Page 636 – Cherwell

Who is responsible for allergen information?

Culture

-

3rd April 2019

Who is responsible for allergen information?

Food labels for handmade goods prepared in-store do not require allergen information on their packaging. The EU rules say that individual member states are responsible for deciding how information about non prepackaged food is provided to the customer, and the UK’s Food Regulations 2014 allow freshly handmade, non-pre-packaged food to not be individually labelled.

Natasha Ednan-Laperouse died in September 2018, going into cardiac arrest on a flight after consuming a Pret A Manger sandwich from Heathrow Airport. The sandwich contained sesame seeds, but the label did not identify the allergen. A month later, Theresa May said that the government must reconsider Food Packaging Regulations, and Michael Gove agrees with Natasha’s family that laws must be tightened.

The family’s lawyer Jill Paterson said: “The law as it stands currently treats multinational companies in the same way as a local sandwich shop. This cannot be right.” UK Food Regulations state that allergen information must be available and that if it is not on a label attached to the food it must be on a notice, menu, or ticket which is “readily discernible by an intending purchaser”.

Pret A Manger stated that their allergen information was present in fridges and that a notice on tills states to ask workers for any allergen information. Legally, this is enough. Some groups feel that when an allergy is life threatening the sufferer should always check with sellers because labels may not be enough. It seems that Natasha’s death proves that labels aren’t to be trusted: should there be a blanket law making all labels crystal clear?

Andy Slaughter, the Labour MP for Hammersmith where the Ednan-Laperouse family live, was disappointed by Pret A Manger’s response and stated that the “government is saying it’s down to businesses and businesses are saying it’s down to the government, while both are relying on enforcement from local government organisations that have been cut
to the bone”.

He continues to say that “We have a piecemeal regulatory framework, with no real resources to actually enforce it.” It’s a cat-and
mouse mess: things are only fixed when a company is caught out and something goes badly wrong.

So why does the law allow Pret A Manger to not put allergen information on every product? This regulation is designed to ease the pressure on small businesses. Our local independent cafes and food stores will suffer if pedantic labelling laws are imposed on them. Many cafes and companies advertise allergens on whiteboards, wall-menus, and with little hand-written labels within food display-cases, which is suitable for their scale. The cost and effort of labelling every sandwich or meal would affect the profit margins of these companies differently to larger franchises like Pret A Manger.

Given that the packaging of a company like Pret is already mass produced, and, thus, can be amended in a single swoop, it is plausible that their labelling could be regulated with necessary allergen information without too much financial hassle. With this in mind, there is no reason why stricter laws should be not be imposed on large companies.

Additionally, in any supermarket, particularly with the advent of meal deals, you can rely on finding the same products every day. As a consumer, I perceive products meals from Pret or Eat in exactly the same way as if I had just walked into a Tesco or Waitrose, precisely because you can expect the same quality of food for the same price. It is not only awkward but near impossible to make an over-the-counter enquiry as to whether a certain product contains a certain allergen. The onus must therefore go back onto the company to be absolutely transparent in order to avoid another tragedy.

So what should be done? It’s evident that things must change. Nevertheless, the incoming laws must be nuanced. On the one hand, all products need to be safe for the consumer, on the other, a barrage of labelling information runs the risk of not only putting off the customer, but negatively altering the finances of smaller businesess. But shouldn’t health and safety be placed above money?

Talkin’ ’bout a Revolution: The Sound of Protest Art

Hannah Goodwin

-

2nd April 2019

0

Talkin’ ’bout a Revolution: The Sound of Protest Art

Tracy Chapman’s appearance at the 1988 Nelson Mandela tribute concert transformed her career. The political turmoil surrounding Apartheid was transposed onto Chapman’s performance; songs confronting domestic abuse, segregation, and poverty were broadcasted to 600 million people. This worldwide crowd answered her lyrical calls for change by propelling her to overnight stardom. The songs that that provoked this response – the now classic ‘Behind the Wall’, ‘Across the Lines’, and ‘Fast Car’ – have received international acclaim. They delight and disturb their listener in equal, uneasy measure.

Protest music has always had a disruptive agenda. Green Day’s American Idiot, Kendrick Lamar’s ‘Alright’, and James Brown’s Say It Loud – I’m Black and I’m Proud are unapologetic in their honesty. They simultaneously agitate and excite. The function of these works is to have every listener blaring the same anthem – they initiate a musical battle cry. Quieter forms of protest music can be just as loud. Woody Guthrie’s ‘This Land Is Your Land’ or Donovan’s ‘Universal Soldier’ are archetypal of protest in the folk tradition, using memorable storytelling to rally and challenge hegemony. Pieces without the explicitness of lyrics can also be filled with new political meaning; a performance of Beethoven’s Symphony No. 9 was performed to celebrate the fall of the Berlin Wall. Repackaging the symphony as an ‘Ode to Freedom’, instead of the original ‘Ode to Joy’, revered the political shift.

This constant cultural backdrop of music on our radios, televisions, and mobile phones, makes it an effective mechanism for change. The philosopher Theodore Adorno concluded that protest music is “taking the horrendous and making it somehow consumable”. Injustices are filtered into our everyday life through music. The politically unpalatable can be digested. Adorno argues that this can breed complacency; but the opposite seems to be true. A nation entirely captivated by the next impassioned soul, folk, or rock hit is more likely to act than one consuming and conforming to the dominant narrative.

