Tuesday 24th June 2025
Blog Page 1347

My dad bought me a proper kart and from there we kept going

0

Following our review of Oxford’s success in the 2014 Varsity Karting event, I met with two stars of the show. We chatted to James Lambton (1st) and Callum Hughes (3rd), about their experience in Varsity and in Oxford motorsport in general.

When asked about why they got into karting in Oxford, both drivers pointed towards childhood. Lambton told me, “I got into karting because of my dad. He used to take me down to the local track, and we would mess around like you do. After doing that for a while he felt I should have a go in a proper kart. We went for a few test days and we started racing.”

Hughes said, “When I was 8, for my birthday my dad took me to indoor karting: I loved it so much. Periodically we went, until for my 10th birthday – my dad bought me a proper kart and from there we just kept going.”

On his motivation, Callum confessed to be- ing a bit of a petrolhead. “Since I was young, I was always interested in cars as well. I am interested in motorsport and it went from there.” However Lambton just explained that it was all down to the fun factor, saying, “I wouldn’t say it is anything more than it is really good fun. I do not take it that seriously.”

I then asked whether these Oxford aces had any four-wheeled heroes. James Lambton men- tioned the elephant in the room. “I am not big on heroes, but if I had to say someone at the moment, I’d say Lewis Hamilton was the first good British driver I saw winning.”

His team-mate delved further back into the annals of motorsport history and cited F1 legend Nigel Mansell. He said, “When I started karting I was always interested in Nigel Mansell’s career because he had a really good season and absolutely dominated the field, and now I’d probably say Lewis Hamilton because he is doing the same.”

Karting isn’t the most obvious of sports to pick up at university, so I asked how the two drivers would recommend beginning. Lambton answered, saying, “The first thing I’d do would be to join the Motor Drivers’ Club. They run internal club championship anyone can go along to; you don’t need any prior experience, so it is great for beginners and good fun.”

Representing Oxford at any sport can prove a testing challenge; it’s not always easy to bal- ance work and high-quality extracurriculars. However, these boys seem to find managing it easy. Lambton said, “For me, I find it is not that bad because it is only one day every couple of weeks so you can plan for that and do your work accordingly. It’s not really a problem.”

Last month’s Varsity victory was incredibly impressive, and as the two men in front of me had stood on the podium, it seemed sensible to ask how that had felt to win.

 

Lambton explained that it’d been pretty overwhelming. “It took a while for it to sink in, to be honest. It was my first proper race win; in all the karting I had done before I never actually won a race, so it was a pretty good feeling!

Hughes laughed as he answered. “Well, I came third actually, but for Oxford it was great to win, we knew we had the stronger team but in motorsport you never know what is going to happen, so to get a win and to do it in our first year is very nice.”

This seemed like a good opportunity to gauge the rivalry within the Oxford ranks. Would they have rathered individual or team glory?

Lambton hesitates slightly but answers, “I was in the lucky position to get both but I would probably say the team win actually because if you get the individual win, yeah it is great you feel good but no one else feels that great. So it is nice to win the race and to win Varsity because everyone is in a good mood.”

His team-mate takes a controversial line though: he’d prefer the personal glory. “I was probably more about the individual win, because I always thought Oxford had a good chance of winning overall. Throughout the whole year we race together, we race for Oxford in the University Championship but we do not actually race against each other because we are on the same team. This was a day to see who was the best, so there was a bit of pride at stake.”

Moving on as the pair laugh, I wonder if there was much of a gameplan.

“What we actually did at the start of the Varsity race was we tried to engineer it so we ended up with three frontrunners. I started on pole and tried to let the guy in second in front of me because it is a disadvantage starting on the outside lane, in the end that didn’t go so well because he jumped the start and got a penalty, but generally we don’t fight each other too hard.

“We obviously do to a certain extent, but at the end of the day if you take someone out who is on the same team that is really silly so we just give each other room, if someone is coming up behind you who is clearly faster there is no point fighting it so we let each other pass.

“Tactics are a bit hard to engineer when you are out on the track, but it is all about being sensible and giving more room to an Oxford rather than a Cambridge rival.”

Our interview concludes as I ask the karters what they would prefer: a British Universities title, or Varsity success.

Lambton answers first, “I would have to say the Uni championship because there are good drivers at Cambridge and the competition was decent but there are some really fast guys at the universities track, so to win at that competition would be amazing,”

Hughes agreed, summing it up by saying, “Some of the other drivers are Ford Super Cup drivers and top level karters so to win that would be zing, and also Cambridge race in that too, and so we would be beating the Tabs at the same time!”

