query: 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

positive: europe politics voting house would hold referendum any new eu treaty 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

negative: An opportunity for civic studies  There would be clear advantages in having elections while young people are still in school as school could help prepare them for the elections. Schools would be able to teach their students in advance what the ballot is like, about the process of voting, and most importantly about the European Union and the function of the European Parliament. One of the biggest problems with the European Parliament is that voters don’t understand what it does. To take a couple of basics from a Eurobarometer poll in 2011, 42% of European citizens did not know MEPs were directly elected and 57% did not know that they sit in the Parliament according to ideology not nationality. [1] This shows how necessary education about the European Parliament is. Having elections at 16 provides an ideal opportunity as it means that most will participate in a European election while they are at school.  Teaching about why voting matters would also help to improve turnout. When Austria reduced its voting age to 16 it was found that turnout from 16-17 year olds was significantly higher than turnout for 18-19 year olds when both groups are first time voters. [2] This suggests that 18 may simply be the wrong time to introduce people to voting for the first time. Since voting or not voting tends to be habit forming lowering the voting age could slowly increase turnout across the board.  [1] EP/Eurobarometer - Public Opinion Surveys , ‘Media recall and knowledge of the EP’, European Parliament Information Office in the United Kingdom,   [2] Zeglovitis, Eva, ‘Votes at 16: Turnout of the Youngest Voters – Evidence from Austria’, ÖGPW Tagung “Tag der Politikwissenschaft”, Salzburg, 2 December 2011,  p.13

negative: europe politics voting house would hold referendum any new eu treaty 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   [2] Parliament, Referendums – for and against, viewed on 13 June 2011

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

negative: europe politics voting house would hold referendum any new eu treaty 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  , p.10

negative: The current treaty-basis for the European Union is enormous, ambiguous and extremely complicated  The current treaty-basis for the European Union is enormous, ambiguous and extremely complicated. The existing treaties regulate multiple levels from the constitutional to detailed market regulations. As a result of this individuals cannot easily read and understand the treaties as a US citizen for example. [1] It is difficult to keep track of each new Treaty that amends the pre-existing treaties. The adoption of a shorter, clearer document will make the EU much more ‘user friendly.’ The EU currently suffers from the fact that many of its citizens do not know what it is or what it does; EU citizens either do not know where to look for this information or are deterred and intimidated by the size of the Treaty of Rome and the Maastricht Treaty. Having an easily digestible constitution will mean that the EU’s citizens can easily find out what the EU is and what it does.  [1] Gjørtler, Peter, ‘ Lisbon Treaty - the Reform Treaty of the European Union’, grayston & company, November 2009

negative: EU elections would put young people off voting  Let’s be honest; European Union elections are hardly exciting and certainly not the most obvious elections to start young people off with. The votes are on very broad issues that don’t have a direct impact on the individual such as trade agreements or broad brush environmental legislation such as the carbon trading market. These may be important issues but they are also abstract and removed from the lives of voters. As Professor Cees Van der Eijk argues "the media pays very little attention to European elections. EU actors are generally invisible, and the elections are labelled boring even before they take place". [1]  To make matters worse each individual vote is worth much less in European than national elections making it more difficult to explain why the individual should vote. In Germany there are more than six times more Bundestag members than there are Germany MEPs. [2] By starting young people out on ‘boring’ elections that are about people and institutions they will never have heard of and have little relevance to young people’s daily lives lowering the voting age would be damaging to turn out. This would be damage not just for European elections but also to other levels as young people will be scared off all levels of politics by their experience of the European elections.  [1] Miller, Vaughne, ‘2009 European Parliament Elections: parties, polls and recent developments’, House of Commons, 29 January 2009,  , p.9  [2] Deutscher Bunderstag, ‘Facts The Bundestag at a glance’, Deutscher Bunderstag, August 2011,

negative: europe politics voting house would hold referendum any new eu treaty 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

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

negative: It is true that the founding treaties are long and, in some places, rather difficult documents. It is also true that many EU citizens know little about the EU. It is too simplistic to say that the treaties are the reason for this as the majority of the population are not interested in reading the original documents and will be happy for bureaucrats or the media to highlight relevant parts. So a concise constitution is not the solution to these problems. Whilst the treaties themselves might be intimidating, many pamphlets, books and websites exist that do a fine job in summarising and explaining these documents – one such site is Europa.eu . [1] The EU also provides many European briefing units across Europe to educate citizens about the EU. The job of providing a simplified and accessible explanation of the EU is already done well without a constitution. If there is still widespread ignorance about the EU then this is unlikely to be solved by the introduction of yet another legal document which will also  [1] Europa.eu, ‘Basic information on the European Union’

negative: europe politics voting house would hold referendum any new eu treaty 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   [2] Foley, Kathy, ‘Lisbon treat: yes, no or eh?’, Sunday Times (13 January 2008).

negative: europe politics voting house would hold referendum any new eu treaty 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.

negative: europe politics voting house would hold referendum any new eu treaty 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

negative: Voting at a lower age would increase participation  There is a problem of apathy in many western countries, with low turnouts at elections. Young people are taught citizenship or civics at school with the aim of building “Knowledge and understanding about being informed citizens...Developing skills of enquiry and communication...Developing skills of participation and responsible action” [1] however they don’t get a chance to put this knowledge into practice for several years. Is it surprising that they lose interest in public affairs during this time? Because national elections are usually only held every four years or so, many people have to wait until they are 20 or 21, years after that civic education, before their first chance to cast an important vote. It is noticeable that political interest is much higher among those in education than those who are not. In Austria it was found that 68% of 16 to 18 year olds in education were interested in politics against only 45% of those who are working. [2] By demonstrating trust and promoting inclusion, young people would feel more confident in their views, become less disillusioned and eventually teach their children the same values. Introducing a lower voting age can only have long term benefits for the expansion of democracy.  [1] House of Commons Education and Skills Committee, ‘Citizenship Education’, House of Commons, 21 February 2007  [2] Zeglovits, Eva, and Schwarzer, Steve, ‘Lowering voting age in Austrtia – evaluation of accompanying campaigns for 16-18 year olds’, Paper presented at the 5th ECPR General Conference, Potsdam, Sept 12th-15th 2009, p.9

negative: Votes by 16-17 year olds would not be protest votes  Throughout the European Union in the Parliament elections there is a problem with protest voting. Indeed studies have found that almost 40% of votes in European Parliament elections are protest votes; [1] this is clearly bad for the European Parliament as these are not the parties that the electorate really want when it comes to creating policy. It reflects the fact that voters don’t believe that their vote for the European Parliament matters.  Yet because voting at 16 is two years earlier than voting in most national elections voting for the European Parliament will be 16 and 17 year olds first experience of voting; as they did not vote for the government they are much less likely to be using their vote simply as a protest against the national government. This is because it will be clear that they are not voting on the basis of national issues because they can’t vote at that level. This then represents a good chance for parties to get their European policies across to the youngest voters so that they know what their vote at the European level means.  [1] Hix, Simon, and Marsh, Michael, ‘Punishment or Protest? Understanding European Parliament Elections’, The Journal of Politics, Vol. 69, No.2, May 2007, pp.495-510,  , p.506

