BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Independent States can suit their populations.

Compromise is not necessarily a bad thing; it prevents federal units from selecting extreme policies which could harm minority groups.1Moreover, the devolved power structure of federal states means that the decisions which have to be collective are normally in areas of collective interest, for example defence, where there is a "whole" which should have preference over individual federal units. Whilst different levels of federal arrangements will have different interests, this reflects their different functions and prevents any one function from being overridden completely. Finally, this argument ignores the comparative which includes the benefits of federation to the constituent units 1Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2010, 'Federalism,'
Federal governments often extend their powers and usurp local authority, especially if one or more federal units are disproportionately powerful.

Often decisions are forced on states by powerful neighbours. Examples include the South African policy of dumping crops in neighbouring states, Russia's brief war with Georgia and the United States' treatment of Latin America.1 Under the proposition they at least have the ability to influence and challenge decisions that are being made.2 There are also the comparative benefits of being within the federal state, detailed in the Proposition section. 1 'A Good neighbour? South Africa forcing GM maize onto African markets and policy makersACB Briefing Paper p. 14 'The Russia-Georgia war, three years onThe Economist 'Bullying Latin AmericaQuarterly Americas 2 'FederalismSection 3.1, Stanford
Federal states are economically stronger

Federal states are able to remove trade barriers between members which would otherwise exist if there were independent states (such as difficulties in moving goods due to borders). This increases internal trade and economic growth and encourages investors.1 Federal units are able to share resources and concentrate on producing what they are best at (called comparative advantage) at a better economy of scale. Even in cases of agreed free trade areas between states, there is no overarching authority to ensure timely compliance to agreements.2Finally, larger economic units are more able to influence international trade regimes.3 1 EU Business, 2007, 'EU Single Market- benefits,'Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, 2007, 'Guide to Benefits of the EU,' 2BBC, 2011, 'US and Mexico end cross-border trucking dispute  3Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2010, 'Federalism improve this
Federal states are better able to protect their citizens.

Federal states allow local decision making to suit local needs due to their tiered decision making structures. This ensures that citizens are able to determine how they should live their lives without infringing upon the rights of citizens in other federal units who may have different opinions. However on security matters which affect the entire federal state, citizens are better protected because the federal units are stronger together than apart. A federal state also creates a common sense of purpose than can dissuade conflict between the federal units. A good historical example of this behaviour was the agreement of the Swiss Cantons to come together to collectively protect and enrich themselves from outside threats in 1848.1 1 History of Switzerland, 'Switzerland's History,'
Nationally homogenous states are rare and most states have local differences

It is not clear what the logical end point for splitting countries over political differences would be. Since each individual has a unique set of preferences, or at least there are large numbers of groups of people with different preferences, the state must aggregate preferences at some point. It makes more sense for the state to aggregate preferences in such a way that creates effective states that can meet their (aggregate) goals rather than attempting to find "pure" nation states. Furthermore, nations are often scattered in areas which do not provide a clear location for a state. An example of this is Eastern Europe or Africa where ethnic groups and tribes regularly cross state boundaries and exist as unconnected pockets.1 It would be impossible to create states to cater to these groups. 1 Guardian, 2007, 'Biafran Lessons,'
Being a federal state helps large states deal with divergent economic performance

Federal states tend to be larger and have different economic cycles. This allows the overall state to cope with different economic cycles by using fiscal transfers (tax) between wealthier states and poorer states to fund government programmes.1 So for example if Mississippi and New Mexico were paying for all their services themselves from their own taxes they would have debts of over 500% of GDP,2however at the beginning of the Republic it was the Southern States who were the richest due to their cotton wealth. 1Euro Economics, 'Example: Fiscal Transfer 2The Economist, 2011, 'America's Fiscal Union: Greek Americans,' improve this
It is harder to deal with internal repression than the invasion of another sovereign state.

Federal states offer convenient guises for the exploitation of resource rich areas or areas of strategic importance. The Niger Delta is used by the Nigerian government to provide oil wealth that is insufficiently invested in the Delta leading to insurgencies1. The Nigerian government is able to remove international pressure to reform by allying itself with UN principles of non-intervention in sovereign states which is only rarely overridden in cases of serious, systemic and widespread human rights abuses when 'all peaceful means have failed'.2 In reality, this gives government's considerable leeway to commit abuses within their own territory. If the Niger Delta were a separate country, there would be much more political capital to ensure it was appropriately treated and a stronger legal basis to hold Nigeria to account. 1Tai Ejibunu, Hassan. 'Nigeria's Niger Delta Crisis: Root Causes of Peacelessness.' European University Center for Peace Studies Research Papers. 07. 2007.  2 United Nations, 'An Agenda for Peace: Preventative Diplomacy, peacemaking and peace-making,'
Independent States can suit their populations.

