_id
stringlengths 23
47
| text
stringlengths 70
6.67k
|
|---|---|
test-politics-oepghbrnsl-pro01a | Stability is more important than reform Since the fall of communism, Russia has plunged into a deep economic recession. The introduction of market reforms and privatization has led to a swift increase in inequalities coupled with an increase in corruption. The chaos of economic and political reform, along with the chaos of the break-up of former USSR, has left the majority of the population both disillusioned and distrustful of their government. In a period of such chaos, stability seems to be much more important than reform. A strong leader is the only solution to providing such stability, setting a clear direction and pulling a country at risk of falling apart together again. This is also proven from various polls among the Russian population – “…The most eye-catching statistic is the overwhelming majority of respondents who say that order is more important for Russia than democracy – 72 per cent, with 16 per cent responding conversely.” (1) |
test-politics-oeplhbuwhmi-pro02a | Britain will have greater ability to respond quickly Whatever the EU is we can all agree it is not the fastest and most responsive of institutions. As a result of needing the input of 28 countries EU external policy is slow and faltering. Leaving will enable the UK greater freedom to create its own policies and to reframe them in response to changing circumstances and challenges. The UK will no longer need to take into consideration any other country’s views. |
test-politics-oeplhbuwhmi-pro03b | As a smaller and less attractive market the UK will inevitably get a less good deal than it could have with the whole of the EU at its back. Moreover if the UK still wants free access to the EU market, which accounts for 45% of UK exports and 53%, [1] it will still not have a completely free hand economically. Norway for example may retain close economic links and freely trade with Europe but does not have any ability to make decisions on EU rules and must accept their regulations – clearly a worse position than the UK now. [2] [1] Webb, Dominic, and Keep, Matthew, ‘In brief: UK-EU economic relations’, House of Commons Library, Briefing Paper, No. 06091, 19 January 2016, p.3, www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN06091.pdf [2] Eide, Espen Barth, ‘We pay, but have no say: that’s the reality of Norway’s relationship with the EU’, The Guardian, 27 October 2015, |
test-politics-oeplhbuwhmi-pro01a | The UK would have a completely independent foreign policy Britain’s is not completely sovereign within the European Union with the EU having a common foreign and security policy and all economic negotiations taking place under the auspices of the EU trade commissioner, it is what the EU refers to as an ‘exclusive power’, rather than the Foreign Office. [1] Exiting would give these powers back to the UK. Regardless of how these powers are used this will mean the UK has more influence and freedom to manoeuvre as it will have more options with which it can negotiate with other powers. [1] ‘Policy making: What is trade policy’, European Commission, |
test-politics-oeplhbuwhmi-con03b | It is undeniable that in some areas the EU is a force multiplier. But many of the issues it uses this leverage on are not areas of concern to a UK that has left the EU; migrants arriving in Greece are of little national interest to the UK. Britain would instead focus its weight on areas that are of direct concern such as terrorism. In other areas the multiplier simply saves the UK a little money; could the UK have an embassy in Djibouti? Certainly if it wished, but it is not an area of primary concern to the UK. |
test-politics-oeplhbuwhmi-con01b | The UK has more influence as a power in the second tier being sought after rather than having its voice swamped in the EU where it is but one of 27 voices. The UK will retain its UN Security Council seat and nuclear weapons, it will remain a powerful country that is relevant across all sorts of areas, it will simply be less constrained. |
test-politics-oeplhbuwhmi-con02a | Power is shifting to the East Geography has a great influence on the position of nations and their foreign policies. For example it is the UK’s Island nation status that is a major reason why it is not fully committed to the European project. Attention internationally is now shifting to East Asia where the main rising powers are; China and India. This means that the UK’s position is less geographically important so to compensate the UK needs Europe; China’s leader Xi Jinping on his state visit to Britain stated China wants “a united EU, and hopes Britain… can play an even more positive and constructive role in promoting the deepening development of China-EU ties.” [1] The United States, Britain’s main ally since World War II, is much less interested in Europe. [1] ‘China wants Britain in a united European Union, Xi Jinping tells David Cameron’, South China Morning Post, 23 October 2015, |
test-politics-oeplhbuwhmi-con04a | Leaving the EU will mean the UK will have less regional influence Like it or not the UK is a part of Europe geographically and as such the countries that are most important to UK foreign policy are also in Europe. Leaving the EU will damage relations with those powers that are currently a part of the EU, and potentially also those who are used to dealing with the UK as part of the EU. The United States has noted it “benefits from a strong UK being part of the European Union” [1] in much the same way as the UK does. If this is the UK's strongest ally's view what would be the view of the powers from whom out would mean divorce? The UK will be outside the group trying to influence it rather than on the inside. The EU states will no longer need to listen to the UK on a wide range of issues where it has previously been a key voice. [1] Earnest, Josh, ‘Press Briefing by the Press Secretary Josh Earnest’, White House, 14 March 2016, |
test-politics-oeplhbuwhmi-con02b | There are also advantages to this power shift; the UK is less threatened so better able to act. The UK is therefore free to align itself with whichever powers it wishes rather than having alignments dictated by geography and who is threatening the UK. In the past the threat from Germany, and then the USSR, forced the UK into an alliance with France and the USA. When it comes to deciding between the USA, China, and India the UK has a free hand. As a result the UK has a once in a lifetime opportunity to strike new “trade deals with the growth economies around the world”. [1] [1] Boris Johnson quoted in Erixon, Fredrik, ‘Boris and the Breziteers are talking nonsense about Britain’s trade policies’, The Spectator, 1 April 2016, |
test-politics-oapghwliva-pro01a | The present system of earmarking in Congress is wide open to abuse. The party leaderships in each house can use the offer of pork, or the threat to withhold it to enforce party discipline. “Logrolling” occurs whereby an earmark is obtained in return for support on an unrelated piece of legislation. All this leads to legislators who put party above country and vote for bad legislation in pursuit of their own vested interest. They basically “are federal dollars that members of Congress dole out to favor seekers — often campaign donors. In the process, lawmakers advocate for the companies, helping them bypass the normal system of evaluation and competition.”1Forcing pork out in the open by making Congress vote to defend it after a Presidential line-item veto is the best way to remedy matters. Overall the President is more accountable to the people as a whole than individual representatives, and with their national mandate, more able to stand up to powerful interest groups. 1 David Heath and Hal Bernton, $4.5 million for a boat that nobody wanted, The Seattle Times, 15/10/07 , accessed 5/5/11 |
test-politics-oapghwliva-con02a | The constitution should not be amended We should always be cautious of altering the United States’ Constitution. Once an amendment is passed, it is extremely hard to overturn, even if its consequences are clearly negative (as the experience of constitutionally-mandated prohibition of alcohol should make clear). It would be both difficult and unnecessary. There are problems of wording and interpretation. The 1996 Act covered 22 pages and went into great detail to define the extent and limits of Presidential authority under the legislation, including the exact meanings of “single item of appropriation”, ''direct spending'' and ''limited tax benefit'', as well as the means by which Congress could override his decisions.1 It is hard to believe that a one-paragraph amendment to the Constitution could achieve such precision, opening the budgetary process up to confusion, shifting interpretation and constant legal challenge. It is also unnecessary. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia argues "The short of the matter is this: Had the Line Item Veto Act authorized the president to 'decline to spend' any item of spending ... there is not the slightest doubt that authorization would have been constitutional… What the Line Item Veto Act does instead -- authorizing the president to 'cancel' an item of spending -- is technically different."2 Thus the act could simply have been worded differently in order to make it constitutional. This would not change the substance of the ability of the ‘veto’ to cut spending. 1 One hundred fourth Congress of the United States of America at the second session, “Line Item Veto Act”, 3/1/1996, The Library of Congress, accessed 6/5/11 2 Supreme Court Justice Scalia quoted in Michael Kirkland, ‘Under the U.S. Supreme Court: Like the South, will line item veto rise again?’, upi.com, 17/4/11 accessed 6/5/11 improve this COUNTERPOINT "I do not take these matters lightly in amending the Constitution. However, I am convinced in this case it is the only way to provide the President with the same authority that 44 Governors already have to influence spending."1It would in general be preferable to make such a change through normal legislation, but that was attempted in 1996 and found unconstitutional. Supreme Court Justice Stevens in his majority opinion for the Supreme Court argued that it was necessary for there to be an amendment to make it constitutional, "If there is to be a new procedure in which the president will play a different role in determining the text of what may "become a law", such change must come not by legislation but through the amendment procedures set forth in Article V of the Constitution."2 1 Item veto constitutional amendment hearing before the subcommittee on the constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary House of Representatives, 23/3/00, accessed 5/5/11 2 Clinton, President of the United States, et al. v. City of New York et al. No.97-1374, United States Supreme Court, 1998,accessed 5/5/11 improve this APPENDIX |
test-politics-oapghwliva-con02b | We should always be cautious of altering the United States’ Constitution. Once an amendment is passed, it is extremely hard to overturn, even if its consequences are clearly negative (as the experience of constitutionally-mandated prohibition of alcohol should make clear). It would be both difficult and unnecessary. There are problems of wording and interpretation. The 1996 Act covered 22 pages and went into great detail to define the extent and limits of Presidential authority under the legislation, including the exact meanings of “single item of appropriation”, ''direct spending'' and ''limited tax benefit'', as well as the means by which Congress could override his decisions.1 It is hard to believe that a one-paragraph amendment to the Constitution could achieve such precision, opening the budgetary process up to confusion, shifting interpretation and constant legal challenge. It is also unnecessary. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia argues "The short of the matter is this: Had the Line Item Veto Act authorized the president to 'decline to spend' any item of spending ... there is not the slightest doubt that authorization would have been constitutional… What the Line Item Veto Act does instead -- authorizing the president to 'cancel' an item of spending -- is technically different."2 Thus the act could simply have been worded differently in order to make it constitutional. This would not change the substance of the ability of the ‘veto’ to cut spending. 1 One hundred fourth Congress of the United States of America at the second session, “Line Item Veto Act”, 3/1/1996, The Library of Congress, accessed 6/5/11 2 Supreme Court Justice Scalia quoted in Michael Kirkland, ‘Under the U.S. Supreme Court: Like the South, will line item veto rise again?’, upi.com, 17/4/11 accessed 6/5/11 improve this COUNTERPOINT "I do not take these matters lightly in amending the Constitution. However, I am convinced in this case it is the only way to provide the President with the same authority that 44 Governors already have to influence spending."1It would in general be preferable to make such a change through normal legislation, but that was attempted in 1996 and found unconstitutional. Supreme Court Justice Stevens in his majority opinion for the Supreme Court argued that it was necessary for there to be an amendment to make it constitutional, "If there is to be a new procedure in which the president will play a different role in determining the text of what may "become a law", such change must come not by legislation but through the amendment procedures set forth in Article V of the Constitution."2 1 Item veto constitutional amendment hearing before the subcommittee on the constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary House of Representatives, 23/3/00, accessed 5/5/11 2 Clinton, President of the United States, et al. v. City of New York et al. No.97-1374, United States Supreme Court, 1998,accessed 5/5/11 improve this APPENDIX |
