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


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


A President would be able to abuse the power given to them in a line-item veto authority, leveraging it into undue influence over other elements of the legislative process. By threatening to veto items dear to particular Congressmen, they could obtain assent to bills, treaties and appointments that otherwise would not be forthcoming. Such intimidation would be subtle and hard to prove, but it would erode checks on the executive and fundamentally alter the balance of power within the constitution. This means that budgets are politicised even more than is currently the case. When the line item veto was previously used by Clinton republicans such as Rick Santorum argued that every decision "has political overtones, but that's fine, it comes with the territory," Senator Ted Stevens went further "We're dealing with a raw abuse of political power by a president who doesn't have to run again".1  1 Hugliotta, Guy and Pianin, Eric, 'Line-Item Veto Tips Traditional Balance of Power', Washington Post, 24/10/97,accessed 5/5/11


Nuclear weapons give states valuable agenda-setting power on the international stage  The issues discussed in international forums are largely set by nuclear powers. The permanent membership of the United Nations Security Council, for example, is composed only of nuclear powers, the same states that had nuclear weapons at the end of World War II. If all countries possess nuclear weapons, they redress the imbalance with regard to international clout, at least to the extent to which military capacity shapes states’ interactions with each other. [1] Furthermore, the current world order is grossly unfair, based on the historical anachronism of the post-World War II era. The nuclear powers, wanting to retain their position of dominance in the wake of the post-war chaos, sought to entrench their position, convincing smaller nations to sign up to non-proliferation agreements and trying to keep the nuclear club exclusive. It is only right, in terms of fairness that states not allow themselves the ability to possess certain arms while denying that right to others. Likewise, it is unfair in that it denies states, particularly those incapable of building large conventional militaries, the ability to defend themselves, relegating them to an inferior status on the world stage. [2] To finally level the international playing field and allow equal treatment to all members of the congress of nations, states must have the right to develop nuclear weapons.  [1] Fearon, James D. 1994. “Signaling Versus the Balance of Power and Interests: An Empirical Test of a Crisis Bargaining Model”. Journal of Conflict Resolution 38(2).  [2] Betts, Richard K. 1987. Nuclear blackmail and nuclear balance. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution.


Public acknowledgement of the right to nuclear deterrence will benefit the public regulation of nuclear weapons generally  When nuclear deterrence is an acknowledged right of states, they will necessarily be less concealing of their capability, as the deterrent effect works only because it is visible and widely known. Knowledge of states’ nuclear capability allows greater regulation and cooperation in development of nuclear programs from developed countries with more advanced nuclear programs. [1] Developed countries can help construct and maintain the nuclear weapons of other countries, helping to guarantee the safety protocols of countries’ programs are suitably robust. This will cause a diminution in clandestine nuclear weapons programs, and will reduce the chances of weapons-grade material falling into the hands of terrorists. Thus, greater openness and freedom in the development of nuclear weapons will increase the security of nuclear stockpiles.  [1] Sagan, Scott D. 1993. The Limits of Safety: Organizations, Accidents, and Nuclear Weapons. Princeton: Princeton University Press.


All countries have a right to defend themselves with nuclear weapons, even when they lack the capacity in conventional weapons  The nation-state is the fundamental building block of the international system, and is recognized as such in all international treaties and organizations. States are recognized as having the right to defend themselves, and this right must extend to the possession of nuclear deterrence. Often states lack the capacity to defend themselves with conventional weapons. This is particularly true of poor and small states. Even wealthy, small states are susceptible to foreign attack, since their wealth cannot make up for their lack of manpower. With a nuclear deterrent, all states become equal in terms of ability to do harm to one another. [1] If a large state attempts to intimidate, or even invade a smaller neighbour, it will be unable to effectively cow it, since the small state will have the power to grievously wound, or even destroy, the would-be invader with a few well-placed nuclear missiles. [2] For example, the Russian invasion of Georgia in 2008 would likely never have occurred, as Russia would have thought twice when considering the potential loss of several of its cities it would need to exchange for a small piece of Georgian territory. Clearly, nuclear weapons serve in many ways to equalize states irrespective of size, allowing them to more effectively defend themselves. Furthermore, countries will only use nuclear weapons in the vent of existential threat. This is why, for example, North Korea has not used nuclear weapons; for it, like all other states, survival is the order of the day, and using nuclear weapons aggressively would spell its certain destruction. Countries will behave rationally with regard to the use of nuclear weapons, as they have done since their invention and initial proliferation. Weapons in the hands of more people will thus not result in the greater risk of their use.  [1] Jervis, Robert. 2001. “Weapons Without Purpose? Nuclear Strategy in the Post-Cold War Era”. Foreign Affairs.  [2] Mearsheimer, John. 1993. “The Case for a Ukrainian Nuclear Deterrent”. Foreign Affairs.


Nuclear weapons serve to defuse international conflicts and force compromise  Nuclear weapons create stability, described in the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). Countries with nuclear weapons have no incentive to engage in open military conflict with one another; all recognize that they will suffer destruction if they choose the path of war. [1] If countries have nuclear weapons, fighting simply becomes too costly. This serves to defuse conflicts, and reduce the likelihood of the outbreak of war. For example, the conflict between India and Pakistan was defused by the acquisition of nuclear weapons by both sides. Before they obtained nuclear weapons, they fought three wars that claimed millions of lives. Relations between the two states, while still far from cordial, have never descended into open war. The defusing of the immediate tension of war, has given the chance for potential dialogue. [2] A similar dynamic has been played out a number of times in the past, and as of yet there has never been a war between two nuclear powers. When states have nuclear weapons they cannot fight, making the world a more peaceful place.  [1] Waltz, Kenneth. 1981. “The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: More May Better”. Adelphi Papers 171. London: International Institute for Strategic Studies.  [2] Nizamani, Haider K. 2000. The Roots of Rhetoric: Politics of Nuclear weapons in India and Pakistan. Westport: Praeger.


The threat of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of rogue states and terrorists increases as more countries possess them  There are many dangerous dictators and tyrants, many of who covet the possession of nuclear weapons not just for the purpose of defence, but also for that of intimidating their neighbours. [1] Such leaders should not possess nuclear weapons, nor should they ever be facilitated in their acquisition. For example, Iran has endeavoured for years on a clandestine nuclear weapons program that, were it recognized as a legitimate pursuit, could be increased in scale and completed with greater speed. The result of such an achievement could well destabilize the Middle East and would represent a major threat to the existence of a number of states within the region, particularly Israel. Furthermore, the risk of nuclear weapons, or at least weapons-grade material, falling into the hands of dissidents and terrorists increases substantially when there are more of them and larger numbers of countries possess them. Additionally, many countries in the developing world lack the capacity to safely secure weapons if they owned them, due to lack of technology, national instability, and government corruption. [2] Recognizing the rights of these countries to hold nuclear weapons vastly increases the risk of their loss or misuse.  [1] Slantchev, Branislav. 2005. “Military Coercion in Interstate Crises”. American Political Science Review 99(4).  [2] Sagan, Scott D. 1993. The Limits of Safety: Organizations, Accidents, and Nuclear Weapons. Princeton: Princeton University Press.


The threat of a state developing nuclear weapons could instigate pre-emptive strikes from its neighbours and rivals to prevent the acquisition of such weapons  The threat represented by potential nuclear powers will instigate pre-emptive strikes by countries fearing the future behaviour of the budding nuclear powers. Until a state develops a nuclear capacity that its rivals believe they cannot destroy in a first strike, nuclear weapons increase the risk of war. For example, Israel will have a very real incentive to attack Iran before it can complete its development of nuclear weapons, lest it become an existential threat to Israel’s survival. The United States military even considered attempting to destroy the USSR’s capability before they had second strike capability General Orvil Anderson publicly declared: “Give me the order to do it and I can break up Russia’s five A-bomb nests in a week…And when I went up to Christ—I think I could explain to Him that I had saved civilization.” [1] The development of nuclear weapons can thus destabilize regions before they are ever operational, as it is in no country’s interest that its rivals become capable of using nuclear force against it. Clearly, it is best that such states do not develop nuclear weapons in the first place so as to prevent such instability and conflict.  [1] Stevens, Austin “General Removed over War Speech,” New York Times, September 2, 1950, p. 8  improve this  COUNTERPOINT  If a country is surrounded by hostile neighbours that are likely to attempt a pre-emptive strike upon it, then nuclear weapons are all the more desirable. With nuclear weapons a country cannot be pushed around by regional bullies. It seems perfectly fair that Iran would covet the ability to resist Israeli might in the Middle East and defend itself from aggression by it or the United States.