negative: A comprehensive reform of the EU institutional layout is a must  A comprehensive reform of the EU institutional layout is a must given the pressures created by the continuing enlargement process as well as the integration process. The existing EU architecture worked fine for a community of six states, and even for a group of twelve, but it is now desperately out-dated and unsuitable for a Union of 27 or more. For example, the national veto still applies in many areas, meaning one state can block progress even when the other 26 agree. Even when agreement is reached, it is often agonisingly slow and difficult to implement across the whole of the Union, often having to pass through every parliament. As a result EU decision-making has often been criticised as slow, complex and producing too many ‘lowest common denominator’ solutions, therefore Ireland can bring to a halt a vital treaty like Lisbon [1] and the role of the Presidency and ‘foreign minister’ is a compromise that does not result in more unified policy. [2] While still leaving the people feeling distant from the EU’s political processes, undermining legitimacy. [3] A Constitutional Treaty is the only comprehensive tool that exists right now in order to allow for this necessary overall reform.  [1] BBC News, ‘Ireland rejects EU reform treaty’, 13 June 2008,   [2] Bellotti, Sarah M., and Dale, Reginald, ‘U.S. Media Snubs New EU Leaders’, Center for Strategic & International Studies,   [3] Renda, Andrea, ‘Policy-Making in the EU; Achievements, Challenges and Proposals for Reform’, Centre for European Policy Studies, 2009, www.ceps.eu/files/book/1854.pdf

negative: This avoids the real questions about the European Parliament  The real problems with the European Parliament are not about the voting system; most people agree that the system is currently pretty fair. Rather the problem is with A, a lack of interest in European policies – only 43% are interested in European Affairs in 2013, a fall from 51% in 2012. B, the inability of the European Parliament to address the main concerns of the people which are in order unemployment, social inequalities, public debt, jobs for youth, it is not until the 7th most important challenge, immigration that the European parliament has a significant impact. [1] C, a lack of power, and where it has power lack of knowledge about the European Parliament. A change in voting system does not mean a change in the Parliament’s powers or perception.  [1] Directorate-General for Communication Public Opinion Monitoring Unit, ‘European Parliament Eurobarometer: One year to go until the 2014 European elections’, European Parliament, EB 79.5, 21 August 2013  , p.69, 81

negative: Representative Democracy Prevents Domination by Special Interests  Governments often have to pass decisions which anger small, well-organised special interest groups – like teachers unions – but are in the long-term interest of the country. Under representative democracy, the government can simply make the decisions it has to, and resist the political pressure these groups put on them. But under more direct forms of participatory democracy, the special interest groups can organise their members to campaign and vote against proposals which are good for the country but against their private interests. The reason why they are likely to be successful is that most voters won’t have the technical knowledge to recognise the importance of the proposal (curbing unaffordable public sector pensions, for example), they may be uninterested if they do not see how it directly affects them, and will probably be exhausted and bored of referendums if they are held very regularly – an effect observed in Switzerland called “election fatigue”. [1] As a result, turnout amongst regular voters is likely to be low, but the unions or interest groups will be well organised and will be active in campaigning and voting, since they know that they are fighting for their interests. The effect of this will be to enable organised interest groups to dictate policy on issues where they have a major conflict of interest. An example of this is a Californian initiative in 1990 to raise billions of dollars on the bond markets to invest in railways. The initiative was passed after a campaign funded by railway companies. [2]  [1] Buhlmann, M. et al. (2006) “National Elections in Switzerland: an Introduction” Swiss Political Science Review, 12(4) 1-12   [2] The Economist (17 December 2009) “The tyranny of the majority”

negative: europe politics voting house would hold referendum any new eu treaty All politics is PR. If democracy was abandoned every time that the media held sway with the public, then government would soon become a dictatorship. It is a government's job to take up this PR war and to inform the public about the pros and cons of possible reform so that they can make an informed decision. It is not simply good enough to declare that referendums don't work

negative: This may be a good opportunity to change this impression of the European Parliament being boring. Having young people voting will in itself make the election more interesting to the media who will then talk about the issues at the same time. Europe focusing on broad brush issues may actually be a good thing as young people tend to be idealistic they may be more rather than less interested in the big issues such as carbon trading. Moreover if this fails then there is little reason to think that apathy at the European elections will spill over onto other elections

negative: A European political union is by necessity undemocratic  The EU is too large for a democratic structure. Since it deals not with citizens directly but with Member States, a question arises as to which agents should make fundamental decisions. Should every Member State get an equal vote, or a vote in proportion to the size of its population? If nation states get equal votes, a lot of people in larger states such as Germany, France or Spain may find themselves highly disenfranchised. On the other hand, if states get votes in proportion to the size of its population, countries such as Luxembourg will be forever hesitant to join, and rightly so, for its citizens would most likely be excluded.  The democratic deficit in the EU is no less visible in practice. The Commission is not directly elected (4); Council politics are confusing, take a long time, and grind to a halt whenever Germany is in the middle of elections (5); and the voting turnout for European elections, where MEPs are elected, is too low to be considered a fair representation of voters’ views (6).  This poses a problem the moment the EU begins having legislative power in its Member States: we must not let more and more aspects of citizen’s lives be affected by an institution that is increasingly undemocratic.  (4) “About the European Commission”, European Commission.   (5) Pop, Valentina. “German elections to set EU agenda in coming months”, Agenda, EU Observer. 2 September 2013.   (6)Dowling, Siobhán. “Europe’s Unpopular Elections: Who Is to Blame for EU Voter Apathy?”, Spiegel Online International. 3 June 2009.

negative: It is not true that not being fully representative makes a political entity undemocratic. In national politics we elect representatives to then make decisions on our behalf rather than have constant referenda, or even rather than require unanimity within Parliament. We expect not to have perfect representation. Furthermore, states that feel disenfranchised always have the option of leaving the EU; in fact it is much easier than it would be to leave an unrepresentative nation state. It is important to remember that Member States have consented to acting within this framework.  Even if the political entity is flawed, it can always be improved. Much more power could be given to the European Parliament, and there are already plans for the President of the Commission to be elected through the Parliament. Moreover if turnout is a problem for the elected legislature’s legitimacy then this is a question of encouraging turnout which might happen organically due to increased relevance but if not could be managed if necessary through compulsory voting. Finally not being a flawless democracy must be weighed against not having an entity at all.

