Laying Down the Road to the Referendum

As many thousands of tourists know, a gun goes off every day in Edinburgh – but last week it was the firing of the starting gun of Scotland’s independence referendum campaign that drew the world’s attention.

Much fanfare greeted the signing by David Cameron and Alex Salmond of the procedural agreement – probably to some bemusement among Scottish voters, for whom the referendum has been inevitable ever since they so overwhelmingly backed the SNP in last year’s election.

But beneath the symbolism, it is the detail of the deal that is intriguing, and which will occupy minds at Westminster and Holyrood over the coming weeks. Two key features stand out.

The first – and the headline grabber – is the single Yes-No question; the Prime Minister is believed to have adopted a strategy of winning that argument at all costs. It rules out the possibility of a compromise outcome from the referendum – and means that the people of Scotland will not be given the opportunity to vote for their most preferred option.

This has political and democratic implications. Democratically, when couched in those terms, the deal looks like a fudge. But the case for a referendum that is guaranteed to produce an overall majority in favour of a single option is far more convincing – the result of a 3-way choice would be greeted in much the same way as a coalition government.

What that means is that supporters of so-called ‘devo max’ will have to decide which is the lesser of two evils. For David Cameron, it means backing Scottish voters to be more cautiously constructive than reluctantly radical; for Alex Salmond it means gambling on his ability not merely to make Scots reject Westminster control, but to make a positive case for a breakaway.

Opinion polls have consistently given the benefit of the doubt to the Unionists, but the First Minister is a persuasive and canny politician, and he’ll see his adversary as an easy target.

The second eye-catching aspect of the agreement is potentially revolutionary. For the first time in British history, there is the real prospect of 16- and 17-year-olds going to the polls.

The arguments for and against this section of the working, tax-paying, fighting, drinking, gambling, child-rearing population being given the franchise have gone back and forth for years… you may have got a sense of the Sage’s view.

However, there are complications. The proposal made in the referendum blueprint is for the extension to take effect on a one-off basis.

That means the Electoral Commission spending unspecified amounts of public money finding  and inviting these additional voters, only to abandon them later; it means telling a sub-section of this group that they can vote in the referendum but not in, for example, the following year’s general election (assuming Scotland is still a part of it).

The extension will also not be exhaustive. Due to the vagaries of the electoral roll, unless the exact date is made known well in advance (not currently Mr Salmond’s intention), not all those who are aged 16 when the referendum comes around will have been registered to vote anyway. This is sometimes the case with other spontaneous ballots, but the fuss that will be made of this particular gesture could lead to frustration and disillusionment for some.

The complications involved in a temporary extension of the franchise may ultimately defeat the proposal; one could speculate that the likely fall-out from this decision among campaigners is also the subject of a calculation by Westminster – and a gamble; if it works, the clamour for votes for 16 (roundly opposed in the House of Commons) would surely be irrepressible.

Although the agreement is binding (including both men’s pledge to accept and honour the result of the referendum) the electoral terms that it prescribes are not, and are subject to ratification by the Scottish Parliament – the fundamental purpose of the document is to hand over responsibility for conducting the referendum from London to Edinburgh.

So the next few weeks will see much wrangling over points such as the ones discussed here. But that will be as nothing when compared to the intense, marathon campaign that is to follow over the next two years. It will come as no surprise that the Sage intends to return to this issue many times between now and autumn 2014 – and in doing so, put the case for the Union.

UPDATE - The Deal Is Dead

Last weekend, the Sage wrote that the biggest threat to the completion of a merger between defence giants BAE Systems and EADS was the stiff resistance it faced from national governments, especially those on the continent which own shares in the European firm.

In other words, although the deal made good business sense, the politics was not so clear-cut.

And so it proved. On Wednesday, by which date the two companies had to decide whether to continue with the negotiation process, it was announced that the deal was being dropped. Demands by governments on all sides had led to a stalemate, with intransigence from Germany in particular dashing any hopes of a compromise.

Sunday’s article also lamented the right-wing media’s eagerness to turn public opinion against any deal from the moment the idea was unveiled. This week, the very same journalists have scrambled to tell the nation that the mere possibility that BAE may not be able to survive on its own also puts thousands of British jobs in the same jeopardy anyway.