Possessing nuclear weapons will be counter to the peaceful interests of states  Most states will not benefit at all from possessing nuclear weapons. Developing a nuclear deterrent is seen in the international community as a sign of belligerence and a warlike character. Such an image does not suit the vast majority of states who would be better suited focusing on diplomacy, trade, and economic interdependence. [1] The loss of such diplomatic and economic relations in favour of force can seriously harm the citizens of would-be nuclear powers, as has occurred to the North Koreans, who have been isolated in international relations by their government’s decision to develop nuclear weapons. If the right to nuclear weapons were recognized for all states, only those states that currently want them for strategic reasons will develop them, and they will do so more brazenly and with greater speed. These countries might try to develop them even if proliferation is outlawed, but giving them license increases the likelihood that they will succeed. Furthermore, when countries develop nuclear weapons, their neighbours may feel more vulnerable and thus be compelled by necessity to develop their own weapons. This will lead to arms races in some cases, and generally harm diplomacy.  [1] Sartori, Anne. 2005. Deterrence By Diplomacy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.


Humanitarian intervention becomes impossible in states that possess nuclear weapons  It has often proven to be necessary for the UN, the United States, and various international coalitions to stage humanitarian interventions into states fighting civil wars, committing genocide, or otherwise abusing the human rights of their citizens. [1] An example of such an intervention is the recent contributions by many states to the rebels in Libya. Were all countries permitted to possess nuclear weapons, such interventions would become next to impossible. Were, for example, countries to try and contribute to the Libyan rebels, they would find themselves the targets of Libyan nuclear warheads. The cost of intervention thus becomes too high for virtually any country to tolerate, in terms of both human and political costs. The world would be a worse place if tyrants were allowed to perpetrate whatever crimes they saw fit upon their people, while the international community could do nothing for fear of nuclear retaliation.  [1] Slantchev, Branislav. 2005. “Military Coercion in Interstate Crises”. American Political Science Review 99(4).


The right of self-defence must be exercised in accordance with international law.  There can be no right to such terribly destructive weapons; their invention is one of the great tragedies of history, giving humanity the power to destroy itself. Even during the Cold War, most people viewed nuclear weapons at best as a necessary defence during that great ideological struggle, and at worst the scourge that would end all life on Earth. Nuclear war has never taken place, though it very nearly has on several occasions, such as during the Cuban Missile Crisis. And in 1983 a NATO war game, the Able Archer exercise simulating the full release of NATO nuclear forces, was interpreted by the Soviet Union as a prelude to a massive nuclear first-strike. Oleg Gordievsky, the KGB colonel who defected to the West, has stated that during Able Archer, without realising it, the world came ‘frighteningly close’ to the edge of the nuclear abyss, ‘certainly closer than at any time since the Cuban missile crisis of 1962’. [1] Soviet forces were put on immediate alert and an escalation was only avoided when NATO staff realised what was happening and scaled down the exercise. [2] Cooler heads might not prevail in future conflicts between nuclear powers; when there are more nuclear-armed states, the risk of someone doing something foolish increases. After all, it would take only one such incident to result in the loss of millions of lives. [3] Furthermore, in recent years positive steps have finally begun between the two states with the largest nuclear arsenals, the United States and Russia, in the strategic reduction of nuclear stockpiles. These countries, until recently the greatest perpetrators of nuclear proliferation, have now made commitments toward gradual reduction of weapon numbers until a tiny fraction of the warheads currently active will be usable. [4] All countries, both with and without nuclear weapons, should adopt this lesson. They should contribute toward non-proliferation, thus making the world safer from the threat of nuclear conflict and destruction. Clearly, the focus should be on the reduction of nuclear weapons, not their increase.  [1] Andrew, Christopher and Gordievsky, Oleg. 1991. “KGB: The Inside story of its Foreign Operations from Lenin to Gorbachev”. New York: Harper Collins Publishers.  [2] Rogers, Paul. 2007. “From Evil Empire to Axis of Evil”. Oxford Research Group.  [3] Jervis, Robert. 1989. The Meaning of the Nuclear Revolution: Statecraft and the Prospect of Armageddon, Cornell Studies in Security Affairs. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.  [4] Baker, Peter. 2010. “Twists and Turns on Way to Arms Pact With Russia”. The New York Times.


The people are interested in the health of their leader  The health of the leader of the state is an issue that the people and the media inevitably want to know about. There will always be a lot of interest in it. Occasionally this can be played by the administration as with Kissinger saying he was ill and using time to fly to Beijing to arrange for Nixon’s visit without press attention. But most of the time keeping things from the press is purely negative; it drives rumors.  This was the case of John Atta Mills, people were not allowed to know about his health. The presidential staff and communication members constantly lied about his health but there were two reports that he had died. Mills spent time in a US hospital, on returning to Ghana, he was made to jog around the airport to show the media that he was healthy. 1  1 Committee for Social Advocacy, 'Who and what killed President John Evans Atta Mills?', Modern Ghana, 13 August 2012,


The head of state/government must be accountable to the people  Secrecy in relation to the leader’s health shows a distrust or distain of the electorate. Not being open about health issues almost invariably means that the administration is lying to those who elected them, those who they are accountable to. A couple of days before John Atta Mills died Nii Lantey Vanderpuye a candidate for Mills’ party stated “He [Mills] is stronger and healthier than any presidential candidate”, information that in retrospect was clearly untrue. 1  1 Takyi-Boadu, Charles, ‘Confusion Hits Mills’, Modern Ghana, 21 July 2012,


Transparency allows citizens to choose for a healthy leader as to ensure proper functioning  The health and fitness of a leader is a vital issue when choosing a leader; the electorate deserves to know if they are likely to serve out their term. When health conditions are hidden from the people they may mistakenly elect a leader who is unable to serve a full term or is at times not in control of the country. There would be little point in voting for a leader who will often not truely be in charge of the country, if voters are told it becomes their choice whether this is a problem. Transparency in terms of clear, accurate and up-to-date information is necessary for the electorate to judge the fitness of a leader which is a necessary precondition for election. In a democracy a leader needs to be accountable, he can only be accountable if the elctorate knows such vital information.


A lack of transparency can endanger the leader  A person is most likely to survive when they have an accident, a heart attack, or some other condition if they get prompt treatment and doctors are aware of any underlying conditions. Mills may well have lived, or lived longer if there had been more transparency about his death. There had been no prior warning that the president might be rushed to hospital despite the doctors having been called in the previous day. For the same reason his outriders were not available leading to indecision over whether to send off the ambulance. And finally he was initially turned away from the emergency ward because they did not know it was the President they were being asked to treat. 1 Transparency would allow procedures to be in place and advance notice given possibly gaining a few minutes and enabling survival.  1 Daily Guide, ‘How Mills died: Sister tells it all’, My Joy Online, 31 August 2012,


Rivals could misuse the opportunity  While the leader suffers from an illness, rivals can use the opportunity to ease the leader out of office. A period of illness is a period of vulnerability in which the government is less able to respond to external and internal threats. Not telling the public about the leader's health during an illness helps prevent such attempts. The same is the case with a leader's death; a few days of secrecy allows for smooth succession as the appointed successor has the time to ensure the loyalty of the government, army and other vital institutions. In 2008 when General Lansana Conte of Guinea died power should have been transferred to the president of the National Assembly Aboubacar Sompare with an election within 90 days. Instead a group of junior military officers took advantage of the quick announcement to launch a coup. 1  1 Yusuf, Huma, ‘Military coup follows death of Guinea’s President’, The Christian Science Monitor, 23 December 2008,


Damages diplomacy to be too open  Diplomacy can be very personal; diplomatic initiatives are often the result of a single person, and the individual leader is necessary to conclude negotiations. Transparency about a leader's health may therefore prevent deals being done; Nixon went to China despite Mao's ill heath meaning the supreme Chinese leader contributed little to the historic change in diplomatic alinements. 1 Would such a momentous change in alignment have been possible if both the Chinese and American public knew about Mao's ill health? The Americans would have considered any deal unreliable as they could not be sure it was Mao who made the decision, while opponents in China could have argued that it was advisers like Zhou Enlai who made the deal not Mao himself potentially enabling them to repudiate or undermine the deal.  1 Macmillan, Margaret, Seize the Hour When Nixon met Mao, John Murray, London, 2006, p.76


Markets like stability  Business and the markets prize political stability. Clearly when the leader of a country is ill this stability is damaged but the damage can be mitigated by being transparent. The markets will want to know how ill the leader is, and that the succession is secure so that they know what the future holds. Secrecy and the consequent spread of rumour is the worst option as businesses can have no idea what the future holds so cant make investment decisions that will be influenced by the political environment.  Leaders do matter to the economy; they set the parameters of the business environment, the taxes, subsidies, how much bureaucracy. They also influence other areas like the price of energy, the availability of transport links etc. It has been estimated that “a one standard deviation change in leader quality leads to a growth change of 1.5 percentage points”. 1 The leader who follows may be of the same quality in which case there will be little difference but equally it could mean a large change.  1 Jones, Benjjamin F., and Olken, Benjamin A., 'Do Leaders Matter? National Leadership and Growth Since World War II', Quarterly Journal of Economics, February 2005,


