BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
British security is dependent upon NATO not the EU

NATO is “the most successful defensive alliance in history”, it saw off the USSR and Warsaw pact without a fight and has created a single security regime throughout most of Europe.[1] With its’ record NATO is clearly most important for security in Europe; it is still needed to deter Russia. The creation of an EU army on the other hand will undermine NATO and is something that will be pushed through after the referendum.[2] Britain could likely opt out, but with cooperation taking place under EU rather than NATO auspices the alliance that has kept the peace would be badly damaged. [1] London Declaration quoted by Reeve, Richard, ‘We need to talk about NATO’, OxfordResearchGroup, 17 September 2015, http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/publications/briefing_papers_and_reports/we_need_talk_about_nato [2] Kemp, Richard, ‘It is an EU army that could bring about war’, The Telegraph, 9 May 2016, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/09/it-is-an-eu-army-that-could-bring-about-war/
Security is better shared

Security is not a zero sum game – our security does not get better if our neighbours is worse. On the contrary good French, Irish, Belgian and Norwegian security helps ensure good British security. Being in the EU provides an opportunity for cooperation between member states by creating interaction on all levels. Some integration ensures a common and cooperative response to international threats. The EU is the most obvious place to develop a coordinated response to terrorism and other, particularly non-military, security concerns throughout the region.[1] [1] Galbreath, David, ‘Professor David Galbreath on: Security in, secure out: Brexit’s impact on security and defence policy’, University of Bath IPR Blog, 24 March 2016, http://blogs.bath.ac.uk/iprblog/2016/03/24/professor-david-galbreath-on-security-in-secure-out-brexits-impact-on-security-and-defence-policy/
Leaving will mean less communication with other security services

Leaving the EU may damage relationships with key security partners such as France and Germany. Both countries would have much less reason to cooperate on security issued when not in the same organisation. There would certainly still be some cooperation but the former heads of Mi5 and Mi6, Lord Evans and Sir John Sawers have stated that the UK would lose out through not being able “to take part in the decisions that frame the sharing of data, which is a crucial part of counter-terrorism and counter-cyber work”. Sawers points out that data sharing in the EU allowed France to transfer DNA and fingerprints of one of the Brussels bombers within months – previous to EU data sharing it would have taken months slowing down critical investigations.[1] [1] ‘Row as ex-intelligence chiefs say EU membership protects UK security’, BBC News, 8 May 2016, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36239741
The EU brings together former enemies

The EU has created peace among states that formerly fought each other. Most notably Germany and France had fought each other three times in seventy-five years prior to the formation of the EU. The EU has helped make such a conflict unthinkable now. The EU as a structure restrains old rivalries through giving a joint project and goal. It ensures cooperation particularly in places where there are competing interests like Gibraltar where continued cross border access is guaranteed by being a member of the EU.[1] [1] Hague, William, ‘Leaving the EU would be disastrous for the Falklands, Gibraltar and Ulster’, The Telegraph, 9 May 2016, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/09/leaving-the-eu-would-be-disastrous-for-the-falklands-gibraltar-a/
A nation state can only rely on itself for security

While keeping sight of the UKs national interests is important almost all of them can be carried out as well with the European Union as outside it. In particular the whole of Europe is interested in preventing terrorism. In other areas such as maritime security it makes sense for the UK to specialise in it while other countries specialise in other areas such as having larger armies. Moreover it should be noted that the UK is in one of the safest areas of the world with no hostile states in any direction. In this sense the EU is a buffer between the UK and less stable areas such as North Africa, the Middle East, or Russia so it makes sense to work with them as part of the same organisations including the EU.
The EU causes instability

If there were similar crises without the EU existing as a balm and place where all countries can talk regularly and confront problems together then the security situation would be much worse. In the past it has only taken small incidents to spark a war – usually exemplified by the assassination of archduke Franz Ferdinand starting off world war I, but there have also been wars started by trade such as the ‘War of Jenkins Ear’ which became part of the war of Austrian Succession. Today the EU provides a place to negotiate disputes between members making war between member states unthinkable. Of course war would still be a very unlikely response to a dispute, but leaving the EU would mean getting rid of one of the organisations that reduces that possibility by mitigating crises.
British security is dependent upon NATO not the EU

In a letter to the Telegraph five former Secretary-Generals of NATO stated “The European Union… is a key partner for NATO” and that “Brexit would undoubtedly lead to a loss of British influence, undermine NATO and give succour to the West’s enemies just when we need to stand shoulder-to-shoulder across the Euro-Atlantic community against common threats”. They give sanctions imposed by the EU on Iran and Russia as examples of where the EU has lead on enhancing regional security.[1] Moreover if the EU is to create an EU force this will happen regardless of Brexit. Britain stands a much greater chance of stopping it when it has a voice in the EU with which to object. [1] Lord Carrington, Javier Solana, Lord Robertson, Jaap De Hoop Scheffer, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, ‘Letters: At a time of global instability, Britain needs to stand united with its EU allies’, The Telegraph, 10 May 2016, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2016/05/09/letters-at-a-time-of-global-instability-britain-needs-to-stand-u/
Poverty means more crime

