European Union

#1 The net contribution from the UK to the EU budget"You testified that our net contribution to the EU was 10.5 billion"Our net contribution to the EU budget last year, and I backed it up with government statistics.I have proved that we could save money if we were to leave the EU.Yes, from last year. I have figured which are sourced from the last three months, which are much more relevant.#2 There is no trade benefit to the United Kingdom in staying in the European UnionThis is just semantics. By "trade benefit", it means "Net trade benefit compared with not being a part of the EU".This is not an argument. Net trade benefit is just benefits - negatives. I have testified that there are benefits above.#3 There is trade benefit to the United Kingdom in leaving the European UnionEven if valid, pro's points do not make the case for it being favourable to stay as a part of the European Union. In a previous round, he cites 2 billion euros per annum being the fee in the EEA to have access to the same trade, which means it would cost less to just be a member of the EEA.There are other benefits to just being a part of the European Economic Area, rather than the EU. Norway have been able to opt out of the common agricultural policy, the common fisheries policy (that has costed tens of thousands of jobs to be lost), justice and home affairs, and foreign policy decisions [1 (the video)].As Farage references, the Swiss have been able to have a lot of benefits that they wouldn't be able to if they were a part of the EU. Last february, a majority of swiss voters voted for stricter immigration laws [2], and as Nigel puts it so well, "If they could have their own [trade] deal, we could have a better one".And as I proved earlier, we are very important to the EU trade-wise.It would cost less to be a member of the EEA, but we'd secure less trade due to the nature of economic safety fundamentally, as well as still have to adhere to a level of bureaucracy. The Swiss do not suffer so much due their economic success, but our position is one more volatile and we can't afford to lose out on trade. Centrally, countries like safe trade where they can get more money. And what safer is the largest economy? Britain are in a position of frailty in regards to trade since the recession and unless out situation is analogous to the Swiss, it is a slippery slope fallacy to say we'd also get trade. What we can infer is that when trade is likely less than secure if we leave the EU, there is an increased risk.#4 If we left the EU, there'd be a significant decrease in Fuel PovertyTo just say "what?" and just claim everything I said had nothing to do with my point does not disprove what I said.• I proved that leaving the EU would be a good thing because there'd be less Fuel Poverty.• You conceded that there'd be less Fuel Poverty, but said that it wouldn't be a good thing because less elderly people would die and so there'd be less housing available.• I pointed out the facts that a) if we left the EU, we'd be able to have stricter immigration, so the housing situation would definitely be better if we were to leave the EU. As a link I sourced showed earlier, 40% of future housing in the UK will be due to immigration. b) That a lot of elderly people live on old people's homes, and not many people who aren't elderly would be willing to live in them. (earlier) c) That Fuel Poverty is going to be a serious and growing problem for households in the UK in the future. I did not say less elderly people would die. I was making an argumentum ad absurdum, that saying it has a benefit means we should go forth with it can be used to justify something as radical as killing all elderly. My point was that fuel poverty is an added bonus, but when arguing to leave something, it is the negatives that should be the focus of your argument. You did not read my argument carefully at all.#I do not deny we'd have more autonomy over immigration, but it doesn't solve the problem of immigration in the first place which I believe fundamentally, needs to be tackled. As population grows, I believe governments have a collective responsibilty to not shirk away from problems and leave them outside their bubble and in another one, because when their bubble pops we'd be paying large economic externalities as this level of immigration in total is going to slow growth in the long run from all parties. #5 The European Union is not responsible for peace and puts us in risk of having a war/riotsIn this rebuttal to my point, pro does not seek to prove that we would not see a situation comparable to Greece's just a few years ago (in fact, he completely ignores it), but he says that the fact that the EU does not insure peace is not a positive argument in favour of leaving the EU, which it isn't, it is a rebuttal of a common argument in favour of staying in the EU.That is not what I said. The problem is, you are arguing to leave the EU therefore challenging the status quo. Therefore, saying 'contrary to popular belief' isn't a viable argument. Refuting a point which was not brought up and isn't proposing the motion as you should be doing does hold place in formal debate. You have BOP therefore should be proposing reasons why the EU is bad and leaving is good, and your role on the table is not to debunk, is not to refute an argument which is apparently within the status quo on the opposition side although I have never seen it used commonly, which defeats the idea of a status quo. This argument is irrelevant for your case therefore. #6 The EU has destroyed over 97,000 UK jobsI find pro's argument incredibly weak here. My point was about the "EU-related" jobs is that we'd be able to maintain them by just, say, being a member of the European Economic Area [EEA]. We would still be able to do trade with EU countries if we weren't a part of the EU.But then there would be more bureaucracy in instigating multinational trade. The EEA is in regards to governments, but private trade is now at a deficit in that it has to go through red tape which I have showed in a source beforehand that the EU is helping ot reduce. There wouldn't be an increase in jobs, but rather a decrease.#7 Outside of the EU, we will be able to have a fair and sensible immigration policyEven taking your argument into consideration, that means the number of migrants who'd instead be going to other countries rather than their own due to no weak immigration policy in the UK is 500,000/4/the number of other comparably desirable countries (France, Germany, Spain, Russia, the US, Japan, etc.) per annum until those countries get developed enough is very insignificant.But, that's assuming that we don't also work to combat the reasons why people migrate to more desirable countries AND have a sensible immigration policy. The reason why we'd want both is • Once that number of people who would have not bothered coming to this country if they could easily find work in their own country would actually stay in our country once they were settled (and so there'd be no point coming back!), and then the housing situation would be worse (they'd feel no reason why they should leave any more than a British person should, by the time their country's economy is comparably good to Britain's). And also, • A lot of migrants would come from quite well-off countries, such as the ones I've listed above. A vast majority of them wouldn't be tempted to stay in their own country by the same methods anyway. Don't forget that there's also a lot of Britons that leave to go to other countries for employment.Your former argument was exactly in support of my case. We'd be better off if we focused on disincentivising actors in this case not to immigrate. We have a points-based system in which we do regulate who can come in and who can't, but to say it needs to be improved begs the question about what is actually wrong with our system, which you have not tackled, and exactly what needs to be done. There is no such thing as an inherently sensible immigration system. It is subjective and you have failed the BOP to prove otherwise. #8 Outside of the EU, we would be able to restore democracy to our countryPro ignores most of my arguments I made about this point in the last round, but that can be expected when he's responding to paragraphs of my arguments with only a small one of his. He doesn't even a refute a point I made which was relevant to the particular argument he was criticizing, that i) British people have no say in a vast majority of elected MEPsii) The MEPs elect the European Comissionersiii) The European Comissioners initiate legislation and have way more power than MEPsC) Therefore, there is a lack of democracy in the EU.Unfortunately, you are begging the question here. Why do they need to be elected? The level of interest from the public is not high enough for important decisions in regards to the future of 28 countries or so. The amount of erudition needed is the same reason our judiciary isn't democratic, we don't directly vote for policies, we don't vote for civil servants and we don't vote for higher bosses in certain businesses.The sagacity needed is one that the British public does not seem to show. But then you also begged the question about the need for democracy. Democracy isn't inherently good, that is western indoctrination. You must explain what purpose democracy serves here, because there is democracy. Not on the same level, but then you must explain why the more the democracy the better.Unless you do this, you infer than democracy is intrinsically better in all situations and is fundamentally better to have, in which case I ask you whether we should vote for every last decision in every public scenario. The judiciary, civil servants, policies, teacher payments, etc. It is impractical for this to happen however, but you have failed BOP for why it is better solely in the EU or in any sort of specification.I urge the floor to side with Pro, thank you for this debate.