negative: Encourages Europe wide thinking  At the moment paradoxically European elections are often not about Europe. Much of the time they are about national politics, and since they are almost always mid-term what they are often about is punishing the national government. Governing parties’ almost always loose votes while opposition parties gain, it is notable that governing parties only gain if the election is held in their ‘honeymoon’ period after they are voted into power. More generally European elections are seen as an opportunity to vote for small parties rather than bigger ones – implying it is a chance to follow ones heart over one’s head. Europe however remains a minor element. [1]  This change in system is unlikely to mean that national governing parties gain significantly more votes but it will raise the profile of the European dimension in the elections. When people are able to vote for parties that do not contest their national elections they will have no choice but to see it as a European election rather than a national one. Voters will be much more likely to ask how the policies of these foreign parties affect them and some may even consider voting for them. A few particularly enterprising parties are likely to run transnational campaigns in the hope of picking up votes outside their home nation. The vote will simply be more European rather than the same old national parties being the only choice.  [1] Hix, Simon, and Marsh, Michael, ‘Punishment or Protest? Understanding European Parliament Elections’, The Journal of Politics, Vol.69, No.2, May 2007, pp.495-510,  , pp.501, 503, 507

negative: europe politics voting house would hold referendum any new eu treaty 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

negative: This assumes that there could never be agreement in the European Council, between member states, to set up such a system. Members have an interest in having a representative system that is fair democratic system of elections so should welcome these changes. The member states have already effectively agreed that the European Parliament can decide for itself what elections for the European Parliament should look like having agreed in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to accept European Parliament proposals for elections of parliament members. [1]  [1] ‘Consolidated Version of The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union’, Official Journal of the European Union,  , Article 223

negative: y political philosophy politics government voting house would make voting Persuasion is more effective than coercion  Forcing people into voting when they are disengaged from the politic process will exacerbate this problem; no one likes doing something simply because they have to. The election results from compulsory voting may not be a representative view of society, than the current systems. Just because people are required to vote does not mean they become more politically engaged than they were before.  Rather than forcing people to vote, more should be done to engage the public in political life. Government transparency should be further encouraged as well as evaluating to what extent the current voting system causes low voter turnout.  Low turnout is best cured by more education. Instead of trying to engage people by force, how about introducing political education in schools and encouraging political conversation. How about educating the public on how politics affects them?  Citizenship classes should be taught to students who are approaching voting age, as it would teach the importance of the electoral process, and the history of the suffragette movement, the reform bills of the 19th century and the responsibilities of living in a democracy.  The government should be trying to engage people by other means, not compulsory voting. Compulsory voting may improve low turnout but will not affect the root problem- what people actually think about politics. In essence it is just relieving the side effects without curing the disease.

negative: Get out the vote!  In a system where every vote counts the same and where there are not set constituencies it is much more important to get the vote out. Political parties in countries with low turn outs, such as the UK which in 2009 has a turnout of just 35%, [1] will need to get their people motivated and voting if they want to win many seats as they currently control. If a country with a comparably sized electorate were to get twice the turnout then it would get twice the representation in the parliament regardless of the similarities in the populations of those countries. What would matter is getting the national constituency out voting. This will help show that individuals really do need to vote in order to get their voice heard.  [1] ‘European Parliament Elections 2009’, House of Commons, Research Paper 09/53, 17 June 2009,  p.23

negative: Punishes apathy  People have a right not to be engaged by voting, and all the more so for a parliament they see as a gravy train with little political power. The European Parliament has comparatively little power, and where it does have power it does not affect the issues that concern people; taxes, welfare, education, and health. [1] This policy however punishes their countrymen for their desire not to vote because political apathy means less votes within that nation – which in turn means that nation’s parties will be less represented in the parliament.  [1] Pech, Laurent, ‘European Parliament Elections: The Significance of Voter Apathy’, International Law Prof Blog, 3 June 2009,

negative: Discussing electoral systems may seem esoteric but the voting system makes an immense difference to the composition of a parliament. This in turn affects the balance of power in that Parliament and so what laws are actually passed. So a change in the voting system does not completely avoid the question of powers. It may also change perceptions because of the ability of parties to campaign in countries where they have not done so before.  While the lack of powers is a concern for the European Parliament this is something that is slowly changing anyway. The European Parliament was in 2009 made co-legislator with the council meaning it has much more power to stop European level legislation rather than simply being consulted. The change in 2014 to having an elected Commission President will also mean that parliament elections have some influence on the executive. Additionally even on those issues where the Parliament has little power this does not mean it does not take into account citizens’ concerns, on youth unemployment for example the parliament has launched a €15 million program of job creation aimed at youth. [1]  [1] ‘European elections 2014: Different this time?’, EurActive.com, 18 September 2013,

negative: Rationalises an irrational system  The current system for the European Parliament elections is irrational and quirky because it is partially set individually per nation. The vote is not held on the same day in every country – the elections take place from Thursday when the UK and Netherlands votes through to Sunday when most of the EU votes, [1] some countries divide themselves into multiple constituencies – such as the UK which has 12 [2] – while others like Germany have one constituency for the whole country. Perhaps oddest of all Austrians are able to vote when they reach 16 years old while everyone else has to wait until they are eighteen. [3] And all this is before the oddities of little countries votes counting for more is included.  Rationalisation of this system is clearly necessary and this is what this proposal does. Clearly the main rationalisation is in terms of making the value of votes the same. It would also eliminate differences over constituencies. It is likely that it would eliminate the age difference too; Austria allowing its citizens to vote at 16 would effectively give it more say compared to its population size. The chances are then that other states would follow and reduce their voting age for European Parliament elections to 16. While there is no necessary link to voting on the same day it would also provide a good chance to make the change so the voting occurs at one time.  [1] ‘EU elections: Polling day will stay on Thursday, insists government’, BBC News, 13 March 2013,   [2] ‘Your Members in the European Parliament’, European Parliament Information Office in the United Kingdom,   [3] European Parliament, ‘About Parliament - Members’, europarl.europa.eu,  , accessed 3 May 2013

negative: europe politics defence leadership house favours common eu foreign policy The post of a High Representative is merely a shadow of what it should have been, and its failure shows the EU's inability to consolidate foreign policy.  While seemingly groundbreaking, the current agreement on the EU reform treaty was nothing but a lame attempt to salvage a much bolder initiative: an EU Constitution. The rejection of the EU Constitution in the Dutch and French referendums, as well as the extreme difficulty in getting even its watered-down version accepted, shows the extent to which the member states of the EU are not yet ready to think and act in unison. The UK representatives successfully insisted that the language of the reform treaty clearly states that major foreign policy decisions will continue to be taken at the state level.

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

negative: Politicians are not merely elected to enact policies as stated but to act as a surrogate for the views and values of the voters who elect them. That is why politicians are expected, and are considered legitimate in doing so, to legislate on issues not necessarily discussed on the campaign trail. It is the scrutiny of private lives that allows the public to know how a politician will represent their views with regards to questions that are not asked in the election. That is why it is essential to understand the private life and character of the representative. With regard to political attacks, voters are trusted to select leaders, and can reasonably be expected to make decisions in their genuine interests. Thus they can be expected to discern policy from the campaigns effectively only in the case of access to the candidates’ private lives will they now have additional information to make an even better decision.


