The UK should leave the EU for it's own benefit

Rebuttal structure As far as I could I stayed with my opponents numbering for the first part and I’ll hand it over how hell include the additions for his answer. Many thanks for the smaller typography. It really helped. I was short on time this week and I think I might left some things unsaid in this round. Still, I think I addressed most of my opponent’s initial statements and linked them to his rebuttal of my own in round 3 to deal with them as a collective. 1. Financial Aspects 1.1 Sanctions My opponent repeatedly uses the sanctions of the EU against Russia and other countries to point out how these sanctions are to Britain’s disadvantage. Which is, financially, true. It’s wrong to assume that Britain had no saying in this and it’s wrong to assume that one country is able to force all the others to agree to sanctions they don’t approve. The EU is a democratic organisation and sanctions are something the EU and it’s elected members work on collectively. And they apply to all EU countries. If many countries decide on a collective base to create themselves a financial disadvantage, we can assume that the moral and political statement behind the sanctions is important. How effective it might be from the political side is a topic for a different debate and controversial but to critique Russia’s behaviour is far less controversial. What happened and is happening in the Ukraine is, from humanitarian point of view, very problematic. As a collective the EU is able to make this political statement, because as the largest market, they have the influence. Would Britain alone decide that these sanctions are necessary, their decision would be of far less impact for the Russian market and it would be far more difficult for Britain to finance these sanctions. While my opponent seems spent his argument titled “markets, markets and more markets”, talking about sanctions, sanctions and sanctions, I will lose a sentence on markets. Because it’s right: they matter. And as they do, Britain should try to maximise its influence on markets. If they leave the EU they lose their direct influence on the largest market on the world only to gain back some responsibilities they gave up to join it, to control a market of lower size and importance and therefore power. Flexibility is not worth anything, if you cannot use it to your advantage. Even in the EEA, their influence would be null. Only-EEA members have no voting rights on EU market decisions. 1.2 – 1.3. Jobs That’s a point where we agree a lot but not in all points. It’s enjoyable to see that we often found similar resources (e. g. the 3.58 Million jobs linked to the EU). However, it’s my job to disagree and in some points I do. Con has nicely pointed out that there are differences between the EU countries that make Britain especially attractive for foreign workers. This shows that Britain has created the laws that grant high welfare to newly immigrants and high minimum wages. This also means that many job-related problems with immigrants and tax use are self-made and not dictated by the EU. Leaving the EU won’t change them and blaming the EU for something it did not demand is just the attempt to make someone responsible for problems one created alone. It also shows that Britain has the ability and freedom to solve all these internal problems without having the EU interfering more than to ensure human rights and equality. I don’t see how this especially problematic or negative for the UK citizens. They have one law instance higher than their government which they can address, when they feel wrongfully treated [7]. Leaving the EU (even when accepted into the EEA) will, undoubtedly, also end in an increased bureaucratic effort for either the citizens or the government to overcome the lack of modern regulations for working and earning as a foreigner. Britain has been an EU member since 1973 [5] and all their laws and regulations are outdated and made for a different time, when the Cold war was in sight and WWII still in many people’s hearts. How this will be problematic on the long run is (I admit it) hardly predictable. But it will harm Britian’s job-situation short term related. Finally, it’s wrong to assume that you can close jobs and job opportunities for foreigners in one place and fill them with citizens. As outlined, foreigners can be expensive and skill shortage is the reason why not Brits but Foreigners filled the positions. Closing them will not make Brits better skilled. It just harms the UK economy till they found a way to make Britain attractive again and easily accessible or till they trained citizens specifically. Job is not Job and no Taxi Driver can do the Job of a Biology Chemist. Language was mentioned at this point to show on a side note, how the EU and it’s job market can put positive pressure on the British education to train UK citizens better and to live up to higher standards. English IS the most important language, but you have more chances, knowing more languages. If Brits would be less arrogant and adopt the continental behaviour of teaching and demanding more than a native language from for instance University graduates, it can only win on the international and European market. And probably even on the own market, because their ability to compete with the imported workers would rise. Which is, more or less already something for “2. Other benefits” 2. Other Benefits When Britain applied for the EU membership in 1961, Harold Macmillan, Prime Minister at this time, stated: “We in Britain are Europeans…We have to consider the state of the world as it is today and will be tomorrow and not in outdated terms of a vanished past.“ [5] Because he understood, that old glory is not worth anything, if the old picture is not what we see in the current picture. There is no more empire. And in Britain the Sun rises and sets only within the physical limits of winter and summer sometimes earlier and sometimes later. When Thatcher was able to ensure extra money for Britain, she did this with the arguments, political power and history of the former Britain and they should be happy that the EU can’t change and update the contracts made at this day, without a lot of effort and without offending Britain’s pride severely. Without the EU they have little economic power against China, Russia or America and therefore less political power (see 1.1 in this rebuttal). All contracts from the past are old or EU related. All this comes with bureaucracy for the government, tax money and time. 3. No Doomsday but the EEA. Probably. Many of my opponent’s arguments only are worth consideration if Britain is accepted into the EEA. Which does not necessarily happen. Once could debate the likeliness but I rather point out that the EEA will feel like a worse compromise for the UK than the EU ever was or felt. Because in the EEA Britain has to accept all the market related decisions made by the EU countries, without influencing them. Leaving the EU will make them a passive and powerless recipient of the decisions they critique today and that their representatives helped to create.4. MoralityMoral statements are not made yesterday but today. And sanctions are moral statements. If Britian wants to remain a country that can make these statements, they should not romanticise their role in the world wars and world history, but focus on todays challenges. Which is a collective challenge, peacfully best made as a collective. Continued sourcing [7] http://www.echr.coe.int...