The United Kingdom should leave the European Union

Firstly my opponent states that 'I did specify pretty clearly the economic benefits that EU confers UK' in response to me saying that 'he fails to evaluate the economic benefit for Britain'. I suspect that my opponent may have missed my point here as the keyword here is 'evaluate' in his rebuttal he fails to refute many of the economic issues that I raised in my initial argument most important of which is the ever increasing trade gap. Which demonstrates the vital role Britain plays and how this allows us to withdraw from the EU without losing the free trade. My apologies for not being clear enough. Furthermore I would also like to point out that my opponents economic argument is solely supported my one report from the Centre of European Reform (CER). However the CER itself admits that it is 'pro-European'; they think 'the EU should take on more responsibilities' and that they aim 'to promote an open, outward-looking and effective European Union'[1]. I will happily admit that the CER is a very reputable think-tank but this document, which is the cornerstone of your economic argument, is perhaps open to bias towards the EU. As from reading there description of themselves, which I have quoted here, they would not have published something which was critical of the relationship between the EU and Britain. My opponent goes on then to compare the notion I raised, that Britain will be able to keep its free trade agreements, with Norway's situation. However it's a simple fact that the UK is not Norway the UK is the 6th largest economy in the world and has a trade gap of 68% and therefore is in a unique position and could easily negotiate free trade agreements with EU members but not being subject to open borders, ridiculous membership fees and removal of power from Westminster. (All points which my opponent has failed to refute so far). You then go on to explain how trade with emerging economies has it disadvantages as they are not as good trading partners as the developed EU countries. I should state that I am not against trade with the EU, I am not suggesting that we stop. My main economic argument, based on very reliable sources, is that the UK does not need to be a part of the EU to have free trade with the EU; proved by statistics in my initial argument. Therefore when the UK is no longer a member it can continue free trade with the EU but also with other economies like China, which I would not call an emerging economy. The point which I was trying to make is that the EU limits the UK's ability to create free trade agreements with non-EU members, not that this trade would replace the trade with the EU but enhance it. You then go on to claim that I am 'trying disprove the role that EU has played in making peace in Europe by comparing it to NATO' however that was not my point. My point was that 'the peace we have been enjoying is not a product of the EU, it is a product of N. A. T. O , the sheer devastation of WW2 and changing social attitudes within Europe' not just N. A. T. O but all three factors combined. Also you then go on to mention that through trade the EU has eased relations between countries, that may very well be true, but that does not affect whether the UK should or should not leave the EU as you say yourself 'I'm not saying that war would break out if UK were to leave' and it wouldn't damage relations either. This is 2014 not 1954, times have changed and the Britain being in the EU is not required for stability in Europe. Also you claim the EU has eased relations through trade but I have already stated and proved that the UK would not change its trading relationship if it was to leave so this would not damage relations through leaving. You then inform me that as Britain is not part of the Schengen agreement and that may make my attempt to refute your original argument pointless but it also makes your original point useless and not relevant to this debate. Your next point amuses me greatly! Suggesting that the British people will have extra influence throughout the world by being a member of the EU as they can influence the EU agenda. Well this is very easy to refute, clearly the British people have not influenced the agenda of the EU as there is such a large, growing, Eurosceptic movement in the UK as UKIP's success in the European elections demonstrates. If Britain had influence EU policy so mush then why is there this movement? Furthermore if Britain has such influence within the EU then explain the appointment of Junker which our PM, David Cameron opposed so greatly. Also I would like to point out that my opponent is yet to answer my question: 'What entitles someone from Poland, France or Germany more rights to live in Britain than someone from America, India or China? '. Moreover my opponent hasn't refuted my point that the unchecked immigration increases the strain on already strained public services within Britain. Furthermore the idea that the EU is systematically removing power from Westminster. It seems to me that my opponent is not considering the disadvantages within Britain and how the EU effects day to day life in Britain but rather distracts me by talking about student visas, which is hardly a major point in this discussion especially as it's not even a factor in the end! I would like to thank my opponent once again for this debate which I had enjoyed greatly and am only sorry that it has ended so quickly as I feel this debate would have been even better with a few more rounds. [1] . http://www.cer.org.uk...