query: Has made little difference in the past  The precedent of the Line Item Veto Act under President Clinton should warn against a constitutional amendment. The sums saved were laughably small, $355 million, in the context of the entire federal budget, $1.7 trillion, (0.02% of spending)1 but nonetheless provoked considerable friction between elected representatives and the White House. There was unhappiness that the large majority of his cuts were of earmarks requested by Republican members, and an allegation that the Administration had threatened a Congressman with the veto of an item dear to them unless they supported an unrelated piece of legislation.  1Virginia A. McMurty, 'Enhancing the President's Authority to Eliminate Wasteful Spending and Reduce the Deficit', Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, Federal Services and International Security Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Committee Hearing 15/3/2011, p.9

positive: onal americas politics government house wants line item veto amendment The use of the line-item veto power by President Clinton in 1997 demonstrates the advantages of such authority. Although the power was declared unconstitutional in 1998 by the Supreme Court, while he held it Clinton demonstrated what could be achieved. He acted cautiously, only cancelling 82 appropriations, but these totalled nearly $2 billion1– a useful contribution in itself to reducing the federal deficit, and one that suggested that much bigger savings could be achieved by a more determined President. The Congressional Budget Office agreed according to the Congressional Budget Office "The 1997 cancellations had a relatively small impact on the budget's bottom line, but that outcome may have resulted in part from temporary factors, such as last year's balanced budget agreement."2 This period also demonstrated that Congress would still retain the power of the purse, as it was able to overrule one of Clinton’s deletions, on the Military Construction bill worth $287billion, by majority vote in both houses.3  1 It is time for congress to kill the pig, Center for individual freedom, 11/11/04, accessed 6/5/11  2 The line item veto act after one year’, Congressional Budget Office, April 1998, accessed 6/5/11  3 Marc Lacey, ‘Senate Votes 1st Override of Clinton Line-Item Vetos, Los Angeles Times, 26/2/1998, accessed 6/5/11

negative: Abolishing earmarks will save money  Scrapping earmarks will save billions of dollars and contribute to reducing the appalling US budget deficit. Earmarks totalled about $16 billion of the 2009-10 budget, [1] unnecessary spending which should be cut in the interests of both present and future US taxpayers. Earmarks can be a large amount of a department’s budget, in 2005 the Office of Naval Research derived a quarter of its budget through earmarks. [2] Granted, removing earmarks alone will not be sufficient to eliminate the budget deficit and get rid of wasteful government spending, but earmarks are the obvious place to start. Until these most egregious examples of waste are tackled, it will not be possible to move on to cut bigger spending programs.  [1] Kane, Paul, ‘Congressional earmarks worth nearly $16 billion’, 2010  [2] Charging RINO, ‘The Problem with Earmarks’, 2006

negative: Earmarks are part of the power of the purse  Earmarks are an important aspect of Congress’s proper powers and role within the constitution, they have been used since the early 19th Century. [1] The US Constitution gives Congress the power of the purse – exclusive authority over the raising of money and its appropriation to particular spending areas. Directing federal funds to individual projects at a local level is an important part of this; [2] indeed many Congressmen such as Rahm Emanuel consider it their duty for which they can be held accountable by voters. [3] It is part of having several layers of accountability and representation at the federal level, congressmen for local interests, Senators for states and the President for the whole country. [4] The unconstitutional alternative is for Congress to cede this power entirely to the executive branch.  [1] Plumber, Bradford, ‘The liberal case for pork’, 2006  [2] Feehery, John, ‘Reform, don’t ban, earmarks’, 2009  [3] Emanuel, Rahm, ‘Don’t Get Rid of Earmarks’, 2007  [4] Harris-Lacewell, Melissa, ‘In Defense of Earmarks’ 2009

negative: Scrapping earmarks won’t save money, it’s just a distraction from the real challenge the government faces. As Earmarks are just a way of describing a government funded program [1] they do not represent additional government spending, they simply appropriate small amounts of it (less than 0.5% of the whole US budget, and only 1.5% of discretionary spending) for specific projects. [2] If the earmarks were not there, the money would still be spent; its use would simply be decided by the executive branch rather than directed to a particular end by Congress. For this reason, ending the use of earmarks will do nothing to cut the deficit. If you were serious about doing that you would have to think about cutting entitlement programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, raising the pension age further, reducing military expenditure, and increasing taxes. [3]  [1] Harris-Lacewell, Melissa, ‘In Defense of Earmarks’ 2009  [2] Sell, T.M., ‘A few kind words for earmarks’, 2009  [3] Hoyer, Steny H., ‘’Pork’ doesn’t fatten budget’, 2009

negative: Earmarks do not accord with democratic principles of equity, fairness and justice  Earmarks are fundamentally unfair, benefiting some states and congressional districts much more than others regardless of the merits of their case for federal spending. Where spending priorities are decided by the executive they can set objective criteria and organise competitive bidding processes for specific projects. Earmarks avoid this merit-based approach and instead channel money to specific projects according to how well-connected their Congressional representatives are. [1] Congressmen on the key spending committees, especially the Appropriations Committees, are best placed to channel pork back to their districts. It has been found that earmark spending rises between 40-50% in a state if one of its Senators becomes Chair of a top-three committee. [2]  [1] Minge, David, ‘The Case Against Academic Earmarking’  [2] Coval, Joshua et al., ‘Do Powerful Politicians Cause Corporate Downsizing?’, 2011

negative: economic policy tax politics government house doesnt trust republicans economy George Bush announced that cutting government was one of his greatest priorities, his actions could not have been further from this ambition. As with most Republican presidents, government spending grew considerably on his watch. Indeed no president since FDR presided over a larger rate of growth in the federal budget. The largest recipient has been the military with over $5tn dollars spent on defence during his two terms. To take one example, when the Transportation Security Administration took a guess at the cost of a national computer system in 2002, it pegged the price at $1bn. A few years later the price was running at five times that [i] .  [i] Jon Ward. “Big Government Gets Bigger”. The Washington Times. 19 October 2008.

negative: Transparency is difficult in such immense spending bills as there is no way the appropriations committee can vet all the thousands of earmarks. [1] [2] Earmarks move below the radar so earmarks encourage corruption. [3] Although collusion cannot easily be proved, the ability of a Congressman to solicit campaign contributions in exchange for using earmarks to provide federal investment, subsidies, tariff protection and tax breaks for individual firms and industries is worrying. [4]  [1] Rauch, Jonathan, ‘Earmarks Are A Model, Not A Menace’, 2009  [2] Minge, David, ‘The Case Against Academic Earmarking’  [3] Minge, David, ‘The Case Against Academic Earmarking’  [4] Lessig, Lawrence, ‘the wong in earmarks’, 2008

negative: Earmarks transfer too much power to political parties' central leadership  The ability to support or withhold approval from earmarks strengthens the party leaderships in Congress too much. Effectively the leadership can bribe elected representatives with pork for their state or district in order to get them to vote for flawed legislation or budgets. This was clearly seen in the 2010 Healthcare bill where in the Senate votes were secured from conservative Democrats by offering federal spending or subsidies that only affected the states of Louisiana and Nebraska. [1] One consequence of the temptation provided by earmarks is poor policy-making, but more broadly it discourages Congressmen from thinking and voting independently, according to their consciences and their belief in what is best for the nation.  [1] Murray, Shailagh and Montgomery, Lori, ‘Deal on health bill is reached’, 2009