Notwithstanding the apparent desire on the part of the doomsayers to have it both ways, they are right to raise the prospect – previously mooted by your correspondent – of a similar bid for BAE from across the Atlantic, especially in the wake of this week’s events.

Although many in the defence industry may have suspected that the British firm was primed for a takeover, the opening of talks with EADS has confirmed it in the clearest possible terms.

However, the minefield that the British and European firms and their governments have had to navigate – without success – may have deterred bosses and investors at already-thriving companies such as Lockheed and Boeing.

The attitude of the British government to this sort of transatlantic alliance is also unclear. Job prospects aside, the message it would send to a continent from which Britain has already begun to cut itself diplomatically adrift would require careful consideration.

And, since nearly half of BAE’s revenue already comes from contracts held in the US, the profit-making rationale for a tie-up with a giant American rival is questionable.

One thing is for sure, though – nothing is likely to happen soon. The United States is in full election mode, and with a lame-duck Congress to follow before the victor’s inauguration, not to mention a widely anticipated debate over the coming year about the superpower’s military strategy, a long period of uncertainty beckons.

This deal may be dead, but the future of Britain’s defence industry is still very much a live issue.

BAE + EADS = A Big Deal

This time last week, a team of Europe’s leading golfers were well on the way to a stunning comeback win over their US counterparts, on the same American soil on which most of the team ply their trade each week. The victory owed much to a golden generation of British players, but was ultimately both inspired and driven by two of the sport’s continental legends.

The same sort of triumph of European co-operation over American might is what the bosses of EADS and BAE Systems had in mind when they proposed a merger of the two companies that would form a defence and aviation behemoth to rival Boeing.

As with the golf, also, the coup would take place under the noses of the Americans, with whom BAE in particular conducts a substantial amount of business. Where the similarities end is in the wave of both healthy scepticism and downright nationalistic fear-mongering that has greeted the announcement.

With a common history of state ownership, shared importance in matters of national and international security, billions of pounds in respective annual profits and an unshakeable symbolism of European unity and British aloofness, these two firms know that any major business decision they take is sure to be politically significant and sensitive.

When the merger plan was leaked to the media last month, right-wing rags wasted no time in impressing upon their readers just how much of a bad idea this was – warning of “the dangers of foreign ownership”, questioning the implications for BAE’s contracts with the US and Saudi Arabia, and raising the spectre of job cuts required by a streamlined multinational organisation.

Above all, though, it is the prospect of 60% foreign ownership that spooks those who already harbour deep suspicions of anything said or done by anyone from across the Channel. But this arrangement is not unreasonable – BAE is held at arm’s length by one national government, while EADS is under the influence of three; and although the two companies’ profits are similar, the continental firm generates two and a half times the revenue of its British rival.

Then again, they aren’t really rivals at all – BAE is the world’s second biggest defence contractor, whereas EADS’s main business is in civil aviation through its Airbus subsidiary. Both are locked in perennial competition with American giants, and both have much to gain from joining forces, sharing expertise, growing networks and cutting costs.

From a business point of view, then, the merger is a good deal – and an especially good deal for BAE, whose share price has been stable since the news broke, while EADS has lost a sixth of its market value.

The politics, however, is much less clear-cut. The British government has pledged to use the ‘golden share’ it holds in BAE Systems to veto the merger if it is deemed not to be in the UK’s best interests, while the French and Germans are also reluctant to let go of their stake in EADS; such political resistance from either side remains the biggest threat to the deal going through.

In the end, though, it may well be the US itself that plays the key role in determining whether the merger goes ahead. If France and Germany insist on retaining too much control of the new company, Washington could threaten to turn its back on Europe altogether when it comes to awarding lucrative but sensitive contracts in future.

It would be even worse for EADS if the deal falls through. BAE has shown its hand in declaring its desire for a strategic partner, and the open goal offered up by a failed merger is unlikely to be missed by an American giant such as Lockheed even Boeing itself. Such a deal would reinforce America’s superiority, and Europe’s irrelevance, in global defence.

