by remaining in the EU.

On my last rebuttal, I will completely destroy the analogy given by the proposition when they brought the US into the fray, which ironically, happens today in reality. The Obama Administration has no rights to actively side for one segment of the referendum made for THE BRITISH. Also, as it is still called the Obama Administration, and not 'Trump Administration', it is unfair for the proposition to claim that the entire population of the great democracy that the US is, supports the building of this 'wall'. Also right, the hypocrite hear is actually the proposition, who wishes to build an artificial 'wall' by disallowing refugees to come in, what different is the instigator to the great Trump himself? Is the proposition's motto, "Make Britain great again"? I assumed it is the refugee crisis that the proposition is referring to, as the migrant crisis and the refugee crisis are two different crises.

Moving on to points.

The first issue that we need to contend to is, the issue of multiculturalism. For that we need to go back to history. The British is not a people of its own, it is a creation of a cultural melting pot. The Celts, the Angles, the Saxons, the Frisians, the Normans, and to list all of them is just going to take very long, you get the point. Isolationist policies have never and should never be accepted by the British. A lot of Eurosceptics quote the moment when Europe was isolated from the rest of Catholic Europe during the Elizabethan Era and how they prospered. Again I must say, they were not isolationist at all, they were isolated, and because of that, they build trade partnerships with countries in the Mediterranean, and England prospered, not succumbed to recession.

Still along the line of multiculturalism, the issue of migration must be be addressed. Be it the economic migrants, or the refugees seeking asylum, Britain must not close its borders. Let us first look into the issue of economic migrants. Only 44% of London's population are British Whites, and the rest are 'foreigners'. When the proposition made a very snarky remark, by saying that the migrant crisis, whichever that is, is very damaging to Britain, I felt that the instigator is being very insensitive. Not only that Britain is ready for foreigners, it also accepts these foreigners as a part of their own. Yes, there are bigots and dissenters who disagree, the proposition is obviously one, but the fact that the British people in itself is very multicultural, by closing our borders, we will just be going backwards.

On the issue of refugees right, especially on refugees escaping Syria, it is very unfair for Britain, along with the EU, to disallow these refugees to seek refuge. It is no hidden secret, that the wars fought in Syria, is not a war by its own people anymore, but wars fought by foreigners, especially European powers.

That is all for this round.
Debate Round No. 2


I will first begin my addressing the rebuttals made by my opponent to defend my arguments.

My opponent started off by accusing me of not understanding opportunity cost. Let me assure him that I have quite a good idea of what opportunity cost means. He then brings in some technical terms with the hopes of confusing us to believe in him. Basically, he brushes off my argument which is the net high costs of remaining in the EU by accusing my data as biased and claiming that the opportunity of free trade justifies the cash. We have to remember that the costs of remaining in the EU have been rising STEADILY these past few years. If it has just been rising the last couple of years, yes, we might still be optimistic. But the truth is we are starting to question how much of a benefit this supposed free trade is when the figures have continuously been rising. When you consider that these costs are almost at par with medical costs in Britain, how long can we trick ourselves into thinking that "you know, this is all for free trade. All this cost is justified."

And that is why I brought up the countries Norway and Switzerland. These countries are proof that you can stay out of the EU without having to succumb to membership fees. I was not at all implying that Britain should adopt a Nordic model. Of course, as a country with values of its own, they should negotiate a different treaty and a different model that suits them.

Finally, I agree that America has no rights to comment on the Brexit. I was in no way implying that we should 'make Britain great again' as per Trump's model. And I never said that we should disallow refugees/migrants. I said that we should be able to draw our own laws up and not follow Brussel's laws, if for nothing else other than to maintain Britain's standing in the eyes of the world as an independent and strong nation.


Now I will rebut my opponent's points.

My opponent claimed that Britain throughout history has almost had strong ties with Europe and they have prospered. TO this argument, I will say that times have changed. When you look at how Greece, France and Spain's economies are struggling, you start to ask questions of how much longer Britain is expected to help out.

My opponent then said Britain must not close its borders. Who said anything about closing borders? We will accept migrants and refugees but we will do so independently without Brussels ordering us what to do. Shutting down borders is totally different from remaining in the EU.

I reaffirm that Britain should and must exit from the EU for the benefit of the British people.


Thank you good proposition.