negative: There will always be some wasted spending but earmarks often appropriate money for projects that are considered very worthwhile by the local community. [1] After all, representatives know that useless vanity projects will not attract positive headlines back home, so they have every incentive to ensure that the money goes into stimulating local economies, investing in neglected communities, and making a positive impact on the lives of millions of Americans. [2] For example Senator McCain singled out $6.6million for research on Formosan termites as unjustified but for local people they represent a threat to buildings as they consume wood. [3] Furthermore, who is more likely to appreciate the needs on the ground, a faceless, unaccountable Washington-based bureaucrat, or an elected local representative closely in touch with the needs of their constituents? As Rahm Emanuel argues “I know more about the needs of the people I represent than some bureaucrat in Washington, an ideologue in the White House, or worse, a bureaucrat with orders from a White House ideologue.” [4] Finally, if there are some worthless examples of earmarks, then by all means eliminate those through scrutiny and votes in Congress on a case-by-case basis. There is no need to abandon the whole system.  [1] Elander, Eugene, ‘So, what’s wrong with earmarks?’, 2009  [2] Rauch, Jonathan, ‘Earmarks Are A Model, Not A Menace’, 2009  [3] Grace, Stephanie, ‘In defense of earmarks’, 2009  [4] Emanuel, Rahm, ‘Don’t Get Rid of Earmarks’, 2007

negative: Earmarks do not represent an efficient use of taxpayers' money  Earmarks usually represent expensive programs of little worth to the American people. As the main means of pork barrel politics, earmarks are typically vanity projects with little economic benefit. Examples include the Alaskan “Bridge to Nowhere” (a $400 million project to connect an island community of just 50 people to the mainland), [1] $1 million for shuttle buses at Western Kentucky University, [2] and a grant of $300 000 for the Polynesian Voyaging Society of Hawaii. [3] Worse, a recent Harvard Business School study found that states which received the most federal spending via earmarks from well-connected Congressmen actually suffered economically as a result, because the federal money crowded out private investment and distorted the local jobs market. [4]  [1] Volpe, Paul, ‘Politifact: ‘Bridge’ Going Nowhere Before Palin Killed It’, 2008  [2] WKU News, ‘Funding secured for 2 more projects’, 2009  [3] Mendoza, Jim, ‘McCain criticizes Voyaging Society earmark’, 2010  [4] Coval, Joshua et al., ‘Do Powerful Politicians Cause Corporate Downsizing?’, 2011

negative: economic policy tax politics government house doesnt trust republicans economy Bush squandered an extraordinary economic legacy on tax cuts for the wealthy and too expensive and unnecessary wars.  The Clinton legacy was one of extraordinary economic health including an enormous $4,000 billion surplus. This could have been used to improve services and create jobs. Instead the Bush administration squandered this, mostly on tax cuts for the wealthy and two expensive wars. He turned the surplus on its head, leaving a budget deficit of $482 billion in 2009 with, frankly, not a lot to show for it [i] .  [i] Andrew Taylor. “Bush Leaving Next President Record Federal Deficit”. Huffington Post. 28 July 2008.

negative: Congressional earmarks are a check on an excessively powerful executive branch  The ability of Congress to earmark funds is an important check on the Presidency. Remember, removing earmarks does not save any money, it just means the executive rather than the legislature determines how it will be spent. [1] There are plenty of examples of US administrations spending money wastefully, [2] and others of Congress forcing them to commit money to worthwhile programs – both the improved body armour for troops and the Predator drone program originated as earmarks. As it is difficult to determine what is waste and what is not the books should be opened to scrutiny letting the public decide rather than there being an outright ban. [3]  [1] Rockwell, Lew, ‘In Defense of Earmarks’ 2008  [2] Elander, Eugene, ‘So, what’s wrong with earmarks?’, 2009  [3] Los Angeles Times, ‘Earmark games in Washington’, 2009

negative: onal americas politics government house wants line item veto amendment The constitution should not be amended  We should always be cautious of altering the United States’ Constitution. Once an amendment is passed, it is extremely hard to overturn, even if its consequences are clearly negative (as the experience of constitutionally-mandated prohibition of alcohol should make clear). It would be both difficult and unnecessary. There are problems of wording and interpretation. The 1996 Act covered 22 pages and went into great detail to define the extent and limits of Presidential authority under the legislation, including the exact meanings of “single item of appropriation”, ''direct spending'' and ''limited tax benefit'', as well as the means by which Congress could override his decisions.1 It is hard to believe that a one-paragraph amendment to the Constitution could achieve such precision, opening the budgetary process up to confusion, shifting interpretation and constant legal challenge. It is also unnecessary. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia argues "The short of the matter is this: Had the Line Item Veto Act authorized the president to 'decline to spend' any item of spending ... there is not the slightest doubt that authorization would have been constitutional… What the Line Item Veto Act does instead -- authorizing the president to 'cancel' an item of spending -- is technically different."2 Thus the act could simply have been worded differently in order to make it constitutional. This would not change the substance of the ability of the ‘veto’ to cut spending.  1 One hundred fourth Congress of the United States of America at the second session, “Line Item Veto Act”, 3/1/1996, The Library of Congress, accessed 6/5/11  2 Supreme Court Justice Scalia quoted in Michael Kirkland, ‘Under the U.S. Supreme Court: Like the South, will line item veto rise again?’, upi.com, 17/4/11 accessed 6/5/11  improve this  COUNTERPOINT  "I do not take these matters lightly in amending the Constitution. However, I am convinced in this case it is the only way to provide the President with the same authority that 44 Governors already have to influence spending."1It would in general be preferable to make such a change through normal legislation, but that was attempted in 1996 and found unconstitutional. Supreme Court Justice Stevens in his majority opinion for the Supreme Court argued that it was necessary for there to be an amendment to make it constitutional, "If there is to be a new procedure in which the president will play a different role in determining the text of what may "become a law", such change must come not by legislation but through the amendment procedures set forth in Article V of the Constitution."2  1 Item veto constitutional amendment hearing before the subcommittee on the constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary House of Representatives, 23/3/00, accessed 5/5/11  2 Clinton, President of the United States, et al. v. City of New York et al. No.97-1374, United States Supreme Court, 1998,accessed 5/5/11  improve this  APPENDIX

negative: What erodes trust in Congress is the endless squabbling between parties who put their own partisan advantage over the national interest, not the lobbying of individual representatives and senators on behalf of their constituents. Politicians erode trust by loudly arguing that government is the problem. [1] Earmarks are in fact important in linking Congress to citizens, as they produce concrete benefits at a local level that can be associated with the activities of elected officials. This increases trust and helps to legitimise the wider activities of the federal government, including its taxes. This helps to explain why opinion polls find that most people trust their own Congressman to do the right thing, even as confidence in Congress as a whole sinks to record lows. [2]  [1] Sell, T.M., ‘A few kind words for earmarks’, 2009  [2] Reich, Robert, ‘House of Ill-Repute: It’s Time to Ban Earmarks”, 2006