Despite many problems that Africa has to face, one of the biggest is its extreme poverty. Currently more than 48.5% of the population of Sub-Saharan Africa lives on less than 1.25 dollars a day (1). As a result of this poverty people’s security is being threatened on two main levels. On the first level of analysis, poverty can lead to crime. Poverty can create desperation to provide for family or yourself. As poverty is widespread in Africa, there are many people who are willing to steal, threaten, abduct or kill someone, in order to have something to eat. At 17.4 per 100,000 citizens, more than double the world average, Africa has the highest homicide rate among all regions of the world.(2) The other side of this is that a poor state can’t provide the level of policing that richer states can, a people in poverty usually results in a poor government. This in turn means that the police force is small, badly trained and underfunded so not fit for preventing crime. On the second level of analysis, desperate people are much easier to manipulate. This makes them easy targets for military groups in Africa who are searching for members to fight for their causes. It is not coincidental that we have so many militias and juntas in Africa, such as Somali Pirates, AQAP, AQIM, Al-Shabab, Touareg( Mali), Boko Haram(Nigeria), M23 and dozens of others. The militias offer those in poverty what they need most, food, shelter, and protection in return for their “services”. Poverty provides an additional benefit for these groups due to the stark difference between potential reward, such as from piracy or winning control of mines, and a normal income. As with the drugs trade the lure of the fast buck can be used to encourage risk-taking. In conclusion, poverty both enables crime and encourages militia groups. (1)    The World Bank, ‘Poverty’, data.worldbank.org, 2013, http://data.worldbank.org/topic/poverty (2)    Me, Angela, et al., ‘2011 Global Study on Homicide trends, contexts, data’, United Nations Office on Drugs and Crimes, 2011, http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/statistics/Homicide/Globa_study_on_homicide_2011_web.pdf
Poverty creates a vicious circle

Unfortunately, there is a vicious circle, caused by poverty that many poor countries find themselves in. A poor country also means a poor, ill-funded government. Such an institution is either unhelpful in preventing poverty or a road block to poverty alleviation. A poor population is also unfortunately more likely to lead to an autocratic government. This phenomenon can be shown by looking at decolonisation. Poor countries when decolonised, even if they initially had democratic aspirations quickly fell to dictatorship. There are very few exceptions such as India that have managed to continually maintain a democratic government while poor. Wealthy countries when decolonised are much more likely to become democracies and once poor autocracies become rich the pressure for democratisation usually becomes unstoppable so countries like South Korea democratised as they became wealthy. There might be considered to be a wealth threshold about which states will become democracies.(1) The reason why poverty is likely to lead to dictatorship is simple; a lack of an educated, effective civil service. When the government is very small it can’t effectively control the whole country or ensure accountability. The result, especially when civil servants are poorly paid is corruption and an opening for the army, or any populist who appears to offer a solution to take power. Once dictatorship occurs it can usually be maintained by force until the population is educated and connected enough to engage in a democratic revolution. There is then a free pass for those in power to exploit their position through corruption. Many dictators, including in Africa have become very rich indeed. Mohammed Suharto, Ferdinand Marcos and Mobutu Sese Seko( the former dictators of Indonesia, the Philippines, and DR Congo)  extorted up to $50bn (£28bn) from their impoverished people (2). A vicious cycle is created whereby the government needs money, so corruption and extortion are rampant. Those in power are more concerned with their own wealth than the people which makes the government poorer and less efficient so providing more incentive to resort to illicit means of funding. (1)    Cois, Carles; and Stokes, Susan C., ‘Endogenous Democratization’, The University of Chicago, 3 June 2003, http://www.researchmethods.org/boix-stokes.pdf (2)    Denny, Charlotte, ‘Suharto, Marcos and Mobutu head corruption table with $50bn scams’, The Guardian, 26 March 2004 http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/mar/26/indonesia.philippines
Poor states have trouble providing security

Poor nations find it difficult to sustain efficient and well-disciplined armies. Good training and regular pay is vital for this, something that is unlikely to be forthcoming with a cash strapped government. Yet such a disciplined army is one of the vital prerequisites for security and a stable country. Discipline is needed to prevent the army turning on those it is supposed to protect, and it is need to secure the country from other groups both internal and external. Poverty therefore enables rebellions, civil wars, and local warlords by helping ensure that the poor states involved don’t have the resources to control their territories. It should come as no surprise that of 12 major ongoing conflicts five are on the African Continent (and another one if the conflict in DR Congo were to be included despite it potentially being at an end).(1) In addition to this, a poorly funded army is a threat in itself, as the lack of training of the soldiers may translate into unprofessional behaviour, such as engaging in crimes and rapes, or even worse launching a full scale coup in the hope that they will grip the power. (1) list of ongoing armed conflicts’, Wikipedia, accessed 21 November 2011, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_armed_conflicts
Ethno-religious divides are a bigger security threat

