BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Feminising the state: women helping women

Including women in politics helps enable poverty to be tackled. Poverty is a women’s issue; women are more likely to live in poverty than men, and women are needed in politics to change this. Women understand each other, and what they need. Furthermore, although data varies, evidence shows gender inequalities remain intertwined to poverty and impoverishment[1][2]. Women in positions of power and leadership can put the issues women face on the agenda and apply action. There is clearly a need to get women into politics to counter the current ‘boys club’ that exists in most countries where men help each other into positions of power squeezing out women and other methods of doing things.   [1]See further readings: Gender Inequality Index, 2014. [2] See further readings: Chant, 2003.
Changing the male territory

African politics remains masculinised and strongly male dominated. Implementing quotas shows a commitment to change gender inequalities by increasing women’s political participation (Bachelet, 2013). More women mean gender imbalances can be changed, women empowered, and the territorial boundaries defining what men and women do will become blurred. Additionally women in African politics can change the ‘boys club’ of bad governance in Africa. Bad governance can be tackled as the prominence of males controlling decisions will be changed, and internal political relations altered. The least corrupt countries on the continent; Rwanda and Botswana both have some form of quota system(quotaproject, 2014, Transparency International, 2013)
A safer world

International relations debates, and conflict theories, suggest more women in politics makes for a safer world. In Pinker’s (2011) book the feminisation of politics is identified as a key factor to explain the decline in conflict and violence – battle deaths have declined from 20 per 100,000 people to only 1 or 2 today. Women are more inclined to call for peace resolution and being ‘maternal beings’ reflect nurturing behaviours.
The woman’s ‘political job’

Quotas mean more women are able to enter the political world; however, how is it decided what political jobs and positions they can utilise? The inclusion of women into politics in Africa has mainly been in certain departments i.e. gender and health. More powerful women are needed in positions that remain masculinised – such as defence and security. Therefore the quota may introduce more women in politics, however, how active are they in deciding what area of politics? The quota may well be seen merely a means to introduce women passively into new distinct gender roles. If women are believed to be granted positions as a result of the quotas, rather than it being a position they have earned, they may be more at risk of marginalisation at work. Having a quota provides a reason to argue that an exceptional woman has received her place no based upon merit but due to the quota. This may be used as an excuse to prevent women reaching the most important positions.
Assuming causality: Africa Vs Scandinavia

Scandinavian countries – Norway, Sweden and Denmark – have high female participation rates in parliament. However, Rwanda is one African nation that has even greater female parliamentary representation. In Scandinavia the quota has been introduced but is only implemented by some parties. Nevertheless there is little difference between parties in Denmark, for example, that utilise the quota and those that do not. This shows that voluntary quotas can work but also that they are not really necessary. This is because the position of women and capability to engage in politics was tackled first. The key thing is the perception of women; if they are perceived equally and voted for on their own merits women will win as often as men. This shows, crucially, political participation by women should not be dependent on quotas. We should not rely on quotas for gender equality. Women face multiple barriers to political participation; deeper action is required to adjust imbalances rather than simple quotas. Having quotas simply encourages a perception that gender matters in politics when the desired outcome is the opposite; a belief by the electorate that politics is genderless with both as able to perform the role. In Senegal for example, the quota is being criticised as challenging traditional culture and patriarchal society norms it is however those norms that need to be changed not just the number of women in politics[1]. [1] See further readings: Hirsch, 2012.
Significant changes in the past have not been put to popular vote.

In the past treaties with more far reaching consequences have been ratified by ruling parliaments without ever going to popular vote. For example the 1986 Act establishing a Single Market and the 1996 Maastricht Treaty. These treaties gave the EU power in economic regulation, immigration and monetary policy and yet were not put to majority voting. It was understood that progress was important and popular voting could halt progress. If these changes were made it is nonsensical that treaties with less significance should use a referendum.
If all member states held a referendum on all EU treaties nothing would get passed.

The pure size and logistics of the European Union is such that if every member state had to hold a referendum on all EU Treaties, no EU Treaties would get enacted. It is too likely that one of the member states will vote against a motion. The EU should be able to vote on issues without consulting the citizens of all member states, in the UK legislation is voted on in parliament which is made of constituency representatives. The concept for government's voting in representation of their countries within the EU is the same. Furthermore the UK did not hold a referendum on the war with Iraq, so why should a referendum be held for issues of lesser importance.
Referendums are more about PR than politics.