test-politics-dhbanhrnw-pro03b | Possessing nuclear weapons will do little to help small and poor nations set the agendas on the international stage. In the present age, economic power is far more significant in international and diplomatic discourse than is military power, particularly nuclear weapon power. States will not be able to have their grievances more rapidly addressed in the United Nations or elsewhere, since they will be unable to use nuclear weapons in an aggressive context as that would seriously threaten their own survival. Possessing nuclear weapons may at best provide some security against neighbouring states, but it creates the greater threat of accidental or unintended use or of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists and rogue states. |
test-politics-dhbanhrnw-pro05a | Public acknowledgement of the right to nuclear deterrence will benefit the public regulation of nuclear weapons generally When nuclear deterrence is an acknowledged right of states, they will necessarily be less concealing of their capability, as the deterrent effect works only because it is visible and widely known. Knowledge of states’ nuclear capability allows greater regulation and cooperation in development of nuclear programs from developed countries with more advanced nuclear programs. [1] Developed countries can help construct and maintain the nuclear weapons of other countries, helping to guarantee the safety protocols of countries’ programs are suitably robust. This will cause a diminution in clandestine nuclear weapons programs, and will reduce the chances of weapons-grade material falling into the hands of terrorists. Thus, greater openness and freedom in the development of nuclear weapons will increase the security of nuclear stockpiles. [1] Sagan, Scott D. 1993. The Limits of Safety: Organizations, Accidents, and Nuclear Weapons. Princeton: Princeton University Press. |
test-politics-dhbanhrnw-pro01a | All countries have a right to defend themselves with nuclear weapons, even when they lack the capacity in conventional weapons The nation-state is the fundamental building block of the international system, and is recognized as such in all international treaties and organizations. States are recognized as having the right to defend themselves, and this right must extend to the possession of nuclear deterrence. Often states lack the capacity to defend themselves with conventional weapons. This is particularly true of poor and small states. Even wealthy, small states are susceptible to foreign attack, since their wealth cannot make up for their lack of manpower. With a nuclear deterrent, all states become equal in terms of ability to do harm to one another. [1] If a large state attempts to intimidate, or even invade a smaller neighbour, it will be unable to effectively cow it, since the small state will have the power to grievously wound, or even destroy, the would-be invader with a few well-placed nuclear missiles. [2] For example, the Russian invasion of Georgia in 2008 would likely never have occurred, as Russia would have thought twice when considering the potential loss of several of its cities it would need to exchange for a small piece of Georgian territory. Clearly, nuclear weapons serve in many ways to equalize states irrespective of size, allowing them to more effectively defend themselves. Furthermore, countries will only use nuclear weapons in the vent of existential threat. This is why, for example, North Korea has not used nuclear weapons; for it, like all other states, survival is the order of the day, and using nuclear weapons aggressively would spell its certain destruction. Countries will behave rationally with regard to the use of nuclear weapons, as they have done since their invention and initial proliferation. Weapons in the hands of more people will thus not result in the greater risk of their use. [1] Jervis, Robert. 2001. “Weapons Without Purpose? Nuclear Strategy in the Post-Cold War Era”. Foreign Affairs. [2] Mearsheimer, John. 1993. “The Case for a Ukrainian Nuclear Deterrent”. Foreign Affairs. |
test-politics-dhbanhrnw-pro01b | While states do of course have the right to defend themselves, this does not extend to the possession and use of nuclear weapons. The destructive power of nuclear weapons cannot be contained in either space or time. They have the potential to destroy all civilization and the entire ecosystem of the planet. International humanitarian law prohibits the use of weapons that are incapable of distinguishing between civilian objects and military targets. [1] Indeed, the use of nuclear weapons could well constitute a war crime or a crime against humanity. [2] Just as biological and chemical weapons are banned by international treaty, so too the international community generally acknowledges the dangers of nuclear proliferation, which is why so many treaties are dedicated to non-proliferation. [3] It is unfortunate that nuclear weapons exist, even more so that a few countries are still seeking to develop them. It is better to fight this movement and to prevent their use or acquisition by terrorists and the like. It is also essential for States to fulfil their obligation under Article VI of the NPT ‘to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all aspects under strict and effective international control’. [4] Nuclear weapons cannot lawfully be employed or deployed and there is a legal obligation to negotiate in good faith for, and ensure, their elimination. [5] [1] International Court of Justice. 1996. Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, ICJ Reports 1996, p 226. [2] Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court 1998. [3] Shah, Anup. 2009. “Nuclear Weapons”. Global Issues. [4] International Court of Justice. 1996. Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, ICJ Reports 1996, p 226. [5] Grief, Nicholas. 2011. “Nuclear Weapons: the Legal Status of Use, Threat and Possession”. Nuclear Abolition Forum, Issue No 1. |
test-politics-dhbanhrnw-con04a | Possessing nuclear weapons will be counter to the peaceful interests of states Most states will not benefit at all from possessing nuclear weapons. Developing a nuclear deterrent is seen in the international community as a sign of belligerence and a warlike character. Such an image does not suit the vast majority of states who would be better suited focusing on diplomacy, trade, and economic interdependence. [1] The loss of such diplomatic and economic relations in favour of force can seriously harm the citizens of would-be nuclear powers, as has occurred to the North Koreans, who have been isolated in international relations by their government’s decision to develop nuclear weapons. If the right to nuclear weapons were recognized for all states, only those states that currently want them for strategic reasons will develop them, and they will do so more brazenly and with greater speed. These countries might try to develop them even if proliferation is outlawed, but giving them license increases the likelihood that they will succeed. Furthermore, when countries develop nuclear weapons, their neighbours may feel more vulnerable and thus be compelled by necessity to develop their own weapons. This will lead to arms races in some cases, and generally harm diplomacy. [1] Sartori, Anne. 2005. Deterrence By Diplomacy. Princeton: Princeton University Press. |
test-politics-dhbanhrnw-con03a | Humanitarian intervention becomes impossible in states that possess nuclear weapons It has often proven to be necessary for the UN, the United States, and various international coalitions to stage humanitarian interventions into states fighting civil wars, committing genocide, or otherwise abusing the human rights of their citizens. [1] An example of such an intervention is the recent contributions by many states to the rebels in Libya. Were all countries permitted to possess nuclear weapons, such interventions would become next to impossible. Were, for example, countries to try and contribute to the Libyan rebels, they would find themselves the targets of Libyan nuclear warheads. The cost of intervention thus becomes too high for virtually any country to tolerate, in terms of both human and political costs. The world would be a worse place if tyrants were allowed to perpetrate whatever crimes they saw fit upon their people, while the international community could do nothing for fear of nuclear retaliation. [1] Slantchev, Branislav. 2005. “Military Coercion in Interstate Crises”. American Political Science Review 99(4). |
test-politics-cdfsaphgiap-pro02b | The media always want a good story; they are interested in the health of celebrities when there is no clear reason why they should have any right to this private information. The health of the leader is not something that the press or public needs to know about unless it is an illness that is likely to affect the president’s capacity to make decisions. A government’s decision should not be based upon the possibility that information on the leader’s health will leak and should take a consistent line that it is a private matter or provide a bare minimum of information. |
test-politics-cdfsaphgiap-pro01b | If a candidate has a condition during an election campaign then there is a clear right to know when the electorate is making the decision. But does such a right to know apply at other times when it will make no difference to the people? There can only be a right to know if it is going to affect the people, something that many illnesses won’t do. |
test-politics-cdfsaphgiap-con01b | When leaders choose to serve the country they should be ready to sacrifice their privacy for the country. There is clearly a different standard for those who are in government and should be publicly accountable to those who are not. Even more minor illnesses can damage the running of the country through either affecting the judgment of the leader or limiting the amount of time he can work. The people have the right to demand their leader has his full attention of the issues affecting the nation. If he can't do that then he should resign. |
test-politics-ghbgussbsbt-pro02b | It is true that the Founding Fathers did design the complexion of the Federal Government in such a way that prevents power from being concentrated in one place. This made sense in the eighteenth century when the states had most of the power. However the power and responsibilities of the federal government has expanded dramatically. The United States is no longer best off with a slow government that creates compromise. In a period where the poles of the parties are increasingly powerful government is not just slow but glacial as is shown by the crisis in 2011 over negotiations to raise the debt ceiling. [1] Single party government would be able to get its legislation passed and could actually govern rather than merely engaging in political manoeuvring to fend off the other party. [1] MacAskill, Ewen, and Rushe, Dominic, ‘US debt crisis talks reach an impasse’, guardian.co.uk, 26 July 2011, |
test-politics-ghbgussbsbt-pro03b | Congress maybe a bicameral body, but it still needs to be able to work effectively and having control split between the parties is not conducive to this. Reconciliation only truly works when there is a clear and coherent ideological programme to work around when making straightening differences between laws. In an ever more polarised politics, divided government would be more likely to result in gridlock as is the case in 2011 the reconciliation. Voters may also choose an ideological swing, rendering such a point moot. There was a clear mandate for Republican policies from 2003 to 2007 and Democratic policies from 2009. Every democracy has its losers. Voters recognise this and vote for a clear program at elections, not a watered down version of it. |