Sporting Rock Stars: Rio Ferdinand

0

There are great footballers, there are great businessmen, and then there is Rio Ferdinand. This summer, Ferdinand – the man who puts the ‘baller’ in ‘footballer’ – will finally part ways with Manchester United, the team he has represented for over a decade.

Rio, who grew up in Peckham, started his professional career at West Ham, before moving to Leeds United for a record transfer fee of £18m in 2000. Rio was then shipped off to rivals Manchester United for a fee that eventually crept over £30m, and at the time made Ferdinand the most expensive British footballer in history.

When Nemanja Vidic arrived at United in 2006, it was a match made in heaven. Rio, along with his new defensive partner, had an incredibly successful career at United, winning six Premier League titles, a Champions League, and two League Cups. Being a great footballer, however, is only part of the Rio Ferdinand story; his rock star credentials are immaculate too. In fact, testing positive for significant levels of sex, drugs, and rock and roll, Rio’s eventful personal life is more the reason for his place in this column.

First, there’s the sex. As with any rock star, the truth here is clouded by a haze of ambiguity, suppressed allegations and accusatory tabloid headlines. In April 2010, shortly after Rio had been appointed England captain for the approaching World Cup, The Sunday Mirror ran an article entitled ‘My Affair with England Captain Rio’, based on the allegations of interior designer Carly Storey. Ferdinand’s efforts to silence Storey and receive compensation backfired: in the resulting trial, the court heard of alleged affairs with ten other women, involving: a threesome in Ayia Napa, a Page Three girl, two models, a stripper, an air hostess and a Pop Idol hopeful (probably not at the same time). The Ayia Napa story was particularly juicy, with a rather explict videotape surfacing in the documentary Sex, Footballers, and Videotape.

However, Ferdinand is perhaps more no- torious for his run-in with the drug-testing authorities. In September 2003, the defender missed a scheduled drugs test. He received an eight-month punishment ban, despite passing a doping test twenty-four hours later. But the truth as to Rio’s actual use of drugs then is far from clear.

Ferdinand has actual rock star pretentions: according to United legend and MUTV regular Paddy Crerand, “Rio thinks he’s Snoop the Dogg”. In 2005, he created the record label ‘White Chalk Music’, and hasn’t looked back since, signing a grand total of two artists – superstars Melody Johnston and Nia Jai – who have become less than household names. Rio himself even graced the latter’s 2010 album with a rap of his own. But perhaps Ferdinand’s most important foray into the music industry – both for the artist and the industry itself – was his 2009 rendition of rapper Kano’s ‘Rock n Rolla’ at a karaoke night at a tapas bar.

With a rap sheet (excuse the pun) which extends far longer than this column allows, frankly it’s a miracle that Rio Ferdinand hasn’t been a Cherwell rock star before.

 

Do B-Leagues mark the end of competitive English football?

0

The FA chairman Greg Dyke is no stranger to controversy. In December 2013, there were calls for him to resign after he madea cut-throat gesture in response to England’s ‘challenging’ World Cup draw. The England Commission’s proposals would constitute the biggest shake-up of the English game since the war. Its aim is to increase the percentage of English players playing regularly in the premier league from 32% to 45% by 2022 and to improve development of players between the ages of 18-21, dubbed the “black hole” stage of development between academies and the first teams.

To do so Dyke’s commission has recommended the establishment of a League 3, between League 2 and the Conference, which would initially include 10 ‘B’ teams from Premier League clubs. The B teams would have to meet a certain criteria: there would have to be 19 players under 21, 20 would have to be home-grown and there would be a ban on non-EU players. Dyke warned that failure to adopt his plans would leave a “bleak future” for English football. Unsurprisingly the scheme has gained support from Premier League clubs such as Manchester City, Liverpool, and Tottenham. The recommendations replicate the way in which Spain and Germany organise their leagues.

The proposals stem from a perceived failure in the development of the next generation of English players. Although players like Daniel Sturridge and Ross Barkley have been performing well for their clubs, neither are playing competitive European football yet, nor making the same global impact as their predecessors – the likes of Steven Gerrard and Frank Lampard.

