30 May 2008
A landslide for Obama
22 May 2008
A survey published in today’s Daily Telegraph reports that Barack Obama beats John McCain by a landslide, as long as the voters are European. (Read the survey results here.)
I don’t suppose that is very surprising: the US Democrats are closer in thinking to most Europeans on domestic policy issues than the Republicans are, and Obama is on the “liberal” wing of the Democrats. But there are some interesting results arising from the survey, nevertheless.
First, there is the question of economic competence. While, in each of the five countries polled, Obama beats McCain (narrowly in Russia, handsomely in the UK, France, Germany and Italy), the gap narrows considerably when asked “who do you think would be better equipped to lead the world economy out of its current difficulties”. John McCain is a hardline free trader, whereas Barack Obama has been flirting with protectionism during his long series of debates with Hillary Clinton, but I don’t think these results reveal an unsatisfied European longing for free trade.
I think that the answer lies in a deep-seated prejudice about right and left, that the right tends to be better at economics than the left. Right-wing economic policies are what you have to have and that left-wing economic policies are what you have when you can afford them. This principle doesn’t actually apply in practice, of course, but that doesn’t stop people from believing it. When you take the economics into account, it shows even more clearly the European preference for Obama on the other issues.
A second interesting finding is the answer to the question: “Do you think that the United States is overall a force for good or force for evil in today’s world?” The results below are striking:
The Russians are the most anti-American, and the French and the Germans think the same as each other, but it is Italy that exceeds the UK in its pro-American sentiment. Indeed, the British are marginally disposed to dislike the Americans at the moment. Perhaps the election of Barack Obama, if that should happen, will restore the American reputation in Europe once again.
I don’t suppose that is very surprising: the US Democrats are closer in thinking to most Europeans on domestic policy issues than the Republicans are, and Obama is on the “liberal” wing of the Democrats. But there are some interesting results arising from the survey, nevertheless.
First, there is the question of economic competence. While, in each of the five countries polled, Obama beats McCain (narrowly in Russia, handsomely in the UK, France, Germany and Italy), the gap narrows considerably when asked “who do you think would be better equipped to lead the world economy out of its current difficulties”. John McCain is a hardline free trader, whereas Barack Obama has been flirting with protectionism during his long series of debates with Hillary Clinton, but I don’t think these results reveal an unsatisfied European longing for free trade.
I think that the answer lies in a deep-seated prejudice about right and left, that the right tends to be better at economics than the left. Right-wing economic policies are what you have to have and that left-wing economic policies are what you have when you can afford them. This principle doesn’t actually apply in practice, of course, but that doesn’t stop people from believing it. When you take the economics into account, it shows even more clearly the European preference for Obama on the other issues.
A second interesting finding is the answer to the question: “Do you think that the United States is overall a force for good or force for evil in today’s world?” The results below are striking:
Britain | France | Italy | Germany | Russia | |
| Force for good | 33 | 28 | 49 | 25 | 16 |
| Force for evil | 35 | 40 | 27 | 39 | 56 |
| Don’t know | 32 | 32 | 24 | 36 | 28 |
The Russians are the most anti-American, and the French and the Germans think the same as each other, but it is Italy that exceeds the UK in its pro-American sentiment. Indeed, the British are marginally disposed to dislike the Americans at the moment. Perhaps the election of Barack Obama, if that should happen, will restore the American reputation in Europe once again.
Posted by Richard Laming at 15:00
0 comments
Is Cornwall a nation?
20 May 2008
An interesting piece has just been published in the UK section of this website, examining the relationship between Cornwall and the rest of the United Kingdom. (Read it here.) Formally, at present, Cornwall is a county in England, with limited powers of local administration, but with no significant legislative powers and no constitutional protection whatsoever. The powers and functions of Cornwall County Council are determined and may be changed by Westminster and Whitehall.
Is this right? Other parts of the United Kingdom, such as Scotland, Wales and even London, have greater devolved powers than this: should Cornwall have them too?
