Passing Brexit was a Mistake for the United Kingdom

Outline: When considering whether a policy is a “mistake,” everything should be accounted for and if a policy will bring more bad than good, it should be considered a mistake. In other words, neither Con nor I need to show that Brexit is completely good or bad either way for Britain. Merely, we need to show that, all things considered, Brexit is a net positive or negative for the UK. Argument 1-Economic Effects: Con has conceded this whole argument; therefore, we both agree that Britain will face an economic downturn as a result of leaving the EU. This means that Con accepts that Britain will suffer economically from the loss of free trade deals and lack of immigration to stimulate the economy. Argument 2-Scotland: Con failed to respond to or even reference this argument. Therefore, due to a lack of rebuttal, the point stands that Brexit will most likely lead to Scottish independence. Con’s Case: Con’s case can be broken up into three arguments: disadvantages of open borders (his third paragraph), the burden of the EU’s complex constitution (his fourth paragraph), and the benefits of being an independent a nation (his fifth paragraph). I will address each of these separately. Rebuttal 1-Open Borders: Con’s argument for open borders is riddled with bare assertions and absent of any evidence. Con’s argument can essentially be boiled down to the idea that the EU does a “lousy job of isolating terrorism,” yet an independent UK would be much more efficient at spotting out terror threats. However, neither of these ideas is presented with any evidence. Thus, there is no reason to accept Con’s argument that Britain would deal with terrorism better without the EU. Rebuttal 2-Complex Constitution: Once again, Con provides no evidence for his argument. He argues that, because the EU has a relatively complex constitution, it leads to corruption because it’s confusing. However, that argument is ultimately unconvincing because no evidence is provided. He mentions how the American constitution works better because its simplicity allows Americans to fight for their rights more. However, there is no evidence for this, nor is there evidence that the EU is corrupt and trampling on the people’s rights. Once again, this leaves Con’s argument empty. Rebuttal 3-Benefits of Independent: Con continues to argue with bare assertions, absent of any evidence. This argument can essentially be boiled down to the fact that being an independent nation is better and that Britain will bounce back, better than ever. It’s a really idealistic argument, but lacks any substance. 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. Con also fails to provide a reason to believe Britain’s economy will bounce back, beyond bare assertions. No statistics to demonstrate this and he had already conceded to my arguments that would suggest otherwise. Therefore, there is no reason to accept any of Con’s statements in this argument. Conclusion: To conclude, due to a lack of any evidence, Con has failed to provide any convincing reasons why passing Brexit was a good decision. Also, due to Con having no rebuttal to my points that passing Brexit was a bad decision, it stands that passing Brexit was mistake for the UK.