Poverty is clearly an immense problem for Africa but it is not primarily a security problem. There are parts of the globe such as South Asia and parts of South East Asia that have comparable poverty but little conflict and violence. Moreover not every African country is plagued with conflict. We therefore must look elsewhere for why Africa has high levels of conflict. Religious and Ethnic divisions are a much more direct security threat and cause for conflicts.  To start with, it is extremely easy to blame people of other ethnicity or religion of your own problems. This occurs throughout the world, no matter if we are talking about immigrants coming into the EU and US, about the Kurdish population in Turkey or about Israel and Palestine. Africa has 3315 ethnic groups, a huge number (1). Unlike Europe these have not been formed into cohesive nations with colonial borders often arbitrarily cutting through ethnic groups. A conflict is 25 percent longer and has a has a higher casualty rate when an ethnicity is divided by a national border. Examples of divided (and conflicted) groups are the Maasai of Kenya and Tanzania, and the Anyi of Ghana and the Ivory Coast. (2) Division also occurs between religions. Samuel P Huntington wrote a famous book ‘The Clash of Civilisations’ that highlights that conflict is often created between religions. In Africa this means conflict in a swathe of northern Africa where Islam and Christianity meet. For example, the Muslim terrorist organization called Boko Haram, which has a lot of support in Nigeria, is engaged in a massive against Christians which has been responsible for the deaths of hundreds of non-Muslims.(2) (1)    Wentzel, Dr. John, ‘Who are the developing world’, johnwentzel.com, 28 February 2013, http://johnwentzel.com/2013/02/28/who-are-the-developing-world/ (2)    Gilman, Azure, ‘The Violent Legacy of Africa’s Arbitrary Borders’, Freakonomics, 12 January 2011, http://freakonomics.com/2011/12/01/the-violent-legacy-of-africas-arbitrary-borders/ (3) Stark, William, “Boko Haram's Anti-Christian Violence Continues in Northern Nigeria”, Religion Today, 13 September 2013, http://www.religiontoday.com/news/boko-haram-anti-christian-violence-continues-nigeria.html
Society cant function when the population is divided

Successful nations are those with a strong unified sense of purpose. They are states where it is allegiance to the state which is put first. Having different identities which are put first undermines the state. This is exactly what strong religious and ethnic identities do. If these sub state identities are put before the national identity then ethnic groups are likely to “other” anyone who is not a part of their group. If they do not consider themselves as being a part of the same polity there is little reason to cooperate, to pay taxes, It is the failure to build a unifying framework and these conflicts of identity that split nations apart not poverty. The Rwandan genocide did not happen because Rwanda is poor but because it is split between two groups who, at least for that horrific period, looked at themselves as Hutus or Tutsi’s first and Rwandans second. The rebels in Syria show how strong such divisions can be as rebels fight each other as well as Assad’s regime.(1) In Ivory Coast a country that had previously been considered stable burst into civil war in 2011 after elections that went along ethnic lines.(2) (1)    Dettmer, Jamie, “Syrian Rebel Groups Fight Among Themselves”, Voice of America, 19 September 2013 http://www.voanews.com/content/syria-rebels/1753137.html (2) “African viewpoint: Blood and borders” BBC News, 1 February 2011, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12336269
Identity issues are very difficult to solve

Issues of identity are much more difficult to solve than issues of poverty. Poverty is primarily an issue of economics and can be solved in numerous ways; through aid, development projects, greater exploitation of natural resources, and through policies to encourage economic development. However none of this is likely to happen if there is ethnic conflict. Where the problem is one of identity there is no fast solution. Ethnicity remains the same throughout someone’s life. Religion is only rarely changed. Customs and traditions only slowly evolve. No matter how hard government tries, these artificial barriers cannot be changed or erased easily. The only solution then is to attempt to work around the problem by not eliminating identities but showing commonalities, itself a slow process. Spain is an example of how a country can escape poverty but not identity. From the 1980’s Spain enjoyed an economic miracle pulling the country up to being a developed nation. And again after the economic crash changes in policies have managed to halt decline and even move Spain towards recovery.(1) Yet despite a state that has constantly encouraged integration the regions of Spain are more determined than ever to get a chance to decide their own future. Cataluña and the Basque Country in particular want independence.(2) (1)    Benoit, Angeline, “Spain Exits Two-Year Recession as Rajoy Seeks Recovery”, Bloomberg, 30 October 2013, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-30/spain-exits-two-year-recession-as-rajoy-seeks-lasting-recovery.html (2) “Nothing to lose but their chains”, The Economist, 14 September 2013, http://www.economist.com/news/europe/21586323-pressure-referendum-keeps-growing-nothing-lose-their-chains
Poverty means more crime