negative: Earmarking should become a transparent and publicly monitored process  The use of earmarks has become progressively more transparent and accountable in recent years. [1] [2] There is now a Congressional database of earmark requests, a requirement on representatives and senators for disclosure on their websites, as well as a certification obligation that they declare that neither they nor their family will benefit from the requested appropriation. Earmarks are thus a “nonbureaucratic, transparent system of rapid-response grants for pressing local concerns”, something which is genuinely useful. [3] There however could be further reforms such as having committees authorize all spending and banning last minute vote buying. [4]  The attention given to earmarks by the media and campaigning groups means that requests now receive far more scrutiny than they did in the past so we can be sure that campaigners and the press will make sure what they do is benefiting their constituency. [5]  [1] Emanuel, Rahm, ‘Don’t Get Rid of Earmarks’, 2007  [2] Marlowe, Howard, ‘In defense of earmarks’, 2008  [3] Rauch, Jonathan, ‘Earmarks Are A Model, Not A Menace’, 2009  [4] Feehery, John, ‘Reform, don’t ban, earmarks’, 2009  [5] Sell, T.M., ‘A few kind words for earmarks’, 2009

negative: The American Jobs Act is Not Deficit Neutral  One of the issues with the American Jobs Act is that while it is claimed that it will be deficit neutral this may not actually be the case as the costs are front loaded whereas the revenue is not. The Congressional Budget Office estimates it will be neutral by 2021 but will increase the deficit by $288 billion in 2012,11 meaning there is a lot of scope for mistakes in the revenue increases or even higher interest rates than expected meaning it contributes to the deficit. If it contributes significantly to the deficit then the economic benefit that the jobs act might create could simply be subsumed in greater repayments on bonds in the future by the U.S.  As such, any spending under the jobs act will have to be recouped elsewhere in the American system under taxation. Logically speaking, whilst extra government spending could potentially be more efficient, such sweeping changes that are claimed to cause such a significant amount of benefit to the American economy are almost certain to require extra governmental spending.  This case is enhanced by the fact that, when addressing the affordability of the act, Obama and his administration’s officials are vague about how the act will be financed. The act states “To ensure that the American Jobs Act is fully paid for, the President will call on the Joint Committee to come up with additional deficit reductions necessary to pay for the Act and still meet its deficit target. The President will, in the coming days, release a detailed plan that will show how we can do that while achieving the additional deficit reduction necessary to meet the President’s broader goal of stabilizing our debt as a share of the economy.”  If this is true, the financing of the act is dependent on a super committee finding the funding available somewhere in the American budget. If they are to significantly increase taxes they will likely find it difficult to pass such action, given how likely Republicans are to resist such an action. As such, implementing this Act is likely to end up cutting into the deficit significantly more.9

negative: A progressive tax policy and a cut in military spending are what America needs.  To pay for his government programs, Obama supports a progressive tax system, with higher taxes for the rich, and lower taxes for the middle class. The need for such a system of taxing the rich to pay for government services has grown since 1980, when income gains between the rich and the poor began to diverge at a faster pace. [1] Recent data shows this trend continuing: in 2011 the wealthiest Americans got richer while median income fell by 4%. [2] Despite these trends, the top marginal tax rate is at nearly an all-time low! [3]  Increasing tax on individuals who earn more than $250,000 and even more for multi-millionaires because the marginal utility of wealth is lower for the super-rich than it is for the poorer. In other words, a millionaire is not particularly worse off if he or she is worth $10 million instead of $15 million. $5 million when spent on welfare programs such as pensions, education, healthcare or housing produces vastly greater utility. We thus see how a progressive tax system ensures a more efficient management of wealth across the economy.  Obama proposes to rake in more government revenue by raising the top marginal tax rate and instituting the Buffet Rule (a stipulation in President Obama’s plan which would apply a minimum tax rate of 30% to individuals making over $1 million per year). Crucially, Obama plans to continue to cut taxes for the middle classes in order to increase their purchasing power and stimulate the economy. [5]  As the 2012 presidential election approaches, President Obama’s long-term focus has been primarily on decreasing the federal debt, estimated at about $15 trillion. Specifically, Obama’s plan, detailed on his website, targets tax loopholes for households with annual incomes over $250,000, via efforts such as the Buffet Rule, while simultaneously reducing taxes for middle-class families and small business owners. [6] In September, President Obama revealed a plan to reduce the deficit by about $3.2 trillion in the next ten years. [7] This will be achieved through an increase in taxation of the nation’s wealthiest, and cuts in spending to the armed forces – as Obama plans to end American involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan.  [1] Centre on Budget and Policy Priorities: “A Guide to Statistics on Historical Trends in Income Inequality”, March 5 2012,   [2] Nocera, Joe: “Romney and the Forbes 400”, The New York Times, September 24 2012,   [3] Tax Policy Centre,  , accessed 8/10/2012  [4] The White House,  , accessed 8/10/2012  [5] Politifact: “Barack Obama said he’s cut taxes for ‘middle-class families, small businesses’”,  , accessed 8/10/2012  [6] Barack Obama Website,  , accessed 8/10/2012  [7] The White House,  , accessed 8/10/2012

negative: Big government can provide the stimulus the economy needs in the bad years as long as surpluses are not squandered during the boom years  Government expenditure is the single biggest tool in times of economic difficulty. Those that are the quickest to complain about taxation and regulation during the good times are also the fastest to rush for a bailout during the lean times. Likewise, those that call for tax cuts in a boom also tend to be the first to criticize a deficit or public expenditure during a recession.  There is in all of this one simple economic reality: the government acts as the banker of last resort.  This only works, as Keynes understood, if the government holds on to reserves in the good years so that it can spend them in the tough ones to stimulate jobs and growth. On the other hand, where surpluses are blown on tax cuts- or expensive wars for that matter- then will be nothing left in the bank and government cannot fulfill its most useful role of using its own financial clout to balance the economy over the course of a financial cycle.  So-called small government Conservatives have been consistently profligate in recent history and have tended to leave fiscally cautious liberals to pick up the pieces. The party of small government never seems to find itself short of billions of dollars for expensive white elephants like the SDI missile shield or asserting American military power overseas in pursuit of yet another doomed cause – whether that’s’ propping up Latin American dictators or settling familial grudge matches in the Middle East.  The military adventurism of the Reagan presidency as well as those of both Bush senior and junior were conducted not just at the cost of domestic social stability, but also fiscal security.  Instead of preserving a budget surplus from the Clinton presidency, the Bush administration spent it recklessly – not, as is widely declared, on the War Against Terror – on tax cuts for the wealthiest in society. As a result Bush, his cabinet and his backers robbed the country of the possibility of reserves when the economy was in a less positive situation.  As far as the War On Terror is concerned, the total cost of two international wars, $1.283tn, stands in stark contrast to the relatively cheap police-style operation that actually caught Osama Bin Laden. It is also worth noting that of that huge sum an entire 2%, according to the Congressional Research service, has been spent homeland security – anti-terror surveillance and enforcement within the USA’s borders [i] .  So called ‘Big Government’, withholding surpluses for a rainy day, provides financial security for American businesses and workers. So-called ‘small-government’ presidents spend trillions of dollars on free money to the super-rich and on military adventurism in other countries and, apparently, in space.  [i] Amy Belasco. “The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on Terror Operations Since 9/11”. Congressional Research Service. March 29 2011.

