The United Kingdom is better off leaving the EU.

1.Opening Statements2. Democracy Deficit3.Single Market4.Open Borders5.Social Benefits6. Political Power7.References1. Opening Statements.Apologies for taking this minor clash with no real relevance to the debate so far, but I could not let my opponents statements go unanswered:During my previous statement I argued in return to my opponent's statement that lassez-faire capitalism was one of the reasons for the advancement of society by starting that in fact lack of regulation(lassez-faire capitalism at its finest) was partially to blame for the 2008 market crash, as banks could gamble on sub-prime mortgages and so on with no regard for the consequences. My opponent then proceeds to admonish me for something I never stated and claimed I mistook de facto corporatism with lassez-faire capitalism. I never claimed that the US's socio-economic system was purely lassez-faire, I merely pointed out some detrimental consequences of a lack of regulation, which my opponent did not even attempt to deny. My opponent also has intermittedly inserted his own biases into the debate. Such statements as 'supposedly a central regulatory banking institution, but in reality a lobbyist facade to promote self-regulation' when reffering to the federal reserve make this debate less proffessional, and are merely imposing his own biased viewpoints on the debate, which is not necessary. In fact, constantly insulting my intelligence ('My opponent seems to misunderstand the concept of contradiction',' I'll assume that was a lapse in logic' etc.) only serves to detract from the arguments at stake and the overalll proffesionalism of the debate. I ask my opponent in the future to: a) carefully read my statements before he attempts to refute them, so he is actually aware of my arguments, b) refrain from allowing his biases into the debate, and c) refrain with the petty insults and concentrate on the points.2. Democracy DeficitTo be honest, I grow rather tired of my opponent's abuse of semantics and his leaping upon every errant word as a game-changer, so I will keep this brief and to the point, refraining from a long explanation of why I did not 'vilify' the nature of democracy, just stated that pure democracy in any system is most likely uneffective, and how I was not reffering to the exact mtoment Hitler took power, but how the ineffectiveness of the proprtional representation system drove the German people to vote for his partyin the first place, just for the mere hope that a strong party could actually get something done to clear out the mess Germany was in at the time. I am not going to argue the fact that a democracy deficit exists within the EU. My opponent may be exaggerating its effects, but it does exist. And yes, MEP's should have a chance to vote for non-estamblishment candidates. But I do not consider this to ba a valid reason for Britain to leave the EU. Any system can be reformed and there are thinktanks devoted to Eu reform. In fact, the EU has been constantly changing since its formation. My opponent even cites the impact of the Treaty of Lisbon, the latest ammendment to the EU which changed the terms of membership, and came into force as recently as 2008. What is more, there is no better alternative than the EU for Britain. The UK has to accept the structure of the EU as there is no other alternative for it to join, seeing as it also wishes not to lose out from leaving it.3. Single MarketMy Opponent states 'it's ludicrous to suggest that a single market is only made possible with a political union, such as the EU', which I agree with. However, that is not the point we are debating. It is just as ludicrous to claim that Britain would still remain within the single market if it left the political Union of the EU. My opponent suggested that this is naive. Of course it is not. My opponent cites the Better Off Out campaign, which claims that the EU would lose 4 million jobs compared to the 3 million jobs lost in the UK if it were to leave. Let us compare these figures. Britain, which currently has an unemployment of around 1.96 million, would lose 3 million jobs according to the Better Off Out Campaign. This would reult in an increase to nearly 5 million Britons unemployed (15%), nearly double that of Britain during the worst of the great recession and an virtually unheard of number. Mind you, this is with the statistics of the Better Off Now campaign, an unreliable source at most. It could be even more. Meanwhile the 4 million unemployed (out of roughly 400 million in the job market) in the EU would be a much less serious problem for them, seeing as it would only result in roughly a 1% increase in unemployment, so this would not be a serious disincentive for the EU to cancel a trade agreement, as my opponent claims. In fact the EU may well have an incentive to exclude Britain from the single market, as a deterrent for other errant countries who wish to keep the economic benefits of being a member of the EU without actually being a member of the EU, as the EU establishment certainly wish to remain a political union. The famed article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon says notrhing about how large a trade deal would be, so the UK could lose many of the privelages it has today. One thing is for sure; The new trade agreement would be controlled by the EU establishment, and they would not be pleased by Britain's exit.As for the "3,600 new laws from the EU since 2010" that my opponent speaks of, are they relevant to this debate? If Britain remains in the EU, it will at least have a say in their creation and can attempt to change them. If not, Britain will be forced to deal wth the restrictions anyway should it wish to trade with the EU within the single market, and being outside of the single maket would not bring Britain closer to the free, global market, my opponent advocates, but push it further away.4. Open BordersMy Opponent blames increased immigration from the EU as resulting in a influx of 'Health Tourism', a 'Romanian Crime epidemic' and high profile murderers using the UK as a safe haven. 'Health Tourism': The evidence for this is circumstantial and sketchy at best, with none provided by my opponent, and while the NHS is experiencing more and more pressure, as much of that is due to government cuts as to immigration. The claim of 'A Romanian Crime epidemic' is based completely on bias and personal convictions; no impartial evidence whatsoever exists for this. And the claim that the UK is a 'safe haven' for murderers as a result of being an EU member is also false. The Open Borders system has in fact allowed the governments of the EU to combat organised crime, most notably in spain, by allowing countries to co-operate in finding and convicting criminals, whichever borders they cross, yet another social benefit. Having open borders does not result in more criminals taking refuge in the UK, as the same border checks apply. Rather it allows nations to co-ordinate operations against criminals and reduces criminals taking haven sucessfully.As for wage compression several things need to be taken into account. While wage compression may exist as a result of migration, its effects will be negligable. In fact, there is strong evidence that British employers prefer British workers to EU immigrants. As well as this, it is important to remember that correllation does not mean causation, so while these trends may correllate over time, there is yet to be hard evidence that the increase in immigration causes the wage decrease.5. Social BenefitsOnce again my opponent a) goes off topic, and b) allows his bias to take control of his arguments, making a unclear point with seemingly no real relevence to the debate. The social benefits such as increased diversity, greater ability in fighting crime, travel through open borders etc. have not been adressed.6. Political PowerMy opponent states that the UK will gain in political power in leaving the EU. However, it shares its foreign policies and greater world viewpoints with most of the countries in Europe, particularly the ones with power in the EU (Germany, France, etc.) and so has more authority and international power acting in this coalition. As for the matter of Climate Change deals, while it may be the case that the EU is shifting industry to other countries it does not affect Britain that much, because we are no longer a manufacturing country, and it is setting an example to other countries around the world. Like it or not, in the long term Climate Change is extremely harmful for the British citizen and it can better be combatted as part of a political union.7.References http://www.cer.org.uk...;http://en.wikipedia.org...;http://somo.nl...http://ec.europa.eu... http://www.lisbon-treaty.org...http://ec.europa.eu...http://en.wikipedia.org...;http://www.bbc.co.uk...;http://www.ons.gov.uk...;http://en.wikipedia.org...http://en.wikipedia.org...http://news.sky.com...;