BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Existing contributive inequalities within the Union would be amplified by a formal federal system

There is a possibility that once a federation, Europe will adopt certain policies that might be harmful for a minority of the member states. In consequence, any economic downturn in those states could manifest itself on a larger scale in the United States of Europe as economies of the member states rely (more than ever) on each other. Furthermore different states may not contribute equally. States, because inducements to cooperate or threats to punish may be low, fail to provide for the collective benefit, therefore essentially "passing the buck" to other states, and most frequently to the most economically powerful participants. Citizens of large states like France, Great Britain, and Germany frequently complain that smaller states are not paying their "fair share" of the costs of the European Union. Meanwhile, smaller states may complain that they are overlooked or even disregarded because of their economically weaker status. These issues will be exacerbated in a European federation.  Decentralization decreases economic progress.[1] European countries where regions have more powers and responsibilities in terms of taxation, legislation and education policies tend to do better economically than centralised ones. Centralism hammers development of countries at the cost of its citizens. [1] EUObserver, ‘Centralised states bad for economy, study shows’
Subsidiarity will deal with regional identities’ problem

Federalism and subsidiarity, that things should be dealt with at the lowest, most local, level possible,[1] can allow for regional identities in a way national states cannot. For example for Northern Ireland, Corsica, Basque Region, Lombardy. In a Federal Europe such peoples would not feel under threat from a dominant culture and long-running conflicts could be resolved, as issues of sovereignty become less relevant within the new political structures. [1] Europa, ‘Subsidiarity’
A federal Europe will protect the cultural diversity of its member states

Actually national governments are more effective. The more authority international governing bodies, organizations and institutions have, the less can they afford to "bother" with local problems applying less effective problem solving procedures. Not fully understanding local tensions, burning issues in one particular area can, in the long term, bring great harm to the citizens of the whole federation. One spark can set ablaze a much larger fire than a federal government can possibly imagine. Therefore creating one European federal body will shift the focus of the local problems and the problems of the average person to more global ones which will be problematic on its own. Furthermore the advantages in the face of connection to the political process, respect for local cultural traditions and responsiveness to differing economic and physical situations will not be achieved, because boundaries fade away and people become more interested in the activities on a higher level, rather than on smaller. Devolution and subsidiarity can be applied by existing states, as Britain and France have both showed in the 1990s, and as Germany has done since 1945. Spain’s problem with separatist terrorists in the Basque Region shows that even a great deal of regional autonomy fails to satisfy extremists.
The federal model has proved to be a success previously

Europe is not like America and Australia, which were founded by immigrants with considerable homogeneity of language and culture. Canada’s relations with Quebec show that where such differences exist they can be politically destabilising, while federal states such as Brazil and the USSR have not avoided dictatorship, human rights problems and economic backwardness. Within the EU there is often no commonality of interests on key federal issues such as defence and foreign policy. Even today there are big splits on major issues such as agricultural reform and trade policy. In actuality, Europeans don’t envy Americans because right now EU is far better in every aspect than the US – “Loory: What we have heard today is that the problems here in the U.S. are certainly much worse than in Europe.”[1] ”Anybody who claims that the US provides a model which the EU should copy needs to consider the basic economic facts of the case.”[2] [1] Loory, ‘Europe's economy doing better than US’ [2] Irvin, ‘Europe vs. USA: Whose Economy Wins?’
Moves toward federalism will endanger the stability of the EU

Surely an ill-advised dash to build a federal Europe and forcing people in a direction they do not wish to go is a bad idea. However a federal Europe is the normal concurrence of the process of integration. And this is not against people’s will- “…He (Belgian ex-prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt) said, “I don’t think people have said that they are against a United States of Europe”.  The no votes in France and the Netherlands were, according to Verhofstadt, not “no votes against Europe, but were votes against a certain type of Europe… what people want is a strong Europe, a United States of Europe that can give an answer to their concerns”.[1] [1] Eurealist.co.uk, ‘United States of Europe’
A federal Europe will protect the cultural diversity of its member states

