is Brexit a bad idea for Britain?

JGXdebatePRO

Interested in you guys' opinion. I think that Brexit is more trouble that it's worth. Debate away!

TGMasterX

Brexit had no massive benefits or drawback, so I think it was a waste of time. It took over a year to process, while companies crashed and nothing improved. We now consider Brexit to have gone through because some people weren't happy with their situation, so they thought Brexit would change it. Also, the majority of voters had no idea of the effects, so I think a second referendum would have changed the outcome as more people were educated about the matter. Finally, the vote was incredibly close. Studies also showed that the majority of the pro-Brexit voters were elderly, meaning that the most affected people (youths) didn't have a say.

xlJ_dolphin_473

TGMasterX said:

Brexit had no massive benefits or drawback, so I think it was a waste of time. It took over a year to process, while companies crashed and nothing improved. We now consider Brexit to have gone through because some people weren't happy with their situation, so they thought Brexit would change it. Also, the majority of voters had no idea of the effects, so I think a second referendum would have changed the outcome as more people were educated about the matter. Finally, the vote was incredibly close. Studies also showed that the majority of the pro-Brexit voters were elderly, meaning that the most affected people (youths) didn't have a say.

This may be true, but would you be happy to be conscripted into a European army when you are older?

MayCaesar

There are some upsides and some downsides of being the member of the European Union. The upside is mostly the ease of trade and immigration negotiations with other nations, streamlined by the fact of them being a part of the same union. The downside is loss of some degree of independence and the possibility of being forced into agreements that people do not want.

Overall, I am strongly against centralisation in principle: I am all for economical and social globalisation, but against the political one. Considering the economical policies implemented in the UK currently by Johnson's administration, I would say that they have gotten the best out of the situation; the free market reforms they are conducting should be an inspiration for all freedom lovers around the world, and I am starting to like the UK more and more!

TGMasterX

@xlJ_dolphin_473 No, I would not. However, in the long term, an EU army might be an essential step for European integration. European security and defence policy would be strengthened, and the EU would send a strong signal to the outside world. Besides, Member States could save money because they wouldn't have to sustain their army. Also, the EU wouldn't force civilians to join the military. It would be a free choice, and I imagine the troops that are currently enrolled would just move over. Free choice. 

TGMasterX

@MayCaesar
Good to hear you are starting to like the UK more! Are you British, or American?
I understand all your points; however, I believe that there are always wins and losses. I think that the losses overcome the gains. After all, not many people were educated about the topic and just wanted something to change. They thought Brexit would solve everything, but they were wrong.

xlJ_dolphin_473

TGMasterX said:

@xlJ_dolphin_473 No, I would not. However, in the long term, an EU army might be an essential step for European integration. European security and defence policy would be strengthened, and the EU would send a strong signal to the outside world. Besides, Member States could save money because they wouldn't have to sustain their army. Also, the EU wouldn't force civilians to join the military. It would be a free choice, and I imagine the troops that are currently enrolled would just move over. Free choice. 

That sounds nice in theory, but actually the EU does plan to create a universal army. Besides, who says we need European integration? Did you know that the EU requires us to pay £350 million per week, but we do not get to choose what that money is spent on, even if it is spent within our country?

TGMasterX

@xlJ_dolphin_473
By 'us' does that refer to the UK or all EU countries?
If it was just the UK, taxpayers would only pay £5 per week. This is not a huge amount. The money is spent on running everything.

xlJ_dolphin_473

TGMasterX said:

@xlJ_dolphin_473
By 'us' does that refer to the UK or all EU countries?
If it was just the UK, taxpayers would only pay £5 per week. This is not a huge amount. The money is spent on running everything.

 Yes, but do you think it is right that the UK has no say in what this money is spent on? I think as a nation we should get to decide where our taxpayers' money goes.
FYI: I was talking about the UK only.

JGXdebatePRO

@xIJ_dolphin_473 I believe this is right. Let's look at this scenario. In a house, should a father be spending his money on what he was, or should the whole family have a say in what he spends it on? What if the father wants to spent on one thing, but there is something more important  he could spend it on? point being, if the EU spent Britain's money, they could focus on spending it more responsibly.

