European Union

Rebuttal#1: The net contribution from the UK to the EU budgetLast May, exports from the EU were 12.2 billion pounds[1]. Imports were 17.4 billion pounds[1]. There is not a net contribution in the recent months, but rather a net balance of payment surplus in regards to the EU as we gained an extra 5.2 billion pounds. April we had an EU surplus of 5.1 billion pounds[2] and in March that was 5.3 billion pounds[3]. We gain more than we lose in regards to the EU.#2 There is no trade benefit to the United Kingdom in staying in the European UnionNo trade benefits? The information above, in times of a recession is in itself a large benefit. Let us not forget that there is reduced buraeucracy and paperwork as well as standards which have been harmonised to make sure that safety, anti-monopolisation and anti-nepotism is a factor[4]. There are clear benefits.#3 There is trade benefit to the United Kingdom in leaving the European Union Outside the EU, it would be impossible to trade on the same level we do now. If we rejoin the EEA, we will still have to pay and live in accordance with their rules. We'd need to pay about 2 billion euros per annum if we wanted to actually have access to the trade we do now[5]. If you leave the EEA, then expect no trade with the EU and we'd have to cut exports in order to have a balance of payments then. This is certainly not good for other economies.Fundamentally, economics is about safety. It is why people like demand/income-inelastic items and why a body like the EU has the highest nominal GDP[6]. A body which is doing successfully one could argue, and is likely to produce good results, people will trade with. One that is likely not too, people will not. Staying as a part of the EU means that for the sake of safety, we'd for certain benefit from international trade.The point however, at which we leave the EU we are left with multiple situations. We could join the EEA, still pay large amounts, still be stuck under bureaucracy just on a lesser scale, which includes our imports from the EU as seeing as we aren't as close with the EU we are on more dangerous, volatile ground and there is likely to be less trade. Or we could leave the EEA and miss out completely. I concede that certain bills would decrease if we left the EU, but frankly it is not worth the billions we earn, the security of trade we have. Countries from around the world trade when there is safety and security. When we leave, our options aren't steady.#4 If we left the EU, there'd be a significant decrease in Fuel PovertyOnce again, I concede this. But there is a fundamental problem with arguments such as these. We, in this country could increase the GDP by killing the elderly. We'd have more homes available, do not have to spend money on pensions, as well as have a largely productive population which gives back. But there are ramifications here, largely morally.The same applies to your arguments. Yes, there are bonuses to the leaving of the EU, and I concede they exist, but what I do not concede is that this means we should leave for there are a host of ramifications I have mentioned above, both fundamentally and actually, which outweigh the extra cost we have to pay. #5 The European Union is not responsible for peace and puts us in risk of having a war/riots I don't believe I understand your argument. The EU does not prevent wars, NATO does. If you are trying to say that because NATO does a better job, we should leave the EU then this is a blatant fallacy of relative privation and holds no ground in formal debate. NATO does do a better job and preventing war. After all, it is their job, and not even the job of the EU. This shouldn't at all affect out position within the EU. The EU do not also produce medicine for disabled people, thus should we leave?This too is a non sequitur. Do the EU have responsibility over peace-keeping? They aren't a foreign policy, nor should they be. It was an economic agreement and it makes no sense to say we should leave because they aren't doing something that they shouldn't be doing in the first place.And the issue with Greece is appealing to one example. Firstly, the issue in Greece was due to already very high growth, with Greece already being an "economic miracle" in the 1950s - 1970s[7]. But this was helped by excessive Keynesian policy with borrowing and spending, lying about their deficit so to get into the EU and huge tax evasion[7][8]. The 2009 crisis only amplified this so that Greece was forced into borrowing even more, increasing their huge deficit, forcing more tax evasion which only forced more borrowing, and increasing their debt.The only part the EU had in this was that the euro, because of how successfully the euro was in that it caused spending to increase and inflation to soar.[8] The EU howver in no way had any direct part to play in the failings of the Greek economy. #6 The EU has destroyed over 97,000 UK jobs.Yes. 100,000 jobs were lost because of the fishing policy. But 4.2 million jobs are EU related in total. The scale tips in my favour, celarly, as this means that £211 billion is coming from that[9].#7 Outside of the EU, we will be able to have a fair and sensible immigration policy The cause of immigration to the UK is simply a matter of the fact that countries like Romania, Bulgaria, Estonia, etc, amplified due to the recession, are in a state that people are flocking to other countries. I believe that we can both agree with this. Britian is a country with lots of opportunity and which appreciates cheap labour. Eastern europeans and immigrants come here because our country is better than theirs, and has better opportunity for them.So, what do we want to do as a response? Run away from the issue. The thing is, we impose harsher legislation then the immigrants will flock to Germany, France, etc. The problem is, the same economic problems that we are facing due to immigration are then transferred to another country. We will be better off, but then out trade opportunities with other countries will decrase. As other MEDC's are earning less due to having to spend so much and suffer so much due to immigration, then our trade chances will simply decrease.They'll too run away from the issue, worsening another country and it becomes cyclical until the point that these immigrants are forced to starve and suffer and we only further worsen humanitarian crises. Now, the problem is that this means aid of some sort will have to be increased. We can't simply run away because these people suffering one way or another we are paying for them. Poverty is one of the largest economic exteralities, and as we allow immigration levels to increase elsewhere, not only will we have to suffer in the long term as we will pay these externalities via tax, or aid, etc but we also lose on trade imports as countries suffer, in which we have to balance the payments by cutting imports.In short, immigration needs to be tackled head on, by helping in the process of developing these countries. Globalisation has to infiltrate these countries and hope to improve standards of life there, we need to not run away from immigration nor push it away, but cut it down. We need to prevent movement in the first place and we cannot do this whilst we are apart. Only a collective body, which is very wealthy and has trade capabilites and the power of legislature to help Romania for example further develop. Only the EU can create policies to insentivise continental trade and business. We need the EU so that we don't end up paying huge externalities. We need to come together and solve this problem head on.#8 Outside of the EU, we would be able to restore democracy to our countryFirstly, the legislative figure you quoted is flawed. This is an issue that really cannot be answered straightly. Estimates range from 6-84%, and all are reliable sources[10], MEPs' themselves in a lot of cases.As for restoring democracy, MEPs do not directly have the ability to enforce legislation, but they still have the democratic right to help with the voting and have asisted in helping in a host of legislature. Including, as taken from the europarl website[11]. Work and holiday time. Which pesticides are safe to use on the food grown in the EU; Roaming charges. How to use and label Genetically Modified Organisms; Making children's toys safe; Saefty with chemicals. Cleaning up. International healthcare. Easier international studying. They do have powers to do all of this, and clearly have done. Whether it is truly democratic makes no difference as that is only for the sake of a goal which is already being met.As for the issue of the commssioner, they are democratically elected, just not in a traditional manner. Due to a lack of space, I urge the floor to read for themselves, but in short they are elected by members.http://en.wikipedia.org...My contentions are present in my rebuttals. We are better off in in a multitude of ways, and I urge the floor to side with Pro. Thank you. Sources: [1] http://www.ons.gov.uk...[2] http://www.ons.gov.uk...[3] http://www.ons.gov.uk...[4] https://www.gov.uk...[5] http://www.jcm.org.uk...[6] http://en.wikipedia.org...(nominal)[7] http://blogs.economictimes.indiatimes.com...[8] http://www.bbc.co.uk...[9] http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk...[10] http://www.parliament.uk...[11] http://www.europarl.org.uk...