A federal Europe will be more advantageous for individual citizens, since they will be living in a powerful state, yet with respect of their cultural and local situation Subsidiarity combines maximum effectiveness with maximum accountability, with decisions being made at the lowest appropriate level. Citizens gain the advantages of living in a large, powerful state in terms of international economic, military and political power, all available more cheaply in a state of 450 million people, and through their increased opportunities for work, study, etc. Yet the advantages of living in a smaller state are preserved in terms of connection to the political process, respect for local cultural traditions and responsiveness to differing economic and physical situations. Such checks and balances prevent tyranny and increase willing obedience to laws. Overall, we now have something resembling parliamentary democracy at the European level. EU political institutions now look more like those of a member state than they do those of an international organisation. The challenge facing the European Union in the future is to fill the gap between itself and the citizen, providing a political connection equal to the social, cultural and sporting connections that the single market has already provided. Federalism and subsidiarity can allow for regional identities in a way national states cannot – e.g. for Northern Ireland, Corsica, Basque Region, Lombardy. In a Federal Europe such peoples would not feel under threat from a dominant culture and long-running conflicts could be resolved, as issues of sovereignty become less relevant within the new political structures.
The federal model has proved to be a success previously

The success of federal states elsewhere in providing peace and prosperity for their citizens, alongside democratic safeguards, point to the advantages of pursuing this model in Europe. The USA, Australia and Canada provide standards of living for their citizens which most Europeans would envy, while federal India is the best example of a long-term democratic success in the developing world. The application of the principles of federalism to the European social and environmental policy s the key to European  success. The creation of the single market meant that much national regulation of social and environmental issues ceased to be effective: only a European approach at the same level as the regulation of business would be able to work. Otherwise, companies might simply transfer from one member state with a great deal of regulation in these areas to another member state with less. If what economists call “externalities” were not to go unaddressed altogether, European social and environmental policies became necessary. Therefore only federal unity can bring EU states closer together in order for them to work as successfully as others federal countries.
Moves toward federalism will endanger the stability of the EU

There are great dangers of forcing people in a direction they do not wish to go. An ill-advised dash to build a federal Europe could raise dormant nationalist feelings, promote the rise of populist politicians with xenophobic agendas and endanger the stability of the EU. A Gaullist “Europe of Nations”[1] preserves the current benefits of EU without the risks of further unwanted political integration. “(...)Dominant groups have more to gain from the majoritarian principle which is indispensable for constitutional democracies. As such, minorities would be placed at an ever more disadvantaged position in a European state. Thus, the progression of the EU into a federal state is bound to have a more negative than it would a positive impact on European integration.”[2] [1] Ross, ‘Chirac the Great or de Gaulle the Small?’ [2] Cocodia, ‘Problems of Integration in a Federal Europe’
The concept of federalism lacks political support

Euroscepticism is highest in Latvia, the United Kingdom, and Hungary, with only 25%–32% viewing membership as a good thing. Belief that the citizen's country has benefited from EU membership is lowest (below 50%) in the UK, Hungary, Latvia, Italy, Austria, Sweden and Bulgaria. A significant minority (36%) do not tend to trust the European Parliament. The European Parliament does not command the same sense of respect as national Parliaments, nor the connection with ordinary people.[1] [1] Directorate-General for Communication, ‘EUROBAROMETER 71 Public opinion in the European Union’
A federal Europe will benefit the citizens of its member states

National identity and differences remain far more important than supposedly shared European values. Existing national governments operate on different models which recognise the historical, cultural and economic distinctiveness of each nation, and thus provide an important focus for the loyalty of their citizens (e.g. various monarchies, the French republican system, hallowed by successive revolutions). The further power is removed from a citizen, the more detached he is from the democratic process, the less accountable that power becomes, and the more likely it is to make decisions badly, damaging the interest of tens of millions of people.
A federal Europe will be a stronger international actor

Actually if the EU became a unified state, there would be s loss of UN Seats - a major democratic, liberal voting block in international institutions such as the UN would be lost, in return for one vote (for an incredibly powerful state). Due to the UK and France, both EU members and also UN Security Council permanent members (UNSC P5 - along with the US, China and Russia), and with Germany (G4 - along with India, Japan and Brazil) hopeful to gain a seat in the future, removal of these nations from the UNSC would leave it open to greater sway by American, Russian or Chinese influence. As it is, the UK and France provide a powerful voting bloc in the SC. (Italy has offered the plan of a revolving seat for EU member states.). Therefore countries from the EU are powerful enough as it is and creating only 1 country can result in the exact opposite situation. None of the benefits, listed in the Proposition argument are actually benefits of a federal Europe. They all have been achieved via the EU. This means that the EU itself is strong and influential enough. There is no need for deeper development as it will only bring disadvantages. “In these days of renewed gloom about the future of Europe, a quick test is in order. Who has the world’s biggest economy? [...] Who has the most Fortune 500 companies? [...] Who attracts most U.S. investment? [...] The correct answer in each case is Europe, short for the 27-member European Union (EU), a region with 500 million citizens. They produce an economy almost as large as the United States and China combined”.[1] [1] Debismann, ‘Who wins in U.S. vs Europe contest?’
A federal Europe will ensure that large, multinational businesses remain accountable for their actions