At the heart of this proposition is the business interests of the firms involved, but fears over the potential political ramifications have raised the stakes. As ever, the irony is that it is that same political interference that could scupper the deal – or worse, produce a fudge that suits nobody.

Is Apple's Influence Waning?

Last October, on the day of the release of the iPhone 4S, the Sage lamented the overwhelming commercial and cultural success of “Apple’s strategy of telling people what they want, then telling them they need it, then giving it to them”. Less than a year later, here we are again.

Tomorrow, the much-anticipated iPhone 5 goes on sale. In fact, such is the inevitability of these pompous but incremental upgrades, one might have expected at least some of Apple’s followers to have tamed their desire for each flashy but basically similar new model.

Only time will tell whether this is indeed occurring, but recent history – and provisional pre-order sales figures – certainly seem to disprove the theory.

The Apple brand is so powerful that a product does not have to wipe the floor with its opposition in terms of spec to become the market leader, unlike its many rivals. Even some minor flaws can be – and have been – tolerated in the name of fashion.

What the company must not do, however (and what its latest toy comes perilously close to doing) is let down its customers by failing to deliver not only on its reputation for innovation but also on the basics.

But Apple’s spiteful decision earlier this year to replace Google Maps on all its forthcoming devices with its own TomTom-based mapping app has caused anger and frustration among previously favourable reviewers.

Many would-be customers look set to rely on Apple’s chief software rival bringing out an iOS-compatible app of its own further down the track, but it would defy Google’s interests to do so.

The decision to introduce it, and the features of its design, make Apple Maps a microcosm of the firm’s strategy and ethos – and demonstrate where it is going wrong.

Its determination to look, act and feel distinct from its rivals has meant a less clear interface than that which is familiar to millions around the world, an accuracy deficit caused by pulling the plug on Google’s years of experience, investment and user feedback, and the replacement of a popular, functional extra – StreetView – with exciting but useless 3D flyovers.

Elsewhere, despite being months in the planning and with all of its main rivals ratcheting up their specifications at an impressive pace, the iPhone 5 will, from the outset, lag behind in fundamental features like none of its predecessors did.

The Samsung Galaxy S III, released 4 months ago, has a screen that is 20% bigger than Apple’s new baby; the latest releases from Sony, Nokia and LG all boast more powerful cameras; battery life is a continuing bug-bear; and the new iPhone does not even include the technology required for users to make contactless payments, which is fully integrated into all of its main competitors.

But of course, Apple’s power lies not in being able to out-spec its rivals in the fickle world of technology, but in convincing its target audience that its product is the must-have. That it has managed to achieve this on such a scale despite charging three-figure premiums on superior products (including during a recession) is nothing short of miraculous.

Keeping it up, though, will arguably be its biggest challenge. This is why Apple has spent most of the last 12 months in the courts, stifling its hardware competitors by enforcing unreasonable, sweeping patents that could jeopardise the sort of innovation with which its own products are being challenged on the high street, but which is also allowing the industry as a whole to thrive.

In an increasingly competitive market, and still in the shadow of its late founder, Apple is under enormous pressure to deliver, and by its own high standards the iPhone 5 is – on paper – a disappointment. Where the company goes from here, strategically and financially, is unclear.

But one thing is for sure – up and down the land, and around the world, those queues will already be starting to form.

Introducing Mitt Romney

This week, while the people of Louisiana are once again battening down the hatches in the face of yet another hurricane, Florida is playing host to political pomp and ceremony as the Republican Party officially launches its fight to take back the White House.

Today, the Convention is fighting a losing battle against a global media rightly focused on the devastation being wrought upon New Orleans and the rest of the Gulf Coast, exactly seven years after Hurricane Katrina tore the famous old city apart.

But that will all change tomorrow when Mitt Romney takes to the stage in Tampa and formally accepts his party’s nomination for President. After a long, slow-death primary campaign, his name and face are widely recognised across America, but beyond its shores, not a lot is known about Mr Romney the politician, and even less about Mr Romney the man. That is a problem.

In fact, to judge from some of his high-profile policy deviations, it might even be quite difficult for his electorate to know exactly what he stands for.

As Governor of Massachusetts, he pushed through healthcare legislation that was widely seen as a template for President Obama’s radical healthcare reform… yet he now denounces the ill-fated federal project and demands its repeal on (right-wing friendly) grounds of individual liberty.

