BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Not representative

Having competition between various levels of government when they are all democratic can lead to better services and results for the people. They can see the effectiveness of their politicians at differing levels and there is increased competition for innovation in policies between the levels of government thereby allowing the voters to judge better in elections.[[Pierre Salmon, Assigning Powers in the European Union in the light of yardstick competition among governments, (January 2003), p.3, 7. http://www.u-bourgogne.fr/leg/documents-de-travail/e2003-03.pdf%5D%5D 1) Prof V Klaus is not a reliable source on democracy. He refuses to sign the Lisbon Treaty despite both Houses of the Czech parliament approving it. He is in a minority on other issues as well - e.g.: global warming. 2) i) Yes, there is a democratic deficit but it is gradually being reduced through the E.P. acquiring additional powers as against the Council. Implementation of the Lisbon Treaty would greatly strengthen Parliament, and introduce a role for national Parliaments. These would substantially reduce the deficit further. 2) ii) However, so long as MEP's are elected by proportional representation, whilst MPs are elected by first past the post; the MEP has substantially greater credibility than his/her Westminster confrere. 2) iii) The consultative bodies, (both elected and self appointed), think-tanks, university co-operation, and others offering advice or being consulted by the Commission or Parliament, give the 'political classes' (OK: - chattering classes) perhaps a greater input into policy making , than can be claimed for civil society in the UK.
Bureaucracy

While there are obviously some regulations that are not necessary returning power to the national governments would not stop silly regulations from being created, they would just be done at the national level rather than the European level. This would transfer regulations from one set of bureaucracy to 27 differing bureaucracies that would then need to coordinate between them; this would be much more inefficient. The European bureaucracy is also extremely small in terms of the number of people it employs, so if it creates all this regulation and legislation that is associated with it then it is extremely efficient. The commission employs just over 25,000 people (so less than 1000 for each country) that serve the European Union’s 455million people.[[Serving the People of Europe: What the European Commission does for you, European Commission, Brussels 2005, p.3, 6, http://ec.europa.eu/publications/booklets/move/54/en.pdf%5D%5D This can be compared to the Cabinet office that performs a similar role of coordinating policy within the UK with 1500 staff.[[ Cabinet Office Departmental Report 2007, introduction, p.7. http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/media/cabinetoffice/corp/assets/publications/reports/annualreport/2007/intro.pdf%5D%5D However the commission also performs the role of formulating policy that is performed across numerous departments within national governments.
The European Union is too centralised

There are some areas where bigger is better and so far the European Union is not centralised enough. Foreign Affairs and diplomacy where European policy needs to be more centralised to be effective. Europe is a political minnow compared to its heavyweight status in economic affairs. European foreign policy is not internally coherent, there has been a particular split over Iraq and over how to deal with Russian aggression. This means that even in europe’s immediate neighbourhood it is up to the USA not the EU to be the main actor. For the EU to take more coordinated action foreign policy needs to be more supranational than intergovernmental, unanimity makes it too easy for any member to halt progress, and without an individual leadership the EU cant react quickly to diplomatic crises.[[Can EU be a unified voice on the world stage?, Irish Times, 15th May 2008, http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2008/0515/1210799122192.html%5D%5D
Centralisation can be necessary

In some areas national governments having more power results in under provision of public goods, particularly in some key areas where coordination seems obvious and would really help the whole of the European Union, areas such as asylum policies and environmental policies. The national governments and legislatures push for higher spending on goods, and regulation that benefit them so there is little spending on public goods that would benefit the whole of the community but which some will not benefit from so they block any progress. It is therefore necessary for centralised decision making in these areas, as the national government does across a single nation the EU must across multiple.[[Robert A.J. Dur, Hein J. Roelfsema, Why does Centralisation fail to internalise Policy Externalities, Tinbergen Institute Discussion Paper, (Amsterdam 2002) pp.2-3, https://www.tinbergen.nl/discussionpapers/02056.pdf%5D%5D
Decentralisation

Although the European Union itself is slowly accruing powers and slowly centralising overall having the level of the European Union results in decentralisation. The European Union prevents all the power being in the hands of the national governments thereby helping to protect minority interests and human rights against any overmighty national government. Essentially the two levels of government provide checks and balances on each other. For ecample the European Court of Justice has overruled the Home Office on an immigration case. The home office refused Hacene Akrich a Moroccan married to a British women the right to remain in the UK having been married while a illegal immigrant as being against European free movement rules.[[Philip Johnston, EU overrules Britain’s refusal of entry to Moroccan , Telegraph, 24th September 2003, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1442314/EU-overrules-Britains-refusal-of-entry-to-Moroccan.html%5D%5D
Not representative

