US press: pick of the papers

The ten must-read opinion pieces from today's US papers.

1. The never-ending Cold War (New York Times)

Two decades after the end of the cold war, Mitt Romney still considers Russia to be America's "No. 1 geopolitical foe," says this editorial.

2. We're not France, yet (Wall Street Journal)

Democracies always begin in liberty, but they don't always keep it. France is in economic decline today because the structure of its government is so severely centralized, says Daniel Henniger.

3. Ousting Syria's Assad through a "soft landing" (Washington Post)

It's a moment for realpolitik: The West needs Russia's help in removing Assad without a civil war, and Russia needs to broker a transition to bolster its future influence in the Arab world, writes David Ignatius.

4. Big labor in Little Italy (Wall Street Journal)

Mario Monti's proposed reforms to Italy's 1970 Workers' Charter would supposedly deliver a labor market so liberalized that it would be "not European, but American..." Even applying the standard political-rhetoric discount, these are overstatements, writes Anne Jolis.

5. Obamacare and the character question (Washington Post)

I wish Santorum would finally tell us exactly how he and his family get health coverage themselves -- the coverage he would perversely deny to millions of others "on principle," says Matt Miller.

6. Obama's "tax" lapse (LA Times)

To avoid the stigma of the word "tax," they included a requirement that everyone obtain health insurance or pay a penalty, writes Doyle McManus.

7. Romney's wrong about Russia (Politico)

Together, we fight international terrorism, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and human trafficking, writes Rep. Gregory Meeks.

8. World poverty in retreat (Chicago Tribune)

Economic growth, not redistribution, has been the surest cure for poverty, and economic freedom has been the key that unlocked the riddle of economic growth, says Steve Chapman.

9. Public deserves televised access to the constitutional fight over health care reform (Oregonian)

It's time for the court to follow its own lofty advice about transparency and openness. The justices can't hide forever behind a curtain, expecting citizens to be satisfied with televised sideshows instead of the real thing, says this editorial.

10. Time to re-regulate the airlines (USA Today)

We need a regulatory regime that provides balanced, reasonably priced service to metropolitan areas that don't happen to be hubs, writes Phil Longman.

Mitt Romney. Credit: Getty Images
Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

On Brexit, David Cameron knows exactly what he's doing

It's not a dead cat - it's about disarming the Leave campaign. 

If you’re explaining, you’re losing. That’s the calculation behind David Cameron’s latest entry into the In-Out (or Remain-Leave in new money) battle. The Prime Minister has warned that were Britain to leave the European Union, the migrant camp at Calais – popularly known as “the Jungle” – could move to Britain. But Eurosceptic campaigners have angrily denounced the remarks, saying that there’s little chance of it happening either way.  

Who’s right? My colleague Henry Zeffman has written a handy explainer of the ins and outs of the row, but the short version is: the Eurosceptic campaigners are broadly right.

But the remarks are very far from a gaffe by Downing Street or Cameron, and they aren’t a “dead cat” strategy – where you say something offensive, prompting a debate about that instead of another, trickier issue – either.

Campaigners for Remain have long been aware that immigration remains their glass jaw. The line wheeled out by Cameron has been long-planned. Late last year, senior members of the In campaign discussed what they saw as the danger points for the campaign. The first was a renegotiation that managed to roll back workplace rights, imperilling the support of the Labour party and the trade unions was one – happily avoided by Cameron’s piecemeal deal.

That the deal would be raked over in the press is not considered a risk point. Stronger In has long known that its path to victory does not run through a sympathetic media. The expectation has long been that even substantial concessions would doubtless have been denounced by the Mail, Telegraph and Sun – and no-one seriously expected that Cameron would emerge with a transformative deal. Since well before the general election, the Prime Minister has been gradually scaling back his demands. The aim has always been to secure as many concessions as possible in order to get an In vote – but Downing Street’s focus has always been on the “as possible” part rather than the “securing concessions” bit.

Today’s row isn’t about deflecting attention from a less-than-stellar deal, but about defanging another “risk point” for the In campaign: border control.

Campaign strategists believe they can throw the issue into neutral by casting doubt on Leave’s ability to control borders any better. One top aide said: “Our line is this: if we vote to leave, the border moves from Calais to Dover, it’s that simple.” They are also keen to make more of the fact that Norway has equally high levels of migration from the European Union as the United Kingdom. While In will never “own” the issue of immigration, they believe they can make the battle sufficiently murky that voters will turn to the areas that favour a Remain vote – national security, economic stability, and keeping people in their jobs.

What the row exposes, rather than a Prime Minister under pressure is a politician who knows exactly what he’s doing – and just how vulnerable the lack of a serious heavyweight at the top makes the Leave campaign(s). Most people won't make a judgement based on reading up the minutinae of European treaties, but on a "sniff test" of which side they think is more trustworthy. It's not a fight about the facts - it's a fight about who is more trusted by the public: David Cameron, or Iain Duncan Smith, Chris Grayling or Priti Patel? As one minister said to me: "I like Priti, but the idea that she can go against the PM as far as voters are concerned is ridiculous. Most people haven't heard of her." 

Leave finds itself in a position uncomfortably like that of Labour in the run-up to the election: with Cameron able to paint himself as the only option guaranteeing stability, against a chaotic and muddled alternative. Without a politician, a business figure or even a prominent celebrity who can provide credibility on the level of the Prime Minister, any row about whether or not Brexit increases the chances of more migrants on Britain’s doorsteps helps Remain – and Cameron. 

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog. He usually writes about politics.