The assumptions about the multinational corporations are not actually proved. National governments close deals with such corporations if both sides have interest in it. Even if we assume such a thing existed nowadays – in a federal Europe the same problem would occur only not with countries, rather with regions. That is because every region would want the company to create more business in its area so we will end up with the assumed status quo today. The EU today is already strong enough in regards to implementing environmental policies and restrictions – the carbon tax, the cap and trade system. Dealing with the international issue of global warming is not a point of a federal Europe or the EU, but a completely different matter.
Existing contributive inequalities within the Union would be amplified by a formal federal system

On the contrary a federal Europe will bring the countries a lot closer together. Matters of harmful policies will be a lot less than they are right now in the EU simply because separate states do exist now. However when there is just one state with all the nations in it – the harmful policies toward a certain state will be reduced to a minimum – after all the leaders will be managing one country and will be watching for the interests of all its people equally. Furthermore in a federal Europe the economic situation will even far better and faster than it is doing so now in the EU. As a matter of fact there are examples with the recently joined states, Bulgaria and Romania, which after 3 years still cannot catch up with the more advanced western states. In a federal Europe this particular problem will be sorted out, because everybody will be a part of one major and powerful country. Therefore in an economical aspect a federal Europe will manage a lot better than the European Union is right now.
The hard part is the cutting of emissions

The problem with a non-binding agreement, even one where the targets have been submitted by the governments themselves is exactly that it is non-binding. If governments are not bound to cut emissions then there is a good chance that many of them wont.[1] The British government, which has binding targets, has been on course to miss its 2025 targets with reductions of only 23% against targets of 31% due to a decision to reduce subsidies for housing insulation.[2] If countries which have set targets for themselves in the past are missing them what hope do we have for these voluntary targets? [1] Taylor, Lenore, ‘Paris climate talks: the real test is whether countries will keep their word’, The Guardian, 30 November 2015, http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/nov/30/paris-climate-talks-real-test-whether-countries-will-keep-their-word [2] Harvey, Fiona, ‘UK on track to miss carbon targets, climate change advisers warn’, The Guardian, 15 July 2014, http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jul/15/uk-miss-carbon-targets-climate-change-advisers
Only an international treaty can create penalties for non-compliance

A non-binding agreement will not have any penalties for any countries that do not comply with it, this sets the agreement up for failure. Without a binding agreement a government will find it difficult to bind its successors who may back track in the decades that follow. Some states are backtracking even before the agreement is finalised; the UK has been abandoning its green policies – cutting subsidies for renewables, cancelling carbon capture and storage, reducing funding for domestic energy efficiency, and selling the green investment bank.[1] If governments will take such measures before the agreement is even finished then what hope does it have in the future if there is nothing to persuade sovereign governments to comply with their pledges? [1] Monbiot, George, ‘On climate change this government is indifferent to life, in love with death’, The Guardian, 2 December 2015, http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/dec/02/climate-change-david-cameron-bomb-syria-global-warming
It is too late for half measures

Two degrees Celsius has generally been regarded as that safe level which agreements should be aiming for. This agreement does not go so far with it expected to keep the temperature increase to around 2.7 degrees if everyone sticks to their commitments and makes deeper ones after 2030.[1] Unfortunately however the world will still most likely be heading towards a 3.5 degrees rise if no further cuts are made later.[2] Now is the time to be much more ambitious and part of that means binding cuts to prevent backsliding or those agreeing carrying on as usual. [1] Nuttall, Nick, ‘Global Response to Climate Change Keeps Door Open to 2 Degree C Temperature Limit’, UNFCCC Press Office, 30 October 2015, http://newsroom.unfccc.int/unfccc-newsroom/indc-synthesis-report-press-release/ [2] Romm, Joe, ‘Misleading U.N. Report Confuses Media on Paris Climate Talks’, thinkprogress.org, 3 November 2015, http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/11/03/3718146/misleading-un-report-confuses-media-paris-climate-talks/
Only a non-binding agreement would get the targets necessary

Fully binding treaties with mechanisms for compliance are the gold standard for agreements between nations. But because they are onerous they are the most difficult kind of treaties to get agreed to start with. If the aim were such an agreement it would unfortunately never happen. This has been demonstrated by the years of successive failures in crafting climate agreements. COP 15 is the most notable; expectations were immensely high for a binding international treaty but there was a failure to deliver, largely because governments did not want a binding international solution which is what was being negotiated at Copenhagen.[1] [1] BBC News, ‘Why did Copenhagen fail to deliver a climate deal?’, 22 December 2009, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8426835.stm
A more informal agreement avoids the US congress

