Translate the following paragraphs into Chinese
If Russia meddled in the Brexit vote we need to know –
before the election
Did Russia meddle in the outcome of the Brexit referendum, or didn’t it? It’s
hard to think of a question more pertinent to this general election, and not
just because some fear there may be dirty tricks this time too. Boris Johnson’s
entire campaign strategy hinges on arguing that Brexit must be done, because
it’s the will of the people.
The prime minister cannot admit any whisper of doubt about the legitimacy of the
referendum, partly because leave voters would eat him alive for it, and partly
because Brexit is his only really big idea. Without it, what is the great
Conservative mission to change the country? All that would be left is a row
about who should put right the damage his party did over nine years, and a
promise not to be Jeremy Corbyn for those who find the idea of a Corbyn
government terrifying. Without Brexit, the abyss beckons. And that’s the context
in which Downing Street is declining to publish until after the election a
parliamentary report expected to shed light on how we ended up with Brexit in
the first place.
Since nobody can read the findings, it’s hard to know whether the intelligence
and security committee’s conclusion is actually worrying or not, although the
Tory-turned-independent MP Dominic Grieve has taken the unusual step as its
chair of insisting voters need to see it. (The first rule of ISC, the only
parliamentary committee cleared to operate within the intelligence services’
ring of confidence, is not to talk about ISC.)
As with other shady tactics, from Vote Leave’s illegal overspending to the lies
that the outgoing EU president Jean-Claude Juncker this week accused Johnson and
others of telling, it’s impossible to know if they actually changed the result:
remainers are prone to underestimating how strongly many leavers felt, and my
own suspicion is that claiming the vote was fixed may be easier than facing up
to the real anger in some communities or the political failures that led here.
But that’s the whole point of the ISC examining it.
Sitting on its findings until after the election has dangerous consequences for
public trust in democracy. This is the first election I can remember where it’s
possible to imagine people simply not accepting the result, especially if it’s
close. No matter how disappointed we are in the outcome of an election, British
voters generally grumble and get on with it. The unwritten rule is that losers
accept they’ve lost, so long as winners promise to govern in everyone’s
interest. But the smooth transition of power on which democracy depends is
conditional on voters trusting that the process was fair. It is reckless beyond
belief for governments to risk undermining that trust.
Election law badly needs overhauling. The Electoral Commission is struggling to
follow the money, sometimes only identifying breaches of campaign funding rules
long after the event. Tech companies are now worried enough about spreading
misleading campaign material that Twitter has banned political advertising and
Facebook is requiring greater transparency about who is behind it, although the
latter still won’t fact-check ads.
Back in February, the Commons select committee on culture, media and sport
released a landmark report on disinformation and fake news, arguing that
electoral law “is no longer fit for purpose and needs to be changed”. Its chair,
Damian Collins, is no conspiracy theorist but a Conservative alarmed by the
evidence. We badly need an overhaul of the law to protect the integrity of our
democratic process but instead what we’re getting is another snap election with
no time for all that, a report withheld and an assumption that voters will just
take all this in good faith. The prime minister should stop banking on a trust
he has done nothing to earn.