European Union

Rebuttal#1 The net contribution from the UK to the EU budgetI think this information is compatible with what I have been saying. My sources from the last round prove that there is no trade benefit with staying in the EU [round 2, source 2] that we wouldn't get from leaving the EU. So, we would save money if we left it.No? You testified that our net contribution to the EU was 10.5 billion, as an argument against the EU. I showed you that in the recent three months, we've actually gained about 5 billion a month worth of imports, which is a benefit. You said we exported more, I showed you recently this is false and that we'd lose that £5 billion pounds a month if we left, which is especially useful for stimulating the economy in times of a recession. There is a trade benefit, because we earn more from the EU than we give.#2 There is no trade benefit to the United Kingdom in staying in the European UnionI understand pro's confusion in this, so perhaps I didn't express my point clearly enough. The report that I linked to in the second round is saying that there is no trade benefit from the EU [round 2, source 2] that we wouldn't get if we were to leave the EU.Yes, I know what your source says. My rebuttal was one fundamentally going against the argument, "there is no trade benefit". To rebuttal it, all I needed to do was show benefits, which I did, and which you did not rebuttal.You can never simply rest your argument on a source and expect to win. I have showed there are multiple benefits, therefore your claim, the title of your argument is flawed.#3 There is trade benefit to the United Kingsom in leaving the European UnionAll of the current countries who are members of the European Economic Area {EEA} but not the EU itself are all very small countries. Iceland has a population of 320,000, Liechtenstein has a population of 34,237, and Norway has a population of just over 5 million [1]. We have a population of over 63 million [2]. Not only that, but you mentioned in your argument the trade deficit between the EU and the UK - it has been estimated that if the UK lost 3 million jobs, then the EU would lose 4 million jobs [3]. Britain is important enought that they'd be able to create a trade deal with Europe that doesn't include any of the membership fees or limitations of our current trade restrictions.No? You say because we have a larger population we are more valuable, but this is a ludicrous statement. The EU, as an economic pursuit, likes money, and it wants more money. There isn't a correlation between wealth and population, clearly, as Qatar is the world's richest country[1]. As it wants more money, countries which are important to the EU are those that are rich, and Norway is the 4th richest country in the world.Clearly, as Norway is so rich and the oil they own is so valuable to the economic wealth of the EU, that the EU will do everything they can to keep them as an ally. It is fundamental economics, yet my link beforehand showed that Norway still pay into the EU. If Norway, the 4th richest country in the world, a country which exports a lot of oil, a very successful economy still has to pay, then the UK will certainly have to pay. We are economically inferior to Norway and it is ridiculous to say that in any way we are more of a valuable asset to the EU than Norway. #4 If we left the EU, there'd be a significant decrease in Fuel PovertyIt's true that there'd be more elderly people dying if we were to stay in the EU, and I can feel the tory voters reading this and nodding their heads in agreement - not me, though! I care for our old people, and if there are better groups of people to suffer from the consequences of dealing with this problem than the elderly. After all, a significant number of old people live in old peoples' homes, which young people may not find very "rad".The solution is to stop all the immigrants with nothing special to offer this country from entering this country, because as I said in the last round, if we left the EU, we'd be allowed to have a real immigration policy. Not just that, but we'd also be able to deport illegal immigrants and terrorists without taking ages.What? That was not what I stated whatsoever. It was an analogy to state that because a benefit exists does not mean it is worth doing. I do wonder if you read my arguments for that round, but I conceded that there will be a reduction in fuel poverty, but that is miniscule in comparison to the negatives which I state. The elderly has nothing to do with this, immigration has nothing to do with this argument, what does is the fact is that your fuel poverty argument is a speck in comparison to the grand scale of things.