Our author, Philip Hosking, thinks so, and cites various historical and legal arguments in his favour. It is a persistent theme of this blog, though, that history contains not wrongs to be righted but lessons to be learned and mistakes not to be repeated. The future is more interesting than the past.
And what of the future of Cornwall? It is a second theme of this blog that political institutions should be shaped in the popular image. (This is why we have a European Union and not a European federation, for example.) What is the popular image of Cornwall?
That is where the historical arguments come in. Even if they do not constitute the contemporary reality, they certainly shape perceptions of that reality, and in a modern democracy perception is nine tenths of the law.
On that basis, I can well believe that Cornwall does not sit happily within the government region of the South West. Government regions were created in order to better deliver Whitehall policies, not to correspond to local identities. And the man in Whitehall does not always know best.
In the South West, for example, to travel from Penzance in Cornwall to Bristol, the administrative centre of the region, takes more than twice as long as it takes to travel from Bristol to London. From Cornwall, Bristol does not seem very close. In fact, and this will surprise you, Bristol is almost as far away from Penzance as it is from Scotland. From Bristol, Cornwall does not feel very close.
But the man in Whitehall might reply that, while Cornwall may be far away, it is also small: its population is only 500,000, and that is far too little for a region. The man in Whitehall has obviously never heard of the German Land of Bremen, with a population of 664,000, or of Austria, where 4 Länder have populations below that, or Switzerland, which spreads its 7 million people among as many as 26 cantons. If they can manage, why can’t the Cornish?
So, if geography argues in favour of some kind of self-government for Cornwall and population does not ague against it, the matter becomes a matter of practicalities and negotiation, with no obvious reason why it should fail.
There remains only the question of how to confer democratic legitimacy on such new arrangements. A referendum, perhaps?
Is this right? Other parts of the United Kingdom, such as Scotland, Wales and even London, have greater devolved powers than this: should Cornwall have them too?
Our author, Philip Hosking, thinks so, and cites various historical and legal arguments in his favour. It is a persistent theme of this blog, though, that history contains not wrongs to be righted but lessons to be learned and mistakes not to be repeated. The future is more interesting than the past.
And what of the future of Cornwall? It is a second theme of this blog that political institutions should be shaped in the popular image. (This is why we have a European Union and not a European federation, for example.) What is the popular image of Cornwall?
That is where the historical arguments come in. Even if they do not constitute the contemporary reality, they certainly shape perceptions of that reality, and in a modern democracy perception is nine tenths of the law.
On that basis, I can well believe that Cornwall does not sit happily within the government region of the South West. Government regions were created in order to better deliver Whitehall policies, not to correspond to local identities. And the man in Whitehall does not always know best.
In the South West, for example, to travel from Penzance in Cornwall to Bristol, the administrative centre of the region, takes more than twice as long as it takes to travel from Bristol to London. From Cornwall, Bristol does not seem very close. In fact, and this will surprise you, Bristol is almost as far away from Penzance as it is from Scotland. From Bristol, Cornwall does not feel very close.
But the man in Whitehall might reply that, while Cornwall may be far away, it is also small: its population is only 500,000, and that is far too little for a region. The man in Whitehall has obviously never heard of the German Land of Bremen, with a population of 664,000, or of Austria, where 4 Länder have populations below that, or Switzerland, which spreads its 7 million people among as many as 26 cantons. If they can manage, why can’t the Cornish?
So, if geography argues in favour of some kind of self-government for Cornwall and population does not ague against it, the matter becomes a matter of practicalities and negotiation, with no obvious reason why it should fail.
There remains only the question of how to confer democratic legitimacy on such new arrangements. A referendum, perhaps?
Posted by Richard Laming at 20:14
5 comments
A league of democracies
12 May 2008
Most of the discussion about the proposal for a league of democracies – floated most notably by Republican presidential candidate John McCain – centres about the notion of democracy. How to choose which countries are eligible and which are not? Can this be done without offending the excluded?
These questions are important, of course, but it is important not to overlook the other half of that proposal, and think about the nature of a league.
