BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Avoids the costs and uncertainty of elections

While elections can create a focal point for protest and violence this may actually make things more predictable not less. Countries without elections are not without opposition groups and protests, all this means is that the spark for the protests is going to be different; police beating someone up, a particularly extravagant piece of corruption, an attempted cover up, the disappearance of an opposition activist. Not having elections simply prevents the divisions in society from being highly visible; it does not get rid of the divisions, indeed it gets rid of one of the safety valves.
Democratic Deficit

The European Parliament’s powers need to be expanded because there is a widespread perception that the EU suffers from a democratic deficit: national parliaments have lost much of their power vis a vis national governments through the committee based decision-making in the Council of Ministers. This loss of national parliamentary influence has not been matched by a proportional increase in the power and influence of the European Parliament. To reduce this deficit the European Parliament must be given parity with the Council so that it can provide checks and balances in the system. This becomes particularly pertinent given other developments such as the creation of the Single Currency, which has imposed monetary policy upon varied economies without the necessary oversight from democratic bodies. In the worst case scenarios that have befallen member states such as Greece and Italy, unelected apolitical governments lead by technocrats Lucas Papademos in Athens and Mario Monti in Rome have been imposed by Brussels upon countries that have failed to toe the line, in this case over keeping their debts down.[1] This has shown the damage that the deficit between policies at a supra-nation level and the lack of truly popular mandate has had. If the European Parliament had a greater say and control over the European Central Bank – where Germany has been stopping the use of the ability to print Euros and be a lender of last resort to stem the crisis[2] - then difficulties in the euro zone would have been countered with constant reference to a directly elected body representing the interests of all Eurozone Nations rather than action benefiting the interests of only some creating damage to democracy in others. [1] Editorial ‘Europe: the rise of the technocracy’, guardian.co.uk, 13 November 2011, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/nov/13/europe-rise-technocr... [2] ‘Schaeuble: Will Block ECB Becoming Lender of Last Resort’, Market News International, 22 November 2011, https://mninews.deutsche-boerse.com/content/schaeuble-will-block-ecb-bec...
Voice of Europe

The European Parliament is the only pan-European, directly elected institution in the EU. As such, only the European Parliament can authentically ‘speak’ for Europe on any issue. It should consequently be a more privileged institution in the EU decision-making process. As a step in this direction, the Parliament should have equal powers of co-decision with the Council on all legislative matters in the EU.[1] This would turn the European Parliament from being a mere talking shop to a body which can affect real change by providing a balance to the Council of Ministers. By having a directly elected body making decisions on a par with the indirectly chosen body, better decisions will be made that will benefit all Europeans at once, turning the council from a body that focuses on implementing European policy instead of the council being a means for sovereign governments to negotiate based on partial considerations of what their electorates want. This would prevent leaders from being able to come up with deals in their famous all night meetings that the public are opposed to. At the moment European governments can afford to make unpopular decisions in Europe confident that the issue will never be high enough up the electorate’s priorities, which is topped by issues such as unemployment, the economy, inflation, healthcare and crime,[2] so they will not be punished for the decision. The European Parliament which is elected on European issues would prevent be much more responsive to their electorate. [1] Young European Federalists, ‘Political Platform of JEF-Europe’, XIX. European Congress in Copenhagen 21 October 2007, http://jef.eu/uploads/media/Political_Platform_of_JEF-Europe_CPH07.pdf [2] TNS Opinion & Social, ‘Public opinion in the European Union’, Eurobarometer 75 Spring 2011, P.21, http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/eb/eb75/eb75_publ_en.pdf
Relevance

The levels of turnout in elections for the European Parliament are worryingly low, in 2009 the average EU turnout was 43% and the lowest was in Slovakia with a turnout of only 19.64%.[1] EU citizens clearly feel that the European Parliament is not important enough, does not have enough power over their lives, to justify them voting in European elections. Therefore, we must increase the powers of the European Parliament to increase its relevance to ordinary people. By making it more powerful we create an incentive for people to vote. People view the EU as being dominated by the Commission, unelected bureaucrats who can change millions of people’s lives with little oversight from elected bodies. This corrodes people’s faith in the European Parliament to make change, thus affecting turnout. If the Parliament had the power to truly influence the commission then it would seem much more relevant, encouraging increased turnout. [1] ‘European Parliament election turnout 1979 – 2009’, UK Political Info, http://www.ukpolitical.info/european-parliament-election-turnout.htm
Creeping Federalism