President Klaus (of the Czech republic – at time of writing the Czech republic holds the rotating president of Europe) does not think that the European Parliament can serve as a genuine representative of the citizens, because “there is no European demos”. A parliamentary democracy needs a government and an opposition, which the European Parliament lacks.[[http://www.federalunion.org.uk/blog/2009/02/europe-needs-opposition.html]] The European Union has a democratic deficit. This is where the European Union and its various bodies suffer from a lack of democracy and seem inaccessible to the ordinary citizen because their method of operating is so complex. The Council of the European Union is not considered democratic (despite it being made up of the heads of the member governments) while the European Commission in many ways performs the function of an executive without being elected in any way.[[http://europa.eu/scadplus/glossary/democratic_deficit_en.htm]] Only the European parliament is directly elected and it is the weakest institution. As the institutions of the European Union have supremacy over the national institutions the EU cannot be democratically legitimised solely by the participation of the member governments. Therefore either there needs to be a much more powerful European Parliament to provide democratic legitimacy to the federal level or else the role of national parliaments has to be increased to make the EU a more standard international organisation and let the democratic legitimacy come from the national parliaments.[[Mihail Milev, A Democratic Deficit in the European Union?, Centre International de Formation Europeenne, p.12., http://www.geopolitis.net/EUROPE%20EN%20FORMATION/Democratic%20Deficit%20in%20the%20European%20Union.pdf%5D%5D
Bureaucracy

Europe is infamous for its bureaucracy, deciding on almost everything, projects in Europe take years to get off the ground. Particularly for passing regulations on all sorts of little things, such as the Commission Regulation on the issue of licences for the import of garlic in the subperiod from 1 June to 31 August 2009.[[Commission Regulation (EC) No.171/2009 on the issue of licences for the import of garlic in the subperiod from 1 June to 31 August 2009, 4th March 2009, Official Journal of the European Union, 5th March 2009, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:061:0008:0009:EN:PDF%5D%5D Returning power to the national Governments could reduce this bureaucratisation.
The European Union is too centralised

The European Union now has control over numerous areas from trade and agriculture to regulation to justice with movements towards security falling under the European Union in the not too distant future. Many of these areas do not need to be under the European Union’s jurisdiction and can be better carried out by national governments. After all the European Union does not carry out its own policies it just reserves the right to regulate the whole union, referring members to the European Court of Justice if they don’t do what they are told! As the powers the EU has been accruing since it was set up have been slowly given over various treaties or by voting in the European Council there is a very unclear distribution of powers. There is no set constitution stating what powers should fall to the national governments and which to the supra-national European Union.[[http://www.jeanmonnetprogram.org/papers/00/00f1201EN-02.html]]
Power should be devolved to levels lower than the national government

Arguments that can be made that power should be devolved from Europe to the national governments can often equally be made for devolving power to smaller units within each nation, or from the European Union to the these sub national units rather than to national governments. In Europe the idea of subsidiarity has become accepted and incorporated into treaties by this government should take place at the lowest level possible. Legitimacy derives from the people upwards to the level of government that can best carry out the task efficiently.[[John Hopkins, Devolution in Context: Regional, Federal and Devolved Government in the European Union, (Routledge, 2002) pp.25-6.]] So devolving power tends to increase legitimacy as the politicians are elected on a more local level and each one if often elected by less electors.
Routinely arming the police is an effective deterrent to criminal behaviour; most countries in Europ...

Routinely arming the police causes a spiral of violence. Where the police are not routinely armed, a proportion of criminals will not arm themselves (since, for example, armed robbery often carries a higher sentence than robbery). Once the police are armed, criminals who do not match their capability operate under a strong disadvantage. Therefore, when the police become routinely armed, the criminal world fully arms itself in response. \ The mere fact of increased weapons possession (by both police and criminals) will in itself result in higher use, since in circumstances where arms may not be currently used (e.g. a police chase), either side carrying weapons will mean that they consider a shooting option which they did not formerly possess. This effectively reduces the options currently available, for example the police are less likely to use less harmful alternatives such as “stun guns”, CS spray, negotiation, etc.\
The old-fashioned notions of friendly neighbourhood light policing reflected the aspirations of a di...

