BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Personality politics is harmful to the democratic process

The accusation of ‘dumbing down’ is misguided: politicians will increasingly be able to reach a wider voter base if they are willing to repackage their ideas and policies, but this does not require ‘dumbing down’, simply a change in focus of the explanation. So not only is dumbing down not necessary, but politicians’ ideas are reaching more voters! For example, the ‘war on women,’ has gained considerable attention in the media, and this has given a platform for female celebrities like Eva Longoria, to participate in events like the Democratic National Convention[1]. Eva Longoria and politicians who feel that women are being unfair attacked in regards to their body are now having these issues highlighted. Having celebrities involved in political campaigns like Eva Longoria does not mean the campaign was ‘dumbed down’ it means that it was accessible to a larger audience because they understood what she was talking about.  Surely, that cannot be a bad thing. It should be remembered that those who consume this soft news will be much better informed and be consistent in voting than those who consume no news at all.[2] As a result they will be more likely to vote and soft news will give them some awareness of why they are voting even if a celebrity endorsement has some baring on that vote. [1] ‘Eva Longoria Speech Draws Cheers At Democratic National Convention’, Huffington Post, 6 September 2012, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/06/eva-longoria-speech-text_n_1852695.html [2] Baum, Matthew A., and Jamison, Angela, ‘ The Oprah Effect: How soft news helps inattentive citizens to vote consistently’, The Journal of Politics, Vol.68, No.4, November 2006, pp.946-959, p.955, http://ajamison.bol.ucla.edu/Oprah-Effect-2006.pdf
This is an unjust use of unelected power

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.
People will have less information about politicians’ manifestos and ideas.

This is not necessarily the case: there remains a diverse assortment of news sources, and with the explosion in size and quality of the blogosphere, people are increasingly accessing information from a wide range of sources. Thus it is decreasingly the case that space in the news can be conceived of as limited in this way. Further, providers of political analysis might find it easier to sell papers/shows to a wider audience when they can use a celebrity image or quote as well, resulting in a more, not less, informed population.
Celebrity involvement can act as a ‘gateway’ to get more people engaged in politics

There is no particular reason why someone who is interested in a particular politician-endorsing celebrity would choose to do political research. Given, in particular, the segregation of news, where magazines and blogs tend to specialise (on, say, politics or celebrity life) it is hard to see why crossover would occur. The internet, whilst it makes information more accessible, accentuates this problem: where you can skip from news item to news item so easily, you are less likely to read an in-depth piece of political analysis by your favourite celebrity if you are not, in the first place, interested in politics. Further, it is worth considering a balance of harms here: on the one hand you have a smaller, but better informed voter base (those interested in politics without celebrities), and on the other hand a larger but less well-informed voter base (assuming not all the people who see a celebrity endorsement and go on to vote do any research first). That former scenario, without the uninformed voters, is the most likely to lead to the best political outcome.
Celebrity involvement counters financial power to the benefit of the disenfranchised

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.
Celebrity involvement can highlight minority interests

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.
New member states are much poorer than the UK

Britain should give up the rebate in solidarity with the new member states. Most of the ten recent entrants to the EU are still struggling to overcome the legacy of communist rule and are much poorer than the previous 15 member states. In 2009 Bulgaria and Romania had less than half the average EU GDP per capita whereas the UK was about 120% EU average.[1] As one of the richest EU members, Britain has a moral responsibility to contribute its share of the money needed to allow the new member states to make a success of EU membership. It also has a self-interest in contributing to their economic development, for as they become richer their citizens will increasingly buy the services and media exports in which Britain specialises. Indeed, because the rebate is paid for by all member states the new member states will be contributing payments towards Britain’s rebate - clearly something which Britain cannot attempt to defend given the disparity in wealth. [1] Eurostat, ‘European economic statistics’, 2010, p.31
Giving up the rebate would mean better relations with the Europe Union