Last week’s controversy regarding some Republicans’ views on abortion brought into focus Mr Romney’s record on the issue, to which he has taken a somewhat softer approach in the past than the explicitly pro-life position he assumed during the primaries. His recent uncharacteristically hard line on immigration – a hot topic in American politics of late – is another cause for scepticism.

Finally, there is the subject that tops the priority lists of almost all American voters – the economy.

The last two years (since the mid-term elections in which the Republicans made huge gains) have been dominated by a battle of wills between the two sides in Congress that has led the federal government perilously close to bankruptcy and brought Washington politics into disrepute.

All of this is because Congressmen and women are unable to reconcile the Democrats’ desire to balance the books mainly through tax rises for the wealthiest and the Republicans’ zeal for shrinking the role of the state through spending cuts on everything except defence.

If ever any US Presidential election looked likely to be settled on a single issue, it is this one.

The two candidates not only advocate different solutions to America’s current fiscal mess – not to mention the slow recovery of jobs and output from the recession and financial crisis – but they represent a nation that is ideologically polarised to a degree not seen in a generation.

No wonder the election is too close to call; it may well come down to which side can animate its supporters most effectively to drive up favourable turnout – in the usual swing states, and some unexpected ones. The Republicans believe that although Mr Obama is mobilising the same army of volunteers ‘in the field’ that helped him sweep to victory four years ago, the message is not being swallowed quite so easily by an electorate feeling let down by failed policies and broken promises.

No wonder, also, that Mr Romney – a relatively centrist, consensus candidate – has chosen Paul Ryan, an archetypal fiscal hawk revered by the Republican right, as his running mate. The two may not see completely eye-to-eye on this and other key issues, but it is hoped that choosing Mr Ryan allows Mr Romney to ‘cover all bases’ and deflect criticism that he is ‘not Republican enough’.

The lingering problem that I referred to earlier, though, is one that must be addressed urgently, starting tomorrow night – a fear that to too many Americans, the would-be President is not ‘like them’ enough. A multi-millionaire venture capitalist-turned-state governor with an MBA from Harvard and residences in 3 US states is unlikely to connect with the American public in quite the same way as his eloquent but down-to-earth competitor.

Over the course of the campaign, he may well get away with that. In the showpiece debates that will follow in the coming months, he will get the chance to impress by engaging with a political foe on an intellectual level; but in the biggest speech of his life, he must look down the camera and convince the American people that he should be their next leader.

What London 2012 Leaves Behind

Two weeks on from that unforgettable opening ceremony, the London 2012 Games are drawing to a close. As sports fans up and down the country (and around the world) prepare themselves for withdrawal symptoms of Olympic proportions, competitors are beginning to reflect on what has gone before and where they go next.

The same could be said of the host nation. It is scarcely believable that one year ago this week, many of England’s cities – none more so than the capital itself – were gripped by civil unrest not seen in 3 decades. Rioters, most but by no means all young, unemployed, isolated adults starved of wealth and ambition by the grinding recession, leapt at the opportunity to join forces and take pot shots at the established order – government, capitalism, the law – which they held generally responsible for their predicament.

Or rather, whoever they considered to represent that established order. The random, unpredictable and grossly unjust selection of victims and the bewildering lack of any meaningful aims or common purpose meant the riots failed to unite a suffering generation and threatened to tear our society even further apart than it was already.

Thousands of arrests and hundreds of years in jail terms later, the justice system’s integrity has been reinforced, and criminal records threaten to blight the careers of scores of unlikely criminals. The establishment won, but no-one was celebrating.

What a contrast to the mood of the country as a whole this past fortnight. British sporting triumph on a scale not seen in anyone’s lifetime has both united and inspired millions as Olympic fever has swept the nation. There have been many captivating moments, but last Saturday night, in particular, will live long in the memory of anyone who witnessed it.

Such momentous occasions, however, are merely the rewarding final chapter of the story of Team GB’s success. Just 16 years ago, the nation was embarrassed to return from the Atlanta Games with only the legendary partnership of Redgrave and Pinsent having taken gold.