TGMasterX

@xlJ_dolphin_473
Well, what do you expect? In case you haven't noticed, we have left. The UK doesn't have a say, because we are not in the EU anymore. 
Anyway, your point was invalid because we did have a say, the EU as a group had group democracies. 

xlJ_dolphin_473

TGMasterX said:

@xlJ_dolphin_473
Well, what do you expect? In case you haven't noticed, we have left. The UK doesn't have a say, because we are not in the EU anymore. 
Anyway, your point was invalid because we did have a say, the EU as a group had group democracies. 

Do you really think that we should allow people in other countries to decide what happens in ours, when it does not concern them? AS a rebuttal to @JGXdebatePRO, I think the father should be able to spend the money on whatever he likes for his personal ownership, but not for the rest of the family. The father choosing something without the family's approval whether they like it or not is a better analogy for the EU.

JGXdebatePRO

xlJ_dolphin_473 said:

TGMasterX said:

@xlJ_dolphin_473
Well, what do you expect? In case you haven't noticed, we have left. The UK doesn't have a say, because we are not in the EU anymore. 
Anyway, your point was invalid because we did have a say, the EU as a group had group democracies. 

Do you really think that we should allow people in other countries to decide what happens in ours, when it does not concern them? AS a rebuttal to @JGXdebatePRO, I think the father should be able to spend the money on whatever he likes for his personal ownership, but not for the rest of the family. The father choosing something without the family's approval whether they like it or not is a better analogy for the EU.

@xIJ_dolphin_473 But we get excellent trade deals in the EU in return, a deal that is favourable for us.

JGXdebatePRO

Says all.

TGMasterX

@xlJ_dolphin_473
You are missing the point: There IS democracy inside the EU. We vote for what we want inside the UK and the EU. Do you not understand?

xlJ_dolphin_473

TGMasterX said:

@xlJ_dolphin_473
You are missing the point: There IS democracy inside the EU. We vote for what we want inside the UK and the EU. Do you not understand?

Whilst EU citizens can select MPs who can sit in the European parliament, they cannot select, nor vote out the European Commission, who wield most of the power. These people seem to think they know how to run the country better than we do, despite the fact that they are not there by a democratic process. The EU is a disaster for democracy, as the members of the UK in the European parliament were far outnumbered by those from other countries, meaning that by democracy, people who do not even live in the UK can vote on what happens there. @TGMasterX

xlJ_dolphin_473

JGXdebatePRO said:

xlJ_dolphin_473 said:

TGMasterX said:

@xlJ_dolphin_473
Well, what do you expect? In case you haven't noticed, we have left. The UK doesn't have a say, because we are not in the EU anymore. 
Anyway, your point was invalid because we did have a say, the EU as a group had group democracies. 

Do you really think that we should allow people in other countries to decide what happens in ours, when it does not concern them? AS a rebuttal to @JGXdebatePRO, I think the father should be able to spend the money on whatever he likes for his personal ownership, but not for the rest of the family. The father choosing something without the family's approval whether they like it or not is a better analogy for the EU.

@xIJ_dolphin_473 But we get excellent trade deals in the EU in return, a deal that is favourable for us.

That still does not rebut my point. Besides, the EU forces us to comply with their regulations in order to get these trade deals.

JGXdebatePRO

This is a perfect analogy of Brexit. It is exactly like a band member overestimating their ability as a solo artist and leaving the band. But even if the EU forces us to comply with their laws it is a great bargain for us to gain access to EU trade routes.

xlJ_dolphin_473

JGXdebatePRO said:

This is a perfect analogy of Brexit. It is exactly like a band member overestimating their ability as a solo artist and leaving the band. But even if the EU forces us to comply with their laws it is a great bargain for us to gain access to EU trade routes.

