Matters Of Debate | Issue 15

Matters Of Debate | Issue 15

Moot: A Brexit will prove to be a good decision for Britain

Affirmative, by By Squealer the Pig

The EU has become more of a super-state than a free trade zone and it is trampling on Britain’s sovereignty. 

British lawmakers are beholden to European and Brussels’ parliaments, and often get outvoted on important matters. Britain’s inability to control the free movement of EU citizens through its borders is one of the costs of being subject to EU law.

The immense flow of EU immigrants, combined with the refugee crisis, is putting unprecedented strain on healthcare, education and housing sectors. Further, the free movement laws obstruct efforts to weight total inflows more heavily toward higher-skilled workers. This means lower-skilled EU migrants are absorbing opportunities and resources that could otherwise be offered to, arguably, more deserving migrants from outside the EU—a significant cost (which a Brexit would absolve) to the productivity and sustainability of British immigration.

A Brexit would also reject democratic deficits in EU leadership, such as the behind—doors decision making of the legislative council, bureaucratic nature of the European Commission, and its intrusion and influence in the affairs of elected national governments on matters such as Berlusconi’s departure in Italy, Papandreou’s resignation as Greek premier, and Tsipras’ inability to get rid of austerity policies. A Brexit would empower British democracy and, without the EU available as a scapegoat, Britain’s national government would likely become more accountable too. Following the national referendum, a Brexit is the only truly democratic way forward.

Potential short-term, economic damage could be offset by a successful renegotiation of Britain’s trade relationship with the EU as well as opportunities to form new trade partnerships elsewhere. Because the EU has an incentive to negotiate as quickly and smoothly as possible to mitigate damage, negotiations could well be favourable toward Britain. Additionally, a Brexit could provide stability in the long-term.

The Euro has historically been a much weaker, less stable currency than the pound, due in part to the influence of smaller EU states. New pressure to adopt the euro by 2020 poses a huge threat to British financial markets that a Brexit could avoid. Further, Brexit would mean Britain would no longer be obligated to pick up the pieces for other member-states (like Greece) who suffer financial downfalls. A Brexit would enable hefty weekly membership costs to be re-allocated to other domestic priorities too.

Negative, by Old Major

As the world’s largest trading bloc, the EU comprises a single market of over 500,000,000 consumers. With 48 percent of exports and over half of their imports being attributed to the EU, a Brexit would leave a sizeable hole (3.1 million jobs) in Britain’s economy. This would be amplified by a (probable) decrease in foreign investment and a slump in confidence in both financial and business markets. The economic benefit easily offsets the cost of membership.

Though there is potential for trade benefits to be retained through a new agreement, it is likely that, as in Norway, the price of those benefits will be open borders as the EU sees free movement of people as a fundamental characteristic of the single market. Though fast, smooth negotiations are desirable, there is also significant incentive for the EU to make an example of Britain to deter further “exits”, meaning a new deal may not be so generous. Establishing new trade alliances could take decades and is unlikely to be as profitable as EU membership. 

Despite open borders, migrants are net contributors to public finances; statistics suggest concerns about immigration are largely misplaced. Open borders also allow British citizens to live, work, and retire anywhere in Europe, and offers consumers and travellers greater protections. 

The EU may not be perfect democratically speaking, but a Brexit would mean divesting a powerful platform for influencing reform. Particularly following the referendum outcome, Britain is better placed than ever to exercise its political power as an EU heavyweight. Steady progress has been made recently on matters such as the introduction of national government “red cards”—so the climate for change is, evidently, improving.

Moreover, for a mid-sized country like the UK, which is becoming increasingly less dominant globally, and whose diplomatic and military resources are declining in relative terms, they stand to lose a critical lever for international influence that arises from membership of such a strong regional institution.

Finally, the UK referendum suggests a Brexit could estrange the likes of Scotland and Northern Ireland; who voted, overwhelmingly, to remain. The gravity of the consequences of a Brexit mean it could well become “the straw that breaks the camel’s back” when it comes to Britain’s relationship with its UK neighbours (who have previously considered a split) making for a much less-United Kingdom. 

This article first appeared in Issue 15, 2016.
Posted 12:40pm Sunday 17th July 2016 by Otago University Debating Society.