By routinely arming its police officers, the state effectively legitimises the weapon as a symbol of authority. Whether or not this is pragmatic, it is an implied affirmation of the criminal sub-culture, which will accordingly be strengthened.\ By this policy – especially in the absence of a fundamental right for citizens to bear arms – the role of the police is essentially defined in opposition to at least part of the citizenry. This can be contrasted to the more common expectation that police and citizens operate under essentially common rules, for shared values.\
Routinely armed police reassure law-abiding citizens at a time when gun-related crime is increasing ...

Arming the police delegitimises their role as community standard bearers. Many law-abiding citizens who have no connection to the criminal underworld are horrified by armed police, whom they regard as alien to their cultural frame of reference. \ Lethal weaponry is a potent symbol of possible brutality. This can undermine the ability of the police to be seen as a key constituent part of civil society. This problem is exacerbated when this symbolic brutality is applied in ways that deviate from the expectations of civil society for example through unfair racial profiling.\
Routinely arming police officers allows them to defend themselves. There is a global increase in gu...

Arming the police is an easy way of ignoring the fundamental failures of society. Guns are an ex post response to crime. What is actually needed is more effort in preventing crime through detective work and policing strategy rather than focussing on responding to it. Nor does arming the police offer a solution to fundamental socio-political issues which contribute to crime.\ Routinely arming the police is an uneven response to gun crime, as it will affect some sections of the community more than others. For example, as certain ethnic groups are often associated with particular types of criminality, police use of firearms will damage police credibility within communities which feel that they are the subject of too much police suspicion. Even if the police believe they are carrying weapons in self-defence, others will view it as an aggressive act.\
The police themselves are calling for more routine arming, through both the unions that represent ra...

The police are split on this issue at all levels, so it would be wrong to listen only to the loudest voices. The police should also be firmly under civilian control, with policy issues such as the carrying of firearms or stop and search policy subject to political decisions and accountability. Recruitment may well be adversely affected if the police are armed; many current officers opposed to this measure may leave, and others like them will not apply to join the force in future. Do we want a police force largely composed of people who want to carry a gun every day?
This is a small step, as police officers are routinely armed already in a variety of situations, e.g...

This is a big change, both culturally and practically. The large majority of policemen and women go through their whole career without handling firearms. Even with the special selection measures and intensive training given to the few firearms officers today, mistakes sometimes occur and innocent people are shot, either by mistake because the armed officers are acting on inaccurate information, or because they are bystanders caught in the cross-fire of a shoot-out. Arming all police officers would mean ditching the current stringent selection methods and inevitably result in less training being provided, so mistakes would become much more common and more people would be wounded or killed.
Routinely arming the police is an effective deterrent to criminal behaviour; most countries in Europ...

Routinely arming the police is an effective deterrent to criminal behaviour; most countries in Europe and North America routinely arm police officers, in part to deter criminal acts. Armed criminals operate in at least some areas in almost every jurisdiction. Given this, a failure to routinely arm the police gives armed criminals a strong advantage in terms of their ability to threaten and commit violence without any corresponding risk to themselves.
The old-fashioned notions of friendly neighbourhood light policing reflected the aspirations of a di...

The old-fashioned notions of friendly neighbourhood light policing reflected the aspirations of a different age. As armed violence has increased sharply in parts of the developed world, the police need to redefine their role so that it is a more appropriate response to contemporary problems. There is also a network effect involved in being a state with unarmed police when others have them. The nation may be seen as a “soft touch” compared to other regional nations. This can effectively encourage an importation of criminality.
Routinely armed police reassure law-abiding citizens at a time when gun-related crime is increasing ...

Routinely armed police reassure law-abiding citizens at a time when gun-related crime is increasing in most European countries and parts of North America. Much public opinion holds that something must be done to tackle this. \ People may feel safer when they see armed police, especially if they perceive them as a response to a heightened risk. Thus, for example, police officers at British airports routinely carry sub-machine guns, although there is no evidential pattern to suggest that this high-visibility weaponry offers any situational strategic advantage over a more subtle arming. \
Routinely arming police officers allows them to defend themselves. There is a global increase in gu...

Routinely arming police officers allows them to defend themselves. There is a global increase in gun ownership, even in countries which did not traditionally think of themselves as having a large criminal gun culture e.g. Great Britain. This increases the risks to frontline police officers of being the victims of gun crime. Police officers should have a right to protect themselves. Fewer officers may die on duty if they were better able to protect themselves. Arming the police is essentially a matter of self-defence rather than being actively involved in regular firearms incidents. This is shown by the fact that most routinely armed police never fire their weapon on active duty in their whole career.
The police themselves are calling for more routine arming, through both the unions that represent ra...