@JGXdebatePRO
I do not consider this to be a valid argument. All you have said is that the UK is overestimating their power as a nation and underestimating the power of the EU. Regardless of whether this is true or not, it would not be ideal for the EU to be making various decisions for us, despite the fact that the decisions they make do not affect them. And, if we do not like the decisions, we cannot vote out the people making the decisions because most of the decision-making power is held by the European Committee, which is non-democratic. 

My next point is that EU taxes take money away from the UK. We were required to pay £350 million to the EU every week, and in return the EU would spend £250 million a week on stuff here in the UK, and we did not have much of a say on what that stuff was. I do not see why our UK taxpayers should be giving up their money to pay for stuff in... France. Or Belgium. You may say that we should see this £100 million as a payment for the deals that we get in return, but my rebuttal would be that those deals include freedom of movement, meaning we must accept immigrants, regardless of whether we want to or not. To conclude, it is plainly illogical that we should be paying £350 million a week to the EU, when some of that money is taken elsewhere, and we do not get to decide what the money spent here is actually spent on.

JGXdebatePRO

xlJ_dolphin_473 said:

JGXdebatePRO said:

This is a perfect analogy of Brexit. It is exactly like a band member overestimating their ability as a solo artist and leaving the band. But even if the EU forces us to comply with their laws it is a great bargain for us to gain access to EU trade routes.

@JGXdebatePRO
I do not consider this to be a valid argument. All you have said is that the UK is overestimating their power as a nation and underestimating the power of the EU. Regardless of whether this is true or not, it would not be ideal for the EU to be making various decisions for us, despite the fact that the decisions they make do not affect them. And, if we do not like the decisions, we cannot vote out the people making the decisions because most of the decision-making power is held by the European Committee, which is non-democratic. 

My next point is that EU taxes take money away from the UK. We were required to pay £350 million to the EU every week, and in return the EU would spend £250 million a week on stuff here in the UK, and we did not have much of a say on what that stuff was. I do not see why our UK taxpayers should be giving up their money to pay for stuff in... France. Or Belgium. You may say that we should see this £100 million as a payment for the deals that we get in return, but my rebuttal would be that those deals include freedom of movement, meaning we must accept immigrants, regardless of whether we want to or not. To conclude, it is plainly illogical that we should be paying £350 million a week to the EU, when some of that money is taken elsewhere, and we do not get to decide what the money spent here is actually spent on.

Funny you bring this up, as the £350 million pales in comparison to the money we receive through EU trade routes.

xlJ_dolphin_473

JGXdebatePRO said:

xlJ_dolphin_473 said:

JGXdebatePRO said:

This is a perfect analogy of Brexit. It is exactly like a band member overestimating their ability as a solo artist and leaving the band. But even if the EU forces us to comply with their laws it is a great bargain for us to gain access to EU trade routes.

@JGXdebatePRO
I do not consider this to be a valid argument. All you have said is that the UK is overestimating their power as a nation and underestimating the power of the EU. Regardless of whether this is true or not, it would not be ideal for the EU to be making various decisions for us, despite the fact that the decisions they make do not affect them. And, if we do not like the decisions, we cannot vote out the people making the decisions because most of the decision-making power is held by the European Committee, which is non-democratic. 

My next point is that EU taxes take money away from the UK. We were required to pay £350 million to the EU every week, and in return the EU would spend £250 million a week on stuff here in the UK, and we did not have much of a say on what that stuff was. I do not see why our UK taxpayers should be giving up their money to pay for stuff in... France. Or Belgium. You may say that we should see this £100 million as a payment for the deals that we get in return, but my rebuttal would be that those deals include freedom of movement, meaning we must accept immigrants, regardless of whether we want to or not. To conclude, it is plainly illogical that we should be paying £350 million a week to the EU, when some of that money is taken elsewhere, and we do not get to decide what the money spent here is actually spent on.

Funny you bring this up, as the £350 million pales in comparison to the money we receive through EU trade routes.

Perhaps so, but that is the UK making the money, not the EU giving it to us.  Your point makes little sense.