Denial of privacy to the leaders  The leaders of states deserve privacy in exactly the same way as anyone else. Just like their citizens leaders want and deserve privacy and it would be unfair for everyone to know about their health. Leaders may suffer from diseases such AIDS/HIV or embarrassing illnesses which could damage a leader.  The people only a need for the people to know when the illness significantly damages the running of the government. The government can function on its own without its leader for several days; only if the illness incapacitates the leader for a long period is there any need to tell the people. Clearly if the President is working from his bed he is still doing the job and his government is functioning. William Pitt the Younger, Prime Minister of Great Britain was toasted as 'the Saviour of Europe' while he was seriously ill but still running the country during the height of the Napoleonic Wars. 1  1 Bloy, Marjie, 'William Pitt the Younger (1759-1806)', Victorian Web, 4 January 2006,


Constitutional imperative  The Constitution of the United States is designed to prevent power from being concentrated in one place, with each of the three branches (executive, legislative and judicial) placing checks and balances upon each other. As James Madison wrote “It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part.” [1]  This principle ensures that power is divided, facilitating greater dialogue between the branches and between the two houses of Congress which seeks to compromise with each other to provide the best possible expression of Congress’ will.  Such a need for compromise between the branches lends itself to having control of the two elected branches being spilt between two parties necessitating compromise as opposed to single party control of both houses, where compromise can be pre-arranged to fit the aims of the executive. Therefore, Divided Government is an extra requirement to government, ensuring that powers are not concentrated to the detriment of Americans.  [1] Madison, James, ‘The Federalist No.51 The Structure of the Government Must Furnish the Proper Checks and Balances Between the Different Departments’, Independent Journal, 6 February 1788,


Checks and balances  By having both parties in charge of different parts of the Government, there can be a greater degree of scrutiny over policy as the opposition party will force the president to justify his policies.  Under single-party rule, there is a risk of a President being able to push through his/her agenda with little oversight from a legislative branch that is largely in agreement with the policy. One need only look to authoritarian governments the world over to see that governments with too much power are likely to abuse that power.  Divided Government provides a check on the executive, preventing agendas to be pushed through, allowing for compromise to be made between the two major parties, ensuring that the best possible policy for Americans is enacted. As Benjamin Franklin wrote “It is not enough that your Legislature should be numerous; it should also be divided.” [1]  [1] Franklin, Benjamin, Writings, ‘III. On the Legislative Branch.’ 10:55 – 60, 1789,


How Congress Works  Congress is a bicameral body, with its constituent parts, the House of Representatives and Senate, working largely independent of each other to create bills. However necessary for both the house and Senate to pass laws in identical form in order for it to become law. [1] A period of ‘Reconciliation’ is usually required to find a compromise between two different versions of the same bill in order to maintain and improve what is best about proposed reforms and eliminate flaws before it becomes law. [2]  This independence between the two chambers, with Reconciliation being one of the few areas where the two meet can allow for division in Congress between the two major parties. Indeed this can be seen as beneficial, as the broadest ideological range will be considered when making a policy work by reconciling two bills, making sure that centrist policy is enacted, preventing an ideological swing against the wishes of the people.  [1] Goldman et al., The Challenge of Democracy, Brief ed., Fourth ed., New York 2001, p.196  [2] United States Senate, ‘reconciliation process’,


Effect on the structure of the main political parties  Divided Government creates an imperative for compromise, encouraging the parties to work together for the best outcomes. This can help to undermine the more visceral aspects of debate, with the contest for election being left behind in order to focus on governing for the good of all Americans. As a result the greatest American achievements have come when there has been broad bipartisan consensus. [1]  There is also a Partisan consideration to seeking divided Government. The more successful two-term Presidents of recent times, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, governed with Congress partly or completely controlled by the opposition party. [2] They were able to work with the opposition to pursue the best policy, aiding their re-election hopes by pitching themselves as seeking to compromise, in line with the aspirations of voters, who on the whole prefer divided government in order to promote mature co-operation between the parties.  [1] McCarty, Nolan, ‘The Policy Consequences of Partisan Polarization in the United States’, bcep.haas.berkeley.edu/papers/McCarty.doc  [2] ‘Divided Government’ Wikipedia,  accessed 30/1/12


Existing checks and balances  Proposition have made out so far that single-party Government has few checks upon it, allowing for overbearing ideological government. This however is not true as there a many external checks upon a single-party government that can prevent this.  Firstly, the checks and balances put in place by the Constitution means that the executive is unable to do much without the consent of Congress, meaning that the President would need the support of his/her party in the legislature to do what (s)he wants in government.  Within Congress, the governing party would still face oversight from Departmental Committees that scrutinises its work and unless the governing party can get a filibuster-proof majority of 60 Senators in the Upper House, then a degree of negotiation would be required.  Finally, the nominally non-partisan Supreme Court can strike down laws seen to violate the terms of the Constitution. Together these bodies are able to constrain single-party government to prevent it from abusing its power.


Parties as coalitions  The two political parties are ideologically broad churches, with many different factions that stand up for varying positions on the ideological spectrum. The republicans for example contain within them several different republican movements; from social conservatives or ‘the religious right’, through libertarian conservatism like much of the tea party, to fiscal conservatives who are mostly more moderate. Interweaving these three is national security conservatism and issues conservatism. [1]  Policies formed by each party are specifically designed to take into account of the different strands within the party, creating a platform that all candidates can stand on.  The policy is in effect a compromise between different wings of the party, with Primaries adding credence to a particular view.  In effect, Policies enacted under Single-Party Government have had the oversight from party members in order to be representative of the different interests within the party, thus delivering clear, coherent policies to the people that are constantly self-corrected due to the different ideological streams.  [1] Westen, Drew, ‘The Five Strands of Conservatism: Why the GOP is Unraveling’, HuffPost, 23 January 2012,


Growing partisanship  The current political climate makes divided government difficult anyway. The terms of debate in American politics is based on a perceived ‘culture war’ between liberals and conservatives over what it means to be American, something that has been exacerbated by 24-hour news and a proliferation of partisan blogging.  This makes agreements on core issues difficult to achieve and this has become apparent in recent years, with opposition to Barack Obama’s $1 trillion stimulus package helping to spawn the Tea Party movement [1] that has helped move the Republican Party to the right, making the compromise required for effective divided government unachievable. [2]  While it has been most noticeable recently the US political climate has been becoming more polarized for the last twenty-five years. This polarization helps to create gridlock and less public policy. [3] The stasis in Congress created by the dogmatic Republicans winning the House in the 2010 mid-terms shows how America’s political climate is now much more suited to Single-Party Government, allowing for much more effective decision making than divided government.  [1] Ferrara, Peter, ‘The tea Party Revolution’, The American Spectator, 15 April 2009,   [2] Rawls, Caroline, ‘Moderate Republicans Lament GOP Shift Further Right’, newsmax, 27 July 2011,   [3] McCarty, Nolan, ‘The Policy Consequences of Partisan Polarization in the United States’, bcep.haas.berkeley.edu/papers/McCarty.doc


Effect on democratic participation  Divided Government undermines the democratic will of the people as it prevents a clear policy choice from being enacted by those elected to represent them.  The compromise necessary will result in policy platforms enthusiastically chosen by voters being watered down in order for it to be even partly enacted. It is notable that the majority of legislation originates from Congress when government is divided rather than from the President. This is despite the president being the one with the nationwide mandate. [1]  Single Party Government counters this by ensuring that policies clearly presented to and chosen by the electorate are enacted without having to countenance the opinions of an opposition whose policies have just been discredited by the electorate, Thus ensuring that government is responsive to the aims and wishes of the people.  [1] Jones, Charles O., The Presidency in a Separated System, The Brookings Institution, 1994, p.222


Providing attention simply encourages the regime  North Korea has an attention seeking cycle on the go that was used by Kim Jong Il and now seems to be used by his son Kim Jong Un. Essentially North Korea takes a provocative action (as big or small as it thinks necessary – this may be a missile launch, right up to some kind of military attack) in order to grab the world’s attention. There is then a period where there are condemnations and threats to increase sanctions that usually don’t get anywhere as they are blocked by China. The North Korean regime will then proclaim a willingness to do business and negotiate giving minor concessions on the issue of the provocation in return for aid or whatever the regime happens to want at the time. Of course whatever concession it gives is easily reversible so setting up another round. [1] This is a good deal for North Korea as it essentially gets aid in return for bad behaviour, it is therefore not surprising that the North is willing to continue engaging in bad behaviour.  [1] Hong, Adrian, ‘How to Free North Korea’, Foreign Policy, 19 December 2011,


South Korea can handle the situation itself  The two Koreas should be able to solve the situation themselves without recourse to all the neighbouring powers – whose interest does not seem to have spurred a solution to the frozen conflict anyway. With the Cold War over South Korea is more than capable of handling its own security. South Korea is economically far ahead of the North with its economy thirty seven times bigger. [1] Its military is also more capable than the North’s as the International Institute for Strategic Studies argues “As measured by static equipment indices, South Korea’s conventional forces would appear superior to North Korea’s. When morale, training, equipment maintenance, logistics, and reconnaissance and communications capabilities are factored in, this qualitative advantage increases.” [2] So should be able to deter aggression on its own and pull its own weight in negotiations without the need of a multilateral process. Moreover no one would argue that an invasion should be ignored however the South should be the one who responds to North Korean actions on its own.  [1] Oh Young-Jin, ‘South Korean economy 37 times bigger than NK’s’, The Korea Times, 5 January 2011,   [2] ‘The Conventional Military Balance on the Korean Peninsula’, The International Institute for Strategic Studies, 2012,