But two years earlier, the launch of the National Lottery had represented a far more significant turning point in Britain’s Olympic fortunes. And having won the bid, seven years ago, to host the 2012 Games and thus delivered the ideal stage on which to demonstrate that dramatic turnaround, the Beijing performance represented an unexpectedly strong platform on which to build.

In a few weeks, after the Paralympics have also come and gone, the focus shifts to the complex task of keeping the promise of a lasting legacy upon which that bid was won.

On the most visible aspect of what London 2012 leaves behind – the venues – work will begin almost immediately to downsize the Olympic Stadium to what is a much more sustainable scale. Other venues on the Park will be modified and made available for public use. Those iconic city-centre settings – Horse Guards Parade et al – will reassume their regular purposes.

The next biggest project is to continue to revitalise the east end of London. Ken Livingstone once claimed that a successful bid to host the Olympics was the only way to persuade central government to stump up the cash to regenerate an area so unjustly left behind as the rest of the city prospered. Political points-scoring or not, it emphasises the rare opportunity the Games legacy presents.

Finally, of course, it is hoped that witnessing such sporting excellence as we have seen over the past two weeks will “inspire a generation” to take up sport and be the Team GB stars of the future. The efforts of the country’s own class of 2012 will surely help, but the hard work is only just beginning, and the outcomes (good or bad) will take many years to be realised.

Meanwhile, the country’s attention will return to the nitty-gritty – you know, recession, austerity, fuel prices, the Euro… and of course, historic levels of youth unemployment that will continue to jeopardise the hopes and dreams of that very generation – the same generation, some of whose members were driven to such despair and desperation last summer.

Talking of despair and desperation, as the dreaded closing ceremony approaches, the Sage is taking solace from this thought – next weekend, the Premier League circus rolls back into town. Phew.

London's Chance to Shine

It has been seven years and hundreds of millions of pounds in the making, and now – finally – the time has come for London to play host to the biggest event on the global sporting calendar.

Seventeen official days of competition lie ahead, at the end of which half the world will breathe a sigh of relief, while the other half suffer withdrawal symptoms. This shared experience typifies the unity that makes the Olympic Games so significant, so memorable, and so special.

But not only is it billed as the greatest show on earth, it is also one of the juiciest stories – especially when things go wrong – and while for some cities, such as Beijing, staging the Games represents an opportunity to show the world its best face, for others the pressure is on to maintain an established global reputation; few cities fit this bill quite like London does.

Yesterday’s Korean flag gaffe was hardly a great start, then. Commercial posters bearing Arab-language welcome messages printed backwards will titillate some and disappoint others.

Last-minute worries about security caused by the deplorable failure of the world’s largest security company, G4S, both to hire enough staff and then to ensure that those they did employ turned up to work, didn’t exactly inspire much confidence either. (G4S should, surely will, and has already begun to pay a heavy price for such incompetence.)

But these flaws must be seen in the contexts both of the scale of the undertaking in hosting a 21st-century Olympics, and of recent host cities’ predicaments at the same stage of the process.

Four years ago, it was all about the Beijing smog – an inevitable and intractable consequence of China’s rapid industrialisation. In 2004, the focus was on the failure of Athens organisers to complete the construction of the venues in time (the aquatic centre was even left without a roof because there wasn’t enough time to build one). Events during the Games allowed China to proclaim a huge success, but left Greece with few positives to show for its legacy of debt.

Legacy – the buzzword of these Games and London’s successful bid to host them. Unlike last time, when the emphasis was on new-world scale and spectacle, or the time before, when the Olympics returned to their spiritual home, the theme of the 30th Olympiad is a new approach to the celebration of sport based on sustainability.

That’s why the Olympic Stadium has been built to a cutting-edge design that allows it to be partly deconstructed and substantially scaled down after the Games, in order to provide a sustainable home for British athletics. The location of the Olympic Park is symbolic; the use of existing, well-known venues for many of the minor sports and the upgrading of public transport systems both allow the organisers to restrain costs and reduce the environmental impact.

All of this will form nothing more than a distant backdrop, however, over the coming fortnight. A memorable opening ceremony, large and enthusiastic crowds at all of the main events, and an array of thrilling sporting action – not to mention success for the host nation – are what constitute a successful Games in the minds of organisers, athletes and fans alike.