The issue I will adress now is the fact that there is strength in number. Firstly, when we talk about trade, supposedly right, that there are 'too much' costs that are incurred when Britain remains in the EU. Also, when the proposition is trying to talk about the economic benefits or costs, he/she should have basic understanding of economics itself, in line with political situations. Suppose that Britain leaves the EU, the cost they will incur to facilitate trade with respective countries that they trade with will be far more than the alleged value thay Britain is paying for its 'membership'.

Also, when we talk about secuirty, Britain is actually much safer when they remain in the EU. Yes, the proposition might argue that by being in the EU, with its Schengen area, Britain cannot control its borders from the the threat of 'terrorists', but studies have shown, that these terroriet attacks, such as the Paris bombing, is homegrown. Yes, these 'terrorists' might be foreign in descent, but we cannot blame the immigration system for this. It is the issue of the educational system. How is Britain more secure by being in the EU?

In terms of immigration itself, be it refugees or economic migrants, member states can share information and costs, and through distribution of costs, respective countries can achieve economies of scale through agglomeration. But this still does not answer how secure Britain can be. The Office for Budget Responsibility reports that much of public services are financed by taxes by immigrant workers. Also there's a high correlation economic growth with the level of immigration. This provide a security net for Britain in terms of its financial security.

Talking about finances, leads to my next point, on the issue of services provided by Britian for the rest of EU, especially when we consider the fact that Britian is a service-based economy. The financial services centre in Britain employ around 2.1 million people, and this bulwark of the industry is stable mainly because of the EU internal market legislation. Investors do not mind takin risks, but looking at political uncertainty, and especially one with huge implications to the financial sector, they will be scared off. There's been talk of HSBC relocating its HQ away from London, and this will be made true, especially if Britain is to leave the EU, for gigantic multinational companies such as HSBC, prefers freer access to the market. This will greatly affect Britain's economy.

That is all. Thank you
Debate Round No. 3


Ok, let's agree with the opposition. Let's say that the costs incurred when Britain has to trade with each country separately is higher than the membership fee of being in EU. First of all, economic experts themselves cannot agree whether which scenario is going to incur more cost, especially when you consider that even if Britain does leave the EU it is going to take at least 2 years to gradually leave the EU and to finalise new laws and trade agreements. But when the problem is happening now, we cannot continue to ignore it without trying something new. Britain has been in the EU for too long and a new way of doing things, a change from the old ways deserve at least a 'trial period' to enable us to work things out.

My opponent then argues terrorist ideas are home grown, not brought in and therefore an emphasis should be on the education system. I simply cannot agree with this. The fact that most terrorists have radical Islamic views are because they are from Islamic descent. To mitigate this problem, you can't bring in more people from Islamic countries (assuming this is Syria, Iraq etc) and expect that you know, nothing is going to happen and we're all going to live happy in a multicultural society. Which is exactly why, at this period in history with influx of migrants from Muslim countries, and Turkey trying to push their way to visa-free travel, we need to have more control over our borders. It is our concern that Brussels will force us to terms that will impact our community, particularly with regards to the public's sensitivity about muslims and terrorism.

The fact that member states can share info to me is not at all a good reason to remain in the EU. The war on terrorism is a war fought collectively by all countries whether or not we remain in EU. America, Canada, Australia all non-EU countries contribute to our info on potential terrorist threats. And when we still cannot prevent incidents like that in Sydney and Paris, we should not pretend that just by sharing info we can solve terrorism altogether.

Notice that I am not at all saying that all Muslims are terrorists. I am saying that we have to take the necessary precautionary steps with the knowledge that most terrorists are muslims.

Britain leaving the EU does not mean we will leave our collective effort with other countries on the war on terrorism.

I have certainly enjoyed this debate and I thank my opponent for his worthy assessments and for his time.

Vote Government. Vote for Independence.


mansorshah forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Blade-of-Truth 5 months ago
RFD --

In R1 Pro introduces 3 arguments: 1) The economic impact as a harm, such as the cost not justifying the reward since they pay more than they receive while other countries receive more. 2) Britain likely being forced to accept more immigrants due to the orders of another country, which would harm the Britain culturally and economically since the GBP is stronger than the Euro. 3) It"s time for Britain to stand alone rather than being dependent on other countries having a say in its economical, militaristic, and additional matters.