Referendum votes always end up being about something other than the issue on the ballot paper. In many referendum campaigns the real issue becomes one of confidence in the government of the day and its management of the economy, law and order, public scandals, etc. So when people vote they are expressing their unhappiness at their national government rather than making a considered judgment about the future of the EU. This is exactly what happened in the French and Dutch votes on the EU Constitution in 2005. When asked what influenced their decision, most voters said that they disliked aspects of EU enlargement, especially the arrival of Eastern European workers who might take local jobs, and the proposed entry negotiations with Turkey – but none of this was anything to do with the Constitution [1]. Furthermore a referendum would be pray to media distortion, which could have swayed the votes with biased coverage. Referendums are too often about government confidence rather than the issue at hand, people may have voted to express other grievances with their current government and not the future of the EU. [1] The Further Enlargement of the EU: threat or opportunity?’ House of Lords European Union Committee (23 November 2006) viewed on 13 June 2011 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeucom/273/273.pdf, p.10
Voters do not understand or care about EU reforms.

 They would have found the legal jargon off-putting and a detailed knowledge of the existing EU Treaties is necessary to understand the amendments proposed 1. They have limited understanding of the current system and therefore cannot evaluate how reform treaties would benefit or harm the EU and their nation's interest. Due to this lack of understanding citizens are too likely to be swayed by media bias and anti Europe campaigners. All this is shown by the low turnout in European parliament elections. Elected representatives on the other hand, do understand the impact of the treaties and therefore can make an informed decision on the behalf of their people and in the nation's interest. 1 'An unloved Parliament', The Economist (7 May 2009), viewed on 13 June 2011 'Elections 2009', eu4journalists viewed on 13 June 2011
The decision not to hold a referendum directly ignores the wishes of the people and is therefore undemocratic.

The decision not to hold a referendum was not one taken against the wishes of the people. Firstly, citizens of France and the Netherlands, who voted no to the Constitution in public vote, accepted the decision to not repeat a referendum in 2007. Furthermore, the accusation that the two texts are 96% identical is a crude one that ignores the fundamental difference in meaning that a few words can make [1] therefore the decision to not hold a referendum to ratify The Lisbon Treaty should not be seen in conjunction with the result of the Constitution referendum. This demonstrates that the decision not to hold a referendum was not against the people's wishes: it was largely accepted that accepting constitutional changes through the elected national parliament was democratically acceptable. [1] 'The EU Reform Treaty
Major changes need to be put to the people and the people must be trusted.

The Lisbon Treaty is limited in significance and has less problematic superstate aspects that the Constitutional treaty of 2004 such as an official flag, anthem and bill of citizen's rights [1]. The Constitution wanted to found the European Union on an entirely new basis, whereas the Lisbon Treaty is a conventional amending Treaty. It is this fundamental difference that justifies the lack of referendum for the Lisbon Treaty when it was essential for the ratification of the Constitution. However the association with the previous Treaty would have seen the public wary and progress stifled as a result. The Lisbon Treaty was more concerned with technical reforms than constitutional significance and therefore did not need the ratification of the national electorates. The result of a referendum is more likely to reflect public opinion on the current government than on the proposed reforms. Furthermore on important foreign policy issues the elected government is better informed to make decisions than the electorate [2]. [1] BBC News, ‘EU leaders sign landmark treaty’, viewed on 13 June 2011 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7141651.stm [2] Parliament, Referendums – for and against, viewed on 13 June 2011 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldselect/ldconst/99/9904.htm improve this
Reform treaties are too important to be left to politicians of the day

Democracy itself is the delegating of decision making to elected officials and this is exactly what has taken place in the government's decision to not hold referendums but pass changes through national parliaments. Referenda undermines democracy by negating the representative government and parliamentary sovereignty, they have been chosen as the representatives of the people, by the people, and therefore have the right to make informed decisions on their behalf about what to do in the nation's best interests. If there are longer term issues with a government's decision then they can be made accountable at the next general election. improve this
If all member states held a referendum on all EU treaties nothing would get passed.

There is a difference between holding a referendum for every decision and holding one for important constitutional changes that will affect a nation's future sovereignty. The logistics and the fear of rejection should not be a reason to not hold a referendum. If anything the current controversy surrounding the war on Iraq and its legality is proof that referendums are fundamental in important issues to ensure that the ruling government still reflects the will of the people.
Voters do not understand or care about EU reforms.