#5 The European Union is not responsible for peace and puts us in risk of having a war/riotsI'll just clarify - here, I was dealing with the common argument from Nick Clegg fans that if we left the EU, there'd be a third world war. Pro gives us no reason why similar circumstances could not happen in the UK after a few more years of staying in the EU. As proved (Round 2, source 8), it is most likely that the UK would have to adopt the Euro if it were to stay in the EU until 2020. This is especially bad as one of the main reasons that the UK's economy is growing (and even to overtake France by 2020 [4]) is because of the pound's strength against the dollar compared with the Euro [5].What? There is no status quo regarding that if we left the EU, there would be a WWIII. That is nonsense, not what I argued and a rebuttal to a point that is non-existent. You seem to not realise that you are arguing for us leaving the Uk. You are the withholder of BOP and the advocate here. Arguing against a rebuttal which has not been stated does not help your argument in any way because in regards to helping your overall case, it does nothing. I had not stated this point, it is irrelevant, and thus serves no purpose at all.#6 The EU has destroyed over 97,000 UK jobsBut those EU-related jobs aren't specifically EU-related. They are Europe-related. We'd still be able to trade with Europe if we left the EU, and if anything, we'd have more jobs, as we wouldn't have the EU blocking cheaper imports. So, the point still stands.They are EU related though. The source I had for this was from a think tank, the CEBR and they stated that[3]."Within the 4.2 million jobs, an estimated 3.1 million were directly supported by exports to the European Union in 2011 and 1.1 million jobs were indirectly supported, for example through spending income earned from exporting."You are refuting a sourced claim with an unsourced claim. These jobs are linked to the EU.#7 Outside of the EU, we will be able to have a fair and sensiblePro's point here is very wobbly as he doesn't five any statistics on what % of people who migrate to the UK come from unpreviliged countries, or even the reasons migrants give for coming to this country. Even so, 200.000 divided by the number of alternative comparably pleasent places to migrate (The US, France, Germany, Spain, Japan, Russia, the list goes on) does not make for a significant burden on other countries, especially when you factor in their size.Moreover, the UK needs a real (fair and sensible) immigration policy, as is evident from the fact that England is the most crowded country in Europe and has some of the highest levels of net migration [6]. This problem needs a solution, and urgently.My argument isn't wibbly wobbly. My argument is fundamental. But you want figures? In the recent years, this is how much immigration there is to the UK. Considering a net immigration of 212,000, and the total figure for immigrants coming in at around 500,000[4], we have about 1/4 of all immigrants coming from these countries. Source number [4] shows that 37% of immigrants come for work. And it will be a burden, because so many immigrants come to this country for reasons which specific country's can second, i.e. an acceptance of cheap labour and competition.#8 Outside of the EU, we would be able to restore democracy to our countryPro's statistics do not do much to deny that there is a democracy deficit in the UK as a result of the EU. He says that a lot of MEPs dispute legislative figures, however I am talking about someone who'd have more authority to know about things like these than an MEP - a senior European Comissioner, as I linked to in the second round. The question has to be asked - why would a senior European Comissioner get such a thing wrong, and if it has an equal chance of being anywhere between 6-84% as you implied, why did she go for the very high figure? Wouldn't she want Britain to think better of the EU if she wanted to do that?The point still stands that MEPs cannot initiate legislation and therefore the EU is not a fair democracy - one of many reasons why we should leave it.On the European Comissioners - a majority of people elected (MEPs), people in Britain would have no say over whatsoever, therefore they aren't elected democratically. (I am in favour of an AV system) If we elected 50 people in the house of commons, and the other few hundreds are not. Then, they have to elect people to represent them. Would that be democratic? No, exactly.They aren't elected by the British people, but my source showed they were elected nonetheless by MEP's themselves, and that they make a difference. This is simply because us Brits are not informed about the MEPs, and it is ludicrous to allow people who are not invested nor informed in an institution to have democratic right. I urge the floor to side with Pro. My contentions are clear, direct, sourced, and I have proved, without opposing refutation, that the EU has benefit. Thank you.Sources: [1] http://www.forbes.com...[2] http://www.forbes.com...[3] http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk...[4] http://www.ons.gov.uk...