Firstly, Federal states involve compromise between different parties in order to reach proposals which can be acceptable to all members of the federation. This often means that states are forced to compromise on important issues. An example of this is Abortion in the USA.1 Often, in order to protect minorities, voting is skewed towards smaller federal units (for example the US Senate with two Senators per state, regardless of population). This does not fulfil the principles of equal democratic representation. Such an issue exists to far less a degree in independent states, which can be more homogenous in preferences and more reflective of local needs.2 Moreover, given that it is unlikely that any state has chosen the appropriate position of compromise, all federal units will end up with a policy which is sub-optimal for them. Secondly, Federal arrangements tend to be complex, inhibiting transparency as vested interests at different levels of government defend their spheres.2 1 USA Today, 2010, 'Abortion deal helps ensure enough votes for health care,'  2Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2010, 'Federalism,'
Federal governments often extend their powers and usurp local authority, especially if one or more federal units are disproportionately powerful.

The proposition arguments repeatedly rely on the federal state being limited in strength enough to allow local differences and choices. However, historically, federal states have moved to extend their control from the centre often with the justification of necessity. Both the USA and Russia are examples of this trend.1 In the USA, debates about overstretch of federal control are numerous and time consuming. This argument is especially likely if one or a group of federal units are significantly stronger than the other unit, for example the Kingdom of Prussia in the 1871 German Union. In this case, Prussia was able to use its financial strength and size to eventually dominate the Union and control the other federal units.2 1Garratt, Thomas and Rhine, Russell. 'On the Size and Growth of Government.' Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Review. 88 (1). 2006. World Savvy, 2008, 'Centralization of Power in Modern Russia,'  2 Houseofnames.com, 'German Unification,'
Federal States often have persistent losers.

Within federal states, some federal units are often persistently weaker within the state that others and thus have to repeatedly accommodate (this links to the argument above).1 In countries such as Nigeria, resource rich parts of the country are consistently used by the rest of the country as a source of wealth with insufficient investment in return.2 1Centre for European Economic Research, 2011, 'Poor States, Rich Federal Government- Winners and Losers of the Emissions Trading Scheme,' Houseofnames.com, 'German Unification,' 2Tai Ejibunu, Hassan. 'Nigeria's Niger Delta Crisis: Root Causes of Peacelessness.' European University Center for Peace Studies Research Papers. 07. 2007.
Federal states are economically stronger

Free trade areas are able to operate quite successfully even if they lack an overarching authority and full integration of currencies, such as NAFTA.1 Economic homogenisation is not necessarily a good thing. Common currencies are best deployed in Optimal Currency Area, which are areas with sufficiently similar economies that a common currency can successfully function. Problems exist where there is a lack of political capital between nations in a federation or when there are logistical barriers (such as the different languages within the EU or the differing strength of public finances).2 There is no reason why federal states are required for comparative advantage to exist, though economies of scale could be less. 1 Office of the United States Trade Representative, 2004, 'NAFTA: A Decade of Success,' . 2Wikipedia, 2011, 'Optimal Currency Are
Joining Europe is unrealistic

Size is not necessarily a problem; it means it is much simpler for the EU to pull Cape Verde up to European standards than it would be with a larger country. It also means there will be few concerns about membership; no one is going to be worried about emigration from a country with a tiny population. The process would also not be immediate; countries take at a minimum five years and often over a decade to join the EU. There are other potential candidates such as Moldova, with a lower GDP per capita, which has been touted as a potential member by Romania[1]. Cape Verde has a service based economy, like many EU member states. It is already a member of the WTO, and has had good solid economic growth[2]. Moreover the entire accession process is built around helping potential member states achieve these criteria, and Cape Verde, due to its small size, would not face the biggest challenges to get in. There is no reason why Cape Verde joining the EU is somehow impractical on an economic level. [1] Nn, “Romania urges EU membership date for Moldova”, Radio Free Europe Radio Liberty, 19 March 2014, http://www.rferl.org/content/moldova-eu-membership-romania/25302886.html [2] World Bank, “Cabo Verde Data”, data.worldbank.org, http://data.worldbank.org/country/cape-verde
Cultural links

Cape Verde is not a good fit with the much of the history of Africa. It has been joined at the hip with Europe, if other things had gone other ways this debate would not be happening as the islands could have remained an integral part of Portugal as with Madeira and the Azores. Not all Cape Verdeans do consider themselves to be Africans[1]. Cape Verde culturally and historically has more in common with Europe. It has a longer standing relationship with a European state than other African nations that were colonized; it was first settled by the Portuguese in 1462 and unlike much of Africa it was uninhabited before Europeans arrived[2]. It history has therefore been one that is linked to Europe not Africa. A future orientated towards Europe would not have to be culturally exclusive. Cape Verde would not be giving up its independence, any more than Ireland gave up its independence by becoming part of the European Union. Cape Verde would still be free to explore cultural and historical links with Africa. [1] See Duarte, Diana, “Diana Duarte on Blackness and Cape Verde”, Unchain Africa Press, 2009, http://unchainafrica.wordpress.com/2009/09/01/diana-duarte-on-blackness-and-cape-verde/ [2] Schultz, Colin, “These are all the places  Europeans actually discovered”, Smithsonian.com, 16 August 2013, http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/these-are-all-the-places-that-europeans-actually-discovered-139755/?no-ist
Its the economy, stupid!