If, as is intended, the members of the league include some of the most powerful countries in the world, the role of the league in tempering the way in which they use that power becomes even more important. Some of the criticism of the league proposal is precisely that it will become a means of increasing the power wielded by the powerful: there is no attraction in such an idea for the future of a stable and equitable global order. This criticism has to be addressed.
Fortunately, it can be, precisely because its members are democracies, with political systems based on the idea that the use of political power should be tempered and accountable. This means that the new league should itself be based on the same principles as it demands of its own members, namely that it should be democratic, transparent and accountable, respecting the rule of law.
Both the United States constitution and the treaties that establish the European Union are expressions of these principles. It would be only fitting if, in the 21st century, the US and the EU sought to apply them around the world.
These questions are important, of course, but it is important not to overlook the other half of that proposal, and think about the nature of a league.
If, as is intended, the members of the league include some of the most powerful countries in the world, the role of the league in tempering the way in which they use that power becomes even more important. Some of the criticism of the league proposal is precisely that it will become a means of increasing the power wielded by the powerful: there is no attraction in such an idea for the future of a stable and equitable global order. This criticism has to be addressed.
Fortunately, it can be, precisely because its members are democracies, with political systems based on the idea that the use of political power should be tempered and accountable. This means that the new league should itself be based on the same principles as it demands of its own members, namely that it should be democratic, transparent and accountable, respecting the rule of law.
Both the United States constitution and the treaties that establish the European Union are expressions of these principles. It would be only fitting if, in the 21st century, the US and the EU sought to apply them around the world.
Posted by Richard Laming at 13:12
3 comments
Should we send aid to Burma?
09 May 2008
As the tragic consequences for the people of Burma of Cyclone Nargis and its aftermath become clearer, the contrast between the desperate need for humanitarian aid and the unwillingness of the Burmese government to accept it becomes clearer too.
The Americans had to negotiate for a week before a C130 transport aircraft carrying mosquito nets, blankets and water was permitted to fly there. In the meantime, 1.5 million people are homeless and at risk of diseases such as typhoid and cholera, while it is estimated that perhaps 100,000 people have already lost their lives.
The Burmese regime is one of the most secretive and oppressive in the world, having prevented the democratically-elected Aung Sang Suu Kyi from taking her rightful position as head of the government. The military junta now tries to suppress contact and engagement with the outside world unless mediated heavily by itself. It has said it will accept certain types of emergency aid but not the emergency workers who might come with it.
Thoughts are now turning to the suggestion that aid should be dispatched to Burma even without the approval of the government there. National sovereignty should be overridden by the urgent need to provide humanitarian assistance. There is a precedent, of course, in that one of the reasons advanced for the invasion of Iraq was to protect the Iraqi people from the depredations of their government. In fact, many of the people arguing for action in Burma now, such as French foreign minister Bernard Kouchner, were advocates of action in Iraq then, so at least they are consistent.
And there is a further precedent, too. Nineteenth century British imperialism in Burma aimed in part to improve the lot of the Burmese people, bringing them the benefits of modern science and medicine, to suppress such diseases as typhoid and cholera. But that was not the only aim, of course, as the British set up an administration to integrate Burma into the empire. What is the guarantee that humanitarian aid this time will not lead to similar imperial consequences?
You can see the dilemma. This blog is firmly not on the side of those who depend on national sovereignty for their arguments, but there have to be limits on what the provision of humanitarian aid will entail and an objective measure of when the task is completed. A unilateral attempt by the Burmese government to tackle the consequences of the cyclone will fail, but so will a unilateral attempt by the French government, too.
The Americans had to negotiate for a week before a C130 transport aircraft carrying mosquito nets, blankets and water was permitted to fly there. In the meantime, 1.5 million people are homeless and at risk of diseases such as typhoid and cholera, while it is estimated that perhaps 100,000 people have already lost their lives.
The Burmese regime is one of the most secretive and oppressive in the world, having prevented the democratically-elected Aung Sang Suu Kyi from taking her rightful position as head of the government. The military junta now tries to suppress contact and engagement with the outside world unless mediated heavily by itself. It has said it will accept certain types of emergency aid but not the emergency workers who might come with it.