Rounds of sanctions and engagement does not bring a solution any closer  The responses to North Korean provocations do not bring a solution any closer. North Korea has yet to sign a peace treaty with the South and the United States. It is however particularly interested in signing a treaty with the United States rather than the South. In 2010 the North Korean foreign ministry proposed that "If confidence is to be built between [North Korea] and the US, it is essential to conclude a peace treaty for terminating the state of war, a root cause of the hostile relations, to begin with". [1] The North wants a peace treaty with the US so as to drive a wedge between the USA and South Korea to prevent US support for the South in the event of war. [2] Ignoring such efforts at negotiating with the USA without South Korea in the room, and indeed all advances and provocations would force the North to accept that it has to negotiate with the south or with no one. Ignoring North Korean actions and reducing the number of allies negotiating while maintaining security guarantees prevents any chance of the North dividing the USA and South Korea.  [1] Walker, Peter, ‘North Korea calls for peace treaty with US’, guardian.co.uk, 11 January 2010,   [2] Cheon, Seongwhun, ‘Negotiating with South Korea and the I.S.: North Korea’s Strategy and Objectives’, International Journal for Korean Studies, Vol XVI No 1, Spring 2012,  p.153


North Korea is an unresolved conflict it can’t simply be ignored  Even if the provocations are sometimes relatively small and ineffective, such as the failed missile launch in April 2012, as a conflict zone they cant simply be ignored by anyone even if they themselves are unlikely to be drawn into any potential conflict. After Rwanda the United Nations promised never again would it allow genocide; [1] how much worse would it be to ignore something that could be a spark to a conflict that could cost millions of lives when we already know there is the potential. The United Nations was created “To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace… to bring about … settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace” [2] therefore all nations should be attempting to resolve this frozen conflict that could so easily become a shooting war. Wars in Korea have in the past drawn in all the surrounding powers; the Imjin war involved China and Japan, China and Japan again fought over Korea in 1894-5, and the Korean War 1950-53 brought in both the USA and China while Russia and Japan were both involved as supply bases. Clearly the possibility of conflict is not something any power with a stake in Northeast Asia can simply ignore.  It is essential that there is a reaction to every incident just in case that is the incident that spins out of control.  [1] Power, Samantha, ‘Remember the Blood Frenzy of Rwanda’, Los Angeles Times, 4 April 2004,   [2] ‘Article 1 The Purposes of the United Nations are:’, United Nations, 26 June 1945,


Ignoring North Korea wont resolve the situation  While the great powers can try to keep on with business as usual how will this be helpful? The situation is unstable and needs to be resolved which is something that ignoring the North will not do. Commentators thought that the North would collapse as a result of the withdrawal of support that was given by the USSR in the early 1990s but it did not happen. The regime will likely be able to hang on in the status quo situation pretty much indefinitely.  There is also no reason to believe that the provocations may not become bigger should smaller provocations be ignored. While North Korea can attract the world’s attention with a missile test launch it is likely to keep doing such small and relatively harmless actions. Should such actions fail the regime may resort to bigger incidents such as the sinking of the South Korean corvette Cheonan in 2010 which resulted in 46 deaths which may have been an attempt at coercive diplomacy against a regime that was unwilling to engage in negotiations. [1]  [1] Cha, Victor, ‘The Sinking of the Cheonan’, Center for Strategic & International Studies, 22 April 2010,


North Korea is an irrational regime that is a strategic threat to numerous great powers  North Korea is an irrational and irresponsible regime that can’t simply be ignored. As the United States National Security Council spokesman Tonny Vietor said in response to the 12th December 2012 missile test “This action is yet another example of North Korea's pattern of irresponsible behavior.” As a power that is willing to defy international sanctions and resolutions such as “Resolution 1874, which demands the DPRK not to conduct "any launch using ballistic missile technology" and urges it to "suspend all activities related to its ballistic missile programme"” [1] it is essential that there is engagement to prevent the regime breaking more international norms.  It is impossible simply to ignore a regime with such a propensity to engage in provocative actions when it borders you, as is the case with China and Russia, or when it has tested missiles that can potentially hit targets 6000km away, so most of Asia, including numerous US bases. [2]  [1] ‘North Korea rocket: International reaction’, BBC News, 12 December 2012,   [2] ‘North Korea’s missile programme’, BBC News, 12 December 2012,


This is an unjust use of unelected power  Politicians want endorsements because they know it will bring votes; it is estimated that Oprah’s endorsement of Obama in the Democratic Primary of 2008 brought an additional 1 million votes to Obama. [1] It is unjust for celebs to use their influence in this way. Celebrities have an ability to influence the political sphere that bears no necessary relationship with their knowledge of the subjects concerned, or qualifications otherwise to do so.  Consequently, they represent an unelected, unaccountable pressure on the democratic system: they have been given power and influence, with no mechanism of checking that power, or way to prevent them from misleading the public (unlike, for example, political journalists, news channels and other sources of political information).  This is principally unjust: the optimum democratic system is the one that holds the closest to the principle of “one person, one vote”, and attempts to ensure that those votes are as informed as possible. Celebrity involvement in politics is a hindrance to that, effectively handing the famous more votes than is their due.  [1] Garthwaite, Craig, and Moore, Timothy J., ‘Can Celebrity Endorsements Affect Political Outcomes? Evidence from the 2008 US Democratic Presidential Primary’, Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 2012,


Personality politics is harmful to the democratic process  Celebrity involvement in the political process may increase the extent to which politicians need to court media attention in order to promote their policies.  Many people get their political information from ‘soft-news’ outlets [1] , i.e. entertainment channels and magazines that often focus on ‘celebrity gossip’. Shows such as Oprah Winfrey get millions of viewers many of whom don’t get news through other mediums and although soft news is the preferred format for a minority (10.2%) for a great many more it is in their top three. [2] The involvement of celebrities in the political sphere increases the power of “soft-news” over the political process: due to the wide reach of “soft-news” it is not possible to counter its effects using narrow-reach opinion pieces and policy analysis. Rather, politicians are forced either to package their ideas in a way acceptable to these magazines and talk shows (i.e. reduce the analysis; ‘dumb down’), for example Obama in 2009 became the first sitting president to appear on a late night comedy show; Tonight Show with Jay Leno, [3] or to counter attack by seeking celebrity endorsement of their own.  This makes political debate increasingly shallow, and voters’ decisions correspondingly less well-informed. The harmful impacts upon our democratic process are two-fold: first, voters being less informed means they are less likely to truly be voting in a way that is aligned with their best interests or political beliefs; second, the debate is skewed towards ideas that can be conveyed in short ‘sound-bites’ and away from ideas that require more complicated discussion.  [1] Drezner, Daniel W., ‘Foreign Policy Goes Glam’, The National Interest, Nov./Dec. 2007,   [2] Prior, Markus, ‘Any Good News in Soft News? The Impact of Soft News Preferences on Political Knowledge’, Political Communication, Vol. 20, 2003, pp.149-171, p.151   [3] Baum, Matthew A., and Jamison, Angela, ‘Soft News and the four Oprah effects’, November 2011,


People will have less information about politicians’ manifestos and ideas.  Celebrity endorsement distracts those who normally provide information to voters. Newspapers, blogs and other online media all have limited space, and, because celebrities sell, will use that space showing who is supporting whom, rather than covering debate about a politician’s policies and ideas.  Though the presence of celebrities may actually give the masses more avenue to relate to electoral processes, the fact still stands that in status quo people are more interested in the activities of their favorite celebrities which will thus blot out the candidates themselves. When voters see celebrity endorsements they are no longer thinking about how these future politicians can make an impact on their lives. In some cases the celebrity may help show the platform of policies the candidate is standing on but most of the time they are simply taking airtime from more in depth analysis. What is worse when wooing celebrities becomes important for politicians the politicians themselves have less time to formulate and articulate their policies.  This is detrimental to the democratic process. People having less information than they would otherwise impairs their ability to make an informed choice about how they would like to vote. A prohibition on celebrity interference in political debate would remove this obscuring effect.  All of the above adds to the depoliticisation of politics. If the celebrity endorsement continues to thrive, younger generations will disengage with the important political issues at hand. Instead of learning about the fundamental issues surrounding their country, they will be exposed to party tactics that are of no use to their political development.


