Politicians are always being accused of failing to give straight answers to questions, but they could level the same charge at voters. In opinion polls during the last British parliament, thousands were asked who they would support in a general election. A simple enough query, yet many seem to have answered with something different: “Which party do I feel people like me are expected to vote for?”; or “Which big party is not currently the government?”
Psychologists call this substitution and it happens all the time without us realizing. Our lazy brains do not like to process the complex calculations required to find the truest answer, so unconsciously we reach for a simpler, more emotionally available response. To accurately say how you intend to vote means computing many factors — how economically secure do you feel, who do you trust to run the country — and projecting yourself into the experience of making that real-life choice in a polling booth.
It turns out that when those conditions were in place, when it was not a drill, more people voted Conservative than previously said they would. Even after the fact we can not be sure what question they were really answering. Can you imagine Ed Miliband as British prime minister? Does it feel like a changing-the-government kind of a day?
What question voters might answer in British Prime Minister David Cameron’s European referendum is an even bigger mystery. The ballot paper is likely to ask: “Should the UK remain a member of the EU?” but Cameron’s renegotiation of membership terms is only just getting under way, so even he struggles to say what a yes vote would be buying into.
This is not a problem for diehard pro-Europeans and irreconcilable Euro-quitters. They suspect that Cameron’s reforms are likely to be cosmetic and so their arguments — or rather the questions they want to superimpose on to the ballot paper — are already chosen.
To secure a yes, ask if we should stick with what we know instead of recklessly gambling with jobs and investment; ask if Britain is an open country at heart and if we want the future to be modeled on something more optimistic than UK Independence Party leader Nigel Farage’s fantasies about the past. To elicit a no, ask whether we should have limitless immigration; whether we want our laws written in Brussels; or if we should hitch our economic wagon to a eurozone train that looks certain to come off the rails.
Cameron avoids being drawn into the debate on those terms because he has to pretend that his renegotiation might change the substance of the argument. Downing Street refuses to set a date for the referendum, insisting that the timetable can only be dictated by progress in the talks. In theory, the longer the discussions run, the better the deal should get, but, June next year has been mooted on the grounds that leaving it any later risks entanglement with French and German elections in 2017 and the danger that the climate in Paris and Berlin is likely to turn less hospitable to UK demands as domestic political battles loom.
However, in EU matters, the patience of Tory MPs is always uppermost in Cameron’s mind. Holding the vote early has the appeal of getting a painful operation out of the way. Lancing the boil might hurt; squeezing it for two years first might hurt more. The downside to a quickie referendum is accelerating talk of the succession. In the last parliament, Tory MPs developed a working assumption that, should Cameron somehow cling on in Downing Street, he would stand down after the EU vote. Winning a majority muted that speculation without eradicating the ambitions that fueled it.
It is hard for Conservative politician Theresa May or London Mayor Boris Johnson to start agitating for the prime minister to step aside when he is in the middle of critical talks over the UK’s future in Europe, whereas the completion of talks and the referendum would offer a natural punctuation mark in the parliament for them to start campaigning. In that sense, the likeliest beneficiary of a late referendum is Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne — already seen by most MPs as heir apparent. The Conservative Party politician has long known that his prospects are inseparable from Cameron’s ability to offer the Tories a European settlement they can stomach. That is why he once considered a move to the Foreign Office and why he is to tour Europe’s capitals over the coming months, starting with Paris this week.
Osborne has a better grasp than Cameron of what is technically required to secure the UK’s interests in a rewired relationship with the EU — the under-the-bonnet business of voting weights and single-market rules. The prime minister’s interest is in securing a symbolic victory to flaunt. The chancellor needs a practical settlement he could work with on making the move to No. 10.
The Downing Street duo face the challenge of selling any deal to party and country. The only certainty is that it is to include compromises and imperfections — characteristics of the European project that have always been unacceptable to much of the right and are rapidly falling out of favor on the left. It is hard to see the radical tendency that is currently mobilizing behind Labour Party politician Jeremy Corbyn in the Labour leadership contest setting aside partisan hatred for Cameron and Osborne in the interests of preserving Britain’s status as an EU member. Denunciation of a pro-austerity, anti-democracy stitch-up is the likey trajectory. If Corbyn wins, it is conceivable that the Labour yes campaign, chaired by Labour Party politician Alan Johnson, will become a refuge for moderates, Blairites in exile, and even they might not want to sound enthusiastic about Cameron’s plan.
Undecided voters can surely be persuaded that the UK is better off staying in the EU, but the prime minister is making that task harder by insisting that the case for yes hinges on the detail of his renegotiation. Asking people if they like the half-baked deal that the prime minister brought home from Brussels seems, in the current climate, to be an invitation to say no.
At some stage, Cameron is likely to have to pivot away from treaty changes and the internal dynamics of the Tory party and make the broader case for Britain in Europe. We know the answer he wants. Nonetheless, he is running out of time to give a straight question.
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under