test-politics-ghbgussbsbt-pro03a | How Congress Works Congress is a bicameral body, with its constituent parts, the House of Representatives and Senate, working largely independent of each other to create bills. However necessary for both the house and Senate to pass laws in identical form in order for it to become law. [1] A period of ‘Reconciliation’ is usually required to find a compromise between two different versions of the same bill in order to maintain and improve what is best about proposed reforms and eliminate flaws before it becomes law. [2] This independence between the two chambers, with Reconciliation being one of the few areas where the two meet can allow for division in Congress between the two major parties. Indeed this can be seen as beneficial, as the broadest ideological range will be considered when making a policy work by reconciling two bills, making sure that centrist policy is enacted, preventing an ideological swing against the wishes of the people. [1] Goldman et al., The Challenge of Democracy, Brief ed., Fourth ed., New York 2001, p.196 [2] United States Senate, ‘reconciliation process’, |
test-politics-ghbgussbsbt-con01b | It is Single-Party Government that fails to represent the interest of Americans. By subscribing to just one view of what makes good policy, government risks simply taking into account little over half the electorate (and under half the population, giving how low voter turnout usually is in American Elections [1] ) when taking actions that effect all. By taking into account the wants and aims of both parties, the best policy that can carry the support of the broad cross-section of society will be implemented, preventing disillusionment with unrepresentative, overtly ideological government. [1] Infoplease, ‘National Voter Turnout in Federal Elections: 1960–2010’, |
test-politics-ghbgussbsbt-con03a | Growing partisanship The current political climate makes divided government difficult anyway. The terms of debate in American politics is based on a perceived ‘culture war’ between liberals and conservatives over what it means to be American, something that has been exacerbated by 24-hour news and a proliferation of partisan blogging. This makes agreements on core issues difficult to achieve and this has become apparent in recent years, with opposition to Barack Obama’s $1 trillion stimulus package helping to spawn the Tea Party movement [1] that has helped move the Republican Party to the right, making the compromise required for effective divided government unachievable. [2] While it has been most noticeable recently the US political climate has been becoming more polarized for the last twenty-five years. This polarization helps to create gridlock and less public policy. [3] The stasis in Congress created by the dogmatic Republicans winning the House in the 2010 mid-terms shows how America’s political climate is now much more suited to Single-Party Government, allowing for much more effective decision making than divided government. [1] Ferrara, Peter, ‘The tea Party Revolution’, The American Spectator, 15 April 2009, [2] Rawls, Caroline, ‘Moderate Republicans Lament GOP Shift Further Right’, newsmax, 27 July 2011, [3] McCarty, Nolan, ‘The Policy Consequences of Partisan Polarization in the United States’, bcep.haas.berkeley.edu/papers/McCarty.doc |
test-politics-ghbgussbsbt-con01a | Effect on democratic participation Divided Government undermines the democratic will of the people as it prevents a clear policy choice from being enacted by those elected to represent them. The compromise necessary will result in policy platforms enthusiastically chosen by voters being watered down in order for it to be even partly enacted. It is notable that the majority of legislation originates from Congress when government is divided rather than from the President. This is despite the president being the one with the nationwide mandate. [1] Single Party Government counters this by ensuring that policies clearly presented to and chosen by the electorate are enacted without having to countenance the opinions of an opposition whose policies have just been discredited by the electorate, Thus ensuring that government is responsive to the aims and wishes of the people. [1] Jones, Charles O., The Presidency in a Separated System, The Brookings Institution, 1994, p.222 |
test-politics-oapdhwinkp-con01b | North Korea is not an irrational regime, and is certainly not going to use its missiles to hit one of its neighbouring great powers. North Korea has shown time and time again that its number one objective is regime survival [1] and its provocations are one method it uses to try and ensure such survival through getting concessions and building deterrence against any possible pre-emptive attack either by the South or the United States. [2] North Korea will therefore never invite such retaliation from the surrounding great powers. All provocations it takes are just to the extent that it thinks it can get away with them. It is notable that since South Korea altered its stance from ‘controlled response’ to ‘manifold retaliation’ in the wake of the shelling of Yeonpyeong Island [3] the provocations from North Korea have been much less provocative i.e. missile testing rather than military actions. [1] Lankov, Andrei, ‘Weep Not for Kim Jong Il’, Foreign Policy, 23 December 2011, [2] ‘The Conventional Military Balance on the Korean Peninsula’, The International Institute for Strategic Studies, 2012, [3] Mc Devitt, Michael, ‘Deterring North Korean Provocations’, Brookings, February 2011, |
test-politics-oapdhwinkp-con01a | North Korea is an irrational regime that is a strategic threat to numerous great powers North Korea is an irrational and irresponsible regime that can’t simply be ignored. As the United States National Security Council spokesman Tonny Vietor said in response to the 12th December 2012 missile test “This action is yet another example of North Korea's pattern of irresponsible behavior.” As a power that is willing to defy international sanctions and resolutions such as “Resolution 1874, which demands the DPRK not to conduct "any launch using ballistic missile technology" and urges it to "suspend all activities related to its ballistic missile programme"” [1] it is essential that there is engagement to prevent the regime breaking more international norms. It is impossible simply to ignore a regime with such a propensity to engage in provocative actions when it borders you, as is the case with China and Russia, or when it has tested missiles that can potentially hit targets 6000km away, so most of Asia, including numerous US bases. [2] [1] ‘North Korea rocket: International reaction’, BBC News, 12 December 2012, [2] ‘North Korea’s missile programme’, BBC News, 12 December 2012, |
test-politics-epvhbfsmsaop-pro02b | This ‘injustice’ needs to be weighed against the effects of the policy. If you prohibit celebrities from participating in party-political campaigns, commit an injustice against the celebrities. You violate the right to self-expression of the celebrity. Everyone in a free society has the right to express their political views; indeed, this is something we hold to be a hallmark of such freedom. Celebrities should be no different, and should hold those same rights. Further, they cannot be said to have consented into such a loss of rights (given that not all chose the level of fame and power they find themselves with). Further, it is a bit melodramatic to suggest that people with influence ‘effectively have more votes’. By this metric, we would have to also prohibit the persuasive from participating in political campaigns. People have differences in their abilities to persuade others to follow their lead, and this is something that we simply have to take measures to ensure does not disproportionately impact upon any given party. |
test-politics-epvhbfsmsaop-pro02a | This is an unjust use of unelected power Politicians want endorsements because they know it will bring votes; it is estimated that Oprah’s endorsement of Obama in the Democratic Primary of 2008 brought an additional 1 million votes to Obama. [1] It is unjust for celebs to use their influence in this way. Celebrities have an ability to influence the political sphere that bears no necessary relationship with their knowledge of the subjects concerned, or qualifications otherwise to do so. Consequently, they represent an unelected, unaccountable pressure on the democratic system: they have been given power and influence, with no mechanism of checking that power, or way to prevent them from misleading the public (unlike, for example, political journalists, news channels and other sources of political information). This is principally unjust: the optimum democratic system is the one that holds the closest to the principle of “one person, one vote”, and attempts to ensure that those votes are as informed as possible. Celebrity involvement in politics is a hindrance to that, effectively handing the famous more votes than is their due. [1] Garthwaite, Craig, and Moore, Timothy J., ‘Can Celebrity Endorsements Affect Political Outcomes? Evidence from the 2008 US Democratic Presidential Primary’, Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 2012, |
test-politics-epvhbfsmsaop-pro01a | Personality politics is harmful to the democratic process Celebrity involvement in the political process may increase the extent to which politicians need to court media attention in order to promote their policies. Many people get their political information from ‘soft-news’ outlets [1] , i.e. entertainment channels and magazines that often focus on ‘celebrity gossip’. Shows such as Oprah Winfrey get millions of viewers many of whom don’t get news through other mediums and although soft news is the preferred format for a minority (10.2%) for a great many more it is in their top three. [2] The involvement of celebrities in the political sphere increases the power of “soft-news” over the political process: due to the wide reach of “soft-news” it is not possible to counter its effects using narrow-reach opinion pieces and policy analysis. Rather, politicians are forced either to package their ideas in a way acceptable to these magazines and talk shows (i.e. reduce the analysis; ‘dumb down’), for example Obama in 2009 became the first sitting president to appear on a late night comedy show; Tonight Show with Jay Leno, [3] or to counter attack by seeking celebrity endorsement of their own. This makes political debate increasingly shallow, and voters’ decisions correspondingly less well-informed. The harmful impacts upon our democratic process are two-fold: first, voters being less informed means they are less likely to truly be voting in a way that is aligned with their best interests or political beliefs; second, the debate is skewed towards ideas that can be conveyed in short ‘sound-bites’ and away from ideas that require more complicated discussion. [1] Drezner, Daniel W., ‘Foreign Policy Goes Glam’, The National Interest, Nov./Dec. 2007, [2] Prior, Markus, ‘Any Good News in Soft News? The Impact of Soft News Preferences on Political Knowledge’, Political Communication, Vol. 20, 2003, pp.149-171, p.151 [3] Baum, Matthew A., and Jamison, Angela, ‘Soft News and the four Oprah effects’, November 2011, |
test-politics-epvhbfsmsaop-con03b | This may well be a side-benefit of celebrity involvement in politics, however, the effect celebrities have on the promotion of minority interests is not decreased by their prohibition from party-politics. They can still engage in general advocacy and campaigning on specific issues important to them without endorsing parties or candidates. The policy-vote relationship that celebrities have with voters works in the opposite direction than for politicians: where politicians must choose the policies they believe will attract voters, celebrities first attract voters and then advocate for particular policies. This adds to the danger of celebrity participation; a celebrity may be endorsing a particular candidate because of that candidate’s support on that issue. Fans of the celebrity who may be influenced by the endorsement may have no interest or even be opposed to the issue for which the celebrity is endorsing the candidate. This would make celebrity endorsements as a result of minority issues positively counterproductive. |