Ampersand

xlJ_dolphin_473 said:

TGMasterX said:

Brexit had no massive benefits or drawback, so I think it was a waste of time. It took over a year to process, while companies crashed and nothing improved. We now consider Brexit to have gone through because some people weren't happy with their situation, so they thought Brexit would change it. Also, the majority of voters had no idea of the effects, so I think a second referendum would have changed the outcome as more people were educated about the matter. Finally, the vote was incredibly close. Studies also showed that the majority of the pro-Brexit voters were elderly, meaning that the most affected people (youths) didn't have a say.

This may be true, but would you be happy to be conscripted into a European army when you are older?

There is no European army, there are no plans for a European army and individual member states have to unanimously agree to any change in security policy (like starting a European Army) so effectively every country can veto the idea of a European army if it's ever raised.

TGMasterX said:

Brexit had no massive benefits or drawback, so I think it was a waste of time. It took over a year to process, while companies crashed and nothing improved. We now consider Brexit to have gone through because some people weren't happy with their situation, so they thought Brexit would change it. Also, the majority of voters had no idea of the effects, so I think a second referendum would have changed the outcome as more people were educated about the matter. Finally, the vote was incredibly close. Studies also showed that the majority of the pro-Brexit voters were elderly, meaning that the most affected people (youths) didn't have a say.

It's fairly well established at this point by the governments own measures that there will be a significant loss in growth in the scenario we're aiming for. In addition the language the Coneervatives are usign to talk about the rationale for leaving the EU seems to point towards their wish to roll back human rights and labour laws.xlJ_dolphin_473 said:

JGXdebatePRO said:

This is a perfect analogy of Brexit. It is exactly like a band member overestimating their ability as a solo artist and leaving the band. But even if the EU forces us to comply with their laws it is a great bargain for us to gain access to EU trade routes.

@JGXdebatePRO
I do not consider this to be a valid argument. All you have said is that the UK is overestimating their power as a nation and underestimating the power of the EU. Regardless of whether this is true or not, it would not be ideal for the EU to be making various decisions for us, despite the fact that the decisions they make do not affect them. And, if we do not like the decisions, we cannot vote out the people making the decisions because most of the decision-making power is held by the European Committee, which is non-democratic. 

My next point is that EU taxes take money away from the UK. We were required to pay £350 million to the EU every week, and in return the EU would spend £250 million a week on stuff here in the UK, and we did not have much of a say on what that stuff was. I do not see why our UK taxpayers should be giving up their money to pay for stuff in... France. Or Belgium. You may say that we should see this £100 million as a payment for the deals that we get in return, but my rebuttal would be that those deals include freedom of movement, meaning we must accept immigrants, regardless of whether we want to or not. To conclude, it is plainly illogical that we should be paying £350 million a week to the EU, when some of that money is taken elsewhere, and we do not get to decide what the money spent here is actually spent on.

What are you talking about with your vague references to "it would not be ideal for the EU to be making various decisions for us, despite the fact that the decisions they make do not affect them"? You don't give an example of a single example of what you're suggesting.

Also

1) The EU overall contributes money to the UK through the benefits of membership.
2) We do have a say in how the money was spent, that's what the regular votes we hold to elect members of the European Parliament are for.
3) We don't pay money to France, France is also a net contributor who pays in more money to the EU than they directly receive (although like us overall benefits). Rich countries pay in more than they receive, just like rich counties in the UK pay more to the UK government than poor ones and rich states in the US pay more to the federal government than poor states.
4) We need to accept immigrants to keep our country running regardless. The big difference post-EU is we'll get immigrants from outside the EU who will be willing to work for less even for skilled jobs like nursing (where there's a big demand for immigrants to fill all the positions) driving down the wages and bargaining position of all the native born people in those professions.

RS_master

@JGXdebatePRO Brexit benefits UK with economy. All the countries that have left EU are progressing rapidly unlike countries in EU Switzerland and countries in Scandinavia are in the top 15 wealthiest countries. Do you want Britain to stay where they are and not progress or do you want Britain to progress as one nation and be the wealthiest? UK have the potential to be the wealthiest. UK have the potential which will be revealed when UK leave the EU. UK have the potential to not just import but to export as well.