Voters do care about EU reforms, and they are owed the respect of being told in layman's terms what specific treaty changes would do in real terms. The Lisbon Treaty was unnecessarily complicated and full of jargon (Browne, 'Gobbledegook'). It is the role of the politicians to make sure that treaties are easy to understand and accessible to all the citizens of the countries that they will affect. If the public is apathetic it is because they know their vote will ultimately be ignored. Democracy is paramount and in order to remain democratic EU reform needs to be passed by a public vote and not just the elected: prolonged elite avoidance of the engaging the public will be more detrimental in the long run1 1 Lu, Chien-Yi Lu, 'Fallacies in Embracing a
The decision not to hold a referendum directly ignores the wishes of the people and is therefore undemocratic.

The Lisbon Treaty and the Constitution have 96% of the same text. Former French President Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, who wrote the original EU Constitution, has publicly stated that the Lisbon Treaty is essentially the same as the proposed Constitution [1]. The decision from countries not to hold referendums in 2007 that they had previously agreed to is a flagrant disregard for the wishes of the people. Moreover the decision to ratify the Lisbon Treaty through national parliaments in France and the Netherlands where the 2004 Treaty was rejected in popular vote demonstrates that the decision not to hold referendums was in the fear that they would be rejected when put to the people. Any decision that is forced through parliament in the fear that it would fail when opened to the citizens of that country lacks legitimacy. [1] Valéry Giscard d'Estaing: The EU Treaty is the same as the Constitution’, The Independent (30 October 2007), viewed on 13 June 2011 http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/valeacutery-giscard-destaing-the-eu-treaty-is-the-same-as-the-constitution-398286.html
Major changes need to be put to the people and the people must be trusted.

The Lisbon Treaty significantly affects the workings of each member country. It gives the European Union a legal personality, allowing it to sign international agreements and member countries are now made subject to majority voting [1]. The Lisbon Treaty does not only affect international policies, criminal law and national justice systems, it also gives power over to the Commission and European Court. Such major changes must be put to popular vote, the citizens of each EU member state have a right to legitimise or reject these changes that push for a more centralized European superstate. Furthermore the will of the people needs to be trusted, if a reform is intentionally ambiguous and complicated, which was one of the criticisms of the Lisbon Treaty [2], it is the job of the politician to explain the cause to the public. Voters should be included in the debate and key issues need to be highlighted not just ignored. [1] European Commission, Your Guide to the Lisbon Treaty, viewed on 13 June 2011 http://ec.europa.eu/publications/booklets/others/84/en.pdf [2] Foley, Kathy, ‘Lisbon treat: yes, no or eh?’, Sunday Times (13 January 2008).
Reform treaties are too important to be left to politicians of the day

Decisions that affect the national sovereignty of a country should not just be left to elected politicians who have power for a limited time but should be given to the citizens through direct vote. The nature of the Lisbon Treaty changed the relationship between member states and Brussels; it is clearly a constitutional issue and therefore needs to be ratified by all citizens. The Blair Labour Government held referenda on a whole range of constitutional changes, including not only devolution in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, but even on whether individual cities should have directly elected mayors
Problems with Verification.

Verification is vital in any agreement to limit arms. Both sides need to trust each other a bit but a lot of this trust needs to come from comprehensive mechanisms to monitor and ensure that both sides are carrying out their commitments. If the verification system is not good enough then neither side will have faith in the agreement and will be more likely to try and bypass it. Unfortunately the expired START’s verification regime was robust when compared to that for the New START. Baker Spring at the Heritage foundation lists some of the specific areas that are significantly less robust: A narrowing of the requirements for exchanging telemetry (electronic transmissions that give details of missile performance that helps give a good idea about whether Russia is complying with the treaty) , A reduction in the effectiveness of the inspections (the Russians feel that inspections are unfairly biased against them), Weaknesses in the ability to verify the number of deployed warheads on ICBMs and submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), Abolition of the START verification regime governing mobile ICBMs, and A weakening of the verification standards governing the elimination of delivery vehicles.[1] [1] Spring, Baker. "Twelve Flaws of New START That Will Be Difficult to Fix". Heritage Foundation, The Foundry. 16 September 2010. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/09/twelve-flaws-of-new-start-that-will-be-difficult-to-fix?query=Twelve+Flaws+of+New+START+That+Will+Be+Difficult+to+Fix
The New START treaty will make for a safer world.