test-politics-epvhbfsmsaop-con03a | Celebrity involvement can highlight minority interests There exists a problem with regards to advocacy for minority issues within mainstream political movements. This motion would exacerbate that problem. Voters tend to base their decisions on key issues (things like education, the state of the economy, healthcare policy etc.). Whilst they may care about more marginal issues (e.g. gay rights, religious freedoms, environmental issues), they are often unwilling to sacrifice something they think has a greater impact on them for something that has a lesser impact. Minority issues suffer particularly here: by their very nature, there are fewer people who feel directly affected than there are people who feel indirectly affected or indifferent. Consequently, there are never a great enough proportion of votes that could be gained by a political party concentrating on these particular issues in a way which might be detrimental. See, for example, the public reaction in the UK to Cameron’s position on gay marriage: whilst most people feel that gay marriage should be allowed [1] , Cameron has not received a political boost as a result of this decision, but rather, has faced hostility from those who believe it is a “distraction” [2] , where they would rather he focused on issues like the economic crisis. [1] ‘Same-sex marriage in the United Kingdom’, Wikipedia, accessed 10 September 2012, [2] Telegraph editor, ‘Gay marriage: A pointless distraction’, The Telegraph, 26 July 2012, |
test-politics-epvhbfsmsaop-con02b | If the celebrity involvement can be proven to be otherwise harmful or unjust then it is immaterial that it impacts one side more than another: if it really does advance the cause of some more than others, if we can prove this is an unfair and therefore illegitimate advantage, it should be stopped. Similarly, we place limits on the relationship between big businesses and politicians, with laws that attempt to prevent corruption and undue influence. |
test-politics-cpegiepgh-pro02b | This has simply not been the case; since the launch of the Euro in 2002, London has consolidated her position as the financial centre of Europe. There is no need for Britain to join the Euro, she can profit from the financial influence London exercises while her mainland European counterparts use the single currency. As explained by Anthony Browne in The Euro: Should Britain join?, “at the launch of the Euro…that what were effectively regional financial centres –such as Paris- lost any reason for their existence and saw all European business drain away to Europe’s real financial centre, London.”1 Moreover, Britain is not wholly reliant on her European counterparts for business; “More people work in financial services in London than live in Frankfurt, its only likely rival. We have the English language and a time zone that means we can deal with New York and Tokyo in the working day.”1 If the British economy does not even need mainland Europe for business, even less it needs the single currency. 1Browne, A., 2001, "The Euro: Should Britain Join". page 93 |
test-politics-cpegiepgh-pro01a | Britain will lose economically if she stays out of the Euro over the long term. Joining the European single currency (the Euro) may appear unfavourable to Britain, but the negative effect of not joining would be more unfavourable. As explained by Anthony Browne in The Euro: Should Britain join?, "Euroland businesses are now…able to raise money for investment across the entire single currency zone, making it easier and cheaper. British companies, on the other hand, are still largely constrained to drumming up money from within Britain if they want to expand.”1Eurozone businesses find it easy to raise money, for they are spared currency conversion charges. The carmaker Nissan has previously told the British government that eliminating exchange rate risk by siting production in the same currency zone as its sales market will be its preferred option’2. 1Browne, A., "The Euro: Should Britain Join?", Page 89 2Morgan, O. "Nissan tells Blair 'join Euro'", 27 May 2011, The Guardian |
test-politics-cpegiepgh-pro01b | Britain does not have to become a part of the Euro to benefit from the EU economically. Britain has already struck the right balance between EU involvement and managing her own economy. "We are already part of the single market, and getting rid of the barriers put up by having separate currencies will make little difference. It was the removal of all the other barriers– such as tariffs – that mattered far more. The economies of scale are already here – from the EU’s almost 300 million consumers – having an effect.”1.Accepting the Euro could very well upset this balance with very negative effects; “Staying out, we have the advantage of a more flexible economy, more adaptable labour market, and lower taxes.” Therefore, it is more advantageous for Britain to keep the pound whilst maintaining EU membership. 1Browne, A., 2001, "The Euro: Should Britain Join", Page 91 |
test-politics-cpegiepgh-con03b | The Queen's head on British money will not be entirely lost. This nostalgia is simply ridiculous; the head of Queen Elizabeth II has only appeared on English banknotes "since 1960, having been made impossible by the nationalisation of the Bank of England in 1946."1 (Moreover, Scotland and Northern Ireland have never had the reigning monarch's head on their banknotes; and so no change will incur. The Queen's head will be lost from banknotes but "By contrast, we have had the monarch's head on our coins since the Middle Ages, and that will continue. Countries in Euroland can put a symbol- such as their monarch- on one side of each coin."1 The attitude expressed alongside is irrational fear of change. 1 Anthony Browne, The Euro: Should Britain join? Page 83. |
test-politics-cpegiepgh-con01b | No; Unemployment will rise if Britain stays out of the single currency. Britain's indecision over joining the single currency has already discouraged foreign investors from doing business with her, and this will only worsen if she stays out, thus reducing the number of jobs there. Britain has to be in the single currency to retain a presence in the European business scene if she is to prosper and make any profit at all. As explained by Anthony Browne in The Euro: Should Britain join?; "Without access to the single currency zone, foreign investors who are here will move out, closing factories and businesses; new ones will set up in Euroland in preference to the UK." London's position as the European financial centre has already been depleted by Frankfurt and this situation will only deteriorate if Britain stays out of the Euro. The pound is no longer a source of hope for Britain. 1 Anthony Browne, The Euro: Should Britain join? Page 52 |
test-politics-cpegiepgh-con01a | For Britain to join the single currency is simply unthinkable; jobs will be lost The EU creates economic conditions that threaten jobs. As explained by Anthony Browne in The Euro: Should Britain join?, "Joining the Euro would damage the British economy with 'one size fits all' interest rates, and so destroy jobs."1 This is not merely a product of anti-EU propaganda created by the British tabloid press; The evidence speaks for itself; "In 2000, (Euro was launched 1st January, 1999) unemployment in Euroland averaged about 10 per cent, compared to under 6 per cent in the UK" Britain must also learn from the mistakes of history; "Past experience has already shown us that locking ourselves into inappropriate interest rates destroys jobs. After we joined the Exchange Rate Mechanism, 100,000 businesses went bankrupt and unemployment doubled before we were finally forced out in 1992." Repetition of this is to be avoided at all costs and by Britain staying out of the Euro. 1Browne, A., 2001, "The Euro: Should Britain Join?" |
test-politics-cpecfiepg-pro02b | The proposition vastly understates the negative impact a default has on the local economy. It is unrealistic to compare Greece with Argentina. As a member of the Eurozone, the developments within the Greek debt crisis have a huge impact on nations suffering from similar problems, as well as the Eurozone as a whole. Moreover, devaluing the Drachma would be nowhere near as beneficial as the proposition suggests. Greece is not rich in natural resources or industry and so boosting exports will not make a huge difference. Yes, a default would resolve the uncertainty about whether Greece will default and exit the Euro. However this new predictability would not be good; it would simply show investors that they cannot invest in Greece because they will lose their money. Ratings agencies are unlikely to consider Greece a safe investment for a long time so there will not be international investment.[1] [1] Pappa, Eppi: “Q&A: What happens if Greece leaves the euro?”, 14 May 2012, Al Jazeera, |
test-politics-cpecfiepg-con01b | It is not necessarily true that the whole banking sector in Greece would collapse. Given that the default would be orderly and take place within the context of the European Union, the ECB and European Commission would still provide substantial liquidity aid for Greek banks. Moreover it is not true that a devaluation of domestic currency necessarily leads to high inflation – this was not the case, for example, when Britain exited the European Exchange-rate Mechanism in 1992 and pursued a devaluation policy of the British Pound. [1] Lastly, evidence of recent governments that have defaulted suggests that even though some of the harms the opposition refer to may actualise, recovery generally follows fairly quickly, as was the case with Argentina, South Korea and Indonesia. [2] [1] Ruparel, Raoul and Persson, Mats: “Better off Out? The short-term options for Greece inside and outside of the euro”, June 2012, Open Europe, 2012 [2] Becker, Garry: “Should Greece Exit the Euro Zone?”, The Becker-Posner Blog, 20.5.2012, |
test-politics-cpecfiepg-con04b | Even in the long-term, continued Eurozone membership for Greece is not sustainable. The size of their total debt % GDP ratio is such that even if Greece were to recover (eventually) with the current austerity measures, Greece would always be susceptible to yet another debt crisis in the event of a future global or European recession. Eurozone membership denies Greece fiscal and monetary policy freedom required to face economic shocks to prevent this from happening. We thus see that in the long-term growth is more sustainable for Greece without the Euro. |
test-politics-ypppgvhwmv-pro02a | Compulsory voting broadens representation of disadvantaged groups Voter apathy is highest among the poorest and most excluded sectors of society. As the Institute for Public Policy Research highlight, “the higher the income a citizen enjoys, and the higher the educational qualifications attained, the more likely it is that he or she will turn out to vote”. Since they do not vote, the political parties do not create policies for their needs, which leads to a vicious circle of increasing isolation. By making the most disenfranchised vote the major political parties are forced to take notice of them and this would reduce political polarisation 1. An example of this is in the UK where the Labour party abandoned its core supporters to pursue ‘middle England’. Political parties are drawn towards those groups to whom favourable policies will be rewarded in the form of vote. Compulsory voting ensures that all stakeholders in society are proportionally considered in governmental policy. 1 William Galston, 'Mandatory Voting Would Loosen Partisan Gridlock' US News and World Report, July 8th 2010 |
test-politics-ypppgvhwmv-pro03b | Forcing the population to vote will not stop people expressing their wish not to vote. Tucker notes that in Australia 5% of eligible voters did not caste a valid vote. Most countries that use compulsory voting give voters a legal opportunity to abstain. For example, in Australia valid explanations might include being overseas, trying to vote but failing for some reason, or belonging to a religious order which prohibits voting ( Electoral Commission ). Moreover people who vehemently refuse to vote find a way to do so such as paying the fine straight away (for those who can afford to) or attending the polling station but submitting a blank ballot. McAllister et al (1992)1 conclude that compulsory voting has led to a higher level of non-votes because the only legal method of political protest is to spoil the ballot paper or leave it blank deliberately 2. However, in non-compulsory jurisdictions voters so motivated would boycott the ballot. Furthermore, forcing people to vote will lead to more meaningless votes. People who are forced to vote against their will won’t make a proper considered decision. At best they will vote randomly which disrupts the proper course of voting. Compared to countries that have no compulsory voting laws, in countries where such laws exist there is an increase in donkey votes (where voters simply chose the candidate at the top of the ballot), random votes, "just for the fun of it" votes, protest votes and abstentions. This does not contribute to improved legitimacy of the government. It merely allows the government to say 'because there is a 100% turnout, this government is 100% legitimate', which is clearly not the case. There is a reason why some people are less politically active. They neither know nor care about politics. How can their forced inputadd legitimacy to the mix? And this is before issues such as controversy about the aged in nursing homes being 'asissted' with their votes. 1. Mackerrassa and McAllister. "Compulsory voting, party stability and electoral advantage in Australia." 2. Laverdea 1991 |