Cape Verde doesn’t dislike West Africa – it just has no real economic connection to the region. Cape Verde’s main economic partners are in Europe, with over half of imports coming from Portugal and The Netherlands, and more than three quarters of exports going to Spain and Portugal together[1]. If Cape Verde were to join the EU Internal Market, as discussed[2], it would give Cape Verdean exports total unfettered access to the whole market and integrate them in to the systems of standards. Joining would mean lower tariffs so in turn Cape Verde goods being exported would be cheaper in their main European market so boosting exports while imports would be cheaper for consumers in Cape Verde meaning the residents are able to buy more. [1] Central Intelligence Agency, ‘Cabo Verde’, The World Factbook, 11 April 2014, https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/cv.html [2] ‘Cape Verde could seek EU membership this year’, EUbusiness, 7 May 2005, http://www.eubusiness.com/europe/portugal/050507114923.9ivv9852
EU membership is good for tourism

Tourism is a key industry for Cape Verde. The archipelago is a popular destination for many from Europe. While the country is resource poor in terms of natural resources, three quarters of the country’s GDP comes from services[1]. Integration with Europe could see a number of advantages. The Schengen agreement allows visa free, and border control free, travel between its members so this would mean a potential boom in the tourist industry. Joining the Euro would also mean a common currency with other European nations – the Cape Verde Escudo is already pegged to the Euro, and prior to that, it was pegged to the Portuguese Escudo. [1] Central Intelligence Agency, ‘Cabo Verde’, The World Factbook, 11 April 2014, https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/cv.html
Joining Europe is unrealistic

A move towards the European sphere of influence might seem logical, but success is not guaranteed.  In terms of population, Cape Verde would be the second smallest EU member state after Malta meaning it would have little influence over the Union when it joins. And there is little reason for the EU to desire Cape Verde’s membership as it will provide no real gains to the Union. Also, its human development index is lower than that of Iraq[1], over fifty places behind that of lowest EU member state Bulgaria – which when it comes to governance and development is subject to little more than ridicule in the media of other member states. Not every European nation would get in on economic criteria – Moldova joining is not likely in the near future either. The only success from orientating towards Europe would be a burning of continental bridges with Africa. [1] Central Intelligence Agency, ‘Iraq’, The World Factbook, 11 April 2014, https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/iz.html
Cape Verde should be a beacon for Africa

Rather than joining the European sphere or even looking towards Europe, Cape Verde could act as a beacon for the rest of Africa. Africa has a need for countries that are setting a good example in governance for others to follow. The country is already at the top of several sections in the Mo Ibrahim Index, notably those relating to human rights[1]. Its former President Pedro Pires has also won the Mo Ibrahim prize for “transforming Cape Verde into a model of democracy, stability and increased prosperity”. The prize is only awarded when there is a peaceful, democratic transition and is in many years not awarded to anyone, it has not been awarded since Pires in 2011.[2] Instead of abandoning it Cape Verde should help build up Africa – a rising continent, rather than taking the tempting option of moving. [1] ‘Cape Verde 3rd/52’, Mo Ibrahim Index, 2013, http://www.moibrahimfoundation.org/cape-verde/ [2] ‘President Pedro de Verona Rodrigues Pires, Cape Verde’, Mo Ibrahim Foundation, 2011, http://www.moibrahimfoundation.org/laureates/
Geographical stretch too far

Cape Verde is just too far from Europe – it is 400 miles off the coast of Senegal compared to almost 1,900 miles from the Portuguese mainland.[1] The European Union has never had a member from Africa, and neither have other European institutions such as the Council of Europe.[2] The Canary Islands and similar archipelagos are not helpful as a precedent because they are integral parts of other nations that are themselves clearly positioned on the European continent. The sole condition for EU membership is that the applicant must be a European state, something Cape Verde is not. Would the EU really be willing to have a member so far from it as a full member, when Morocco, just across the strait of Gibraltar, was rejected for that reason?[3] [1] ‘Distance from Praia to…’, timeanddate.com, http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/distances.html?n=685 [2] ‘Member States’, coe.int, http://www.coe.int/en/web/portal/country-profiles [3] ‘Legal questions of enlargement’, Briefing No 23, europarl.europa.eu, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/enlargement/briefings/23a2_en.htm#F7
Cultural links