Awarding more powers to the European Parliament would signify a shift in the Parliament – and by extension – the European Union’s relationship with its member states. If the Parliament is the body in primary control of the Commission the following harms would be created: 1) The democratically elected national governments that make up the Council of Ministers will be side-lined, creating the precedent of a central European body determining the actions of the Commission, thus effecting European citizens. 2) This creates a situation where sovereign nations end up being tied to one particular policy as dictated by the central Parliament, undermining the sovereignty of National Parliaments and making it difficult for a nation to go against said policy (See the controversy over the Common Fisheries Policy, for instance). These dual phenomena caused as a result of the Parliament gaining more powers will further centralisation within the European Union, creating what critics would call a ‘federal superstate.’
What Parliament currently does

Proposition likes to maintain that the European Parliament does not do anything to hold the Commission to account. However, this is not true. The Parliament has the power to reject appointments to the Commission as well as force the entire Commission from their jobs in the event of maladministration (While extremely rare, it has happened in the past such as the rejection of Rocco Buttiglione)[1]. As well as having the power to reject resolutions proposed by the Council and Commission. [2] The status quo places Parliament in a co-equal position in relation to the Commission and Council, respecting the importance of the role national governments have in dictating Europe-wide policy. If the Parliament is made superior to the Council, then the risk is run of giving it supremacy over the national governments. The status quo can be seen as appropriate as there is a fine balance between the Parliament and Council in dictating matters to the Commission. No change is required.     [1] Gow, David, ‘MEPs reject anti-gay commission candidate’, The Guardian, 12 October 2004, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/oct/12/gayrights.eu [2] European Parliament, ‘Parliament’s powers and procedures’, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/parliament/public/staticDisplay.do?id=46
Ineffectiveness of Parliament

While the Parliament is able to hold the Commission to account in a somewhat limited manner, the institution as a whole is rendered ineffective by its structure. As the parliament is largely elected by Proportional Representation, compromise is required in order to pass resolutions. In most parliaments the two largest groupings would square off against each other and try to dictate policy with the help of smaller groups, thus allowing for varied opinions to come to the fore. Instead in the European Parliament, the Socialist and the Center-Right groupings have dominated proceedings since the first elected Parliament sat in 1979, with the success and failure of resolutions being contingent upon these two groups being able to find compromise, they even share the presidency.[1] This means that once the compromise has been reached, the resolution passes with a large majority and smaller groups such as the Greens and the Liberals are unable to voice opinion on the matter effectively. This reduces the ability of the Parliament to function effectively as a scrutinizing body, preventing a full discussion of issues with a view to establish as close to a full consensus as possible with as many groups agreeing as possible. The development of a ‘Grand Coalition’ has hamstrung debate in what Proposition hopes to be the primary body in the European Union. If more powers are awarded to the Parliament in its current form, then policies affecting many millions of people will be decided on account a pre-arranged agreement between two major groupings that tend to share very similar aims with the Commission, not affecting real change in how the European project works.    [1] Taylor, Simon, ‘Deal on Parliament’s presidency holds firm’, EuropeanVoice.com 11 June 2009, http://www.europeanvoice.com/article/imported/deal-on-parliament-s-presidency-holds-firm/65130.aspx
Democratic Deficit

The democratic deficit is a myth. National governments have a strong democratic mandate from national elections. Therefore, their decisions are already imbued with considerable democratic legitimacy. National governments also rely on national parliaments to enact their legislation at home. As a result it would be extremely foolish of a government to pursue a course of action in the Council which was opposed by national parliamentarians, or which would be unpopular enough to lead to a future electoral defeat at home. Democracy is protected sufficiently by the Council already; there is thus no need to increase the powers of the European Parliament. The current crisis is also not a good example as the policies that led to the ultimate undermining of democratic mandates in Eurozone nations were supported by the voters in the respective countries. Had those countries voted for more realistic fiscal policies then there would be no need for the drastic measures required to prevent the Eurozone from collapsing. Outside of extraordinary circumstances, the status quo can and does work, with the Council of Ministers being made up of National Governments elected by the people.
Voice of Europe

The European Parliament may ‘speak for Europe’ but the Council speaks for the EU’s member states. Privileging the European Parliament at the expense of the Council erodes the intergovernmental nature of EU decision-making. It is important to protect the sovereign powers of the individual member states; this is achieved in the Council, which is comprised of representatives of each national government. This has been particularly the case in the United Kingdom where there have been rows over sovereignty in relatively obscure areas such as prisoners voting rights.[1] The European Union can only work if national considerations are put above all others. The Council works because the best possible conclusions are reached precisely because compromise between the varying interests is required. Involving the European Parliament would shift the emphasis of the entire EU from being a forum for independent nations to being a decision making body for a large number of states, undermining the sovereignty of domestic parliaments. [1] Bagehot, ‘Britain’s mounting fury over sovereignty’, The Economist, 10 February 2011, http://www.economist.com/blogs/bagehot/2011/02/prisoners_voting_rights
Relevance