negative: Here the argument presented by the proposition is an attempt to deceive the opposition and the house. The act that the proposition has presented has not been passed by the US government and is highly unlikely to happen in the future as well. The argument is right if the assumption that the deficits are long term. And it is not so. The deficit as a proportion of GDP is still more than manageable and more spending is needed. The only current indication of this is long term interest rates on US treasury bonds and these have been falling.  Secondly from a purely economic viewpoint, the battle between US and Taliban is not entirely negative. Historically military spending can help boost growth as was shown by World War II pulling the US out of the great depression of the 1930s. What nations need when in a recession is more economic activity and the arms industry and the countless other industries a war necessitates makes this war as good as it gets for the economy. Of course there is a danger of the US budget deficit leading to higher long term lending costs but if we look at the date from the last ten years interest rates on US treasury bonds have been falling. Therefore the US can borrow cheaply, has 9 million plus unemployed and companies are not willing to hire as they are already reaping huge profits off labor cost cuts. Economically the war in Afghanistan is good for America.

negative: Congress was appropriately and openly consulted  Firstly, the Obama administration did not truly have time to gain congressional approval for their actions. Obama’s justification of the Libyan conflict claims: "As his troops continued pushing toward Benghazi, a city of nearly 700,000 people, Qadhafi again defied the international community, declaring, “We will have no mercy and no pity.” At that moment, as the President explained in his speech to the nation on March 28: “We knew that if we waited one more day, Benghazi could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world.” Stopping a potential humanitarian disaster became a question of hours, not days. The costs of inaction would have been profound. Thousands of civilians would very likely have been slaughtered, a ruthless dictator would have been triumphant precisely at a time when people across the region are challenging decades of repression, and key U.S. allies, including Egypt and Tunisia, would have been threatened by instability on their borders during a critical point in their own transitions toward a more promising future.”1  Further, even if this is not true Obama did consistently consult congress regarding the mission, with Obama’s justification claiming: "The Administration has consulted extensively with Congress about U.S. engagement in Libya. Since March 1, the Administration has: testified at over 10 hearings that included a substantial discussion of Libya; participated in over 30 Member and/or staff briefings, including the March 18 Presidential meeting with Congressional Leadership, Committee Chairs and Ranking Members; all three requested 'All Members Briefings' (two requested by the Senate, one by the House); and all requested 'All Staff Briefings;' conducted dozens of calls with individual Members; and provided 32 status updates via e-mail to over 1,600 Congressional staff."  Finally, the Senate was also consulted and passed a resolution that condemned the gross and systematic violation of the rights of the Libyan people by Gadaffi. As such, a large portion of the U.S. governing body was consulted by Obama and as such, a small amount of discretion in this area can be tolerated. 2  United States Activities in Libya, p.7,  Obama Administration letter to Congress justifying Libya engagement, 15/06/2011

negative: The suggestion that seven million dollars is an excessive expenditure on a resource for 836,000 is extortionate is simply nonsense. That’s a little over eight dollars a head, hardly likely to break the bank. To say that a government is not discouraging the use of something by making it harder to access is simply untrue. Of course if a resource is harder or more expensive to access, people will be discouraged from using it.

negative: Earmarks erode trust in the government  The use of earmarks erodes trust in politicians and the federal government for two reasons. First, it reinforces a belief that politicians ignore the wider national interest but are simply out for themselves, scrabbling to channel as much federal pork as possible back home in order to aggrandise themselves and ensure re-election. Second, it assumes that the answer to every local problem or issue is for the federal government to raise yet more tax revenue and bestow it from on high because Washington-knows-best. It is a symbol that makes it hard to resist spending both for politicians and their constituents. [1]  [1] Minge, David, ‘The Case Against Academic Earmarking’

negative: That the separation will have little practical effect is just as much an argument for separation as against it. If there will be little change as a result then why should we stick with the status quo? The practical effect of the change may not be immense but the symbolism of the act would be much greater.

negative: pregnancy philosophy ethics life family house would ban partial birth abortions Banning partial birth abortions is in line with popular and accepted moral standards  here is a vast amount of support in the United States for a ban on partial-birth abortion. Opinion polls have shown a consistent increase in support for a ban: as high as 70% in favour to 25% against in January 2003. [1] Furthermore, in 1997 the House of Representatives voted 295-136, and the Senate 64-36, in favour of a ban. For President Clinton to veto it was undemocratic; [2] for President Bush not to pass it would have been to break a campaign promise.  [1] Gallup, ‘Abortion’, 30 November 2011,   [2] Craig, Larry E., ‘Clinton Claims on Partial-Birth Abortion Still Not True -- Not Even 'Legally Accurate'’, United States Senate Republican Policy Committee, 15 September 1998,

negative: The popular will calls for a prohibition of flag burning  All national polls conducted in the United States have shown a majority popular support for banning flag burning1. State and federal laws, passed by democratically elected representatives, have for decades passed popularly supported laws aimed at protecting the flag from desecration. The Supreme Court, however, has struck down these laws as being contrary to the rights to free speech, by a narrow 5-4 vote2. Yet popular support for such laws has not diminished. This has led to attempts to pass a Flag Desecration Amendment to the Constitution, which would then necessarily have to be accepted by the Court. In 2006, the House of Representatives passed such an amendment by the requisite supermajority, and it died in the Senate by only a single vote3. Clearly, the vast majority of citizens and legislators actively support legislation to protect the flag. Law should reflect the will of the people and prevent the desecration of the nation's most sacred symbol. Failing to do so gives precedence to the rights of a small minority to perform an act that does not hold any major sway over their lives over the democratic rights of the democratic public.  1 CNN. 2006. "Flag-Burning Amendment Fails by a Vote". CNN. 2Miller, J. Anthony. 1997. Texas v. Johnson: The Flag Burning Case. Berkeley Heights: Enslow Publishers. 3 Hulse, Carl and John Holusha. 2006. "Amendment on Flag Burning Fails by One Vote in Senate". The New York Times.

negative: Deregulating the market is precisely what is not required at the moment. The financial crisis of 2008 caused by irresponsible banking has shown that more than ever, regulation is necessary to ensure that corporations act responsibly and recognise the significance of social good, not just financial profit.  Cutting Medicare will lead to huge numbers of people no longer having access to affordable healthcare. Romney talks of this scenario as if a market without Medicare would be better because people would be able to choose one of the more competitive, more efficient private insurance companies for their health care. Once more however, this is only applicable for those who can afford such a choice! Not providing a safety net and preventing millions of people from attaining treatment for illnesses or chronic conditions is a huge failing from the part of the government.  Lastly, it is not true that cutting spending and taxes reduces the budget deficit. This was exactly the policy tried by George W. Bush and only led to a widening of the budget deficit and an increase of the total federal debt. By contrast, Obama’s plan of cutting inefficiencies and increasing tax on the country’s wealthiest has already been tried and tested under President Clinton and it resulted in a budget surplus.

