Should the UK have remained in the EU?

The UK should have left the EU for economic reasons

Question: Should the UK have remained in the EU?
Position‹2 of 2: No, the UK should have left the EU
Argument‹2 of 3›: The UK should have left the EU for economic reasons

The Pound is a stronger and more valuable form of currency than the Euro. The UK was justified in leaving the EU because it strengthened its legal tender and allowed the UK to negotiate its own trade deals. These trade deals do not need to meet EU standards and may be more beneficial to the UK.

The argument

The EU trade rules hamper the UK’s ability to grow its economy. Currently, the UK operates under the European Union’s trade rules – these include worker’s rights, environmental policies, and competition. With the United Kingdom exiting the EU, it can move away from these restrictive rules and negotiate trades deals on its own terms. One big sticking point for this regards fishing in British waters. The UK stated that new economic agreements on fisheries must understand that fishing in the United Kingdom’s waters is for British anglers first and foremost. British sovereignty from the European Union boosts its ability to create a more robust economy where the British Pound flourishes. The UK negotiates strong trade agreements – ultimately creating a more robust economy.

Context

Citizens of the United Kingdom narrowly voted to leave the European Union in 2016. Central arguments for leaving included the theory that the UK's economy would benefit because of freedom from the EU's trade agreements and currency.

Premises

[P1]EU trade rules, including those on workers' rights, environmental policy, and competition, restrict the UK's economic flexibility. [P2] Leaving the EU allows the UK to negotiate trade deals on its own terms and assert sovereignty over resources such as its fishing waters. [P3] Independent trade negotiations and sovereignty produce a more robust UK economy and a stronger pound. [C] Therefore, the UK should have left the EU for economic reasons.

Counter-arguments

There is no guarantee that the European Union and the United Kingdom will come to a trade agreement. If that does not happen, the UK would have to trade with the EU under the trade rules set by the World Trade Organization. This arrangement means that most British goods sent to EU countries would have tariffs placed on them, making them more expensive and more challenging to sell in Europe. Many fear that a “no-deal Brexit” hurts the British economy by raising costs on goods and the potential loss of jobs.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Calling workers' rights, environmental standards and competition rules 'restrictive' assumes their costs exceed their benefits. They are also the terms of access to the UK's largest export market, and leaving does not abolish them so much as change who writes them. [Rejecting P2] Sovereignty over a negotiation is not leverage within it. A single economy negotiating alone faces counterparties who price that in, and fisheries illustrate the difficulty rather than resolving it: the catch still has to be sold, largely into the market whose access is being renegotiated. [Rejecting P3] The economic gain is asserted rather than shown. If no agreement is reached, trade with the EU reverts to WTO terms and tariffs are added to most British goods sold in Europe — a cost the premise's picture of a more robust economy never prices in.