New START is about national politics, not about the interests of the world or peace. As George Will argued in 2010: "The (Obama) administration's ardor for ratification is understandable, as is Russia's. The president needs a success somewhere; Russia needs psychotherapy. It longs to be treated as what it no longer is, a superpower, and it likes the treaty's asymmetries."[1]  New START is about serving these domestic political interests, not securing peace, which it will not achieve as the inspections it puts in place are highly flawed, and there remains a high probability that Russia will cheat on the treaty and augment its nuclear capabilities regardless. All this treaty does is weaken the US, and a situation where one power weakens and the other grows stronger is not good for world peace. [1] Will, George. "Obama's time-warp focus on the New START treaty". Washington Post. 2 December  2010. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/01/AR2010120104728.html
The New START treaty will help against Iran’s nuclear program.

Reducing nuclear arms through New START will not compel others to stop pursuing nukes. The logic behind New START asserts that for every neg­ative development in the area of nuclear proliferation the US needs to take a substantive step in the direction of nuclear disarmament. Ultimately, this approach effectively assumes that the possession of nuclear arms by the US (and Russia) is the incentive driving other nations to pursue nuclear weapons programs so as to be able to deter the United States. Not only is the assumption misplaced, but the policy will undermine deterrence and increase the likelihood of the use of nuclear weapons. It is foolish for the U.S. to take substantive steps toward nuclear disarmament at the same time the nuclear proliferation problem is growing worse.[1] The US should also not seek to improve relations by bribing them with New START at the cost of damaging US defence capabilities. [1] Spring, Baker. "Twelve Flaws of New START That Will Be Difficult to Fix". Heritage Foundation, The Foundry. 16 September 2010. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/09/twelve-flaws-of-new-start-that-will-be-difficult-to-fix?query=Twelve+Flaws+of+New+START+That+Will+Be+Difficult+to+Fix
The New START treaty maintains US nuclear and missile defence.

New START will cause American missile and nuclear capabilities to atrophy, not to be maintained. This is because it locks the US in to agreements of defensive reductions which are tied into Russian offensive reductions. This could eventually leave the US badly under-defended by its missile systems when compared against the offensive capabilities of other nuclear states. Moreover, New START leaves in place the pre-existing Russian tactical nuclear advantage harming US capabilities by comparison.[1] Overall New START hams US missile and nuclear capabilities, and further advantages Russia and other nuclear powers, and so should not be supported. As Mitt Romney argued in 2010:  "Does New START limit America’s options for missile defense? Yes. For the first time, we would agree to an interrelationship between strategic offensive weapons and missile defense. Moreover, Russia already asserts that the document would constitute a binding limit on our missile defense program. But the WikiLeaks revelation last weekend that North Korea has supplied Iran with long-range Russian missiles confirms that robust missile defense is urgent and indispensable."[2] [1] Spring, Baker. "Twelve Flaws of New START That Will Be Difficult to Fix". Heritage Foundation, The Foundry. 16 September 2010. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/09/twelve-flaws-of-new-start-that-will-be-difficult-to-fix?query=Twelve+Flaws+of+New+START+That+Will+Be+Difficult+to+Fix [2] Romney, Mitt. "Stop START." Boston.com. 3 December 2010.  http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/12/03/stop_start/
The New START treaty harms US nuclear capabilities

Many of the worries about the impact of the treaty are much more of a political problem than problems with the treaty itself. U.S. missile modernization in particular is still up to the President and Congress to sort out the funding between them – the restrictions are minor.[1]  Worries about the impact on missile defense are also a red herring. Missile defense is not aimed at Russia and the United States simply needs to make sure that its defenses are obviously aimed at who it says they are aimed at: rogue states such as Iran and North Korea. Regarding other defence capabilities, the New START Treaty preserves America’s ability to deploy effective missile defenses, and simply prevents it from being effective enough to undermine deterrence, something which Russia would be right in worrying about if the United States had any intention of building such a comprehensive missile defence. The prohibition on converting existing launchers will have little impact on the United States as the military believes that such conversion would be more expensive and less effective than building new purpose built defensive missiles.[2] Finally if Russia did exercise its right to withdraw then both parties would be in no worse a position than they would have been without the new treaty and could simply restart negotiations. [1] Spring, Baker. "Twelve Flaws of New START That Will Be Difficult to Fix". Heritage Foundation, The Foundry. 16 September 2010. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/09/twelve-flaws-of-new-start-that-will-be-difficult-to-fix?query=Twelve+Flaws+of+New+START+That+Will+Be+Difficult+to+Fix [2] Kissinger, Henry A. ; Shultz,  George P. ; Baker III, James A’ ;  Eagleburger , Lawrence S. ; and Powell, Colin L. "The Republican case for ratifying New START". Washington Post. 2 December 2010. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/01/AR2010120104598.html?hpid=opinionsbox1