It is worth giving up the rebate to remove a constant source of tension and ill-feeling between Britain and its European partners. Until the rebate is abandoned, Britain will never be at the heart of Europe. This limits our ability to promote our other interests in Europe, as every argument always ends up back at the rebate, and weakens our moral authority. Denmark for example is similarly Euro sceptic but is fiercely opposed to the UK rebate and aims to scrap it during Denmark’s next EU Presidency in 2012.[1] Because preserving the rebate has always been the Prime Minister’s priority, every other British goal has been given up instead. This led to bad deals for Britain over the ERM, at Maastricht, and in 2002 when Tony Blair accepted a Franco-German agreement to leave the CAP unreformed until 2013. This is because Britain is inevitably on its own in any possible change to the rebate whereas on almost any other issue Britain has allies. So when Britain’s opponents can link the rebate to an issue Britain may be able to keep the rebate but will in other respects be on the losing side.[2] [1] Jensen, Arne Nis, ‘The UK rebate – or rethinking the EU budget?’, 2011, p.27 [2] Rennie, David, and Helm, Toby, ‘Blair is all alone in Britain’s EU rebate row’, 2005
Britain should not pay more than other countries

Britain’s rebate is completely justified. Without it Britain would pay far more into the EU than it ever received back. The UK government argues “Without the rebate, the UK's net contribution as a percentage of national income would be twice as big as France's, and 1.5 times bigger than Germany's.”[1] This is because most of the EU’s budget goes to pay for the costs of the Common Agricultural Policy and regional aid programmes. The UK’s farming sector is a very small part of the economy, and very few of its regions count as poor in Europe-wide terms, so Britain receives little funding back from the EU. Meanwhile as a result of new members joining the EU development funding has been taken away from poorer areas of Britain, many of which will no longer be eligible, to be redirected to Eastern and Central European countries which need it much more,[2] Britain’s net contribution to the EU budget will go up .The rebate recognises this and returns two-thirds of the UK’s net EU contribution (payments less receipts) every year. Even with the rebate, the UK is still the second biggest net contributor (proportional to population) of all the EU states. Over the past ten years Britain has contributed 2½ times as much to the EU budget as France has[3] - and without the rebate it would have been 15 times as much! [1] BBC News, ‘EU budget commissioner calls for UK rebate to end’, 2010 [2] European Union Committee, ‘Future Financing of the European Union’, 2005, p.154 [3] The Economist, ‘About a rebate’, 2005
The rebate could never be regained

Margaret Thatcher fought for four years to win the rebate for Britain, famously wielding her handbag at EU summits until it was agreed. Giving it up is a clear betrayal of Thatcher’s legacy and shows the present government’s unwillingness to stand up for Britain’s interests in Brussels. With the situation now different due to there being more members there is no chance of any future British Prime Minister being able to repeat Mrs Thatcher’s achievement of 1984, so once the rebate is given up, it can never be regained.
The Rebate is not justified

While the UK is the only country to have so far received a rebate the Commission pointed out that the Fontainbleu agreement was based on the principle that ‘….any Member State sustaining a budgetary burden which is  excessive in relation to its relative prosperity may benefit from a correction at the appropriate time.’[1] This could clearly apply to many other countries apart from Britain, Germany and other countries could therefore ask for a rebate if they wish. While there is no other compensation mechanism like the rebate there are lump sum payments to the Netherlands and Sweden[2] while Netherlands, Sweden, Germany and Austria all have reduced rates of the European portion of VAT,[3] and the same states also pay less towards the rebate.[4] [1] Patterson, Ben, ‘The UK rebate issue’, p.2 (link downloads pdf) [2] Europa, ‘Where does the money come from?’, 2010 [3] Notenboom, Harry, ‘Structure and composition of the European Union own resources System’, 2009, p.17 [4] Ibid, p.15
The rebate should go in exchange for CAP reform

It might be worth giving up the British rebate for serious CAP reform, but it is unnecessary. If the CAP were abolished, Britain’s net payments to the EU would automatically be much smaller anyway, so the rebate (66% of the difference between the UK’s contributions to the EU and its receipts from it) would also shrink away to insignificance. CAP reform is worth doing for its own sake, and other EU countries will only agree to it once they realise that fact - offering up the rebate will make no difference. In any case, even if the rebate was a useful bargaining chip to be cashed in, there is no chance of individual countries such as France (or Eire, Spain, Greece, Italy, Belgium, etc.) agreeing to changing the CAP at present and any one country could prevent it, so Britain should hold on to the rebate card.
Enlargement could mean a new start