test-politics-ypppgvhwmv-pro05a | It will reduce the power of special interest groups A benefit of compulsory voting is that it makes it more difficult for special interest groups to vote themselves into power. Under a non-compulsory voting system, if fewer people vote then it is easier for smaller sectional interests and lobby groups to control the outcome of the political process. A notable example would be the disproportionate influence of agriculture in policy making as seen in both European politics and well as American with enormous amounts of subsidies for farmers who represent a minute percentage of the population. 1 2 The outcome of the election therefore reflects less the will of the people (Who do I want to lead the country?) but instead reflects who was logistically more organized and more able to convince people to take time out of their day to cast a vote (Do I even want to vote today?). 1 Ira M. Sheskin and Arnold Dashefsky, "Jewish Population of the United States, 2006," in the American Jewish Year Book 2006, Volume 106, David Singer and Lawrence Grossman, Editors. NY: American Jewish Committee, 2006. 2: Mark Weber, Feb. 2009, 'A Straight Look at the Jewish Lobby', Institute for Historical Review (Accessed 10/06/2011) |
test-politics-ypppgvhwmv-pro01b | A democracy is based on the principle of respecting basic human rights, such as free choice. This principle is directly violated by compulsory voting. With many civil rights there is a choice to choose to engage in the activity or not. Voting has carries that option, citizens of a democracy have the choice to either vote or not, despite being encouraged to vote. It does not matter why a person chooses to vote or not, it is the fact of principle that they have the right to choose. Compulsory voting goes against such ideas of the freedom of choice, and on that grounds should not be compulsory. The proposition speaks of those who died for the right to vote, and respecting their sacrifice by voting. Unfortunately the proposition misconstrued the point of their sacrifice- to give us the freedom of choice. That right of choice must be upheld, as it is the cornerstone of a democratic society. Compulsory voting would be infringing upon that. |
test-politics-ypppgvhwmv-pro05b | The power of lobbying groups is a benefit to politics at large. Their ability to publicize issues that are important to specific interest groups are invaluable to the political process. Similarly, they are able to propel and sustain wider interest in the political agenda, ensuring oversight over public policy and recommending necessary changes. To reduce their power in favour of ‘less-interested’ voters will increase the influence of spin as presentation, not substance, becomes more important. It will further trivialise politics and bury the issues under a pile of hype. Furthermore, by removing incentives for political parties to mobilise their support, compulsory voting favours established parties over minor parties and independents, whose supporters tend to be more inherently motivated. |
test-politics-ypppgvhwmv-pro03a | It will cause more people to become interested in politics Compulsory voting increases the number of people who cast their vote 1. People who know they will have to vote will take politics more seriously and start to take a more active role. Compulsory voting will potentially encourage voters to research the candidates' political positions more thoroughly. This may force candidates to be more open and transparent about their positions on many complex and controversial issues. Citizens will be willing to inform themselves even about unpopular policies and burning issues that need to be tackled. Better-informed voters will, therefore, oppose a plan that is unrealistic or would present an unnecessary budget-drain. This means that such a system could produce better political decisions that are not contradicting each other, quite upon the contrary. 1 Peter Tucker, The median Australian voter and the values that influence their vote choice presented by the author at the 3rd European Consortium for Political Research Conference in Budapest, September 10, 2005. |
test-politics-ypppgvhwmv-con03b | The benefits obtained from compulsory voting cannot be gained from any of the strategies mentioned by the opposition. Compulsory voting can enhance a sense of community, as everyone is in it together. This can be especially helpful in bringing new people in to community life. It also forces the silent majority to think about elections which safeguards from extremism. |
test-politics-ypppgvhwmv-con01b | As noted elsewhere, forced attendance would lead to increased political awareness, and an abstention option would offer a 'none of the above'/'I don't mind or care' choice instead of people spoiling the ballot. Because the number of voters would increase, politicians would have to be active in engaging with the public and therefore become "more deserving of the public's trust". Citizenship classes don't negate the need for compulsory voting but should be used in conjunction to compulsory voting. If people are genuinely not interested in voting or politics, educating them in school would not change that fact. The education is likely to vary from school to school and is only likely to have an impact if the student likes the subject. Compulsory voting would force those parts of the population who are usually disinterested to voice some form of opinion- created a more balanced democracy. Besides, who pays for the education? Taxpayers. Who often don't want to vote. |
test-politics-ypppgvhwmv-con02a | Policing and financing the system is unmanageable If a large proportion of the population decided not to vote it would be impossible to make every non-voter pay the fine. For example, if just 10% of the UK voters failed to do so the government would have to chase up about £4 million in fines. Even if they sent demand letters to all these people, they could not take all those who refused to pay to court. Ironically, this measure hurts most those who the proposition are trying to enfranchise because they are least able to pay. The cost of policing this system will impact upon tax payers. The Government will need to expand and more civil servants positions will be needed to create, administer and enforce the processes. It is especially prudent that we look closely at the impact it would have financially on individual countries. For example, the US has more than ten times the voting population of Australia “the financial cost for the two nations is vastly different. Since it costs the Australian government roughly five dollars for every ballot they evaluate, the greater number of voters in America would exponentially increase bureaucratic costs".1 1 Iowaprodigal |
test-politics-ypppgvhwmv-con03a | There are alternatives that tackle the real causes of voter disengagement Compulsory voting hides the problem which is causing people to be disengaged from politics; it allows politicians to ignore measures that can tackle the true causes of political disengagement. States instead should seek on strategies that will eliminate barriers to voting along with reducing the costs of turnout for its citizens, weekend voting, making election days a holiday, simple registration procedures, reforms such as to the party finance rules to widen the playing field, and the creation of a centralized, professional bureaucracy concerned with all aspects of election administration. In the UK, for example, adopting a more proportional system will allow for a political spectrum rather than the three major parties that currently dominate. |
test-politics-ypppgvhwmv-con02b | Because mandatory voting means that no large campaign funds are needed to goad voters to the polls, the role of money in politics will decrease. Compulsory voting will reduce spending such as campaign spending on voter turnout. It can also lead to a reduction in the incentive for negative advertising “as there is little to be gained from tactics aimed purely at persuading opposition voters to stay at home” 1. States that sanction fines usually sanction a very low fine, which even the poorest members can afford. Besides, government like the British seem to manage speeding fines just fine, there is no reason to think they wouldn’t be able to manage non-voting fines. However, other measures such as disenfranchisement (Belgium) and denial of public services (Peru, Greece) can be used, which don’t incur a cost for the individual. 1 Electoral Reform Society |
test-politics-pgsimhwoia-pro01a | It is just to redistribute migrants It is an accident of geography, or history, simple bad luck that has resulted in some countries getting large numbers of immigrants while many others get none. The first developed country on migrant routes get large numbers as those wishing to seek asylum have to apply in the first safe country. Similarly those countries next to conflict zones, or places affected by natural disasters, get very large influxes of migrants who hope to return home as soon as possible; there are more than 1.1 million refugees from Syria in Lebanon [1] a country of less than 6million. It is right that there should be a mechanism to help even out the burden of migrants and that rich developed countries should be those who pay that cost. [1] ‘Syria Regional Refugee Response’, data.unhcr.org, , accessed 19th August 2015 |
test-politics-pgsimhwoia-pro01b | While the burden of migrants should be shared the burden is not just monetary. Developed countries should not be able to dodge their responsibility to take in large numbers of migrants simply because they can pay poorer countries to take migrants in their place. Being burdened due to geography may be unfair but so is being burdened because you are poor and can be bribed. A truly just system would redistribute migrants within the developed world rather than shifting the burden to those who are still developing. |
test-politics-pgsimhwoia-pro03a | Migrants can benefit developing countries Migrants can bring the benefit of their industriousness to developing countries. When there are crises it is the middle professional classes who are most likely to migrate as they have the resources and knowledge with which to do so. When it comes to economic migrants it is often the educated youth who are looking for better work opportunities; skilled workers make up 33% of migrants from developing countries despite being only 6% of the population. [1] Developed countries already have a highly educated and skilled population, and will take in those migrants with skills they need. Developing countries on the other hand have a much less well educated population so derive more benefit from the influx of skilled workers to help them develop thus counteracting the ‘brain drain’. [1] Docquier, Frédéric, Lohest, Olivier, and Marfouk, Abdeslam. ‘Brain Drain in Developing Countries’, The World Bank Economic Review. Vol. 21, No. 2, pp. 193–218, p.198 |
test-politics-pgsimhwoia-con03b | Part of the payment of aid would be to ensure that migrants can't simply set off in an attempt to get back into a developed country. The aid would fund sufficiently good living conditions to encourage the migrants that staying where they are is a better option than attempting another harsh and dangerous journey. Moreover a part of the aid would be to ensure monitoring of migrants who have just arrived in the developing country to ensure they remain. |
test-politics-pgsimhwoia-con01b | An argument based upon ‘historical responsibility’ and capacity to absorb migrants runs into several problems. First not all developed nations bear historical responsibility for colonialism; should Switzerland and Denmark bear the same historical responsibility as the UK and France? What about countries that were themselves essentially colonies; Finland and Czech Republic? Identifying what counts towards this responsibility is tricky and very open to argument, and even more so working out how many migrants a certain responsibility should result in taking in. Capacity to absorb migrants is also difficult to judge. A country may have a lot of migrants already showing tolerance but it could also mean that country is already at the point where it can take no more with racism and discrimination rising as a result. |