The aim is laudable then, however, by having B teams playing up to the Championship there is likely to only be an adverse effect on lower league teams. Currently, the English league system is unique in the world insofar as attendances far exceed anything experienced in lower European leagues. In League 2 this season the highest attendance exceeded 16,000, and the average is 4,274. This is only 2,500 less than the Spanish Segunda’s (second tier) average, despite being two leagues lower. Luton Town, in the Conference, still get an average attendance of 7,387, despite being in the 5th tier and not even being in a professional league.

Potentially, Dyke’s proposals would have an adverse effect on the popularity of lower-league football. The reason lower league football is so popular is because it inspires community spirit, with supporters following their local club for generations. Allowing B teams would upset this tradition by making the leagues uncompetitive. A Chelsea reserve side, for example, would be barred from being promoted past League 1, have a high turnover of players, and would be made up of young novices uninterested in remaining in the reserve side. They would also be unlikely to attract large crowds as currently reserve football receives negligible attendances. In such an environment, is it really fair on lower league fans to force them to watch reserve sides week in week out?

There is also a question mark as to whether this really would benefit English football or if these would just benefit the top Premier League sides. The current system allows young players to play on loan in the lower leagues anyway.

Dyke’s proposals allow the big sides to monopolise young talent, whilst there is no guarantee the players will be English (they have to be home grown – not English nationals). Also, Spanish B teams are able to play in the second tier, whilst 18-21 year olds in the UK would be playing against Conference teams, so the two systems are barely comparable. Furthermore, having more English players playing in the Premier League is by no means a guarantee of the England team’s success.

The lack of young English talent is undoubtedly a cause for concern, but the current proposals will benefit wealthy clubs, will harm the football league, and are unlikely to provide a solution.

What to expect from the 2014 World Cup

0

The most prestigious international sport- ing event is soon will be kicking off during 7th Week. To prepare everyone for what will be an exciting, samba-filled epic, here is Cherwell’s official preview of the 2014 World Cup. The FIFA World Cup, brainchild of Jules Rimet, started in Uruguay back in 1930 with 13 teams. It has grown a little since then though, with a grand total of 203 teams at- tempting to qualify. The competition will take place across Brazil, from the Amazon, to Rio de Janeiro where the famous Estádio de Maracana will be packed for the final.

On home soil, with a team full of world class talent, and having won the tournament a record 5 times, not to mention thrashing Spain 3-0 to win last year’s Confederations Cup (a kind of warm-up event), it is hard to look past Brazil as favourites. Having said this, the last time they played on home soil at a World Cup, in 1950, they lost the decider to relative minnows Uruguay in front of a record 173,850 spectators.

A win in Brazil would be particularly sweet for continental rivals Argentina, who will be dreaming of replicating Uruguay’s party-ruining antics. They have a team filled with amazing attacking talents (Carlos Tevez – scorer of 31 goals for Juventus this season – did not even make the cut) including (arguably) the world’s best player Lionel Messi. Mirroring compatriot Diego Maradona, and leading Argentina to a World Cup victory would surely give Messi a claim to being the greatest player of all time.

Interestingly, no European team has ever won a World Cup in America. However, with new sports science techniques helping the players to acclimatise to the hot conditions don’t be surprised to see a European side come out on top. Star-studded Germany are well placed to win their first World Cup since 1990 given the recent success of German sides packed with home-grown stars in Europe, whilst Spain are also likely to hang around until the latter stages (it’s easy to forget that they’ve now won their last three major international tournaments).

Italy, Holland, and France will always be able to threaten on their day, although none are as consistent as the four favourites. Italy have won the tournament four times but this year’s squad seem to lack the quality of previous teams. The Dutch, under soon-to-be Manchester United manager Louis Van Gaal, have a promising young side, but must overcome the mental block which has seen them fall in the final three times. The French are alternatively sublime and ridiculous on the world stage – having won the title in 1998, and been runners up in 2006, only for both 2002 and 2010 to see them crash out in the group stages in farcial circumstances.

Slightly more exotic sides with an outside chance of victory are Belgium, Uruguay and Portugal. The Belgians have recently developed a team full of young stars including Chelsea’s Eden Hazard and Romelu Lukaku, and are tipped to do well. Uruguay’s scary strikeforce could also leave either the Italians or England in tears, whilst Portugal led by a highly motivated Cristiano Ronaldo will be dangerous.

This may also be the year we see a team from Africa reach the semi-finals. Ghana will be hoping to repeat 2010’s form, but this time a strong Ivory Coast side boasting a Didier Drogba who will be looking for a last hurrah might be a better bet, especially as they’ve avoided a horrible draw.