Britain can be on good terms with the East European states without dropping the rebate. Tony Blair in his deal on the rebate in 2005 gave a good deal to the new members of the EU which gave much more in structural funds to these members and at the same time reduced the British rebate.[1] [1] White, Michael, and Watt, Nicholas, ‘Blair clinches deal with offer of big rebate cut’, 2005
The Rebate makes membership acceptable to the British people

The rebate is bad for Britain and the EU as it leads to a complacency in the UK about the way the EU is run. Knowing that two-thirds of Britain’s net contribution will be returned anyway, British politicians and civil servants have not had to be serious about tackling waste and corruption at Brussels. Giving the rebate up would focus British minds much more clearly upon how the EU operates and would lead them to demand higher standards, both of the Commission and of their own elected representatives in the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament.
Europe needs to tackle much bigger problems

There may be bigger problems but the rebate is symptomatic of many of them. The reason for many of Europe’s problems is the determination for member states to take from the EU but not give and to haggle over everything rather than working together. The rebate is a prime example of one state believing that it deserves a small amount of money more than others and as such should be scrapped in order to help show that both big and small problems can be tackled through one state being willing to give up something important to it in return for others doing the same on other issues.
The Rebate is not justified

The British rebate is an undeserved anomaly - no other country has a similar arrangement to pay back part of its contribution to the EU budget. Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark and Sweden all make a bigger net contribution to the EU than Britain does (in proportion to the size of their populations),[1] yet they do get special treatment. Britain knew how the EU operated when it chose to join more than thirty years ago - if it didn’t like the structure of the budget, whereby rich countries pay more than poor ones, it could have stayed outside. In any case, a few billion Euros a year is a small sum to pay for access to a huge continent-wide market, the department for Business Innovation & Skills estimated that GDP in 2006 was 2.2% higher than it would have been without a single market,[2] in Britain this would be almost $50billion. [1] BBC News, ‘EU Budget’, 2007 [2] BIS, ‘The Benefits and Achievements of EU Single Market’
The rebate should go in exchange for CAP reform

It is worth giving the rebate up in exchange for serious reform of the EU budget, particularly of the Common Agricultural Policy which spends 40% of the EU’s budget[1] on 3% of its population.[2] The CAP not only wastes taxpayers’ money, it also raises the cost of food for European consumers, ruins the environment and prevents poor farmers in the developing world from trading their way out of poverty. Even in its own terms it is a disaster, for most CAP money goes to a small number of rich landowners running huge agribusiness estates, not to small-scale peasant farmers preserving the traditional rural way of life. If offering to give up the British rebate helps to get agreement on reform, then it is a sacrifice well worth making. Britain on the other hand favors using CAP more to protect the environment rather than encourage food production.[3] [1] Europa, ‘Budget 2011 in figures’, 2011 [2] Eurobarometer, ‘Europeans, Agriculture and the Common Agricultural Policy’, 2007, p.9 [3] Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, ‘The Common Agricultural Policy after 2013’, 2011
Enlargement could mean a new start

Britain should not alienate its natural allies among the new member states by insisting on the rebate. Like Britain, the new member states are largely economically liberal, anti-federalist regarding the future of the EU, and are pro-American in terms of foreign policy. As a result Britain is much more likely to be able to work with Poland, Czech Republic and Hungary on these issues.[1] They also recognise that Britain promoted the cause of their membership throughout the 1990s and appreciate its willingness to grant immediate free movement to their citizens who wish to work in Britain. In all these ways they are closer to Britain than to France or Germany, the two big states who have traditionally dominated EU decision-making. Enlargement presents Britain with a great opportunity to influence the future direction of Europe in partnership with these new states, but this opportunity will be lost if British insists on the rebate regardless of Central and Eastern European opinion. [1] Number 10, ‘Transcript of press conference given by the Prime Minister David Cameron at the EU Summit in Brussels on 17 December 2010’, 2010
The Rebate makes membership acceptable to the British people

The EU is a vast wasteful bureaucracy, for example creating a ‘House of European History’ for €14 million,[1] and is beyond reform. Anything to limit Britain’s contribution to this monster with pretensions to becoming a super-state is desirable. Many in the UK, between 35 and 65% of the population,[2] would prefer that we withdrew altogether, but if we can’t at least we should “starve the beast” by limiting the amount of money we give it to do harm with. Even if you think Britain should stay in the EU, you must recognise that the rebate is one of the only things that makes EU membership acceptable to ordinary people. Giving up the rebate is likely to swing British opinion strongly in favour of withdrawal. [1] Banks, Martin, ‘Parliament hits back at claims of ‘wasteful’ spending plans’, 2011 [2] Hannan, Daniel, ‘Would Britain vote to leave the EU?’, 2009
Europe needs to tackle much bigger problems