test-politics-pgsimhwoia-con02a | Large influxes of migrants will create conflict in unprepared countries It is regrettable that difference is a major source of conflict among humans with differences in religion and ethnicity having regularly been the source of conflicts household human history. While many countries have traditions of accepting migrants others don't and even those that are tolerant may not be prepared for a large influx of migrants. This policy would bring about such an influx in those countries that take up the offer of aid for taking in migrants. A new community is likely to be labelled the ‘other’ by the natives of that country and be blamed for taking jobs and putting pressure on services. This happens because the newcomers are easy to blame and have few influential voices in the country to speak out in their defence. Places with existing large migrant communities are less likely to experience anti immigrant hostility. Thus in India Delhi with 38.4% of the population immigrants (not just international) has less conflict thant Mumbai with 26.5%, and in the US New Mexico with a 45% Hispanic population has less anti-Hispanic sentiment than Florida with 21%. [1] [1] ‘Causes of Conflict’, University of North Carolina, accessed 20 August 2015, |
test-politics-pgsimhwoia-con01a | Developed countries have a greater responsibility to take in migrants Developed countries have a responsibility to take in large numbers of migrants. There are several reasons for this. First they have a historical responsibility resulting from a legacy of colonialism, imperialism, and industrialisation that benefited the developed world at the expense of the developing world. This helped create the inequalities in the world that drive migration so developed countries should accept that a greater responsibility for migrants is the price. Second developed countries have a much greater capacity to absorb migrants than developing countries. Developed countries have more jobs, and the ability to create more through using the state’s financial resources to increase investment. They already have the legal framework for large numbers of migrants; laws that ensure equality and fair treatment regardless of religion or ethnicity. And in many cases they already have sizeable migrant communities (with some exceptions such as Japan) that help create a culture of tolerance that embraces the diversity migrants bring. |
test-politics-pgsimhwoia-con02b | Whether a country is developed or not is not necessarily a good indicator of if a country is prepared for a large number of migrants. Nor is whether a country has large numbers of immigrants already; Israel is a country made by immigration yet has still seen anti immigrant riots. [1] In order to prevent social conflict it would be far better to have migrants in countries with a similar culture to their own thus migrants from an Arabic nation would be repatriated to an Arabic country that is participating in the aid scheme. Of course no two countries culture is the same but it should be possible to find cultures with more similarity than the developed country. [1] Greenwood, Phoebe, ‘Israeli anti-immigration riots hit African neighbourhood of Tel Aviv’, The Telegraph, 24 May 2012, |
test-politics-mtpghwaacb-pro02b | The public sector being paid extra is something that is acceptable and necessary within society. Workers within the public sector often fulfill roles in jobs that are public goods. Such jobs provide a positive externality for the rest of society, but would be underprovided by the free market. For example, education would likely be underprovided, particularly for the poorest, by the free market but provides a significant benefit to the public because of the long term benefits an educated populace provides.In healthcare the example of the United States shows that private providers will never provide to those who are unable to afford it with nearly 50million people without health insurance.1 Although the average pay received by government employees tends to be higher, the peak earnings potential of a government position is significantly lower than that of other professions. Workers who chose to build long term careers within the public sector forgo a significant amount of money, and assume a heavier workload, in order to serve the needs of society and play a part in furthering its aspirations. As such, and owing to the fact that the people who do these jobs often provide economic benefit beyond what their pay would encompass in the private sector, it makes sense that they be paid more in the public sector. This is because their work benefits the people of the state and as such the state as a whole benefits significantly more from their work.2 1. Christie, Les, “Number of people without health insurance climbs”, CNNmoney, 13 September 2011, 2. “AS Market Failure.” Tutor2u. |
test-politics-mtpghwaacb-pro02a | Collective bargaining leades to pay crises in the public sector The public sector is often significantly overpaid. The workers within the public sectors of Western liberal democracies often get paid more than people of equal education and experience who are employed in the private sector. In the United States there is a salary premium of 10-20 percent in the public sector. This means that there is likely a waste of resources as these people are being paid more than they should be by the government.1 The reason this happens is that collective bargaining means that workers can often, through the simple idea that they can communicate with the government and have a hand in the decision making process, make their demands much more easily. Further, governments in particular are vulnerable during negotiations with unions, due their need to maintain both their political credibility and the cost effectiveness of the services they provide. This is significantly different to private enterprise where public opinion of the company is often significantly less relevant. As such, public sector workers can earn significantly more than their equally skilled counterparts in the private sector. This is problematic because it leads to a drain of workers and ideas from the private sector to the public. This is, in and of itself, problematic because the public sector, due to being shackled to the needs of public opinion often take fewer risks than the private sector and as such results in fewer innovations than work in the private sector. Biggs, Andrew G. “Why Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker Is Right About Collective Bargaining.” US News. 25/02/2011 |
test-politics-mtpghwaacb-pro03a | Collective bargaining undermines the democractic process The bargain between normal unions and private enterprise involves all parties being brought to the table and talking about the issues that they might have. However, the public sector represents the benefits of taxpayers, the politicians and the unions. The power that unions exercises means that negotiations can happen without the consent or involvement of the public sector’s stakeholders, the public. Even though power in a democracy is usually devolved to the politicians for this purpose, given the highly politicised nature of union negotiations, government office-holders who supervise union negotiations may act inconsistently with the mandate that the electorate have given them. This is because public unions often command a very large block of voters and can threaten politicians with this block of voters readily. This is not the same as a private business where officials aren’t elected by their workers. As such, collective bargaining rights for public union undermine the ability of taxpayers to dictate where their money is being spent significantly.1 “Union Bargaining Just A Dream For Many Gov Workers.” Oregan Herald. 27/02/2011 |
test-politics-mtpghwaacb-con03b | As discussed in the first proposition side argument, we can curtail the rights of individuals if we see that those rights lead to a large negative consequence for the state. In this situation proposition is happy to let some public sector workers feel slightly disenfranchised if it leads to fewer strikes and a situation where public sector workers are not paid too much, then the net benefit to society is such that the slight loss in terms of consistency of rights is worth taking instead.1 Davey, Monica, “Wisconsin Senate Limits Bargaining by Public Workers”, The New York Times, 9 March 2011, |
test-politics-mtpghwaacb-con01b | Even if collective bargaining leads to a workforce that is better able to communicate their ideas, it also leads to a situation as mentioned within the proposition arguments that results in unions having significantly more power over their wages and the government than in other situations. This is problematic because it leads to consequences where other unions feel that they should have the same powers as public unions and can hence lead to volatility in the private sector as a result. Further, given that often the negotiators that work for public unions are often aware of the political power of the public workers, negotiations with public unions often lead to strike action due to the fact that it is likely that the public will be sympathetic to the public workers. As such, allowing public workers to bargain collectively leads to situations that are often much worse for the public. Further, a lot of opposition’s problems with a lack of collective bargaining can simply be dealt with through implementing a more sensitive and understanding feedback process among workers. If a worker for example raises an issue which might affect a large number of workers, it should be fairly simple for public companies to take polls of workers to understand the gravity of the problem.1 Rabin, Jack, and Dodd, Don, “State and Local Government Administration”, New York: Marcel Dekker Inc 1985, p390 |
test-politics-mtpghwaacb-con02a | Collective bargaining is a counter to the creation of natural monopolies Many public industries exist as public industries because they are natural monopolies. For example, rail travel, which is often public in Western Liberal democracies, is a sector in which it makes no sense to build multiple railway lines across the country, each for a different company, when one would simply be more efficient. A similar case can be made for things such as public utilities. As such, these sectors often only have a single, often public company working in that sector. In the case where there is a monopolist, the workers in the sector often have no other employers that they can reasonably find that require their skills, so for example, teachers are very well qualified to teach, however, are possibly not as qualified to deal with other areas and as such will find difficulty moving to another profession. As such, the monopolist in this area has the power to set wages without losing a significant number of employees. Further, in many of these industries strike action will not be used, for example because teachers have a vocational, almost fiduciary relationship with their students and don’t wish to see them lose out due to a strike.1 “Monopoly Power.” |
test-politics-mtpghwaacb-con01a | Collective bargaining is a necessary aspect of democracy Collective bargaining is needed by people in any job. Within any firm there exist feedback structures that enable workers to communicate with managers and executive decision makers. However, there are some issues which affect workers significantly, but run against the principles of profit, or in this case the overall public good that the state seeks to serve. In this situation, a collection of workers are required. This is primarily because if suggested changes go against public interest then a single worker requesting such a change is likely to be rejected. However, it is the indirect benefit to public interest through a workforce that is treated better that must also be considered. But indirect benefit can only truly occur if there are a large number of workers where said indirect benefit can accrue. Specifically, indirect benefit includes the happiness of the workforce and thus the creation of a harder working workforce, as well as the prevention of brain drain of the workforce to other professions. When a single person is unhappy for example, the effect is minimal, however if this effect can be proved for a large number of people then an adjustment must be made. In order for these ideas to be expressed, workers can either engage in a collective bargaining process with their employer, or take more drastic action such as strikes or protests to raise awareness of the problem. Given that the alternate option is vastly more disruptive, it seems prudent to allow people to do collectively bargain.1 “Importance of Collective Bargaining.” Industrial relations. |