Does poverty cause crime, or does crime cause poverty? Poverty does not in all cases create crime. Bhutan is a poor country but the state department reports “There is relatively little crime” (1). When there is crime skilled people are more likely to emigrate and trust relationships are destroyed making businesses risk averse. At the same time outside businesses won’t invest in the country and neither will individuals because they fear they won’t get their money back. Finally crime almost invariably means corruption which undermines state institutions, trust in the state and ultimately democracy (2). Crime therefore leads to poverty more than the other way around. Neither does poverty have much to do with armed anti-government movements, terrorists or militia. Terrorism is an inherently a political struggle. Almost every major terrorist organization that exists has emerged from a conflict revolving around the subject of sovereignty and defending of their culture. Al Qaeda was created after the soviet invasion of Afghanistan and ETA fights for the independence of the Basque county so groups in Africa are ethically or religiously based. The needs and desires of the poorest are much more short-sighted, such as having enough to eat and somewhere to sleep. They would much rather stability. A 2007 study by economist Alan B. Krueger found that terrorists were less likely to come from an impoverished background (28% vs. 33%) and more likely to have at least a high-school education (47% vs. 38%). Another analysis found only 16% of Palestinian terrorists came from impoverished families, vs. 30% of male Palestinians, and over 60% had gone beyond high school, vs. 15% of the populace.(3) Moreover a rebellion, even if it involves potential financial gain, is not a good long term prospect. In the long term the government tends to win. For example with FARC in Columbia a security build-up over the past decade has reduced the rebels from 18,000 fighters at their peak to about 10,000 today (4) The idea of fighting a war against an army which is bigger, better funded and better equipped isn’t exactly thrilling. (1) U.S. Department of State, ‘Bhutan’, travel.state.gov, 2013, http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1068.html (2) United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Crime and Development in Africa’, gsdrc, 2005, http://www.gsdrc.org/go/display/document/legacyid/1592 (3) Levitt, Steven D.; Dubner, Stephen J. , Superfreakonomics: global cooling, patriotic prostitutes, and why suicide bombers should buy life insurance, (William Morrow 2009) (4) “To the edge and back”, The Economist, 31 August 2013, http://www.economist.com/news/americas/21584384-hiccup-serves-confirm-government-and-farc-are-making-progress-edge-and
Poverty creates a vicious circle

Poverty may have something to do with countries becoming dictatorships but little. That it is about the efficiency of government is much more credible, this is partially why India, with a large native civil service at independence is one of the exceptions. In practice the reason here is that these nations were subject to being downtrodden through colonialism. There was little opportunity provided to create native institutions so any cobbled together rapidly at independence collapsed. Many of the countries that were poor at independence are still poor now, yet the story of Africa is no longer one of constant violent dictatorship but increasingly one of stable democracies with reasonably fair elections. The number of democracies in Africa has increased from three in 1989 to 24 in 2008.(1) This transition then benefits the economy. An analysis by The Economist finds that over the ten years to 2010, six of the world's ten fastest-growing economies were in sub-Saharan Africa.(2) The Arab Spring meanwhile demonstrates that the population in poor countries can be organised enough to oust authoritarian leaders through large scale protest. Since they are the ones who suffer from corruption there is no inherent reason why poorer peoples should be more likely to submit to a dictatorship. (1)    Freedom House, ‘Electoral Democracies in Sub-Saharan Africa’, African Election Database, accessed 22 November 2013, http://africanelections.tripod.com/electoral_democracies.html (2)    Graphic detail, ‘Africa's impressive growth’, The Economist, 6 January 2011, http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/01/daily_chart
Poor states have trouble providing security

Armed forces do not require large amounts of funding to be well disciplined forces that are subordinate to civilian governance. This was shown by many communist nations; Vietnam’s army was immense, beat both the French and Americans and was firmly under party control. The importance of armed forces for security is universally recognised so foreign powers will help train armed forces to ensure these qualities. Thus for example as part of efforts to bring peace to Sierra Leone Britain provided training for the Sierra Leone Armed Forces helping bring stability to the country and allowing the Sierra Leonean army to engage in peace keeping missions elsewhere in Africa.(1) (1)    Clapson, Joe, ‘Sierra Leonean army comes of age under British direction’, Ministry of Defence, 6 April 2011, https://www.gov.uk/government/news/sierra-leonean-army-comes-of-age-under-british-direction