Those EU leaders who are most critical of the rebate are ignoring the EU’s real and serious problems by spending large amounts of time in rows with Britain over the rebate. Europe has immense problems such as persistent 10% unemployment, which has gone up as a result of the financial crisis, the rejection of the EU constitution by voters, the challenge of globalisation, the failure to make the single market in services work fairly, corruption and waste at Brussels, etc. This is even before the immense difficulties with the Euro which the Eurozone is currently suffering from. All these issues are much more important than the rebate for the future of the European Union. If Europe can once again become competitive economically then the financial gains for Europe will be much greater than persuading Britain to drop the rebate.
New member states are much poorer than the UK

Britain should not feel sorry for the new EU members and give up its rebate out of pity for them. They chose to enter the EU and accepted the terms of membership - including the rebate arrangements. Indeed, it could be argued that membership was not necessarily good for the former communist states - having escaped one bureaucratic and ideological superstate, they have now chosen to be ruled by another, exchanging Moscow for Brussels. EU membership will impose thousands of unnecessary regulations upon them and tie them to a “European social model” which is clearly failing in the western states - both these things could hold back their economic growth and leave them poorer than they could have been outside the EU. Even the development aid they will receive will largely be wasted because it has to be spent in ways Brussels demands rather than in locally productive investment. And if Britain did wish to be nice to the new member states, it could do so without giving up the principle of the rebate. Tony Blair agreed to alter the rebate in December 2005. Britain would not seek rebate payments linked to new member states agricultural and regional aid spending, but should keep the rebate in terms of spending of the original 15 EU countries who agreed .
Giving up the rebate would mean better relations with the Europe Union

Britain does not want to be at the heart of Europe - it wants to be in the EU, but not run by the EU. Even if the rebate went, the UK would remain outside any EU “core group” of countries, as it has chosen not to join the Schengen agreement on passport free movement, and to stay outside the Euro. Both these decisions have very wide political and popular support in the UK, and neither will be changed even if the rebate was weakly given away. So tensions will continue between Britain and its European partners, but at least by defending the rebate they will know that the UK is prepared to stand up for its interests and respect it.
The rebate could never be regained

When the rebate was agreed over twenty years ago, Britain was poor after decades of decline. In fact it was the third poorest state in the then European Economic Community (after Ireland and Greece)[1], so the size of its net contribution to the budget was clearly unfair. Now the UK is one of the EU member countries and the rebate is no longer justifiable in the way it was originally justified. The sums involved are small compared to the overall UK budget - much less than the margin of error in the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s tax and spending plans, in 2003 for example Gordon Brown had to borrow £10 billion more than expected.[2] It is partly (perhaps largely) because of Margaret Thatcher’s achievements in power that the UK is so strong economically, so agreeing that the rebate is no longer necessary is a tribute to her legacy, not a betrayal. [1] OECD, ‘1984, Gross domestic product: Per head, US $, constant prices, constant PPPs, OECD base year’, 2011 [2] Schifferes, Steve, ‘Chancellor to squeeze wages’, 2003
Obamacare is neither one thing nor the other; even his flagship policy shows that Obama is always the politician and never the leader that the US needs

The reality is fairly simple; Obama is a skilled politician, that is beyond dispute. However, he is also a respected constitutional scholar, the man who caught Bin Laden after eight years of Bush-bluster, who delivered the Democrats – and the American people - their holy grail of universal healthcare. Contrast this with a Republican leadership who either can’t remember their own policies or who seem to base them on assertions, such as the one made by Michelle Bachman that Jefferson and Mason, both of whom owned slaves, worked tirelessly to abolish slavery.[i] Mitt Romney the candidate the Rupublicans finally decided on is out of touch with ordinary voters, making gaffes such as saying his wife drives 'a couple of cadillacs'. The contrast could not be clearer; at least the president knows the difference between the War of Independence and the Civil War and cares about ordinary voters. [i] Roper, Richard, ‘Bachmann, Palin should just admit gaffes, then move on, Chicago Sun Times, 29 June 2011.