The only side to have qualified for a World Cup for the first time are Bosnia and Herzegovina. They had a strong qualifying which saw them finish top of their group, their squad includes Premier League stars like Asmir Begovic and Edin Dzeko. There is no reason they can’t trouble a few of the bigger names.

Amongst all of that competition, where do England rank? Well, for once, thanks to the perpetually underwhelming ‘golden generation’, there aren’t great expecttions. In addition, England will have done well to escape from a difficult Group D which includes Italy, Uruguay and Costa Rica. If they do qualify, Spain and Brazil lurk in the same half of the draw, primed and ready to ruin English dreams. However, on a more optimistic note, if a promising crop of youngsters blend well with the experienced heads, a march to the quarter-finals and potentially beyond is not totally unrealistic.

Ultimate Frisbee Cuppers 2014: the experiences of a novice

0

 

Five players. Thirty minutes. Two end zones. One Frisbee. How hard could Ultimate Frisbee be? Very, it soon transpired. Five minutes into the first match against previous champions St. John’s soon proved wrong those whispers of an “easy half-blue”.

Ultimate is a surprisingly intense game, requiring powerful sprinting ability, core strength and high levels of agility. Each team aims to catch the Frisbee in the other team’s end zone without dropping it, throwing it out or losing it to interceptions. Wind, opposition pressure and a time limit on possession of the frisbee often transpire to make this more difficult than it sounds. The thirty minute long matches soon had even the most seasoned teams rather red in the face as the bright mid-afternoon sun combined with 23 degree heat to add to the intensity of the matches.

Cuppers saw twelve teams competing for the title this year, with players of all abilities, from Blues through to the freshly formed St. Anne’s team, the latter having only just picked up a Frisbee five days prior to the tournament.

Novice teams are encouraged by something that its participants refer to as the “Spirit of the Game”. This stems in part from the self-officiated nature of the game, which fosters a strong spirit of sportsmanship and respect. One debate over a line contention was so civil that it prompted one novice to remark that this was the most polite game that she had ever played. The games are followed by a team huddle in which each team’s captain makes a short speech about the match.

Turning to the matches themselves, Balliol faced perhaps an unexpectedly difficult start against the newly formed St. Anne’s A team, winning by a 6-3 margin before settling into their rhythm and dominating subsequent matches. Their rivals for the title and previous winners St. John’s had an easier introduction tothe competition, scoring 10-0 and 10-2 victories over St. Anne’s B and Christ Church respectively. After three tough, thirty minute games, the group stages finished. Teddy Hall put forward an impressive effort in the semi-final of the cup, yet it was not enough to stave off the more experienced St. John’s side whose much larger squad helped to counter the effects of fatigue and secured them a 7-4 victory.

This victory saw St. John’s through to the final, facing their rivals Balliol. The two teams had already played this year during the Cuppers League with Balliol securing an 8-5 victory. The Cuppers final saw a much closer game, at times the two teams scoring point for point. However, true to this year’s form Balliol were able to secure victory over St. John’s, with the final whistle clocking in the scores at 5-4.

The Cuppers format included the ‘Plate’ competitions. allowing teams who had not won their groups to continue playing, giving everyone the same amount of game time. The winners of the Plate B competition were the oldest team on average, consisting of graduates from St. Cross, beating St. Anne’s to the title. The final of the Plate A competition saw the victory of the ‘Pick-Ups’ over ‘Kieran’s All Stars’.

OUAC hop, skip and jump to victory in the Varsity athletics

0

The 150th Anniversary of the Athletics Varsity Match was always going to be a special day. Cambridge went in as 4-0 victors from 2013, but only the most partisan blue of either shade was predicting anything other than a series of very close contests.

Both the second team matches were hard fought affairs. Emma Perkins, winner of numerous matches and a former UK Indoor High Jump champion, was competing in her final match and dominated the jumps, setting second team records in the long, triple and high jumps. Wins on the track for Isabel Wray, Hannah Petho (in an 800m record) and Katie Hickson, along with Oxford’s strength in the heavy throws, kept them in the game, but the Cambridge sprinters and jumpers were too strong, and they ended up taking a 116-84 point victory in the Millipedes vs. Alligators. In the Centipedes vs. Alverstones, captain Ben Conibear led the Dark Blues from the front as he won the shot, discus and javelin, all in personal bests, for which he was awarded Oxford second team performance of the match and spent the rest of the evening sporting a natty striped blazer donated by a noted alumnus. The Centipedes actually matched the Alverstones for wins, sharing 10 apiece, with Aidan Smith and Ian Shevlin also putting in notable performances (along with CUAC’s Freddie Bunbury, who set a second team Pole Vault record with an excellent 4.15m clearance), but came up agonisingly short in the end, losing 109-103.