Celebrity involvement counters financial power to the benefit of the disenfranchised  Parties advocating policies that benefit the most financially powerful (big business etc.) are able to make large revenues from donations from wealthy business personalities involved in those industries.  Film and music stars tend towards the ‘liberal’ or ‘left’ wing of politics [1] . Consequently, in being prevented from exerting non-financial power (through endorsement) the different political parties are not equally affected: rather, you disproportionately punish the liberal parties. This is significant, given the necessity of a counter-balance to the power of big business (through donations – for example in the USA 90% of donations from mining and the automotive industry goes to the republicans [2] ) over our political system (which is not being similarly banned).  [1] Meyer, D., Gamson, J. ‘The Challenge of Cultural Elites: Celebrities and Social Movements’, Sociological Inquiry. Vol.65 No.2, 1995, pp.181-206  [2] Duffy, Robert J., ‘Business, Elections, and the Environment’, in Michael E. Kraft and Sheldon Kamieniecki, Business and Environmental Policy, 2007, pp.61-90, p.74,


Celebrity involvement can highlight minority interests  There exists a problem with regards to advocacy for minority issues within mainstream political movements. This motion would exacerbate that problem.  Voters tend to base their decisions on key issues (things like education, the state of the economy, healthcare policy etc.). Whilst they may care about more marginal issues (e.g. gay rights, religious freedoms, environmental issues), they are often unwilling to sacrifice something they think has a greater impact on them for something that has a lesser impact.  Minority issues suffer particularly here: by their very nature, there are fewer people who feel directly affected than there are people who feel indirectly affected or indifferent. Consequently, there are never a great enough proportion of votes that could be gained by a political party concentrating on these particular issues in a way which might be detrimental. See, for example, the public reaction in the UK to Cameron’s position on gay marriage: whilst most people feel that gay marriage should be allowed [1] , Cameron has not received a political boost as a result of this decision, but rather, has faced hostility from those who believe it is a “distraction” [2] , where they would rather he focused on issues like the economic crisis.  [1] ‘Same-sex marriage in the United Kingdom’, Wikipedia, accessed 10 September 2012,   [2] Telegraph editor, ‘Gay marriage: A pointless distraction’, The Telegraph, 26 July 2012,


Celebrity involvement can act as a ‘gateway’ to get more people engaged in politics  Celebrity endorsement of a candidate does more than make people vote, drone-like, for the candidate endorsed by their favourite celebrity. Rather, it encourages people who might not otherwise have thought politics was interesting to pay attention to it. Especially in an age of easily accessible information, people can easily access sufficient information about political personalities and policies to cast a meaningful vote.  As a consequence, you have more potential voters, from a wider cross-section of society, note the key role played by personalities like will.i.am in engaging young people during the Obama campaign. Rock the Vote with a large amount of celebrity support registered 2.6million voters in 2008 and it and other celebrity campaigns had been prominent in 2004 as well which was probably a key factor in 2million more 18-29 year olds voting in 2008 compared to 2004 or 6.5million over 2000. [1]  Some of the people thus enthused may go on further with their interest in the political system, some may simply start listening to news shows or reading blogs that they would otherwise have shunned. Either way, celebrity involvement has a beneficial impact on our political system that it would be foolish to discard: the larger and more diverse the voter base, the more politicians are held to account and the more likely we are to reach the best political outcomes.  [1] Brubaker, Jennifer, ‘It doesn’t affect my vote: Third-person effects of Celebrity Endorsements on College Voters in the 2004 and 2008 Presidential Elections’, American Communication Journal, Vol.13 Issue 2, Summer 2011, p.8.


Britain may not like losing the Queen's head on banknotes but London will be at a huge economic disadvantage if Britain stays out.  London will further lose its position as Europe’s financial centre, and the financial influence this brings with it. Britain’s staying out of the Euro has already depleted London’s status as the European financial centre. As explained by Anthony Browne in The Euro: Should Britain join?, “The European Central Bank – the second most powerful in the world – had a natural home in London, but ended up in Frankfurt because of our indecision over the Euro.”1 Germany used this to her advantage, for it “reinvigorated Germany’s bid to ensure that Frankfurt becomes Europe’s financial centre, with a massive office-building programme to rival London’s Docklands.”1Germany seizing London’s sphere of influence will only increase if Britain stays out of the Euro. Moreover, if Britain’s indecision over the Euro continues, “it would lead to a serious rethink by foreign owners of many of the City’s financial institutions about where their core activities should be located.”1 If Britain does not join the Euro, her economic activity both at home and between fellow Member States will be badly affected.  1Browne, A., 2001, "The Euro: Should Britain Join?", page 92


Britain will lose economically if she stays out of the Euro over the long term.  Joining the European single currency (the Euro) may appear unfavourable to Britain, but the negative effect of not joining would be more unfavourable. As explained by Anthony Browne in The Euro: Should Britain join?, "Euroland businesses are now…able to raise money for investment across the entire single currency zone, making it easier and cheaper. British companies, on the other hand, are still largely constrained to drumming up money from within Britain if they want to expand.”1Eurozone businesses find it easy to raise money, for they are spared currency conversion charges. The carmaker Nissan has previously told the British government that eliminating exchange rate risk by siting production in the same currency zone as its sales market will be its preferred option’2.  1Browne, A., "The Euro: Should Britain Join?", Page 89  2Morgan, O. "Nissan tells Blair 'join Euro'", 27 May 2011, The Guardian


Amid all the Euroscepticism (sic) and xenophobic scaremongering so typical of the British tabloids, Britain forgets the advantage of cheaper goods would come with her entry into the European single currency.  There will be initial conversion costs and inflation, but this will be short lived. If Britain accepts the Euro, “There will be far more powerful forces – price transparency and economies of scale in a massive single market – that will continuously push the price of British goods down to European levels [resulting in] massive savings.”1. The end of cheaper goods justifies the means of attaining them.  1Browne, A., 2001, "The Euro: Should Britain Join", Page 91


Joining the Euro would reduce the cost of travel in Europe.  Before the arrival of the single currency, holiday makers would spend much money on preparing for the trip, before they had even bought a single souvenir or postcard; “travellers touring this fragmented continent could spend large amounts of their money simply changing it from one currency to another.”1 The loss incurred by currency conversion would be eliminated and accommodation abroad will also be cheaper and easier to book; “Joining the Euro will also make it cheaper to send money around Europe. Sending money to book a holiday cottage in another country with another currency can cost £40. Within Euroland, it would cost less than one Euro - much less than one pound.”2  1Browne, A., 2001, "The Euro: Should Britain Join". page 102  2Browne, A., 2001, "The Euro: Should Britain Join". page 103


In joining the single currency, Britain would have to surrender her sovereignty and allow Brussels (where the EU is based) to dictate her financial affairs.  If she accepted the Euro as her currency, Britain would have to hand the control she has over her economy over to Brussels. EU Committees would dictate how she may spend and tax. It is too dangerous for any country to have her economic affairs dictated by another country. This is an issue even Europhiles (those who support the EU) are sceptical about. "Joining the euro would involve a major surrendering of our sovereignty, severely hindering our ability to run the economy as we see fit. We would lose control over interest rates, and the ability to manage the economy through taxing and spending. Instead, it would be run by European committees… Even British politician Kenneth Clarke, nicknamed “Europe’s biggest friend” and one of the leading campaigners for the euro, admits that Britain’s ability to tax is central to its democracy.”1  1Browne, A., 2001, "The Euro: Should Britain Join?", page 70


Losing the Queen's head on banknotes is NOT a minor issue, it symbolises Britain losing her identity and control over her own economy.  This must not be dismissed as petty nostalgia, desire for outdated British tradition and fear of change. The fact that Britain does not want to lose the national symbol of her Queen on the banknotes is surely a sign that the British want to hold on to their own identity and keep control of their own economy. As explained by Alan Clark, "The European Commission Press Office chose that moment to release facsimiles of the new euro banknotes in their various denominations. The unfamiliar, but so obviously foreign, appearance made many people uneasy. Polls showed that the electorate, for most of the time indifferent to European squabbling, whose technicalities they could not be bothered to master, disliked the removal of their Sovereign's head from the currency of the realm. The sceptics took fresh heart and the likelihood of the dispute fading …became still more remote.”1 This highlights the depth and strength of anti-Euro sentiment in the British psyche. It is surely unfair for both Britain and those fellow EU Member states that ARE under the Euro to enter the single currency while not entirely convinced by it.  1Alan Clarke, The Tories: Conservatives and the Nation State 1922-1997, page 435-6.


For Britain to join the single currency is simply unthinkable; jobs will be lost  The EU creates economic conditions that threaten jobs. As explained by Anthony Browne in The Euro: Should Britain join?, "Joining the Euro would damage the British economy with 'one size fits all' interest rates, and so destroy jobs."1 This is not merely a product of anti-EU propaganda created by the British tabloid press; The evidence speaks for itself; "In 2000, (Euro was launched 1st January, 1999) unemployment in Euroland averaged about 10 per cent, compared to under 6 per cent in the UK" Britain must also learn from the mistakes of history; "Past experience has already shown us that locking ourselves into inappropriate interest rates destroys jobs. After we joined the Exchange Rate Mechanism, 100,000 businesses went bankrupt and unemployment doubled before we were finally forced out in 1992." Repetition of this is to be avoided at all costs and by Britain staying out of the Euro.  1Browne, A., 2001, "The Euro: Should Britain Join?"