And this year, fans are being catered for like never before. The London Olympics have been described as the biggest media event in history, with tens of thousands of journalists descending on the city to deliver the action to a global audience via newspapers, television and social media. A rich-world Games in the age of the iPhone will also mean unprecedented use of mobile technology to follow and share the action.

And what action there promises to be – from the athletics track to the velodrome via the road, the rowing lake, the swimming pool and the high seas, hopes for home-grown glory are high… perhaps too high.

But this summer has already delivered two fantastic stories of British sporting endeavour both against the odds and in spite of history. The Sage is hoping there are many more to come.

A Bad Week for Bankers... and Politicians

Even in the context of the age of banker-bashing, the last few weeks have been particularly painful for our financial institutions.

Two weeks ago, RBS suffered the triple whammy of announcing hundreds of job cuts, seeing its credit rating downgraded (along with several other global banks), then suffering a humiliating technical failure. It’s been so bad, in fact, that Stephen Hester has even given up his bonus for the year.

But for the past week, it’s been all about Bob Diamond and Barclays. Everyone knows, however, that this is merely the tip of the iceberg.

As politicians argue themselves hoarse about processes and procedures in a typical display of their detachment from the real world, the financial services industry is reeling from revelations and rumours that threaten to undermine some of its core values.

The idea that throughout the boom years and the subsequent credit crunch, any number of banks were colluding to inflate their profits whilst deceiving and defrauding their customers is truly shocking… or at least, it should be. That the scale of the media’s (and therefore the public’s) response has been muted only by this being an apparent confirmation of enduring suspicion makes the situation no less difficult for those involved.

An inquiry, whether parliamentary or judicial (does it really matter that much?), will follow and should report at least some findings and recommendations by the end of the year, and the government is promising new legislation early in the new year that will aim to find resolutions to the various issues at stake. It is unclear what this new probe means for the prospects of similar punishments for other banks to those imposed on Barclays by regulators last week.

Though the Sage is somewhat cynical of the contrived political theatre being staged this week (which does beg questions about how effective a political inquiry-cum-blame game can be) the row does speak volumes about the relative positions of the two main party leaders.

David Cameron must be at a loss to explain why he can neither find cross-party consensus on the government’s response to the scandal, nor accuse his opponents of obstructing the truth – let alone land a blow on the Shadow Chancellor who surely bears some culpability).

Ed Miliband, on the other hand, finds himself on something of a roll against a Prime Minister for whom a U-turn seems likely at any moment, so long as he is asked sufficiently difficult questions for long enough. A quotation revealing Mr Cameron’s free-market, anti-regulation instincts was an extremely powerful climax to an otherwise lacklustre PMQs performance in which the Leader of the Opposition again struggled to come up with enough worthwhile questions to fill his slot.

In fact there was a striking resemblance between the performances at the despatch box and that of Mr Diamond himself in Parliament on Wednesday – lots of bluster and plenty of humility, but precious little substance. The only difference is that one finds himself out of the job – albeit a whole lot richer for the experience. For the others the (increasingly personal) battle rages on.

Next week’s burning issue for the residents of the Westminster village to shout and scream about is House of Lords reform... The summer recess cannot come quickly enough.

Two Votes, One Week On

Last weekend, the Sage highlighted two elections that were to have significant ramifications for the future not just of the individual states in which they were held, but far beyond their borders too. The stakes were high, and the outcomes looked uncertain. A week on, the two events could hardly have turned out more differently.

While the citizens of Greece headed to the polls to try again at electing a parliament, the prospect of a Euro exit looming large, Egyptians faced a stark choice between their deposed dictator’s last henchman and the uncharted waters of Islamic politics. Days later, as Athens was witnessing the swearing-in of a new government, Cairo was once again the scene of mass, angry protests.

Although Greece still faces a hard time facing up to crippling austerity ruthlessly imposed by the rest of the European community, at least it can now receive the latest tranche of bail-out funding, which is the thread by which its economy is hanging over the abyss of default and devaluation.