Oxford’s Women’s Blues team was sadly missing captain Katie Holder, due to ineligibility, and 10-time event winner Nadine Prill due to injury, but the team nevertheless stepped up to the mark. Incoming captain Montana Jackson and Christina Nick both picked up two events each, Jackson taking the 400m hurdles in her first ever race over the distance along with the triple jump, while OUAC discus record holder Nick unsurprisingly took that event, along with the shot. Supported by OUNC President Charlie Warwick, multi-eventer Emily Stone and ex- Light Blue Rose Penfold were all winners, as in the seconds Cambridge’s strength in the sprints proved too much. Captain Alice Kaye took the 200m and 400m, the latter in an excellent solo match record, and was second in the hundred to Emma Cullen while CUAC President Helen Broadbridge claimed the hammer record as CUAC ran out winners by 100 points to 89.

The Men’s Blues really was one for the ages, an epic encounter that ebbed and flowed until it was all over. The first field events set the standard. Michael Painter of Cambridge broke the hammer record with his first throw, while a humdinger of a long jump encounter saw ex-CUAC President Matthew Houlden take the lead with a 7.25m jump, only to have incoming Oxford Captain Sam Trigg equal that, before Houlden won the event with a staggering 7.48m leap, possibly the longest wind-legal jump in Varsity history. Trigg can count himself as unlucky, as in the triple jump his 15m leap saw him again behind an inspired Houlden, who broke the CUAC record. In fact, the field was nearly all Cambridge, with Welsh International javelin thrower Aidan Reynolds the only OUAC winner, in a 1-2 with American Arran Davies.

The track, though, was Oxford’s domain. Craig Morten took the 400m hurdles, ahead of Oxford captain Adam McBraida, but this was to be McBraida’s only loss of the day as he rampaged through a series of extraordinary wins in the 100m, 200m, 200m hurdles and 4x100m to inspire fear in the Cambridge ranks. Tom Frith repeated last year’s 800m victory in exactly the same style with a blazing last 100m, while Ismaila Ngum was victorious in the 110m hurdles and CUAC’s Matt Leach, a BUCS bronze medallist over the 5000m, took that and the Mile. The match came to a close with the winner of the 4x400m taking the spoils and the OUAC team of Gundle, Morten, McBraida and Club President Ralph Eliot, who had secured the silver medal at BUCS, romped home with ease.

The 400m saw Cambridge athlete Barney Walker in only his second race over the distance, take on George Gundle, OUAC’s fastest man in over a decade. Undeterred by this, Walker set off at a roaring pace, leading well at 200m, and then inexplicably kept on going. Gundle drew level on the home straight but Walker somehow found extra reserves of strength, the lead changing hands several times before the Cambridge man’s legs seemed to give way and he tragically stumbled and fell two metres short of the line in one of the bravest displays of quarter-miling seen in a while.

However, if this match is remembered for one thing alone, it will be for the steeplechase, and not what happened at the front (where OUCCC captain Alex Howard took a fine victory) but at the back. Tom Quirk had been leading with Howard for most of the race, but with two laps to go began to falter and it became clear that something was wrong. Approaching the bell, he broke down, clutching his leg, but then determined to finish got back up again and began to shuffle and limp onwards as the remaining runners passed him. CUAC second team runner Paul Hodgson then spontaneously decided to eschew any chance of a PB for himself to aid his fellow athlete, and the two proceeded to help each other round the track and over the barriers to the finish.

"Serious irregularities" in NUS referendum

0

“Serious irregularities” have been discovered in the voting process for the NUS affiliation referendum held between Monday and Wednesday. The official result of the referendum was announced at the King Arms pub at 7.30 on Wednesday with a 1780 to 1652 vote to disaffiliate from the NUS for the academic year 2014-2015 announced. A formal complaint about the referendum has been put forward by the leader of ‘Believe in Oxford’, Jack Matthews, and will be heard by a Junior Tribunal next week.

In a post on the ‘Believe in Oxford’ website, Matthews wrote that his suspicions had first been aroused by “the larger than expected turnout, both overall, and for ‘NO’.” Matthews also wrote that “a victory built upon conspiracy and corruption would be hollow, hypocritical, and wrong”, and so as a consequence he would be looking to see the result overturned.