The argument that we should increase the European Parliament’s powers in order to increase people’s interest in it is as flawed as it is well-rehearsed. This argument has been used to repeatedly expand the competencies of the Parliament. However, far from becoming more interested in the Parliament, fewer and fewer people at each election have bothered to vote, turnout was a much higher 61.99% in 1979 (although the average is partially reduced by newer members on average having lower turnouts).[1] This argument merely signals the failure of the Parliament as a democratic institution and unhappiness with the increasingly federal European project. Rather than rewarding the EU Parliament for failure, we should consider seriously its abolition. There is already a democratic check on the Commission – the Council of Ministers made up of democratically elected national governments. It is the Council that sets the agenda for the Commission to implement. The fact that the Commission acts on the behest of democratically elected bodies makes the Parliament superfluous in its present form.  [1] ‘European Parliament election turnout 1979 – 2009’, UK Political Info, http://www.ukpolitical.info/european-parliament-election-turnout.htm
Creeping Federalism

Instead of facilitating greater European federalism, granting the Parliament more powers may actually do much to prevent it. By having a body directly accountable to the people directing the Commission, instead of the indirect Council, there can be greater room for criticism of what the Commission does and advocacy of alternate policies for the Commission. As the Parliament is directly accountable to constituents, the Parliament has a clear stake in representing their interests, which may be preventing ‘federalism’ which is agreed upon by national governments that make up the Council of Ministers for the sake of expediency. Parliamentary control of the Commission gives people a direct say in how it is run, preventing accusations of ‘federalism’ in future.
What Parliament currently does

Parliament may on paper be able to influence decisions made by the Commission, but a lot of what the Commission does is still heavily influenced by the Council, a body established for national governments to negotiate based on their own partial self-interest.  Such negotiations can lead to major anomalies in the European Union such the Parliament having a seat in Strasbourg order to appease France. Moreover the parliament’s powers over the commission are limited, the opposition cites being able to reject the appointment of members of the commission but it can’t reject individuals only the college of commissioners as a whole.[1] By making the Parliament the primary body in the European Union, decisions can be made with the view of fully representing the needs of their constituents rather than having to constantly be careful of the partisan Council. This can result in better decision making on how the Commission and by extension, the European Union should move forward. [1] European Parliament, ‘Oversight over the Commission and Council’, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/parliament/public/staticDisplay.do?id=46&pageRank=9&language=EN
Ineffectiveness of Parliament

It is because the Parliament is not the primary body in the EU that it cannot be truly able to split along the traditional ‘left-right’ cleavage as is the case many of the member states domestic politics. A consensus had to be acquired for decision-making in the Parliament in order to be on par with the council, which for all its flaws sought to operate in a similar manner. Even though there has been consensus between the two largest groups, it has still been able to effectively scrutinize the Commission with the powers it currently has. Giving more powers to the European Parliament would ensure that this remains the case. Indeed, increasing the importance of the Parliament within the structures of the EU will give greater impetus for consensus between all political groupings, resulting in better decision making.
Pressure from international donors is essential

The opposite is true; aid results in less Indian spending on poverty not more. In a few rare cases there may be sufficient media coverage of an aid program to shame the government into action but most of the time if others are spending that simply means the Indian government will save its own money. This was the assessment of House of Lords Economic Affairs Select Committee when it said “British development aid to the poorest Indian states may provide a perverse incentive to the Indian government to use less of its own revenue to alleviate poverty.”[1] [1] Economic Affairs Select Committee, ‘Abstract’, Parliament.uk, 2012
The money makes no difference

The geography of poverty has changed; in 1990 94% of those in poverty lived in ‘low income countries’ today that is down to 28%. The rest live in ‘middle income countries’ that are often fast growing and able to provide much of their own poverty reduction funding.[1] Should all money go to those few countries that are still classed as ‘low income’? Instead it must be recognised that the impact of aid is on individuals not the nation as a whole. Aid that builds a school and provides for teachers will have little impact on the whole of the nation but a large impact on those who are able to attend school where they would not have had the chance before. [1] Ravillion, Martin, ‘Should we care equally about poor people wherever they may live?’, 8 November 2012
Too many strings

India is a booming economy with GDP growth of 7% over most of the last twenty years, and it is likely to overtake the UK economy within a decade.[1] As a result development aid today to India is small by comparison to what India itself can and does spend on its poorest citizens. The UK gives just £280 million per year, less than 0.04% of India’s GDP[2] and only enough to provide £1 per year for every one of India’s poorest. This foreign aid is therefore not essential for poverty reduction in India. Indeed China has been the country most successful at reducing poverty and it has done it through economic growth not large amounts of development aid.[3] Aid money should therefore go to countries that really do need the money for development rather than those who are already succeeding at financing it themselves. [1] Gilligan, Andrew, ‘India tells Britain: We don’t want your aid’, The Telegraph, 4 February 2012 [2] Ghosh, Jayati, ‘Yes: Should rich countries stop sending development aid to India?’, BMJ, Vol.346, No. 7891, pp.1-42, p.20 [3] Data and Research, ‘New Estimates Reveal Drop In Extreme Poverty 2005-2010’, The World Bank, 29 February 2012
“White Man’s Burden”