test-politics-oglilpdwhsn-pro02b | Reducing nuclear arms through New START will not compel others to stop pursuing nukes. The logic behind New START asserts that for every negative development in the area of nuclear proliferation the US needs to take a substantive step in the direction of nuclear disarmament. Ultimately, this approach effectively assumes that the possession of nuclear arms by the US (and Russia) is the incentive driving other nations to pursue nuclear weapons programs so as to be able to deter the United States. Not only is the assumption misplaced, but the policy will undermine deterrence and increase the likelihood of the use of nuclear weapons. It is foolish for the U.S. to take substantive steps toward nuclear disarmament at the same time the nuclear proliferation problem is growing worse. [1] The US should also not seek to improve relations by bribing them with New START at the cost of damaging US defence capabilities. [1] Spring, Baker. "Twelve Flaws of New START That Will Be Difficult to Fix". Heritage Foundation, The Foundry. 16 September 2010. |
test-politics-oglilpdwhsn-pro01b | New START is about national politics, not about the interests of the world or peace. As George Will argued in 2010: "The (Obama) administration's ardor for ratification is understandable, as is Russia's. The president needs a success somewhere; Russia needs psychotherapy. It longs to be treated as what it no longer is, a superpower, and it likes the treaty's asymmetries." [1] New START is about serving these domestic political interests, not securing peace, which it will not achieve as the inspections it puts in place are highly flawed, and there remains a high probability that Russia will cheat on the treaty and augment its nuclear capabilities regardless. All this treaty does is weaken the US, and a situation where one power weakens and the other grows stronger is not good for world peace. [1] Will, George. "Obama's time-warp focus on the New START treaty". Washington Post. 2 December 2010. |
test-politics-oglilpdwhsn-con03b | Agreements between the biggest nuclear powers are a good starting point towards disarmament. We cannot expect countries with a very small number of nuclear weapons to be disarming if the countries that have the vast majority of the world’s arsenal have not already begun the process of getting rid of their own. Even the reductions in New START will not bring either Russia or the United States anywhere near the level of any other nuclear power whose nuclear weapons number in the hundreds not thousands. Both countries would need to reduce a very long way before they lose deterrence against China, let alone North Korea. As former secretaries of state argue America has “long led the crucial fight to protect the United States against nuclear dangers… The world is safer today because of the decades-long effort to reduce its supply of nuclear weapons. As a result, President Obama should remain similarly courageous with New START.” [1] If linkage between the New START and Russian action on Iran exists then this would not always be a bad thing. Linkage has been used successfully in the past, and to the advantage of the U.S., for example Kissinger credited the peace agreement with North Vietnam in Paris in 1973 as being down to linkage which resulted in pressure on North Vietnam from the People’s Republic of China and the USSR. If linkage could be successful in bringing Russia onside in pressurizing Iran on the issue of nuclear weapons it could be to the benefit of the United States. [1] Kissinger, Henry A. ; Shultz, George P. ; Baker III, James A’ ; Eagleburger , Lawrence S. ; and Powell, Colin L. "The Republican case for ratifying New START". Washington Post. 2 December 2010. |
test-politics-oglilpdwhsn-con01b | Many of the worries about the impact of the treaty are much more of a political problem than problems with the treaty itself. U.S. missile modernization in particular is still up to the President and Congress to sort out the funding between them – the restrictions are minor. [1] Worries about the impact on missile defense are also a red herring. Missile defense is not aimed at Russia and the United States simply needs to make sure that its defenses are obviously aimed at who it says they are aimed at: rogue states such as Iran and North Korea. Regarding other defence capabilities, the New START Treaty preserves America’s ability to deploy effective missile defenses, and simply prevents it from being effective enough to undermine deterrence, something which Russia would be right in worrying about if the United States had any intention of building such a comprehensive missile defence. The prohibition on converting existing launchers will have little impact on the United States as the military believes that such conversion would be more expensive and less effective than building new purpose built defensive missiles. [2] Finally if Russia did exercise its right to withdraw then both parties would be in no worse a position than they would have been without the new treaty and could simply restart negotiations. [1] Spring, Baker. "Twelve Flaws of New START That Will Be Difficult to Fix". Heritage Foundation, The Foundry. 16 September 2010. [2] Kissinger, Henry A. ; Shultz, George P. ; Baker III, James A’ ; Eagleburger , Lawrence S. ; and Powell, Colin L. "The Republican case for ratifying New START". Washington Post. 2 December 2010. |
test-politics-grcrgshwbr-pro02a | Religious symbols cause problems in schools. As well as division in society in general, religious symbols are also a source of division within school environments. The Hijab causes schools many problems. It is potentially divisive in the classroom, marking some children out as different from the others and above the rules that the school enforces for everyone else. This may lead to alienation and bullying. Full headscarves may also be impractical or dangerous in some lessons, for example PE, swimming, or in technology and science lessons where machinery is being operated. In the same way, there have been discussions as to whether to ban the display of Crucifixes in public classrooms. Authorities in Italy have followed through with the ban saying that such a Christian symbol segregates those who are not Christian.1 1 'Decision due in Crucifix ban case', Times of Malta, March 17th 2011 , accessed on 24th July 2011 |
test-politics-grcrgshwbr-pro03b | Muslim women are not the only ones to feel a cultural division over their mode of dress. Most people are affected by the societal norms surrounding them. Fashion trends could be seen in exactly the same light as religious traditions. Banning head coverings is only likely to provoke a more extreme reaction among highly religious communities1. Framing laws to ban only Islamic forms of dress could be considered an attack on one religion. Feeling under attack could cause the Islamic community to close off into itself. They could set up religious schools where their children can dress as they want them to and not mix with children from other faiths. These effects could never be good for the integration of society and would further the influence of extremists. Internationally, the perceived attack on Islamic values would inflame wider Muslim opinion, feed conspiracy theories and add to the dangerous feeling that there is a clash of civilisations. 1 'France Bans Burqas: A Look At Islamic Veil Laws In Europe', Huffpost World, 4th April 2011 , accessed on 24th July 2011 |
test-politics-grcrgshwbr-pro05a | Western societies are secularly focused Many societies are founded on secular values that do not permit the sponsorship of any religion by the state. British society aspires to this and has consciously acted to separate religion from state authority with many organisations such as the National Secular Society encouraging the suppression of any religious expression in public places.1 In this climate it is important that all citizens of the state are seen as equal. If some dress differently to others, deliberately identifying themselves as members of one religion, this can harm the unity and ethos of the state. This holds particularly true for institutions of the state like schools and government offices. In this way, it is possible to deduce that religious symbols are detrimental to the secular and equality focused identity of Western society. 1 'UK: One Law for all and the National Secular Society Back Bill that Aims to Curb Sharia Courts', 11th June 2011 , accessed on 23rd July 2011 |
test-politics-grcrgshwbr-pro01a | Many symbols are seen as a symbol of oppression on women. Religious symbols are seen to, in some cases, increase the equality divide between genders. As an example, the Muslim Hijab is considered by some as a very powerful symbol for the oppression of women, particularly in countries such as Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan where it is compulsory. Therefore, when it is worn in Western countries that encourage democracy and equality, the wearing of the Hijab is seen as almost counter-productive to the goals of democratic society. For this reason Belgium has recently banned the wearing of the full Muslim veil, much like France in 2010.1 Often Muslim dress rules for women are seen as more severe than those for men. Inequality between men and women is a form of discrimination and liberal societies should fight all forms of discrimination. 1 ' Belgian ban on full veils comes into force', BBC News Europe, 23rd July 2011, accessed on 23rd July 2011 |
test-politics-grcrgshwbr-pro01b | Religious symbols are not seen as oppressive by those who choose to wear them. Many Muslim women view the veil as a means to protect their modesty and privacy. Just as we would not force any women to be seen in public in her underwear if she did not feel comfortable doing so, why should a woman be forced to show her hair if she does not want to? Modesty is a personal judgement call; some are comfortable in the smallest bikini while others prefer a lot more clothing. No one but the woman herself should make that decision. In fact, concerning the ban of the veil in Belgium, Muslim women have immediately challenged it and regard the ban as discriminatory.1 1 'Belgian ban on full veils comes into force', BBC News Europe, 23rd July 2011 , accessed on 23rd July 2011 |
test-politics-grcrgshwbr-pro05b | Even though the wearing of religious symbols could be a part of that specific religions' culture and practice, it must be remembered that Western society and culture brands itself as secular and, therefore, should take precedence over clashes with minority cultural practices. In Britain there has been controversy over movements to include Sharia Law in the British legal system, which ties in with this same argument of culture clashes concerning religious methods.1 Essentially, the question arises as to how far is tolerance for different cultural practices detrimental for the maintenance of a secular British culture and state. 1 Abul Taher, 'Revealed: UK's first official sharia courts', The Sunday Times, 14th September 2008 , accessed on 23rd July 2011 |
test-politics-grcrgshwbr-pro04b | Deciding what people can and can’t wear should not be the responsibility of schools. Enforcement may be potentially simple but only at the cost of creating a conflict between schools and their Muslim pupils and staff. |
test-politics-grcrgshwbr-pro03a | Religious symbols cause division within Western society. Religious symbols can be seen as possible tools for fuelling division within society. When some women wear the Hijab it creates pressure on other Muslim women to also cover their heads. Pressure comes both socially from wanting to look like other women in their community and religiously from imams and family leaders pressing for observance. As such, Muslims themselves are divided and religious oppression against women is internalized.1 Approving of Muslim head coverings in society cements the Hijab as an essential tenet of Islam, in the minds of non-Muslims as well as believers. However, many different schools of Islam exist and as on other issues, they often disagree how to interpret the Koran's dress prescriptions. Moderate interpretations accept modest forms of modern dress while severe interpretations require full covering with the Burka or similar veil. Banning the veil furthers the cause of moderate interpretations and prevents the entrenchment of severe interpretations. 1 Rumy Hassan, 'Banning the hijab', Workers Power 283 February 2004, accessed on 24th July 2011 |
