Passing Brexit was a Mistake for the United Kingdom

Con’s Case: Con more or less dropped all of his arguments, and due to a lack of response, conceded to my rebuttals. In reference to his opening arguments, Con only made reference to the fact that it is common knowledge that the EU constitution is much longer than the American one. However, that’s beside the point, I didn’t even dispute that. What I disputed was the assumption made by Con that, because it’s longer, it leads to more corruption, prevents Europeans from fighting for their rights, and causes the EU to trample on people’s rights. Without any evidence to that effect, there is absolutely no reason to believe it. No instances of EU corruption, no instances of Europeans being confused over their rights, and no instances of Europeans losing their personal rights were provided by Con. Thus, without evidence, he is simply speculating and making assumptions. Con did not once reference his open borders argument and his argument about the benefit of independence was linked into his rebuttal on my arguments, so I’ll address that there. As it stands, however, Con’s arguments remain absent of any evidence. Rebuttal 3-Benefits of Independence/Argument 1-Economic Effects: Con attempt to mitigate the economic downturn by arguing that Britain will benefit in the long term. However, the evidence here is still shaky and the benefits of independence are still not made clear. Con begins by emphasizing the fact he stated in the previous round that “there will be a storm before the clear.” That’s nice, but it doesn’t mean anything, it’s an empty statement. I can say “when things go bad, they keep getting worse.” Again, it doesn’t mean anything without anything to back it up. However, he is basing his argument on the idea that Britain will climb back to its pre-Brexit economic state and that this is better, because it will be independent. Con provides some level of evidence for this, which I will address later. However, I highlighted last round that Con didn’t provide a reason why it is better to be independent: “For instance, there is no reason to accept the premise that being an independent nation is better. He simply states it, along with brief mentions of freedom of speech, national border protection, and national pride. Border protection has already been discussed, but he doesn’t show how the EU suppresses Britain’s freedom of speech or national pride; Con also fails to demonstrate why either of those helps the UK.” I might as well say it is better for the UK to be part of the EU, because it becomes more integrated with the rest of Europe. No explanation as to why being more integrated with the rest of Europe is better for the UK, but it’s the same level of reasoning done by Con as to why Britain would be better off independent. As for evidence that the UK will recover, Con just tries to downplay the EU’s effect on the British economy. He takes a bird’s eye view of the fact that the majority of Britain’s trade comes from non-EU nations and that the other EU nations benefit too much from their trade with Britain. However, it is important to realize that being in the EU opens Britain up to trade with a lot more than just EU nations. I will refer back to my opening argument in which I reference the EU making deals with the US and Japan, and it was calculated that it would have likely ended up saving British households a total of £6.3B. (1) Also, to expand on that point, the deals with the US and Japan would have given British businesses easier access to U32; of the world’s market (by value). (2) However, those are only two examples of EU trade deals with international markets. In order to appropriately rebut Con’s point, I’ll give more examples of how being in the EU gives Britain access to more than just European markets. The EU has separate deals with over 50 countries. As of right now, EU trade deals account for 60% of British trade. (2) However, when you also consider deals the EU is currently negotiating (such as the aforementioned ones with the US and Japan), EU trade deals could eventually account for 88% of British trade. (2) Another major deal to consider is the EU’s deal with South Korea. Following the EU-SK deal, British trade with South Korea increased over 50%. (2) This is no suprise, as not only is South Korea a growing economy, the EU allowed it to be much easier to trade with the South Koreans. Also, the EU’s recently signed deal with Canada would have potentially raised trade with Canada 29%. (2) I could go into more depth, but it should be clear, that Con’s statement that “over half of their trade will go unaltered” is misinformed and flat out wrong. Con will likely rebut that Britain could just remake the trade deals it has, but that is a foolish idea. Looking at Canada (who only exports about 3.2% less than Britain in value), we can see they have a lot less trade deals than Britain (as a