Defaulting would be the quickest route to economic recovery  Under the status quo, the Greek economy is only headed in one direction: deeper recession. There are no signs of the situation changing any time soon. Were the Greek Government to default on its debts, after a period of recession, conditions would quickly be favourable for economic growth once more. This is what was observed when Argentina and other nations [1] recently defaulted and can be explained by many factors. Firstly, defaulting and exiting the Eurozone would allow Greece to conduct monetary policy more freely: they would be able to quickly devalue their currency in order to make Greek goods and services more competitive on the international market. This would increase exports and attract investment, as well as tourists looking for cheaper holidays – all of which would contribute towards the rebuilding of the Greek economy. [2] Moreover, were Greece to default, it would put an end to the huge degree of unpredictability and uncertainty about the Greek economy. At the moment, nobody knows if the banks are safe, if the government will default etc. The constant chopping and changing of current austerity measures such as increases in varieties of corporate tax and changes in regulations also contribute to the huge degree of uncertainty in the Greek economy. Uncertainty breeds risk and risk breeds fear: a recipe that drives away foreign investors and makes it difficult for local businesses to start up. Were Greece to default, however, such elements of uncertainty would be seriously diminished, and conditions would be ripe for investment from abroad and locally. Greek would be able to start afresh.  [1] Pettifor, Ann: “Greece: The upside of default”, 23 May 2012, BBC News,   [2] Lapavitsas, Costas: “Eurozone crisis: what if… Greece leaves the single currency”, 14 May 2012, The Guardian,


The current austerity measures are not working  The Austerity measures put in place by the ECB, IMF and European Commission have led to nothing but misery for the Greek people. They have failed to cut down the total debt % GDP ratio and have also failed to increase the competitiveness of the Greek economy. This is because raising taxes and slashing the minimum wage has sent the economy deeper and deeper into recession. Unemployment is at a record high of 21% and there is a severe shortage of credit leading to severe difficulties in companies financing their day to day projects. What’s more, the country itself is plunged into depression. Escalated (inevitably) by the local and international media, the climate is one of despair and investment is at the bottom of anyone’s priorities. This further perpetuates the cycles of recession and prevents any of the austerity measures having their desired effect. Additionally, the drastic fall in GDP every quarter means that cuts in government spending are also not having their desired effect on reducing the budget deficit % GDP ratio. Worst of all, the economic hardships have drawn many people to despair and the suicide rates in Greece have dramatically risen over the last year and access to healthcare has drastically declined. [1] In this manner, the government is failing in fulfilling its most basic duties of safeguarding the lives and wellbeing of its citizens. If the current measures are not working then a new approach is needed. A default would alleviate much of the suffering caused by austerity.  [1] Armitsead, Louise: “Why Greece should default and exit the euro” 23 February 2012, The Telegraph,


A Greek default would increase stability for the rest of the Eurozone  A Greek exit from the ‘Eurozone does not mean the end of the euro. It will, instead, mark a new beginning. Germany has a long and proud tradition of currency strength, but it could not cope with going back to the deutschmark because it would rocket in value and destroy the country's competitiveness. Some 97% of the Eurozone's population will continue to use the single currency and their leaders will circle the policy wagons to protect what is left.’ [`] A Greek default and departure from the Eurozone would decrease uncertainty and fear within the rest of the Eurozone. This, in turn is likely to attract higher levels of investment and transactions across Eurozone members.  [1] Parsons, Nick: “Eurozone crisis: what if… Greece leaves the single currency”, 14 May 2012, The Guardian,


Defaulting would not solve Greece’s problems  The proposition argue that the hardship endured by the default would only be temporary, but an analysis at the particular situation facing Greece indicates the opposite. Greece’s problems arose from a horrifically inefficient public sector embedded within a mentality of corruption and tax evasion. Even if we assume that defaulting would eventually boost Greek exports and help the economy recover, this would not solve the underlying problems that caused the crisis in the first place. By leaving the Eurozone and defaulting, Greece would lose easy access to borrowing, meaning that taxpayers would soon have to face the reality that they would have to pay for the inefficiencies within the public sector and support all the other structures that need reform. [1] Greece must, therefore, address these underlying issues or face the exact same problems in the future. Given that solving these problems necessarily involve austerity measures and job cuts, it makes most sense for Greece to undergo these changes now (as it is with the current austerity measures), under the framework of IMF, ECB and European Commission funding and supervision.  [1] Barrell, Ray: “Eurozone crisis: what if… Greece leaves the single currency”, 14 May 2012, The Guardian,


Leaving the Eurozone would be detrimental for Greece in the long-run.  Even if the proposition are correct in claiming defaulting and leaving the Eurozone would stimulate growth in the Greek economy, such benefits are transitory whereas the benefits of remaining in the Eurozone are permanent. [1] Having the Euro provides stability for the Greek economy – investors know that the currency will not collapse, making their invested capital worthless. The gravity of the outcomes of a Greek default cannot be known for sure, however some economists have even suggested that hyperinflation could occur – leading to disastrous consequences for Greece. [2] Moreover, in the long term, a single currency makes investment and transactions with other Eurozone members much more efficient and profitable. This is particularly important given that the vast majority of Greek trade is carried out with other European members. In light of these benefits, a short term cost that comes with the austerity measures enforced under the status quo, would be worthwhile in the long term.  [1] Barrell, Ray: “Eurozone crisis: what if… Greece leaves the single currency”, 14 May 2012, The Guardian,   [2] Ruparel, Raoul and Persson, Mats: “Better off Out? The short-term options for Greece inside and outside of the euro”, June 2012, Open Europe, 2012


A Greek default would have a negative domino-effect on other Eurozone countries.  A Greek default will leave tremendous shockwaves across the Eurozone. Investors will instantly become wary of default in Portugal, Spain, Italy or Ireland, particularly given the sudden nature of the Greek default. Consequently, huge volumes of capital will flow out of these countries and into other more secure ones like Germany and the Netherlands. [1] This will, in turn, heighten speculation about the danger of default of other Eurozone nations. Speculation of default is particularly dangerous because it drives demand for government bonds down. This leads to the interest payments on government bonds rising which in turn raises the interest rates governments need to pay on their outstanding debt. The new, higher payments governments must make on their debt increases their budget deficit % GDP ratio, thus making it more likely that the country will actually default. We thus see how increased fears about the future of Italy, Portugal, Spain and Ireland that will arise from a Greek default, will cause big problems and will put even more strain on the ECB and primarily Germany in providing financial support.  [1] Kapoor, Sony, “Viewpoints: What if Greece exits euro?”, BBC News, 13 July 2012,


Defaulting would cause chaos in Greece  There is no good solution for the crisis Greece finds itself in, only less bad ones. Austerity measures imposed on Greece may currently be causing suffering, but austerity is the least bad option available for the Greek people: default would be considerably worse. Here is what would most likely happen:  The Greek banking sector would collapse [1]. A large portion of the Greek debt is owed to Greek banks and companies, many of which would quickly go bankrupt when the Government defaults. This is also because Greek banks are almost totally reliant on the ECB for liquidity. [2] People would consequently lose their savings, and credit would be close to impossible to find.  The Government would quickly devalue the Drachma by at least 50%. This will lead to imported goods being more expensive and consequently to a huge rise in inflation with the living costs increasing tremendously.[3]  These two events would lead to a severe shortage of credit, making it almost impossible for struggling companies to survive. Unemployment would soar as a result. It will become increasingly difficult to secure supplies of oil, medicine, foodstuffs and other goods. Naturally, those hit worst would be the poor. The Government, in this respect, would be failing on an enormous scale in providing many citizens with the basic needs. [4]  [1] Brzeski, Carsten: “Viewpoints: What if Greece exits euro?”, BBC News, 13 July 2012,   [2] Ruparel, Raoul and Persson, Mats: “Better off Out? The short-term options for Greece inside and outside of the euro”, June 2012, Open Europe, 2012   [3] ibid  [4] Arghyrou, Michael: “Viewpoints: What if Greece exits euro?”, BBC News, 13 July 2012,


Compulsory voting broadens representation of disadvantaged groups  Voter apathy is highest among the poorest and most excluded sectors of society. As the Institute for Public Policy Research highlight, “the higher the income a citizen enjoys, and the higher the educational qualifications attained, the more likely it is that he or she will turn out to vote”. Since they do not vote, the political parties do not create policies for their needs, which leads to a vicious circle of increasing isolation. By making the most disenfranchised vote the major political parties are forced to take notice of them and this would reduce political polarisation 1. An example of this is in the UK where the Labour party abandoned its core supporters to pursue ‘middle England’. Political parties are drawn towards those groups to whom favourable policies will be rewarded in the form of vote. Compulsory voting ensures that all stakeholders in society are proportionally considered in governmental policy.  1 William Galston, 'Mandatory Voting Would Loosen Partisan Gridlock' US News and World Report, July 8th 2010