Irregularities with the voting process include large clusters of ‘No’ votes that appear to have been cast at the same time, as well as from the same location. Matthews wrote a letter to the OUSU Returning Officer passing on these concerns, in response to which the Junior Tribunal has been called.

Cherwell was the first to break the news of the challenge to the referendum result, tweeting:

In a joint statement the leaders of the ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ campaigns Tom Rutland and Jack Matthews commented,“We are both concerned that the result of the referendum did not accurately reflect the views of students. We await the decision of the Junior Tribunal, and will be working together over the coming weeks to ensure that the democratic principles of OUSU are upheld.”

OUSU Returning Officer Alex Walker told Cherwell, “The evidence that I have seen is clearly of a very serious nature and I am sure that the Junior Tribunal will make an appropriate decision. If the Junior Tribunal comes to the decision that the referendum should be voided, then I believe that OUSU Council should either pass a motion to affiliate to the NUS or organise another referendum”.

Following the challenge, OUSU President and ‘Yes’ campaign leader Tom Rutland has since tweeted that Oxford actually voted to reaffiliate to the NUS. Rutland later tweeted that the real result of the referendum is thought to approximately be a 70% vote in favour of reaffiliation and a 30% vote against, on a 11% turnout.

Review: A History of Falling Things

0

As theatres go, the BT studios is a fairly claustrophobic space, nestled as it is in an attic of Dostoevskian nightmares. Appropriate then that it should house A History of Falling Things, a play whose main premise is the limitation of space. It charts the online relationship of two sufferers of keraunothnetophobia – the irrational fear that upon leaving ones room, one shall be struck down by the errant remains of the last sputnik i.e. the fear of falling satellites. Robin (James Aldred) has had the condition since childhood, Jacqui (Nathalie Wright) since being trapped on the London Underground during the 7/7 bombings. Unable to leave their rooms, they cultivate an awkward, charming and frustrating relationship over web-cam. However, therein lies the drama: is it frustrating? From Jacqui’s perspective the cabin fever is evidently genuine, but Robin appears to obtain a perverse pleasure from his isolation, describing himself at one stage as ‘happy’ with his hermetic life. The fear for both seems moreover a manifestation of deeper psychological issues.

It is interesting to watch a play in which the central characters never exchange dialogue face-to-face and credit must go to the main actors for keeping us entertained despite this. Indeed the actors addressed their laptops as easily as Hamlet would a skull. The lead male, James Aldred delivers a rounded performance and Nathalie Wright is excellent opposite him, effortlessly natural in her portrayal (the only artificiality being the assumption that this Robin might be in her league). Rebecca Heitlinger and George Bustin provide breezy Northern comedy with consummate ease, although there are some rather strange cameos involving a ‘courier’ distinguishable only because of a spanking new pair of maroon Pumas. The ending lends the play a more Richard Curtis feel than it really should; it closes with the line “Jacqui; it ends with ‘u’ and ‘i.’” Wright’s discomfort is almost palpable in saying these lines and I don’t blame her. The play’s strengths lie in its psychological intrigue, not the imitation of a low-grade rom-com. But the fault is the writer’s and the play is well co-ordinated by Freya Judd, requiring a lot of technical details and complex staging because of the nature of the relationship. An enjoyable performance, but one that could do with some claustrophobic Raskolnikovian bite to temper the sugary sweet ending.

Interview: Joseph Nye

0

As a PPE finalist struggling to find justifiable reasons to procrastinate, when offered the chance to interview Joseph Nye, the founder of Neoliberalism and theorist of soft power in international relations, and to quiz him on issues of U.S foreign policy, the rise of China and the consequences of the Ukraine crisis, it seemed as good an excuse as I was ever likely to get.

Professor Nye, currently Distinguished Service Professor at Harvard University, is intimidatingly well educated, with degrees in political science from Princeton and Harvard as well as being a former Rhodes Scholar of PPE at Oxford. His most famous work is on soft power, which is basically the idea that U.S influence is not limited to its banks and tanks, but its cultural ability to influence through persuasion.

He cuts an impressive figure in his speech. He is aging, but retains a mental sharpness and analytic vigour that demonstrates why he remains one of the major intellectual forces of neoliberal political thought. We discussed some of the crucial world issues of current world policy in the Union Bar after his speech.