Con starts by immediately introducing rebuttals to Pro arguments. 1) By remaining in the EU they have free access to the market rather than needing to negotiate treaties with countries they trade with. 2) Comparing Britain to Norway and Switzerland is a false comparison since they follow a different economic model and remaining in the EU wouldn"t conflict with Britain"s own values. 3) US opinions don"t matter, regardless of if it"s Obama or Trump. He also drew the distinction between migrant crisis and refugee crisis.
Posted by Blade-of-Truth 5 months ago
Con then introduces his own arguments: 1) Britain should continue to embrace its tradition of multiculturalism rather than accept isolationist policies. 2) Britain should not close its borders regardless of the reason, be it refugee or migrant, because they are ready for them and it"d be a step backwards; it"s unfair to not allow entry to people who are escaping war.

In R2 Pro rebuts Con"s rebuttals: 1) Pro dismisses the real point which is that the cost doesn"t justify the rewards, and that the cost has been rising every year. With the cost being nearly as high as the medical costs in Britain, it"s clear that such spending is not justified. 2) Norway and Switzerland merely served as proof that inclusion in the EU isn"t necessary for success in trade. 3) That the points about Trump and Obama were not about support, but rather just as examples of leaders who draw up their own laws like Britain should do.

Pro then rebuts Con"s arguments: 1) Regardless of Britain having a history of strong European ties, due to the failings economies of countries like Greece, France, and Spain, we should be independent rather than having to help them. 2) Pro never said anything about closing borders, but rather that they"d allow them in on their own terms rather than by the terms of another country; closing borders and remaining in the EU are two different things.
Posted by Blade-of-Truth 5 months ago
Con starts R2 with counter-arguments to Pro"s previous rebuttals: 1) The cost of trading as an independent agent will be more than the cost of being in the EU. 2) Britain would be safer if it remained in the EU economically because immigrant workers contribute via taxes. 3) If they leave the EU it"s threaten the financial sector and investors and large companies are likely to relocate which would greatly impact the economy.

In the Final round, Pro begins with some counter-arguments: 1) There is no conclusive evidence that proves that the cost of trading independently would be more than it is now while being in the EU; the problem should be handled now while they are definitely incurring costs. 2) Most terrorists are Islamic descent, just like most migrants " we can"t reasonably assume they"re all here to live happily ever after; Britain should have the final say on who they let in. 3) Data sharing is still achievable even if Britain left the EU. Con then forfeited the final round.

**Judgement: I award the win to Pro for several reasons. 1) While Pro addressed each argument raised by Con, Con failed to do the same. In several instances Con seemed to rely on rhetoric rather than actual substantial responses that tackled the main points Pro raised. This is evident with Pro"s initial cost argument, in which Con dismisses it and doesn"t respond until 2 rounds later (and was then defeated). 2) Con also seemed to base his rebuttals on points that weren"t even raised by Pro, as evidenced in R2 with the closed borders response. On the other hand, Pro soundly defeated each of Con"s counter-arguments. 3) Con forfeited the final round " which left Pro"s final arguments to remain standing unchallenged. Due to all these reasons, Pro soundly defeated Con.
Posted by MagicAintReal 5 months ago
Well, if the government does not put definitions first round and the opponent does, then the rest of the debate becomes a cluster F...I know that Brussels is not a country, but it just was a way to show you how someone could distort should just always put definitions first round.
Posted by TheShadeM 5 months ago
Seriously? How would Brussels exit the EU. It's not a country by itself.

And it certainly isn't a hot topic as Britain's.

And even after all that, I am the government anyway. So in my next round I get to make the definitions. I'm just hoping someone would actually accept the debate first.

Anyway thank you for your comment.
Posted by MagicAintReal 5 months ago
What would you call Brussel's exit from the EU?
That's a Brexit, no?
Posted by TheShadeM 5 months ago
Thanks for your comment. However, I did say "current issues". I really don't see how anyone would define Brexit as something else with what's going on right now.
Posted by MagicAintReal 5 months ago
I think if you're going to use the term Brexit you should provide a definition that it's Britain's withdrawal from the EU.
I feel like someone could come in here and define BREXIT as something else first round and really ruin this debate.
I know that, because I thought of it.
So, you should put definitions.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 5 months ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in Comments section.