While Cape Verde may have a history and culture that is closer to Europe than all other African states this does not mean it does not have an African culture. There are of course many African states all with their own histories, culture and independence dates – from Ethiopia in time immemorial through Namibia in the 1990s to the birth of South Sudan. Some will have more in common with European states than others. Cape Verde has strong links to Africa; much of its population were originally slaves brought from Africa. The World Factbook gives its ethnic  groups as 71% Creole (mulatto) – mixed race, 28% African, and only 1% European.[1] With its population being descended from slavery despite its history having been controlled by Europeans its peoples’ historical experience is more in line with other African countries that were the victims of slavery. [1] Central Intelligence Agency, ‘Cabo Verde’, The World Factbook, 11 April 2014, https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/cv.html
Its the economy, stupid!

That’s what the status is now. If Africa is indeed rising, surely that is a better bet for Cape Verde? Cape Verde is already being integrated into Africa; it is a member of the Economic Community of West African States. There is an intention for these regional African communities to at some point merge into a market stretching across Africa; The African Economic Community. Cape Verde should increase its integration with a community it is already a member of. Looking to the European Union also ignores China, India and other important economise – including millions of fellow Portuguese speakers in Brazil, one of the much touted BRIC economies.
EU membership is good for tourism

Schengen membership is not the same as EU membership – some non-EU states, such as Switzerland are part of Schengen, the UK and Ireland are EU member states but are not. Joining Schengen would involve the politically sensitive issue of undocumented migrants, which could not only be fatal to Cape Verde joining Schengen but to integration with Europe itself. Even if it is unlikely, is it that difficult for people to show a passport? Besides, tourism is not just from Europe to outside – a Euro move would only stop Europeans from needing to change currencies. The peg is the best of both worlds in that it means that the currency is stable.
There needs to be a place to talk

The address by Putin was before Russia’s illegal intervention into Crimea and as such ‘settling regional conflicts’ almost certainly refers to Syria, not Crimea. Russia’s role in Syria has hardly been constructive, it has until recently stopped any resolutions on Syria[1], but not so onerous as to require throwing the country out of the G8. With Putin in charge of the summit and so setting the agenda we can be sure that discussion of Crimea will be kept off the agenda so ensuring that any discussion is purely informal. Putin is hardly likely to make concessions at his own summit. [1] BBC News, ‘Syria crisis: UN Security Council agrees aid resolution’, 23 February 2014
Allows strength in numbers

While strength in numbers may seem to be useful when there are conflicts between Russia and the other G8 members this is not what the G8 should be about. Using the G8 in such a way will simply encourage Russia to dig its heels in and encourage the growth of other rival institutions. An example would be the BRIC summits between Brazil, Russia, India and China; would these have happened at all if the G8 has been more inclusive and recognised that these nations need to be involved in the G8? It is notable that the very first summit included discussion of the desire by India and Brazil to play a greater role in world affairs.[1] [1] Presidents of Russia, Brazil, China and Prime Minister of India, ‘Joint Statement of the BRIC Countries’ Leaders’, kremlin.ru, 16 June 2009
Will make no difference to Russia

But Russia, as with any country – particularly any powerful country – is interested in symbolism and international prestige. Many analysts suggest that Putin’s takeover of Crimea may be about revenge for having ‘lost’ Ukraine, or out of a desire to set up a new greater Russia.[1] In each of these cases it is about prestige as the practical gains to Russia are small. Russia wants to be seen as a great power, kicking it out of one of the globe’s top clubs damages that ambition. [1] Speck, Ulrich, ‘Opinion Putin planning ‘Soviet Union lite’’, CNN, 4 March 2014
There needs to be a response to bad behaviour internationally

The intention of international institutions is to bind countries together, to ensure they speak to each other and resolve differences, and to ensure they feel they cannot engage in aggressive actions. However when a state breaks these norms there needs to be a reaction. Russia has been willing to engage in aggressive acts time and time again. The recent occupation of Crimea is very similar to Russia’s war with Georgia in 2008; in both conflicts Russia used the excuse of Russians being in danger, in both cases Russia was there as a ‘peacekeeper’, and in both cases the action was in another sovereign country whose government did not wish Russian troops there. The result is an expansion of Russian influence and some form of annexation.[1] There was no action after the Russian conflict with Georgia except a mediated peace.[2] There now needs to be a response to actions in Crimea; throwing Russia out of the G8 is the least response. [1] Friedman, Uri, ‘Putin’s Playbook: The Strategy Behind Russia’s Takeover of Crimea’, The Atlantic, 2 March 2014 [2] King, Charles, ‘The Five-Day War’, Foreign Affairs, November/December 2008 Traynor, Ian, Luke Harding and Helen Womack, ‘Georgia and Russia declare ceasefire’, theguardian.com, 16 August 2008