member of the EU). (2, 3) This should be obvious, as signing a deal with all of the EU economies is more attractive than just signing a deal with one economy. Also, Britain will not have nearly as much negotiating power. With the weight of all the EU economies, it is much easier to gain favourable deals. This is obvious, because the EU has much more to offer than an independent UK does. This is why stronger nations such as China in the China-Switzerland deal, South Korea in the SK-Australia deal, and the EU in the EU-SK deal, get better deals and have more ability to dictate terms. (2) Therefore, it is undeniable that the UK will be unable to sign trade deals as good as they had with the EU. Finally, I will respond to Con’s point that his example of Germany will want to continue having the same deals with the UK. My opening argument addressed this idea, and the study provided still predicted a 1.1% decline each year in GDP. (1) Why? Because as mentioned above, the EU is a much stronger negotiating party than the UK and the UK loses its other deals mentioned above. Plus, we need to remember that as the UK becomes more isolated, the rest of the world is still globalized. Using Con’s source, Britain’s exports to Germany can be analyzed. Transportation (e.g. cars, aircraft and vehicle parts, motorcycles, etc.) and machinery (e.g. engines, computers, and telephones) account for 17.94% and 20.04% of Britain's exports to Germany, respectively. (4) These are primarily manufacturing sectors, and there is no reason to keep manufacturing jobs, such as these, in the UK when they can easily be relocated. I included a quote in my opening argument which explained that an independent UK would have its own safety restrictions and regulations, as well, making it more complicated for most companies to operate in the UK. Obviously, these companies would rather focus their efforts on the European market than the British market. Plus, one has to consider London’s large financial sector. I also showed in my opening argument how many banks are considering moving much of their operations from London to Frankfurt. Again, this is obvious, the market is much larger in a EU nation like Germany than an independent UK. Overall, it can be concluded that the chances of Britain bouncing back to its previous economic levels is wishful thinking and there is no reason to believe the UK is better off independent, as Con provided no evidence to that effect. Thus, Brexit will undeniably hurt Britain’s economy in the short and long run, with no forseen benefits. Finally, I will once again bring up my immigration point from my opening argument, which Con never touched. With the likely decrease in immigrants, Britain will have immense strains on its pensions and healthcare, and iwll have less workers for future generations. Obviously, this hurts the UK in the long term. Argument 2-Scotland: Con says I lacked any evidence that a divide of the UK would be a bad thing. I’ll briefly expand on this idea. We are not arguing what’s best for the Scottish people, we are arguing what is better for the nation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. That nation currently includes Scotland. The UK losing Scotland undeniably makes the UK less powerful, that’s just a simple numbers game. In other words, we don’t care about how good it is for Scotland, if it hurts Britain. Now, Con argues that for Britain, having a border with a EU nation, will help it. This may be true, but to effectively rebut this, we have to consider what Britain also loses from Scotland, which will just strengthen my economic argument. In 2014, Scotland’s exports were worth £76B and Britain's total exports were $473B. (5, 6) Using today’s conversation rate, Scotland accounted for over 20% of Britain’s total exports. However, it is even more important to consider what Scotland has. Scotland contains many minerals (such as coal), suitable land for agriculture, and North Sea oil (which Con makes reference to). (5) These natural resources (most notably the oil as petroleum accounts for 11.4% of the UK’s exports) are sectors that cannot be relocated like a car plant can, weakening Britain’s negotiating power, further abroad. (6) Therefore, it is clear a separate Scotland will hurt the UK. Conclusion: Without any evidence, Con’s arguments hold no weight and his rebuttals of mine were ultimately unconvincing. It has clearly been demonstrated that in the long run the UK’s economy will be hurt by leaving the EU, through the loss of favourable trade deals and the likely decline of immigration. Also, it has clearly been demonstrated that an independent Scotland would hurt the UK. For this reason, it is clear that passing Brexit was a mistake, and I urge voters to vote Pro. Sources: 1-http://bit.ly...2-http://bit.ly...3-https://en.wikipedia.org...4-http://atlas.media.mit.edu...5-https://en.wikipedia.org...6-http://atlas.media.mit.edu...