This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/2016/apr/20/high-stakes-eu-referendum-us-intervention-obama

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
High stakes in EU referendum compel US intervention High stakes in EU referendum compel US intervention
(about 1 hour later)
Faced with the chance to lead Wednesday’s edition with an exclusive article by eight former US treasury secretaries warning of the perils of Brexit, the Times did what you’d expect of the more partisan Daily Mail. It chose to splash on “We meddle in affairs of others, admits EU chief”(£). So did the Mail, Fleet Street’s top page-one spine-chiller. Faced with the chance to lead Wednesday’s edition with an exclusive article by eight former US treasury secretaries warning of the perils of Brexit, the Times did what you’d expect of the more partisan Daily Mail. It chose to splash on “We meddle in affairs of others, admits EU chief”. So did the Mail, Fleet Street’s top page-one spine-chiller.
It was a reference to the admission by Jean-Claude Juncker, the EU commission president and former PM/finance minister of tax-shy Luxembourg, that Brussels has interfered too much with the daily lives of Europe’s citizens. The Guardian also led its referendum coverage on inside pages with Juncker’s belated acknowledgment.It was a reference to the admission by Jean-Claude Juncker, the EU commission president and former PM/finance minister of tax-shy Luxembourg, that Brussels has interfered too much with the daily lives of Europe’s citizens. The Guardian also led its referendum coverage on inside pages with Juncker’s belated acknowledgment.
By polling day, 23 June, some good may yet come of this ramshackle and unimpressive pair of campaigns, as Michael Gove is saying. Brexit would trigger a major EU reform and may save it from current folly, Gove argues. It smacks a little of a teenager’s “You’ll be sorry when I’m dead” threat to the parents and doesn’t address the gaping hole in Brexit’s own campaign: what would a “liberated” Britain do to reform itself?By polling day, 23 June, some good may yet come of this ramshackle and unimpressive pair of campaigns, as Michael Gove is saying. Brexit would trigger a major EU reform and may save it from current folly, Gove argues. It smacks a little of a teenager’s “You’ll be sorry when I’m dead” threat to the parents and doesn’t address the gaping hole in Brexit’s own campaign: what would a “liberated” Britain do to reform itself?
But it’s a legitimate point. In a more serious debate, the new Brussels anti-competitiveness challenge to Google – good for consumers or plain luddite? – would also provoke proper discussion.But it’s a legitimate point. In a more serious debate, the new Brussels anti-competitiveness challenge to Google – good for consumers or plain luddite? – would also provoke proper discussion.
What of the eight US treasury secretaries whose article (“The special relationship needs a strong alliance with Britain at its core”) is not deemed worthy of the Times’s comment section, but is tucked away in the home news run on page 9? If any heavyweight foreigners can be found willing to support Brexit – there are none so far, but I retain hopes of Vladimir Putin – let’s see whether they warrant better display. What of the eight US treasury secretaries, whose article (“The special relationship needs a strong alliance with Britain at its core”) is not deemed worthy of the Times’s comment section, but is tucked away in the home news run on page 9? If any heavyweight foreigners can be found willing to support Brexit – there are none so far, but I retain hopes of Vladimir Putin – let’s see whether they warrant better display.
Either way, is it a good idea to parade foreign elites in support of an institution that is synonymous with elites in the eyes of disaffected Brexit voters and their allies in the Trump, Sanders, Tsipras, Le Pen (etc) campaigns elsewhere? They are precisely the people who feel let down by elites, real or imagined. If they have heard of George P Shultz (1972-74) or of Henry “Hank” Paulson (2006-09) or the others, their memories may be negative.Either way, is it a good idea to parade foreign elites in support of an institution that is synonymous with elites in the eyes of disaffected Brexit voters and their allies in the Trump, Sanders, Tsipras, Le Pen (etc) campaigns elsewhere? They are precisely the people who feel let down by elites, real or imagined. If they have heard of George P Shultz (1972-74) or of Henry “Hank” Paulson (2006-09) or the others, their memories may be negative.
In Goldman Sachs banker Paulson’s case they’d have a point: Lehman Brothers was allowed to fail on his watch during the Bush administration, the key event in the great banking crash of 2008/9. In Britain, Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling did better, as the Treasury Eight’s letter implicitly acknowledges.In Goldman Sachs banker Paulson’s case they’d have a point: Lehman Brothers was allowed to fail on his watch during the Bush administration, the key event in the great banking crash of 2008/9. In Britain, Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling did better, as the Treasury Eight’s letter implicitly acknowledges.
On security and diplomacy, on a more liberal economic and political world order, on the need to fend off flaky populism and much else, the eight argue that Britain will be better off and Europe better off if we all stick more or less together. “The interdependence and interconnectedness of nations has increased greatly and will continue to grow,” they write.On security and diplomacy, on a more liberal economic and political world order, on the need to fend off flaky populism and much else, the eight argue that Britain will be better off and Europe better off if we all stick more or less together. “The interdependence and interconnectedness of nations has increased greatly and will continue to grow,” they write.
That’s a significant concession from the US in a week when Boris Johnson has mocked Obama for this week’s flying visit to Britain to speak for the remain campaign. The US would not pool its sovereignty as Britain is required to do, says New York-born Boris. Not in the same way, no, but US economic and military might is constrained relatively more by international agreements than mid-size Britain’s. The reviving power of China will only make it more so.That’s a significant concession from the US in a week when Boris Johnson has mocked Obama for this week’s flying visit to Britain to speak for the remain campaign. The US would not pool its sovereignty as Britain is required to do, says New York-born Boris. Not in the same way, no, but US economic and military might is constrained relatively more by international agreements than mid-size Britain’s. The reviving power of China will only make it more so.