The United States Congress is a potential hurdle for any climate agreement. While President Barack Obama is keen to make tackling climate change a legacy of his Presidency the Republican dominated Congress is both likely to try to block the President for that very reason and is sceptical of climate change. It is therefore a major benefit to have an agreement that will not need to be submitted to Congress for approval as any treaty needs to be confirmed by the Senate. The Secretary of State Kerry argues that it is “definitely not going to be a treaty,” and “not going to be legally binding reduction targets like Kyoto”. It won’t need to be passed to the Senate because the President already has the power to implement the agreement through existing law.[1] [1] Mufson, Steven, and Demirjian, Karoun, ‘Trick or treaty? The legal question hanging over the Paris climate change conference’, Washington Post, 30 November 2015, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2015/11/30/trick-or-treaty-the-legal-question-hanging-over-the-paris-climate-change-conference/
The hard part is the cutting of emissions

Each government has put in targets that they believe are realistic and that they are willing to try to reach. The countries involved are therefore much more likely to want to meet the target than if they had been imposed on them by a binding international treaty. Europe has found that binding refugee quotas are almost impossible to agree and equally difficult to implement.[1] Instead it has generally been accepted that only voluntary systems will work when it comes to taking in the majority of refugees with Hungary willing to take legal action to prevent mandatory quotas.[2] The same is the case on greenhouse gas emissions. [1] Euractive, ‘Commission ready to drop mandatory quotas for refugees’, 17 September 2015, http://www.euractiv.com/sections/justice-home-affairs/commission-ready-drop-mandatory-quotas-refugees-317723 [2] BBC News, ‘Migrant crisis: Hungary challenges EU quota plan in court’, 3 December 2015, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34998615
Only an international treaty can create penalties for non-compliance

While there are sure to be some countries that won’t live up to their pledges this is also the case with binding agreements even if they have built in penalties. This has been shown by the European Union where Germany and France both flouted budget rules that allowed a maximum deficit of 3% at the start of the millennium despite the threat of fines.[1] [1] Osborn, Andrew, ‘France and Germany to flout budget rules until 2006’, The Guardian, 30 October 2003, http://www.theguardian.com/business/2003/oct/30/theeuro.europeanunion
It is too late for half measures

Voluntary measures have got much further than previous attempts to get a binding agreement – at least there is going to be a good working agreement to build on in future this time. The changes that could mean countries ultimately targeting 2C or even 1.5C are technological; if solar becomes the cheapest form of electricity generation, if electric cars become competitive with petrol, and biofuels taken up for aviation fuel.[1] [1] Mathiesen, Karl, ‘Should we be aiming to keep global warming to 1.5C, not 2C?’, The Guardian,. 2 December 2015, http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/02/global-warming-climate-change-2c
Sovereign states should be allowed to set their own targets and be trusted to meet them

Sovereignty is often taken to mean that states can do what they like without interference. This is not the kind of mentality that will help solve climate change or ensure that this deal sticks. Unfortunately climate change is a global issue where what happens in one country affects everyone else just as much as the miscreant. The atmosphere is a global commons, currently free for everyone to use, and more often abuse. As such the principles of sovereignty and non-interference can have no place.
Intelligence is necessary for the safety of the public.

Domestic intelligence is very important to the national security and to the safety of the public. Domestic intelligence is imperative in preventing terrorist attacks on the country when terrorists are as likely to be natives as foreigners, for example the 7/7 bombers in Britain were all native.[1] In order for a domestic intelligence organization to be effective, its organizational discretion must be limited by establishing clear legislation that is not secret, on the focus, limits, and techniques of domestic intelligence. When this is in place domestic intelligence is not harmful, nor infringement on democracy – it is in the people’s best interest. As Professor Dahl notes “Intelligence is about the thousands and thousands of routine, everyday observations and activities… in many cases these observations, this intelligence, is about routine activities undertaken by ordinary Americans and others who do not intend to cause harm.” This intrusion is necessary in order to catch the few who do intend to do harm.[2] [1] BBC News, Special Report London Attacks ‘The bombers’, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/uk/05/london_blasts/investigation/... [2] Dahl, Eric Domestic Intelligence Today: More Security but Less Liberty? http://www.hsaj.org/?fullarticle=7.2.8