negative: Something can be an appendage to a right. But it does not mean the government has an obligation to afford it the same protections as the right itself. Effective communication of political ideals also requires access to airways, printing presses, campaign staff, etc. But the government has no obligation to treat access to these as a Constitutional, inviolable right, on par with one’s freedom to say what she pleases.  An expression of an opinion is protected strictly by the letter of the law. However, the Citizen's United decision effectively expands this protection to two new entities: 1) non-person and 2) act of spending. Rather than reinterpreting current legislation that protects free speech, new laws ought to be created seeking to protect these two entities from committing to political expressions. And, this has to be exercised through the legislative branch rather than judicial.  With the Citizen's United decision, the judicial branch is effectively writing new legislation that is 1) recognizing corporate entities to have same political expression rights as citizens/individuals and 2) redefining the act of spending to be the same as an expression of an opinion as well as an act of demonstrating an expression of an opinion.

negative: Tax cuts and spending cuts are necessary for growth.  With a national unemployment rate of 8.1% as of September 2012 [1], the United States economy has not recovered from the global financial crisis of 2008 and the recession that followed it. Governor Mitt Romney’s plan to cut taxes would lessen the burden on American citizens, and spur businesses and entrepreneurs to create more jobs.  Governor Romney advocates a Reagan-esque devotion to laissez-faire economics, arguing that with substantial tax cuts and limited regulation on private businesses, the economy will naturally grow. Mr Romney states on his website that he would reduce government spending from its current level, around $33,000 per household, to around $25,000, while maintaining individual tax rates but decreasing rates for private corporations. [2]  Regarding government programs, Governor Romney opposes President Obama’s spending, vowing to repeal Mr Obama’s healthcare act, saving the country around $95 billion, according to his website. He also has advocated cutting spending on social programs by 5 % (without touching national security spending) and pulling funding from the National Endowment of the Arts and Humanities, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and the Legal Services Corporation. Furthermore, he plans to save up to $100 million by reducing foreign aid.  The budget deficit will be reduced despite the proposed tax-cuts. This is because tax cuts will have a positive effect on growth, while the spending cuts and clamp down on loopholes and inefficiencies will also help cut the deficit.  Overall, Mitt Romney’s economic policies boil down to taxing less and spending less, allowing the free market to work uninhibited. As with Obama, Romney’s position on this issue reflects his broader beliefs about the problems facing America. His plan to eliminate Title X Family Planning funding, for example, draws quite publicly from his opposition to abortion rights. While, also like Obama, his main concern is lowering the national deficit and paying back the national debt, the ways he would go about it are very different from those of his opponent, and realistically would benefit very different types of Americans.  [1] Google Public Data,  , accessed 8/10/2012  [2] Mitt Romney Website,  , accessed 8/10/2012

negative: Elections should be controlled by the people not powerful interests  President Obama famously eschewed large corporate donors in favor of grassroots fundraising and social media in 2008, casting a wide net of supporters. [1] By election day his facebook page had 3.4million supporters, his website My.BarackObama.com had 2million members, the campaign had an email list of 13 million and there were 1 million text message subscribers showing how campaigns should be run by mobilizing people not powerful interests. [2] Following a similar strategy, the 2012 campaign garnered hundreds of thousands supporters in the first several months, shattering 2008 records. [3] President Obama has stated in the public record his support for increased disclosure for corporate and individual donors as well as efforts to limit the high-value contributions from corporations that are permitted under Citizen United v. Federal Election Commission [4] .  In response to the supreme court decision on Citizens United v Federal Election Commission act Obama declared in the 2010 state of the Union “I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people” [5] . In a democracy where the government is supposed to be accountable to the people this should be self-evident; accountable to the people should mean that rather than accountable to corporate interests.  [1] Murray, Shailegh and Bacon, Perry Jr. ‘Obama to Reject Public Funds for Election’. The Washington Post. 20 June 2008.  [2] Corrado, Anthony J. et al., ‘Reform in an Age of Networked Campaigns’, in Boatright, Robert G. ed., Campaign Finance, pp.107-128, p.112  [3] Bingham, Amy. ‘Money Wars: Obama Dominates Fundraising Battle’. ABC News. 1 February, 2012.  [4] United States Supreme Court. Citizens United vs. Federal Electoral Commission. October 2009.  [5] Obama, Barack, ‘2010 State of the Union’, State of the Union Address Library, 27 January 2010.

negative: The Supreme Court was right with its judgment on the Citizens United case.  A principled commitment to freedom of speech under the First Amendment should not distinguish, through intent or impact, protected speech on the basis of its content or source. The ability of nonprofit and for-profit corporations to directly and freely donate to candidates does not warrant a sufficient governmental interest – decrying negative effects of distortion on elections does not merit federal intervention. Furthermore, the unique harm of corporate speech has yet to be demonstrated.  The Citizens United case allows unlimited spending by non-profit corporations as well as unions so benefits both Republicans and Democrats equally. The Super PAC Priorities USA Action has spent over $20 million supporting President Obama. [1] Current campaign finance policies could be improved, but the system as a whole is fair, and repealing corporate free speech would be unconstitutional.  [1] ‘Super PACs.’ Open Secrets: Center for Responsive Politics. 14 August 2012.

negative: The veto power has proven a success in the maintenance of peace.  The veto power has been wielded with increasing success both during and since the Cold War. Between 1945 and 1990, 240 vetoes were cast1. Yet between 1990 and 1999 the power was utilised on only 7 occasions, whilst more than 20 peacekeeping operations were mandated. This figure exceeds the total number of operations undertaken in the entirety of the preceding 45 years. The prodigious use of the veto during the Cold War period might have saved the world from the realisation of nuclear war. Now, increasing nuclear proliferation is a reason for maintaining the unity of the P5 by means of the veto. The current rhetoric concerns 'rogue states' gaining possession of nuclear weapons. These are states whose potential deployment of arms is unpredictable and with whom there is limited international dialogue. If the P5 is split on a matter of international security, any one or more of its members could become equally 'rogue'. 1 Global Policy Forum. (n.d.). Changing Patterns in the Use of the Veto in the Security Council. Retrieved May 13, 2011, from Global Policy Forum:

negative: That is just a case for having a cooling-off period in between the proposal of a new law and the referendum on it. There is no reason why referendums cannot have a lengthy public debate before the vote takes place. It is not clear that the voters will only look at the short-term consequences: in the 2010 UK General Election the British voters backed the Conservative Party and their long-term deficit reduction plan, for example. [1] Furthermore, professional politicians may also take decisions thinking in the short term in order to raise their popularity. In such case, referenda would not be worse than the representative system.  [1] Glover, J. (21 June 2010) “Budget 2010: Three quarters of voters back spending cuts not tax rises – Guardian/ICM poll” guardian.co.uk.

negative: There is rarely anything to do with protecting the past in these decisions. It is all to do with the present and either manufacturing an image of a previous decision or covering up corruption or incompetence on the part of the party, faction or individual that happens to be in charge at the time. What Proposition so cheerily describes as ‘grubby minutiae’ would be more generally referred to as ‘facts’, proposition seems to think that history shouldn’t let these ‘grubby minutiae’ get in the way of a good story. If proposition is correct in its view that “It would be impossible to change those results” then there is no reason why historians should not be free to investigate and reinterpret the record as to how these results were arrived at.