It will reduce the power of special interest groups  A benefit of compulsory voting is that it makes it more difficult for special interest groups to vote themselves into power. Under a non-compulsory voting system, if fewer people vote then it is easier for smaller sectional interests and lobby groups to control the outcome of the political process. A notable example would be the disproportionate influence of agriculture in policy making as seen in both European politics and well as American with enormous amounts of subsidies for farmers who represent a minute percentage of the population. 1 2  The outcome of the election therefore reflects less the will of the people (Who do I want to lead the country?) but instead reflects who was logistically more organized and more able to convince people to take time out of their day to cast a vote (Do I even want to vote today?).  1 Ira M. Sheskin and Arnold Dashefsky, "Jewish Population of the United States, 2006," in the American Jewish Year Book 2006, Volume 106, David Singer and Lawrence Grossman, Editors. NY: American Jewish Committee, 2006. 2: Mark Weber, Feb. 2009, 'A Straight Look at the Jewish Lobby', Institute for Historical Review (Accessed 10/06/2011)


Voting is a civic duty  Other civic duties also exist “which are recognised as necessary in order to live in a better, more cohesive, stable society” 1 like paying taxes, attending school, obeying road rules and, in some countries, military conscription and jury duty. All of these obligatory activities require far more time and effort than voting does, thus compulsory voting can be seen as constituting a much smaller intrusion of freedom than any of these other activities.  The right to vote in a democracy has been fought for throughout modern history . In the last century alone the soldiers of numerous wars and the suffragettes of many countries fought and died for enfranchisement. It is our duty to respect their sacrifice by voting.  1. Liberal Democrat Voice , 2006


It will cause more people to become interested in politics  Compulsory voting increases the number of people who cast their vote 1. People who know they will have to vote will take politics more seriously and start to take a more active role. Compulsory voting will potentially encourage voters to research the candidates' political positions more thoroughly. This may force candidates to be more open and transparent about their positions on many complex and controversial issues. Citizens will be willing to inform themselves even about unpopular policies and burning issues that need to be tackled. Better-informed voters will, therefore, oppose a plan that is unrealistic or would present an unnecessary budget-drain. This means that such a system could produce better political decisions that are not contradicting each other, quite upon the contrary.  1 Peter Tucker, The median Australian voter and the values that influence their vote choice presented by the author at the 3rd European Consortium for Political Research Conference in Budapest, September 10, 2005.


Compulsory voting has been implemented successfully.  Australia is one of the most notable examples of compulsory voting and shows how it can be implemented. In Australia Compulsory voting was introduced at federal elections in 1924 1. Every Australian citizen who is over eighteen has to vote unless they have a ‘valid and sufficient reason for failing to vote’ which is decided by the electoral commission whether a reason is sufficient 2. If the elector who fails to vote does not provide such a reason they pay a penalty and if (s)he does not pay then the matter is dealt with in court 3. There is little reason to believe that this would be more difficult to implement in any other country. 1 Evans, Tim, 'Compulsory voting in Australia', Australian Electoral Commission, (January 2006), (accessed 4/8/11) 2 Harrison, Brianna, and Lynch, Philip. Votes for the Homeless, (March 2003), (accessed 4/8/11) 3 Voter Turnout for Referendums and Elections 1901 , Australian Electoral Commission, 2010


Policing and financing the system is unmanageable  If a large proportion of the population decided not to vote it would be impossible to make every non-voter pay the fine. For example, if just 10% of the UK voters failed to do so the government would have to chase up about £4 million in fines. Even if they sent demand letters to all these people, they could not take all those who refused to pay to court. Ironically, this measure hurts most those who the proposition are trying to enfranchise because they are least able to pay.  The cost of policing this system will impact upon tax payers. The Government will need to expand and more civil servants positions will be needed to create, administer and enforce the processes. It is especially prudent that we look closely at the impact it would have financially on individual countries. For example, the US has more than ten times the voting population of Australia “the financial cost for the two nations is vastly different. Since it costs the Australian government roughly five dollars for every ballot they evaluate, the greater number of voters in America would exponentially increase bureaucratic costs".1  1 Iowaprodigal


There are alternatives that tackle the real causes of voter disengagement  Compulsory voting hides the problem which is causing people to be disengaged from politics; it allows politicians to ignore measures that can tackle the true causes of political disengagement.  States instead should seek on strategies that will eliminate barriers to voting along with reducing the costs of turnout for its citizens, weekend voting, making election days a holiday, simple registration procedures, reforms such as to the party finance rules to widen the playing field, and the creation of a centralized, professional bureaucracy concerned with all aspects of election administration. In the UK, for example, adopting a more proportional system will allow for a political spectrum rather than the three major parties that currently dominate.


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.


Aid can ensure better treatment of migrants  Migrants in developed countries are often not very well treated, for example the Traiskirchen migrant camp in Austria, one of the richest countries in the EU was condemned for its inhumane conditions by Amnesty in August 2015. [1] The aid provided can be earmarked to ensure that migrants being well treated and provided for through safe transportation and access to essential government services such as healthcare and welfare.  The advantage of this provision in developing rather than developed countries is cost. The same amount of money goes a lot further in a developing country. This provision therefore makes sense in a time were many developed countries are both struggling with greater numbers of migrants and with austerity. Greece, which has had 124,000 migrants arrive in the first seven months of 2015, a 750% rise over the same period in 2014, is a notable case. [2]  [1] ‘'No respect' for human rights at Traiskirchen camp’, The Local at, 14 August 2015,   [2] Spindler, William, ‘Number of refugees and migrants arriving in Greece soars 750 per cent over 2014’, UNHCR, 7 August 2015,


It is just to redistribute migrants  It is an accident of geography, or history, simple bad luck that has resulted in some countries getting large numbers of immigrants while many others get none. The first developed country on migrant routes get large numbers as those wishing to seek asylum have to apply in the first safe country. Similarly those countries next to conflict zones, or places affected by natural disasters, get very large influxes of migrants who hope to return home as soon as possible; there are more than 1.1 million refugees from Syria in Lebanon [1] a country of less than 6million. It is right that there should be a mechanism to help even out the burden of migrants and that rich developed countries should be those who pay that cost.  [1] ‘Syria Regional Refugee Response’, data.unhcr.org,  , accessed 19th August 2015


Migrants can benefit developing countries  Migrants can bring the benefit of their industriousness to developing countries. When there are crises it is the middle professional classes who are most likely to migrate as they have the resources and knowledge with which to do so. When it comes to economic migrants it is often the educated youth who are looking for better work opportunities; skilled workers make up 33% of migrants from developing countries despite being only 6% of the population. [1] Developed countries already have a highly educated and skilled population, and will take in those migrants with skills they need. Developing countries on the other hand have a much less well educated population so derive more benefit from the influx of skilled workers to help them develop thus counteracting the ‘brain drain’.  [1] Docquier, Frédéric, Lohest, Olivier, and Marfouk, Abdeslam. ‘Brain Drain in Developing Countries’, The World Bank Economic Review. Vol. 21, No. 2, pp. 193–218, p.198


Large influxes of migrants will create conflict in unprepared countries  It is regrettable that difference is a major source of conflict among humans with differences in religion and ethnicity having regularly been the source of conflicts household human history. While many countries have traditions of accepting migrants others don't and even those that are tolerant may not be prepared for a large influx of migrants.  This policy would bring about such an influx in those countries that take up the offer of aid for taking in migrants. A new community is likely to be labelled the ‘other’ by the natives of that country and be blamed for taking jobs and putting pressure on services. This happens because the newcomers are easy to blame and have few influential voices in the country to speak out in their defence.  Places with existing large migrant communities are less likely to experience anti immigrant hostility. Thus in India Delhi with 38.4% of the population immigrants (not just international) has less conflict thant Mumbai with 26.5%, and in the US New Mexico with a 45% Hispanic population has less anti-Hispanic sentiment than Florida with 21%. [1]  [1] ‘Causes of Conflict’, University of North Carolina, accessed 20 August 2015,


Migrants will simply return to the countries they have been sent from  Moving migrants to developing countries in return for quantities of aid is simply not a sustainable policy. Migrants fleeing conflict looking for safety may accept any safe country but the migrant problems affecting rich countries are in large part economic migration. These people are looking to get to a developed country to earn more and have better prospects than they could at home so are unlikely to accept a country at a similar (or potentially lower) level of development as a good alternative. They are therefore likely to simply tray again to make their way to a developed country when they can. There have been examples of migrants such as Rachid from Algeria who has tried to get into Europe three times already and is waiting for a ship to try again, [1] it is unclear how this proposal would alter this problem.  [1] Ash, Lucy, ‘Risking death at sea to escape boredom’, BBC News, 20 August 2015,


Developed countries have a greater responsibility to take in migrants  Developed countries have a responsibility to take in large numbers of migrants. There are several reasons for this. First they have a historical responsibility resulting from a legacy of colonialism, imperialism, and industrialisation that benefited the developed world at the expense of the developing world. This helped create the inequalities in the world that drive migration so developed countries should accept that a greater responsibility for migrants is the price.  Second developed countries have a much greater capacity to absorb migrants than developing countries. Developed countries have more jobs, and the ability to create more through using the state’s financial resources to increase investment. They already have the legal framework for large numbers of migrants; laws that ensure equality and fair treatment regardless of religion or ethnicity. And in many cases they already have sizeable migrant communities (with some exceptions such as Japan) that help create a culture of tolerance that embraces the diversity migrants bring.