The police themselves are calling for more routine arming, through both the unions that represent rank and file policemen, and the bodies which speak for the senior officers. If we want them to uphold law and order, we should trust the police's judgement about the tools they need to carry out their task. Recruitment will also suffer if police officers are seen as too vulnerable, an easy target for criminals because they have no proper means to defend themselves.
In capitalism, the market determines price, including pay - the price of labour. If some people are...

In capitalism, the market determines price, including pay - the price of labour. If some people are paid huge sums, that is because other people believe they have unique talents which are worth paying for. If they fail to perform, then they will stop being rewarded so highly. This is all part of a dynamic capitalist system which values individuality and rewards ability and risk-taking. \ In any case capitalism isn't a monolithic system - capitalism can have elements of control in it. After all, taxation is a capitalist creation and almost all capitalists accept a role for state regulation to prevent market rigging and to help those in absolute poverty.
The guiding hand of government is too strong in a socialist system; it means that change is slow – w...

The guiding hand of government is too strong in a socialist system; it means that change is slow – which means that innovation is missed. This isn’t just pro-business, it has real effects on the lives of citizens - people are poorer because of it. In a capitalist system, economies are diverse enough that when problems happen in one sector, others are often insulated by their differences. In a socialist system, where everything is centrally controlled and diversity is non-existent, when government gets things wrong, everyone suffers. Ultimately, socialist systems are so inefficient and corrupt that labour has to be forced for the state to continue functioning (though this may also be a logical outcome of thinking less of the importance of individual freedoms compared to some abstract communal good). \ The failure of the USSR and other command economies shows the poverty of socialism and the failure of central planning, as on a smaller scale does the failure of nationalised industries in many western countries.
Competition yields better products and more efficient processes in all fields of man's activity. Wh...

Competition yields better products and more efficient processes in all fields of man's activity. Whilst it is true that monopolies sometimes form, these are combated by regulatory methods like monopolies commissions (witness attempts to break up Microsoft, or regulators forbidding the merger of some airlines on competition grounds). So capitalism actively tries to stop monopolies. On the other hand, monopolies are inevitably a part of every aspect of activity in socialist systems - the monopoly of the state.
The right to own property is central to man’s existence. Private ownership of property (including l...

The wealth of the earth belongs to all men or to none. Under capitalism, property is concentrated into the hands of relatively few well-off people, leaving the many with nothing and at the mercy of the rich for work, charity, etc. This leads to gross inequality, exploitation and misery. Nor is it economically efficient, as the rich have so much already they have no incentive to use their land productively. Socialism seeks to redistribute wealth and to ensure that the means of production are at the service of the whole of society, so that all can benefit and none will go without.
The drive to succeed as an individual is the strongest motivating factor a human being can feel in t...

Many could be motivated to work by a wish to aid their fellow man. Over time, as the benefits of this better way of life become obvious, all will. The impulse to share wealth and material amongst the community, to support all, leaving none behind, is one of the purest mankind can experience. It is not merely possible – it is a demonstration of the progress of our species to a finer, more humane state of being.
In capitalism, the market determines price, including pay - the price of labour. If some people are...

Capitalism rewards people in perverse ways. Some footballers or company chief executives earn a thousand times more than nurses. Wealth is concentrated in the hands of the few. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer. The poor are fooled into thinking that they can gain in capitalism, when really all their wages do is hold them in place – their savings are swept away in the first moments of unemployment, a concept central to capitalism but one that socialism destroys.
The guiding hand of government is too strong in a socialist system; it means that change is slow – w...

Economies in capitalist systems are essentially unplanned, so they often crash, producing depressions that damage the lives of millions. Socialist economies are planned, which means that problems can be foreseen and prevented. Ultimately, socialism guides with the aim of human happiness in mind, rather than the glorification or gratification of a particular individual or class. To gain this for all rather than just for some requires an element of social control – the excesses of capitalism will forever mean that too many fall by the wayside as the strong profit, and the weak are left behind.\ Critics who point to the failure of the soviet bloc don't understand that this was not true socialism, which has never been properly tried, but a corrupt version of central planning which served selfish elites rather than the good of the people as a whole. Examples such as Britain's National Health Service, or the European social model of welfare provision show the strengths of a socialist approach.
Competition yields better products and more efficient processes in all fields of man's activity. Wh...

It is false to say that capitalism secures competition automatically. As everyone knows, monopolies are often formed under capitalist systems. Capitalist monopolies are pernicious - they mean that individuals profit obscenely as they can charge exorbitant costs, since citizens cannot obtain services anywhere else. On the other hand, socialist monopolies are benign since the state has the interests of citizens at heart, rather than the enrichment of a particular person.