Obama’s visit will highlight the “foreign interference” dimension of the leave campaign, which so much resembles the SNP/yes campaign in Scotland before the independence referendum of 2014. It presents itself as the plucky underdog and is stubbornly vague about the transition that would follow what the shameless Boris calls “Independence Day”. It accuses the other side of running “Project Fear” when its own spine-chillers are just as chilly. See how Alan Travis punctures the Mail’s “3 million extra migrants” splash.Obama’s visit will highlight the “foreign interference” dimension of the leave campaign, which so much resembles the SNP/yes campaign in Scotland before the independence referendum of 2014. It presents itself as the plucky underdog and is stubbornly vague about the transition that would follow what the shameless Boris calls “Independence Day”. It accuses the other side of running “Project Fear” when its own spine-chillers are just as chilly. See how Alan Travis punctures the Mail’s “3 million extra migrants” splash.
As a general rule it’s a good idea to steer clear of other people’s elections, not least because it’s sometimes counterproductive, as the Guardian’s G2 foray into George W Bush’s re-election campaign did in 2004. Reliably more stupid than Gove or Johnson, fallen Tory minister Liam Fox attacks Obama’s interference again today after boasting of his active support for White House no-hoper Mitt Romney in 2012.As a general rule it’s a good idea to steer clear of other people’s elections, not least because it’s sometimes counterproductive, as the Guardian’s G2 foray into George W Bush’s re-election campaign did in 2004. Reliably more stupid than Gove or Johnson, fallen Tory minister Liam Fox attacks Obama’s interference again today after boasting of his active support for White House no-hoper Mitt Romney in 2012.
But there are exceptions. If Donald Trump wins the Republican presidential nomination, despite not being a Republican, many foreign leaders, economic and political, will feel it their duty to signal support, if only coded, for Hillary Clinton, who also consolidated her position in Tuesday’s New York primaries.But there are exceptions. If Donald Trump wins the Republican presidential nomination, despite not being a Republican, many foreign leaders, economic and political, will feel it their duty to signal support, if only coded, for Hillary Clinton, who also consolidated her position in Tuesday’s New York primaries.
That might prove counterproductive too, a bit like Tony Blair’s interventions these days. It certainly doesn’t work well when western leaders attack populist and authoritarian nationalists like Putin or Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, leaders who control much of their voters’ information flow. But sometimes such fine calculations must take second place to duty. A leader feels he or she must risk speaking out because the issue at stake is too important.That might prove counterproductive too, a bit like Tony Blair’s interventions these days. It certainly doesn’t work well when western leaders attack populist and authoritarian nationalists like Putin or Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, leaders who control much of their voters’ information flow. But sometimes such fine calculations must take second place to duty. A leader feels he or she must risk speaking out because the issue at stake is too important.
That must be behind Obama’s willingness to help out David Cameron, with whom he seems to get along well enough without being an intimate. Eisenhower and Macmillan, Reagan and Thatcher, Blair and Bill Clinton, Major and Bush Sr even: there are some easy alliances of outlook and temperament, and this isn’t one of them. But Washington has a genuine feeling for its unsinkable aircraft carrier in the North Sea (that’s you and me), part self-interest but also sentiment. It is the nationalist challengers in all our countries who are the instinctive isolationists. Check out Trump, check out Bernie.That must be behind Obama’s willingness to help out David Cameron, with whom he seems to get along well enough without being an intimate. Eisenhower and Macmillan, Reagan and Thatcher, Blair and Bill Clinton, Major and Bush Sr even: there are some easy alliances of outlook and temperament, and this isn’t one of them. But Washington has a genuine feeling for its unsinkable aircraft carrier in the North Sea (that’s you and me), part self-interest but also sentiment. It is the nationalist challengers in all our countries who are the instinctive isolationists. Check out Trump, check out Bernie.
During the 1975 referendum on staying in the then “common market”, European voices were prominent is urging a yes vote (won by a margin of two to one). I recall watching then German chancellor Helmut Schmidt making a dramatic appeal (in vain) to Labour’s special conference. “There is a tide in the affairs of men,” he said in perfect English. No chance of a repeat performance from the current chancellor in our own shrunken times with EU capitals getting decidedly twitchy about the outcome of Britain’s vote During the 1975 referendum on staying in the then “common market”, European voices were prominent in urging a yes vote (won by a margin of two to one). I recall watching then German chancellor Helmut Schmidt making a dramatic appeal (in vain) to Labour’s special conference. “There is a tide in the affairs of men,” he said in perfect English. No chance of a repeat performance from the current chancellor in our own shrunken times with EU capitals getting decidedly twitchy about the outcome of Britain’s vote.
Angela Merkel seems set to stay away. Remember what they said about her at the height of the Greek financial crisis? We don’t want that sort of “we won the war” polarisation, do we? Britain’s debate is already coarse and damaging to the public realm. We’ll still have to work together when it’s all over. At least Professor Obama won’t be inflammatory. He never is.Angela Merkel seems set to stay away. Remember what they said about her at the height of the Greek financial crisis? We don’t want that sort of “we won the war” polarisation, do we? Britain’s debate is already coarse and damaging to the public realm. We’ll still have to work together when it’s all over. At least Professor Obama won’t be inflammatory. He never is.