One topic that greatly interests Nye is the rise of China. With a fundamental reassessment of American foreign policy and military spending as it moves out of a period of intense engagement in the Middle East, the threat of China as a peer competitor has loomed large in the thoughts of American policymakers. John Mearshimer, Nye’s intellectual sparring partner, claims that this geopolitical shift eastward, and an increasingly assertive China, is bound to lead to greater tension, and an “inevitable US-Chinese conflict”.

Nye was not so pessimistic. He tells me that China’s economic and military growth will not match the US any time soon. “While approach-ing the U.S in the absolute size of its economy, on almost every other indicator; GDP per capita, investment, technological research, military power, and soft power, the U.S retains large absolute advantages.”

Nye notes that while, “China can draw on the talents of 1.3 billon people, the U.S, at the heart of the neoliberal economic order, can cherry-pick the best of 7 billion”, bringing the best of them into its educational and business communities through sheer force of attraction.

“In addition, conflict requires a perception of threat. Given strong Chinese emphasis to present its rise as peaceful, and to conduct it within existing international institutions, this perception of existential threat does not seem likely to become fundamental to U.S security policy.”

However, as Nye tells me, history does provide a warning about complacency. Just as at the start of 1914, conflict in Europe did not seem likely, a new global conlict does not seem so today. But crises can come at any time. Sarajevo was a single spark that helped light the inferno of international world war. Likewise, to take one example, Sino-Japanese conflict would only “require a Japanese or Chinese fighter pilot to act foolishly and take matters into their own hands” over the current Diaoyu-Senkaku islands dispute.

Individual agency is an important factor in Nye’s conception of world politics, and the job of statesmen is to ensure that they minimise international tension by “removing the kindling and dampening the paper” of potential crises, preventing such sparks from lighting conflicts. While China is not a major threat to U.S power, mistaken handling of such crises, rather than genuine hatred for the other, could plunge the world once more into confl ict, despite this being the last thing leaders on both sides want. This, for Nye, is the lesson of 1914.

For Nye, the Ukraine crisis did not mark a historic Russian victory. “Russia has got away with gains in the short run, put simply, it now has Crimea.

That said, it is likely to suff er costs in the long term, as it has lost a large proportion of its soft power, and European states no longer trust Putin. It has also caused for itself major security issues by giving a new lease of life to NATO.”

I pressed Nye on the notion that smart power, the subject of his latest book, was merely soft power repackaged. After a slight pause, he responded that smart power is, “The interactive effect of hard and soft power”.

This did not seem too distinct from his original theory, and thus these criticisms may be valid, but this does not detract from the centrality of his point. Soft power remains crucial to our understanding of American power in international relations, and the massive costs to U.S influence that the Iraq war has imposed stands as stark evidence of this.

On the issue of global internet management, a security concern that Nye has recently discussed at length, Nye said, “You can’t use hard power on the internet, and we risk fragment-ing the internet if we can’t achieve mutually acceptable collective management, with the freedom of information and economic costs that this brings.”

On China specifically, “China is likely to crack down in the short term, but in the long term, its internal security depends on it being able to come to some sort of accommodation with opposition movements in its society.”

Finally, on the issue of U.S engagement in dealing with humanitarian issues, he stated that, the US needs to operate a kind of Hippocratic Oath in its foreign policy. Do no harm. If it doesn’t know how it could make a situation better, it is likely to make things worse by blindly intervening. Obama’s policies are far from perfect, but they are also certainly not imprudent.”

Thus, U.S dominance does not imply omnipotence. Sometimes, there are tragedies in world politics that intervention would only worsen. American dominance seems likely to remain, and we should not keep ourselves up at night fearing a Chinese menace.

That said, as Nye states, global leaders need to engage fully in addressing transnational and interstate issues such as the global economy, terrorism and territorial disputes, to avoid adding unnecessary fuel to international tension. The potential match that could light a new major confl ict might be hidden in the East of Ukraine, or in the small island chains of the South China Sea.

Debate: Should Britain leave the EU?

0

YES

Tom Posa

In May 2013, the European Union passed rules mandating that olive oil put on tables in restaurants must now be placed in specially designated bottles and labelled in line with food standards legislation. This is just one example of the overbearing technocracy that the EU is imposing on member states. Statistics from the House of Commons Library suggest that the percentage of laws now set in the country from Brussels has increased from 9.1% in 2005 to 15% in 2010. We ought to take seriously claims from senior European politicians that we are heading towards a United States of Europe. These are not the views of an obscure low-profile European politician – this was Angela Merkel speaking in 2011.