test-politics-grcrgshwbr-pro04a | A ban would be simple to enforce. A ban would be simple to create and enforce. Religious symbols are for the most part meant to be shown therefore it is simple for police or authorities to check that someone is not wearing them. There are many societies that have had bans on a religious symbol in public buildings, for example in France where there is a ban on religious symbols in schools has been in force since 2004. In France the ban is made even easier to enforce by restricting it to 'conspicuous' religious apparel.1 Moreover when the ban is only when entering public buildings it can be enforced by the teacher, or the building's security guards rather than being an issue for the police to deal with. 1 BBC News, 'French scarf ban comes into force', 2 September 2004 , accessed 28/8/11 |
test-politics-grcrgshwbr-con01b | A ban on religious symbols would not be targeting the whole religious group. It would highlight the problems of symbols, such as the veil or Kirpan, within the boundaries of society. At the end of the day, full Muslim veils can be used as a disguise and, therefore, could pose a s a potential problem to the general population of people.1 If hundreds were people were killed by someone wearing a veil, would people be defending it then? In this way, it is the same for people wearing hoodies nowadays. A few tearaways and everyone socially brands them as criminals, or "chavs." This scares people, especially the elderly and as such poses a risk not just to their health, but also to their safety. As a result, the religious symbols such as full veils should be banned due to safety concerns. 1 'Belgian committee votes for full Islamic veil ban', BBC News, 31st March 2010 , accessed 24th July 2011 |
test-politics-grcrgshwbr-con02a | Religious symbols are personal, therefore, they should not matter to others. At the end of the day, the wearing of religious symbols is the choice of the individual. Many have considered intervention in the practice of religion and symbolism as an intrusion into privacy and individuality. The recent bans on the full Muslim veil, particularly in Belgium, have been criticised for causing those who feel they have an obligation to wear it to be ostracised and forced to be confined within their own home.1 1 'Belgian ban on full veils comes into force', BBC News Europe, 23rd July 2011 , accessed on 23rd July 2011 |
test-politics-grcrgshwbr-con04a | It is their culture and religion. Religions themselves tend to encompass their own distinctive culture and, to many of their members, this culture and its methods comes before anything secular. For this reason, Muslims should be allowed to wear personal items as it states in the ruling of their religious book to do so. Had a particular garment been required in the Christian religious book - The Bible - then no doubt those stout Christians would follow this particular ruling. The question is, would it be wrong to take away something close and meaningful to these religions? Surely, a religious symbol or method is purely personal, and, therefore, banning such symbols would be an intrusion into their individuality.1 1 Jessica Shepherd, 'Uniform Dissent', The Guardian, 9th October 2007 , accessed on 24th July 2011 |
test-politics-grcrgshwbr-con03a | If you ban one thing, you have to ban lots of things. Every religious symbol should be treated equally so as not to cause discrimination. It's just not viable to ban one symbol. If you ban something, for example, as sacred and religious as the Muslim veil, people will then start rallying cries for other things to be banned. At the end of the day, if the Government feels that it is in the best interests of society not to ban the veil, then we have to believe them. Really if one thing is banned then the uproar that would happen would have significantly worse consequences than before the ban. There have been worries about the banning of the Sikh Kirpan because outsiders regard it as a possible weapon and a danger to people in public places.1 However, in the Sikh perspective, the Kirpan is a sacred symbol very similar to other religions' symbols. 1 'Timeline: The Quebec kirpan case', CBC News Online, 2nd March 2006, accessed on 25th July 2011 |
test-politics-grcrgshwbr-con04b | That the state is secular does not diminish the right to freedom of religion is enshrined in the UN charter, that all states have signed up to, and considered by many to be a basic human right.1 Some religions require special diets, others prayer at specific times. Why shouldn't a religious mode of dress receive as much protection as these other aspects of religious freedom? Surely equality in society is most accurately presented through allowing each individual, including their religious beliefs and modes of expression, to practice their religious traditions without hindrance. 1 'Declaration On The Elimination Of All Forms Of Intolerance And Of Discrimination Based On Religion Or Belief', 1981 Resolution of the UN Charter , accessed on 23rd July 2011 |
test-politics-dhwem-pro02b | There is no guarantee of the quality of contracted soldiers often resulting in less being done per soldier. The competitive-business nature of private contractors includes cost reduction as well as profit maximisation, which leads to the recruitment of cheaper, less experienced and ill-prepared staff as well as the use of cheaper and poorer equipment. As no standardised training is in place, the quality of the hired men is never known and may be incompatible with the training of traditional forces and therefore unsustainable. The result of this is in the long run to push up the cost as work that PMCs should have done has not been done to the right standard. |
test-politics-dhwem-pro02a | PMCs give value for money Mercenaries are a cost efficient way of fighting. Although expensive to hire, the government does not have to cover the cost of training, housing, pensions or healthcare. Mercenaries, unlike regular troops, are only paid for the days on which they are used. Outsourcing when necessary will reduce the cost of the force. For example, the US army is around a third smaller than it was in the 1991 Gulf War (PBS News Hour, 2004). This saves taxpayers’ money and avoids the build up of conventional troops, which, in the past, has contributed to the development of arms races which can be cripplingly expensive as shown by the collapse of the Soviet Union. |
test-politics-dhwem-pro01b | PMCs are ineffective as they do not fit in with a disciplined army. PMCs are not bound by the same rules and standards of conduct and accountability as conventional troops. When problems arise it is often unclear whether army representatives or PMCs should be held responsible. Moreover, the lack of regulation means that there is no means to ensure mercenaries breaking laws are disciplined. Currently most mercenaries can operate outside martial law with relative freedom. Some of the worst offences at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq were committed by “privatised interrogators” (Hersh, 2004) who are yet to be punished. |
test-politics-dhwem-pro04a | PMCs attract less attention and suspicion and can carry out their role more effectively. Mercenaries often arouse less hostility amongst civilians than soldiers fighting for national armies. In ethnic conflict they are perceived as less partisan. The fact that civilians to some extent do not connect mercenaries with a particular ideological cause, invasion or civil war makes them ideal for protecting safe areas and policing reconstruction projects. For example, PMC Global Risk Strategies successfully guarded the Green Zone in Baghdad, the sealed off section inhabited by coalition staff. As they are mercenaries they can be fighting for the national or local government of where their mission even if they have a different paymaster. |
test-politics-dhwem-con01b | PMCs do not really have an interest in conflicts never ending. Like any other organisation in a conflict zone they lose men and material while carrying out their missions. They may wish there to be an environment where they can still be useful but this does not mean stoking a conflict. Even if PMCs were helping to increase conflict to increase their own business it would still only be a very small factor in any conflict. |
test-politics-dhwem-con04a | The role of PMCs has had a negative effect on traditional militaries and their operations. Soldiers trained at high expense by the state may leave for the greater income of private employment, reducing the power of the state’s military and bolstering the attraction of PMCs. PMCs also have a much more relaxed, business-like attitude to conflict. Being unregulated gives them a freedom to work outside of the law to an extent, using illicit practices such as torture and bribery which goes unnoticed. However, these practices strengthen the morale and line the purses of “the enemy”, such as warlords or the Taliban in Afghanistan, putting the militaries they are fighting alongside in danger. |
test-politics-dhwem-con01a | PMCs have an interest in conflict. ncreased reliance on mercenaries is destabilising in the long term. It allows invaders and local governments to feel that they can get away with not providing sufficiently trained or numerous security forces because there are men on the ground. It also means that the most influential actors, large multi-national companies, no longer have to pressure governments so hard to provide security guarantees for everyone because they can buy their own. That leaves those without influence or money high and dry. This then leads to a proliferation of armed forces in the country, some working for the central government, others for local governments and some for private individuals and firms. These PMCs are hired provide security and to help create stability yet that is not where their interests lie. If the country returns to stability they are out of a job so it is in their interest to keep an unstable situation unstable to result in more work. (Wennmann, 2008) |
test-politics-eppghwlrba-pro02b | Guns don’t kill people – people kill people. Restricting gun ownership will do nothing to make society safer as it is the intent of the criminal we should fear, and that will remain the same whatever the gun laws. In the vast majority of crimes involving firearms, the gun used is not legally held or registered. Many of illegal weapons are imported secretly from abroad, or converted from replica firearms rather than being stolen from registered owners. |
test-politics-eppghwlrba-pro03b | Shooting is a major sport enjoyed by many law-abiding people, both in gun clubs with purpose-built ranges and as a field sport. These people have the right to continue with their chosen leisure pursuit, on which they have spent large amounts of money – an investment the government would effectively be confiscating if their guns were confiscated. In addition, field sports bring money into poor rural economies and provide a motivation for landowners to value environmental protection. While compensation could be given the cost would be huge; in the UK shootings value to the economy was £1.6billion in 2004. [1] [1] ‘£1,600,000,000 – the value of shooting’, Shooting Times, 27 September 2006, |
test-politics-eppghwlrba-pro01a | The only function of a gun is to kill The only function of a gun is to kill. The more instruments of death and injury can be removed from our society, the safer it will be. In the U.S.A. death by gunshot has become the leading cause of death among some social groups; in particular for African-American males aged from 12 to 19 years old. [1] Quite simply, guns are lethal and the fewer people have them the better. [1 ‘Study: Homicide leading cause of death among young black males, Jacksonville.com, 5 May 2010, |
test-politics-eppghwlrba-pro04b | There are substantial exceptions to that correlation, for example Japan has the world’s 5th highest suicide rate but very low gun ownership. [1] As the proposition concedes, the availability of firearms is not a direct cause of suicide and thus the restriction of availability of firearms can only have a marginal effect on the suicide rate. [1] |
test-politics-eppghwlrba-pro03a | Sports shooting desensitizes people to the lethal nature of firearms Shooting as a sport desensitises people to the lethal nature of all firearms, creating a gun culture that glamorises and legitimises unnecessary gun ownership. It remains the interest of a minority, who should not be allowed to block the interests of society as a whole in gun control. Compensation can be given to individual gun owners, gun clubs and the retail firearms trade, in recognition of their economic loss if a ban is implemented. |
Subsets and Splits