Collective bargaining leades to pay crises in the public sector  The public sector is often significantly overpaid. The workers within the public sectors of Western liberal democracies often get paid more than people of equal education and experience who are employed in the private sector. In the United States there is a salary premium of 10-20 percent in the public sector. This means that there is likely a waste of resources as these people are being paid more than they should be by the government.1  The reason this happens is that collective bargaining means that workers can often, through the simple idea that they can communicate with the government and have a hand in the decision making process, make their demands much more easily.  Further, governments in particular are vulnerable during negotiations with unions, due their need to maintain both their political credibility and the cost effectiveness of the services they provide. This is significantly different to private enterprise where public opinion of the company is often significantly less relevant. As such, public sector workers can earn significantly more than their equally skilled counterparts in the private sector. This is problematic because it leads to a drain of workers and ideas from the private sector to the public. This is, in and of itself, problematic because the public sector, due to being shackled to the needs of public opinion often take fewer risks than the private sector and as such results in fewer innovations than work in the private sector.  Biggs, Andrew G. “Why Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker Is Right About Collective Bargaining.” US News. 25/02/2011


Collective bargaining is not a right  Whilst the freedom of association exists under the state and it is true that people should be allowed to communicate with one another and form groups to forward their personal and political interests, it is not true that the freedom of association automatically grants access to the decision making process.  Unions in this instance are problematic because whilst other groups do not have access to special privileges, unions are able to exert a significant and disproportionate amount of influence over the political process through the use of collective bargaining mechanisms. This argument applies to private unions as well, although to a lesser extent, and the banning of collective bargaining for private unions would be principally sound. In the case of unions in the private sector they can cause large amounts of disruption which has a large knock on impact on the economy giving leverage over politicians for whom the economy and jobs are always important issues. For example unions in transport in the private sector are just as disruptive as in the public sector. Even more minor businesses can be significant due to being in supply or logistics chains that are vital for important parts of the economy.1 The access to the decision making process that unions are granted goes above and beyond the rights that we award to all other groups and as such this right, if it can be called one at all, can easily be taken away as it is the removal of an inequality within our system.  Further, even if collective bargaining were to be considered a “right,” the government can curtail the rights of individuals and groups of people should it feel the harm to all of society is great enough. We see this with the limits that we put on free speech such that we may prevent the incitement of racial hatred.2  Shepardson, David, “GM, Ford warn rail strike could cripple auto industry”, The Detroit News, 30 November 2011,   Denholm, David “Guess What: There is no ‘right’ to collective bargaining.” LabourUnionReport.com 21/02/2011


Collective bargaining undermines the democractic process  The bargain between normal unions and private enterprise involves all parties being brought to the table and talking about the issues that they might have. However, the public sector represents the benefits of taxpayers, the politicians and the unions. The power that unions exercises means that negotiations can happen without the consent or involvement of the public sector’s stakeholders, the public.  Even though power in a democracy is usually devolved to the politicians for this purpose, given the highly politicised nature of union negotiations, government office-holders who supervise union negotiations may act inconsistently with the mandate that the electorate have given them. This is because public unions often command a very large block of voters and can threaten politicians with this block of voters readily. This is not the same as a private business where officials aren’t elected by their workers. As such, collective bargaining rights for public union undermine the ability of taxpayers to dictate where their money is being spent significantly.1  “Union Bargaining Just A Dream For Many Gov Workers.” Oregan Herald. 27/02/2011


Collective bargaining is a counter to the creation of natural monopolies  Many public industries exist as public industries because they are natural monopolies. For example, rail travel, which is often public in Western Liberal democracies, is a sector in which it makes no sense to build multiple railway lines across the country, each for a different company, when one would simply be more efficient. A similar case can be made for things such as public utilities. As such, these sectors often only have a single, often public company working in that sector.  In the case where there is a monopolist, the workers in the sector often have no other employers that they can reasonably find that require their skills, so for example, teachers are very well qualified to teach, however, are possibly not as qualified to deal with other areas and as such will find difficulty moving to another profession. As such, the monopolist in this area has the power to set wages without losing a significant number of employees. Further, in many of these industries strike action will not be used, for example because teachers have a vocational, almost fiduciary relationship with their students and don’t wish to see them lose out due to a strike.1  “Monopoly Power.”


Collective bargaining has been recognised as an enforcable right  Collective bargaining is a right. If the state allows freedom of association, individuals will gather together and exchange their ideas and views as a natural consequence of this freedom. Further, free association and free expression allows groups to then select a representative to express their ideas in a way that the individuals in the group might not be able to. In preventing people from using this part of their right to assembly, we weaken the entire concept of the right to assembly. The point of the right to assembly is to allow the best possible representation for individuals. When a group of individuals are prevented from enjoying this right then it leads to those individuals feeling isolated from the rest of society who are able to enjoy this right.  This is particularly problematic in the case of public sector workers as the state that is isolating them also happens to be their employer. This hurts the way that people in the public sector view the state that ideally is meant to represent them above all as they actively contribute to the well being of the state.1  Bloomberg, Michael. “Limit Pay, Not Unions.” New York Times. 27/02/2011


Collective bargaining is a necessary aspect of democracy  Collective bargaining is needed by people in any job. Within any firm there exist feedback structures that enable workers to communicate with managers and executive decision makers. However, there are some issues which affect workers significantly, but run against the principles of profit, or in this case the overall public good that the state seeks to serve.  In this situation, a collection of workers are required. This is primarily because if suggested changes go against public interest then a single worker requesting such a change is likely to be rejected. However, it is the indirect benefit to public interest through a workforce that is treated better that must also be considered. But indirect benefit can only truly occur if there are a large number of workers where said indirect benefit can accrue.  Specifically, indirect benefit includes the happiness of the workforce and thus the creation of a harder working workforce, as well as the prevention of brain drain of the workforce to other professions. When a single person is unhappy for example, the effect is minimal, however if this effect can be proved for a large number of people then an adjustment must be made.  In order for these ideas to be expressed, workers can either engage in a collective bargaining process with their employer, or take more drastic action such as strikes or protests to raise awareness of the problem. Given that the alternate option is vastly more disruptive, it seems prudent to allow people to do collectively bargain.1  “Importance of Collective Bargaining.” Industrial relations.


The New START treaty will help against Iran’s nuclear program.  New START will help bolster US-Russian cooperation, which is necessary for solving the problem of Iran’s nuclear proliferation. On Nov. 19, 2010, the Anti-Defamation League released a statement, which came from Robert G. Sugarman, ADL National Chair, and Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director: "The severe damage that could be inflicted on that relationship by failing to ratify the treaty would inevitably hamper effective American international leadership to stop the Iranian nuclear weapons program. The Iranian nuclear threat is the most serious national security issue facing the United States, Israel, and other allies in the Middle East. While some Senators may have legitimate reservations about the New START treaty or its protocol, we believe the interest of our greater and common goal of preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons must take precedence." [1] New START is crucial in getting Russian support against Iran and other rogue nuclear states.  Although the United States needs a strong and reliable nuclear force, the chief nuclear danger today comes not from Russia but from rogue states such as Iran and North Korea and the potential for nuclear material to fall into the hands of terrorists. Given those pressing dangers, some question why an arms control treaty with Russia matters. It matters because it is in both parties' interest that there be transparency and stability in their strategic nuclear relationship. It also matters because Russia's cooperation will be needed if we are to make progress in rolling back the Iranian and North Korean programs. Russian help will be needed to continue our work to secure "loose nukes" in Russia and elsewhere. And Russian assistance is needed to improve the situation in Afghanistan, a breeding ground for international terrorism.  Obviously, the United States does not sign arms control agreements just to make friends. Any treaty must be considered on its merits. But the New START agreement is clearly in the US’ national interest, and the ramifications of not ratifying it could be significantly negative. [2] As US Vice President Joe Biden argued in 2010: "New Start is also a cornerstone of our efforts to reset relations with Russia, which have improved significantly in the last two years. This has led to real benefits for U.S. and global security. Russian cooperation made it possible to secure strong sanctions against Iran over its nuclear ambitions, and Russia canceled a sale to Iran of an advanced anti-aircraft missile system that would have been dangerously destabilizing. Russia has permitted the flow of materiel through its territory for our troops in Afghanistan. And—as the NATO-Russia Council in Lisbon demonstrated—European security has been advanced by the pursuit of a more cooperative relationship with Russia. We should not jeopardize this progress." [3] Therefore, because New START will have significant positive consequences in terms of aiding relations with Russia, and thus in dealing with rogue nuclear states like Iran, it should be supported.  [1] Weingarten, Elizabeth. “How did New START become a Jewish issue?”. The Atlantic. 1 Decemebr 2010.   [2] Kissinger, Henry A. ; Shultz, George P. ; Baker III, James A’ ; Eagleburger , Lawrence S. ; and Powell, Colin L. "The Republican case for ratifying New START". Washington Post. 2 December 2010.   [3] Biden, Joseph. "The case for ratifying New START". Wall Street Journal. 25 November 2010.