Dear debaters and dear
readers; finally, Europe would be better off without Britain, or not? Before
delivering a final vote to this debate, let’s go over what happened and what
has been said during this debate. (Continues below the fold…)
by
SH
Arguments of both teams
were essentially founded on two important bases, the economic and the political
effects of Britain leaving or staying in the EU.
The proposing team are
convinced that EU can no longer develop if it doesn’t achieve political
integration; and as Britain has always barred the way to this integration, they
believe that its departure from the EU would be the key to reach the objective
political union to have a unified and powerful block.
However, the opposing
team maintain the idea of Schuman’s Europe: peace and solidarity for all
Europe. They found this situation as a crisis to solve together and try to keep
the Europe unified. Personally I believe that although Britain ban some
political integration of EU, it’s not the only country in this position. Maybe
the most important, but not the only one.
The opposing team tried to
evoke some other political raisons for which Europe would not be better off
without Britain.
One of their arguments was
about the military force. They suppose that if Britain leave the EU, Europe
would lose its “single most powerful military force”. It’s true that if Britain
leaves EU, Europe military force will considerably reduce, but it steel can rely
on the military force of some other important countries of the EU. On the other
hand, it seems very unlikely that UK even US do not support EU in case of
crisis or potential war.
The opposing team also
mentioned the one more seat that Britain give to EU in the United Nation Security
Council which make its voice stronger. They are afraid of if Britain leaves EU,
it will consider to join another power, that cannot be anyone else than US. But
the proposing team rebuttal this idea by referencing Cameroun’s visit to Washington to promote the
Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, where US warned Britain that if
the UK leaves Europe it will exclude itself from the US-EU trade and investment
partnership.
These was about the
political effects of the question. But the debate was also based on some
economic arguments.
The proposing team referred
on the only 10% of the UK economy involved in trade with the EU and that no EU country trades mainly with
Britain, to conclude that EU internal trade will not suffer if Britain leaves
EU.
The proposing team insisted that “EU has the potential to be as powerful
as the US, the European economy being more important than the American one” and
that’s why they think Europe can go very well without Britain. Although the
opposing team agree with the idea that EU can be as powerful as US, but they
believe this can happen only if Britain stays in. As UK is one of the economic
forces of the world, it seems obvious that its presence in the EU re-enforces
the position of EU in the international relationship.
Another argument of the proposing debaters, was the possibility of
creating jobs in EU. As they said “if Britain cuts itself from a giant European
market, international companies and funds could be put off from investing in
the United of Kingdom, and companies dealing with the Eurozone, especially
banks, will probably move from the city to the EU”. The opposing found this a
“childish thought!” and thought that if Britain gets out of EU, the results
will just be more attractive economic laws implied to EU and I think they’re
right.
At the end, after reviewing the arguments of two teams, I’ll give my
vote to the opposing team. They can persuade more reasonably that Britain’s
leaving from EU won’t have any important benefits for Europe, and its staying
may have some good effects. Whereas the proposing team, their most powerful
argument was the political integration of Europe without Britain,
which was not sufficiently developed.
So NAY! Europe won’t be better off without Britain.
SH
No comments:
Post a Comment