We need to reassert our preeminence on determining national laws which apply to Britain and its people. The EU actively undermines the democracy of this country by standing against the ability of our parliament and our citizens to shape our own laws. This is not just a problem with the fact that EU laws and regulations immediately overrule those set in Westminster – institutions such as the European Court of Justice now overrule British judges and represent the highest appeal in our legal system. It is not clear why exactly we think that judges from Lithuania, Finland or Romania are better at administering legal judgements in this country than a British judge.

The key arguments deployed in favour of continued membership of the Union include that it maintains peace in Europe, that we have intrinsic cultural links to Europe, that the economic harms of leaving outweigh the benefits, and that since we would remain subject to some regulations from Brussels, we should have a say in making them. The EU may have maintained peace in Europe in the past, but the idea that in 2014, the UK would go to war with France, Germany, or Italy if we left the EU is farcical. Equally, our cultural links with Europe will not fall away if we leave the Union. It is fair to assume that reasonably liberal migration laws would continue (but without the current prejudice shown to non-EU migrants), and that tourists and citizens will continue to flow in both directions. Our ties with the USA, Canada or Australia have not been undermined by our membership – nor would ours with Europe were we to leave. On the economic front, we need only look at Iain Mansfield’s research proposal – which won him a Brexit award – to see an economic upside of £1.3 billion to our GDP. The false claims of lost trade and productivity do not translate into reality.

Finally, the idea of being continually subject to EU regulations is frequently trotted out in favour of membership. Yes, those companies which continue to trade with EU members will be subject to legislation. However, now they can chose between paying a higher cost of compliance in transactions with Europe, or trading with other countries where compliance costs are lower. This can only benefit us economically. And I ask you – when the EU is preoccupied with questions such as how high a hairdresser’s heel is, or how much in subsidies we should pay to cows in rural France, why should we continue to waste our time, money and political talent in this enterprise?

NO

Eleanor Newis

There’s been a lot of hot air floating around regarding Britain’s EU membership in recent times. In reality, despite the pro-Europe debate being severely handicapped by the continued presence of Nick Clegg, the argument for staying in the EU is actually very sensible.

The idea proposed by many Eurosceptics that Britain could have an ‘amicable divorce’ from the EU and make like Norway and Switzerland is nothing but a pipe dream. Marit Warncke, head of Bergen’s chamber of commerce said in 2012, “We are the most obedient of EU members, rapidly implementing directives to the letter, yet we have no say in them.” Norway contributes €340 million a year to the EU, without having membership. Switzerland, has actually reviewed all its parliamentary bills for their EU conformity since 1988.

Apart from this, the ‘amicable di- vorce’ idea is completely bogus, even if Britain declared that the marriage was loveless from the start and left, its exports would still be subject to EU laws. All export tariffs would still apply, and would have to meet EU production standards – only then, Britain would have no say in them. The impact on trade would be considerable – Farage’s “We’re Britain, we can stand out or own two feet” argument is just too idealistic. The EU is the UK’s main trading partner, worth more than £400bn a year – 52% of the total trade in goods and services. So, if we don’t have a say in any of those tariffs, a good portion of our trade will be impacted by laws we aren’t making.

UKIP’s nationalism is attractive to many, and Cameron’s promise of a referendum to many more. But the argument is becoming clouded by issues like immigration. Without turning this into an exposé on immigration laws, I will say that Mr. Farage should be taken with a large plate of salt, and we should all do some research. Any dangers people see in immigration are not down to the EU – they are, like most things that go wrong, the fault of our own elected politicians. The UK is better off economically inside the EU; yes, they are responsible for some pesky anti-tobacco laws (which I am personally quite offended by) and they do have an unfortunate poster boy in Clegg. Yet it remains that Britain simply could not have the economic privileges it currently enjoys without EU membership.

I understand that most people aren’t too bothered about tariff s and export charges – it’s hardly inspiring stuff . But there are other EU successes which are easy to forget, such as the capping of mobile phone roaming charges, and the rejection of ACTA, which would have severely restricted internet freedom. Let’s not forget fi nancial regulation either; without the EU, bankers could still be getting bonuses above 200% of their salaries. Please, please do some googling be- fore you jump on the anti-EU bandwagon. I know it’s becoming fashionable, but like hot pants and see-through stilettos, it really doesn’t make a lot of sense.