Aid is simply a continuation of the “white man’s burden” and is therefore demeaning to the countries where it is meant to help. It implies that western countries have to provide money to those who are less ‘developed’ in order to develop them. This sounds very similar to westerners having to go out into the world in order to civilize the other countries and civilizations around the world. This similarity is made even closer when western aid has strings and institutions like the IMF impose ‘liberalisation’ of markets as it did for India at the end of the 1980s.[1] Far from providing help it is imposing western ideas and values on others. [1] Weinraub, Bernard, ‘Economic Crisis Forcing Once Self-Reliant India to Seek Aid’, The New York Times, 29 June 1991
The west does not know best

It is clear that the donor countries do not know how best to spend the money they give as aid. Instead they want their money spent on the latest development fad whether this is the privatisation of basic services, microcredit, conditional cash, or particular infrastructure projects.[1] Development can also be misspent as a result of corruption and a lack of oversight, for example the UK suspended its aid to Uganda as a result of indications it was being misused by the Ugandan government and not “going towards helping the poorest people lift themselves out of poverty”.[2] The Lords Economic Affairs select committee explained why this is the case; “aid is essentially seen by those entrusted with it as "free money", whose loss will go unnoticed by the giver and whose appropriation is nothing like as morally reprehensible as appropriating local tax revenue”.[3] [1] Ghosh, Jayati, ‘Yes: Should rich countries stop sending development aid to India?’, BMJ, Vol.346, No. 7891, pp.1-42, p.20 [2] Tran, Mark, and Ford, Liz, ‘UK suspends aid to Uganda as concern grows over misuse of funds’, The Guardian global development, 16 November 2012 [3] Economic Affairs Select Committee, ‘Chapter 4: The Impact of Aid’, Parliament.uk, 2012
India still has the most people in poverty

Aid should go to those who need it most around the world regardless of which country they live in. India still has the largest concentration of people in poverty in the world, according to the world bank there are “240 million rural poor and 72 million urban poor”.[1] So still almost a quarter of the world’s 1.4billion people in poverty.[2] With so many of the world’s poor people it is clear that India should be receiving a significant portion of the world’s development aid to end their poverty. [1] Poverty Reduction & Equity, ‘India: Achievements and Challenges in Reducing Poverty’, The World Bank, 2011 [2] Poverty Reduction & Equity, ‘Overview’, The World Bank, August 2008
India cannot end poverty on its own

Clearly if India could end poverty within the country it would do so, however at the moment it cannot. If those in India who are not poor (considering this to mean earn more than $13 a day, the US poverty line) were to give 100% of their income above this level to those who live on less than $1.25 per day they would still not eliminate poverty in the country. “Indeed, appropriating all of the incomes of those living in India above the US poverty line would cover only a modest fraction of the country’s aggregate poverty gap.” So India does not yet have the domestic capacity to eliminate poverty on its own.[1] [1] Ravillion, Martin, ‘Should we care equally about poor people wherever they may live?’, 8 November 2012
Development aid still makes a difference

Clearly someone earning $1 a day in India is as worthy of aid as someone earning the same amount in Burkina Faso. Equally the same amount of development aid can still make a similar amount of difference to the individuals it is targeted. It may potentially make even more of a difference in the richer country because that country has the infrastructure to ensure that the aid is sustainable and effective.[1] For example an aid program may help poor farmers to grow more food but that aid is much more sustainable and valuable if there is a road network so that they can sell some of their produce. In India UK aid has helped 1.2 million children go to school in the past 10 years[2] and this investment is potentially made more effective by India having universities these children could go on to attend if they wish. [1] Economic Affairs Select Committee, ‘Chapter 4: The Impact of Aid’, Parliament.uk, 2012 [2] Agrawal, Nisha, ‘No: Should rich countries stop sending development aid to India?’, BMJ, Vol.346, No. 7891, pp.1-42, p.21
Pressure from international donors is essential

Currently the culture of giving in India is not mature enough to enable India to fight poverty on its own. Aid to India therefore provides more than one role. It does not just provide the money and supplies that the poorest need, it also encourages India to do more. When aid is needed to put primary children into school as a result of the mere 3% of national income spent on education it encourages the Indian government and people to spend more on alleviating their own compatriot’s poverty.[1] [1] Agrawal, Nisha, ‘India needs to do more for its people but cutting foreign aid now won’t help – Oxfam’, Alertnet, 13 November 2012