Few would have predicted the apparent ease with which the two main parties – the conservative New Democracy and its socialist foes, Pasok – formed a coalition government together with a third member, Democratic Left. Coalitions are as new to Greece as they are to the UK, and the populist Syriza party will provide tough opposition, but there is at least a broad unity of purpose.

The same cannot be said for Egypt. Although both sides have claimed victory, provisional results show a narrow but clear win for the Muslim Brotherhood’s candidate, Mohammed Mursi over the man who was President Mubarak’s last prime minister, Ahmed Shafiq. But the previously-announced date of an official declaration has come and gone, and the country’s loyalist military appears to be doing everything it can to cling on to power and influence, whatever the result.

The removal of the new president’s responsibility for the creation of a new constitution and the weakening of his control over the national budget comes just days after the new parliament was dissolved on the basis of supposed electoral irregularities. Senior military figures have even been publicly predicting an against-the-odds win for Shafiq. The Egyptian people are getting restless – and suspicious.

One senses that anything other than confirmation of Mursi’s triumph could plunge the country into something like civil war; certainly it would undermine the progress made in the wake of last year’s popular revolt, and be a huge blow to the aspirations of other Arab Spring revolutionaries.

Under the international spotlight, Greece has stuck to the script, while Egypt is fluffing its lines.

Two Days, Two Votes, Two Continents, Two Futures

This weekend, two elections are being held, in countries separated by just a few hundred miles but which may as well be poles apart. On each vote the short-term future of a continent may rest.

Today, Egyptians began voting to finally choose a successor to President Hosni Mubarak, more than 16 months on from the revolution that toppled him after 30 years of authoritarian rule. Their choice is between Mubarak’s last prime minister, and a figurehead of one of the world’s most influential Islamic political movements.

Tomorrow, the people of Greece get another chance not only to elect their country’s lawmakers, but also effectively to cast their verdict on whether the country should remain in the Eurozone. To do so would mean more austerity; to exit would cause chaos across Europe. The favourites promise to avert both dangers – this would probably end up delivering both.

With Egypt at the forefront of northern Africa’s democratic awakening and Greece at the heart of Europe’s troubles, both continents are holding their breath, as new eras look set to be defined. The stakes are high – but how did it come to this?

In Egypt, the saturation of the middle ground in the first round of voting diluted the support of one of the pre-election favourites, Amr Moussa, opening the door for Ahmed Shafiq to win through to this weekend’s run-off against Mohammed Mursi.

Until earlier this week, Mr Mursi looked all set to follow up the Muslim Brotherhood’s success in last winter’s parliamentary elections by defeating a man whose very eligibility for the election was in doubt due to his links to the former regime.

However, Thursday’s judgements by Egypt’s Constitutional Court – that the law that would have prevented Mr Shafiq from standing was invalid, and to dissolve the fledgling parliament because the rules governing the election were flawed – have blown the race wide open and created huge uncertainty about what powers the new president will have.

The drafting of a new constitution has been abandoned for now – paralysing the judiciary – and there will be no legislature for the new executive to oversee. No wonder turnout today has been much lower than expected – no-one has any clear idea exactly what it is they are electing.

In Greece, by contrast, the implications of tomorrow’s vote could hardly be starker. The radical Syriza party claims that Greece can stay in the euro whilst rejecting the terms of the bailout, but few believe this is possible. Syriza’s stance exploits the fact that a majority of Greeks want to abandon the conditions of the bailout, while (separately) most are in favour of keeping the Euro. But the consensus is that Greece simply cannot have both.

If Syriza’s main opponents, the conservative New Democracy party, can convince enough voters that maintaining the status quo is the lesser of two evils, Europe will breathe a sigh of relief. If it cannot, the likely result is another hung parliament, more weeks of wrangling, more crippling uncertainty across the continent – and Greece running out of money as the bailout funds dry up.

Some argue that Greece must stay in the Eurozone for its own sake and that of its neighbours; others see no reason to continue to pander to Brussels bureaucrats, and advocate an exit as an opportunity to rebuild the country’s economy on its own terms – notwithstanding the inevitable currency devaluation and spiralling inflation.

To stick with the old establishment or to chart a brave new course – it’s a choice that Greece is not alone in facing this weekend.