Thoughts are now turning to the suggestion that aid should be dispatched to Burma even without the approval of the government there. National sovereignty should be overridden by the urgent need to provide humanitarian assistance. There is a precedent, of course, in that one of the reasons advanced for the invasion of Iraq was to protect the Iraqi people from the depredations of their government. In fact, many of the people arguing for action in Burma now, such as French foreign minister Bernard Kouchner, were advocates of action in Iraq then, so at least they are consistent.
And there is a further precedent, too. Nineteenth century British imperialism in Burma aimed in part to improve the lot of the Burmese people, bringing them the benefits of modern science and medicine, to suppress such diseases as typhoid and cholera. But that was not the only aim, of course, as the British set up an administration to integrate Burma into the empire. What is the guarantee that humanitarian aid this time will not lead to similar imperial consequences?
You can see the dilemma. This blog is firmly not on the side of those who depend on national sovereignty for their arguments, but there have to be limits on what the provision of humanitarian aid will entail and an objective measure of when the task is completed. A unilateral attempt by the Burmese government to tackle the consequences of the cyclone will fail, but so will a unilateral attempt by the French government, too.
¤ ¤ ¤
You can make a donation to the Disasters Emergency Committee Burma Cyclone appeal here.
Posted by Richard Laming at 12:26
0 comments
Europe Day, but not in Britain
Today is Europe Day, the anniversary of the Schuman Declaration that gave birth to the idea of the European Union. It is celebrated across Europe as a recognition of what the EU has achieved. In Poland, there is a parade through the streets of Warsaw; in Bulgaria, there are educational events around the country; and in Turkey, the foreign minister invited the ambassadors of the EU member states and candidate countries to breakfast.
And here in Britain? The Europe minister, Jim Murphy, confirmed last week that “As has been the case in previous years, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) in London has no events planned to mark Europe Day on 9 May.” How cheering. We go to less effort to celebrate the EU than Turkey does.
On the bright side, I should add that Jim Murphy continued to say that “The FCO's network of missions across Europe do participate in Europe Day events in their host countries, respecting local circumstances” as if that were any comfort. Of course, British diplomats take part in local celebrations, “respecting local circumstances”: it would be downright rude not to. But there is no indication from the government that Europe Day has anything to do with us.
This from a government that wants to encourage more flying of the flags of saints George, Andrew and David on the appropriate days of the year. When it comes to identity and public communication, this government seems to show no interest in the role of Europe.
In previous years, there have in fact been some, although only a few, official celebrations of Europe Day. A visit to the website of the Foreign Office will show that Geoff Hoon gave a speech on Europe Day in 2006 and Denis MacShane hosted a lunch in 2003. (There is also a reference to Europe Day on the 10 Downing Street website, from 2004, which you can read here.)
Some brave local authorities have defied the national trend and marked Europe Day in their own areas. And many European Movement branches have done the same: congratulations to them.
And here in Britain? The Europe minister, Jim Murphy, confirmed last week that “As has been the case in previous years, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) in London has no events planned to mark Europe Day on 9 May.” How cheering. We go to less effort to celebrate the EU than Turkey does.
On the bright side, I should add that Jim Murphy continued to say that “The FCO's network of missions across Europe do participate in Europe Day events in their host countries, respecting local circumstances” as if that were any comfort. Of course, British diplomats take part in local celebrations, “respecting local circumstances”: it would be downright rude not to. But there is no indication from the government that Europe Day has anything to do with us.
This from a government that wants to encourage more flying of the flags of saints George, Andrew and David on the appropriate days of the year. When it comes to identity and public communication, this government seems to show no interest in the role of Europe.
In previous years, there have in fact been some, although only a few, official celebrations of Europe Day. A visit to the website of the Foreign Office will show that Geoff Hoon gave a speech on Europe Day in 2006 and Denis MacShane hosted a lunch in 2003. (There is also a reference to Europe Day on the 10 Downing Street website, from 2004, which you can read here.)
Some brave local authorities have defied the national trend and marked Europe Day in their own areas. And many European Movement branches have done the same: congratulations to them.
Posted by Richard Laming at 17:30
3 comments
