The European Union should be abolished

Thanks to my opponent for providing a thought-worthy and far more respectable conclusion to her debate. It's a shame she only gave them in the last round, as now she will not have time to refute my refutations.I will now refute my opponent's various points. A. PlagiarismYou are right that it is a matter of opinion on the behalf of the voters. So, voters, I will ask you: is plagiarising an argument as your own a signal of good conduct?B. RebuttalsB1. The validity of lax immigration policy varies upon the country in discussion in exactly how beneficial it is, and in some countries, like the UK, it can turn out to be actually inefficient, but that in no way warrants the entire disbandment of the EU. Often times, in cases of inter-EU migration, the people migrating will come from economically advancec countries like France, Ireland, Portugal, or etc. Those who come from non-advanced countries like Poland are far outnumbered by those from the advanced countries.For example, in the UK in 2011, the following 10 countries had the most immigrants to the UK, as an example [1]- India (129,000)- Australia (62,000)- Poland (60,000)- USA (53,000)- China (52,000)- Pakistan (50,000) - France (40,000)- Spain (36,000)- Republic of Ireland (34,000)- Germany (30,000)- Bangladesh (26,000)Out of those top 10 countries, only 5 were EU countries, and 4 of them were in the bottom 5. This could account that the majority of the UK and other country's immigration crises can be attributed to non-EU immigration. The two EU countries on the list which could be argued as being at a drastically lower class economically than the UK - Poland and Spain - accounted for only 90,000 immigrants total. Compare that to the 100,000 from France, Ireland, and Germany, and the beneficial immigrants outweight the non-beneficial ones. Besides, if people are willing to work and travel from accross the continent to get to a certain country, like the UK or France or etc, then it's likely that their work ethic isn't too shabby either.B2. Here, I don't really get what my opponent is getting at at all. The European Union is not obligated to do anything other than assure cooperation between it's member states, share economic benefits, and forge political alliances. Almost all social programs are the business of each federal government; the only thing the EU mandates socially are human rights (example: EU member states cannot discriminate against homosexuals when employing) and basic logical principles that prevent political conflict. Obligation and commitment are indeed a nice pair of principles, but I am completely lost as to why they are relevant. My opponent's argument here is a confusing arrangement of improper sentences and irrelevant principles. Had she proposed it earlier in the debate, it would have been easier to clarify.B3. Whilst I would like to appreciate my opponent's argument here, she hasn't really specified the details of this case. In certain situations, a criminal caught in one country that is a citizen to another or rightfully under the judicial system of another nation should be sent there. In a broad sense, the EU is not responsible for crime management. That is all the responsibility of federal and local governments alongside local police.B4. Again, very weary of my opponent's words. She's ranting about socialism in this paragraph, which doesn't have much to do with point B4, which forecasted the predicted GDP of individual countries in scenarious in which they didn't join the EU and the GDP they have with the EU. Denmark, the UK, and Ireland are longtime members of the EU, so I dont know why my opponent is saying about "comparing countries like Germany to socialist countries outside the EU" [2] Perhaps she is unable to see my chart? I'll try linking it again: D. ConclusionWhilst my opponent has gone through an emotional ride with me and this debate, I would commend her for successfully finishing it.So far, Pro has made unsourced, plagiarised, and unfounded blanket statement allegations about the EU without really explaining her argument. I have successfully produced evidence and valid reasons as to why abolishing the European Union would have negative effects on Europe, and on proving how my opponent has not fulfilled her side of the BoP. I have won this debate, no question, as pro only even began to argue in the last round.For these reasons, vote con.---References---1- http://www.theguardian.com...;(this is actually an anti-immigration oriented essay, criticizing the UK and other country in particular's lax stance on non-EU immigration, to verify it has little bias in terms of the EU)2 -http://en.wikipedia.org...;