It is fitting that Chapman’s music is a blend of all these genres. Her soulful voice is able to travel between folk, pop, and blue-rock across her eight studio albums. Despite her fluid style, the albums are linked by a consistent political engagement. She is unconcerned with sticking to a specific cause; instead, her songs present a web of various social controversies. As Chapman herself says, “I think it’s important, if you are an artist, to use your music to stand up for what you believe in.” Mountain O’ Things denounces materialism and excess; Cold Feet examines the extent to which some will go to escape destitution; while Short Supply critiques our detrimental impact upon the environment. Despite the variation in the problems, the theme – the intention – remains unchanged: to protest.

Not only do her pieces flow from one political outcry to the next, but they are also often void of politics altogether. The merit of her debut, Tracy Chapman, is that it can drift from a guttural protest song to the hush of a love song. Chapman’s voice is the only instrument required for ‘Behind the Wall’. Her distress is immediately felt with the words “Last night I heard the screaming / Loud voices behind the wall.” Then Chapman displaces this visceral depiction of domestic violence with the tranquillity of ‘Baby Can I Hold You’. The tonal shift is repeated throughout the album: a challenge towards world hunger and warfare in ‘Why?’ is swiftly followed by the intimacy of ‘For My Lover’. Her initial question of “Why are the missiles called peacekeepers / When they’re aimed to kill” in ‘Why?’ becomes more threatening when preceded with “I’d climb a mountain if I had to / And risk my life so I could have you” in ‘For My Lover’. The initial anarchy Chapman interrogates is present in the same world as the devotion and humility expressed towards her ‘lover’. Riot and affection exist side by side; the contrast between them reveals why the rebellion is necessary.

Chapman’s most famous song, ‘Fast Car’, is a perfect example of this tension. It intertwines the cyclical nature of poverty with a love affair. Billie Holiday’s haunting rendition of ‘Strange Fruit’, a song condemning lynching, is placed in the middle of songs of romance and joy in her self-titled album. Bob Dylan’s tender love song towards the ‘Girl from the North Country’ finds breathing space among the defiance of ‘Blowin’ in the Wind’ and ‘Masters of War’. Protest musicians have always flowed from outrage to intimacy, exhibiting the humanity subjected to the horror.

The final song on Tracy Chapman’s debut album is ‘For You’. To conclude the drama and anguish of what has come before, Chapman ends with simplicity: “No words to say / No words to convey / This feeling inside I have for you.” At the end of an album raging with lyrical wit and complexities, having proudly scrutinised social wrongdoing, she is finally “at a loss for words to express [her] feelings.” She is not simply a political warrior; she is also fallible and frail. This outcome displays the innate humanity of her work. It reflects what is at the core of protest art.

New almond tree on High Street will be planted “this week”

News

Amelia Horn

-

2nd April 2019

0

New almond tree on High Street will be planted “this week”

The tree stood outside the University Church of St Mary the Virgin on Oxford’s High Street.

It was reportedly damaged by the heatwave in summer 2018, losing one of its branches. In January of this year, it was deemed “no longer safe” and was cut down.

The removal was met with “sadness” by both tourists and students.

However, Jeremy Mogford, who owns multiple establishments in the city, including the Old Bank Hotel (which houses Quod), and Gee’s in north Oxford, has pledged to replace it.

He stated: “I was very sad to see it go – its amazing to see how many people said the almond tree heralded spring. We are part of the vista of The High and the tree is an important part of that vista – it’s very important for the people of Oxford and for tourists who visit the city.”

The vicar of the church, Rev Dr William Lamb, has said that the new almond tree is expected to be planted on Thursday at 10:30am. The planting will be “coordinated by” staff from the university parks department.

He stated: “We tried to save the old tree but it was dangerous – we had no choice but to cut it down.

It’s a generous offer from Mr Mogford, which we have accepted – each new tree will cost hundreds of pounds.

Experts from the university parks department, which looks after our churchyard, are now selecting suitable trees which will be between two to three metres in height.”

Colleges warn students of scabies outbreak

Angus Brown

-

1st April 2019

0

Colleges warn students of scabies outbreak

Exeter and Magdalen have sent emails warning its students about “an outbreak of scabies between students at various colleges in Oxford”.

In their email, Exeter warn warns students that “Scabies is very contagious. It is spread from one infected person to another through direct, prolonged, close physical contact. Student communities are at high risk of spreading scabies because of this.”

The college urges students to “remind other students or friends outside of college that there is an outbreak of scabies in the colleges in case they have concerns about changes in their skin appearance which are irritating them.

“Scabies can be caught by anyone so please don’t ignore the condition or worry about seeing your GP, talking to pharmacist, your family or friends etc.

“Ensure you go back to your GP if the condition gets worse or if you have not recovered after 6 weeks.”

It is not known which college the outbreak originated at, or how many colleges and students have been affected.

The warning follows wider concern over student health, with NHS England having confirmed over 220 suspected cases and 40 confirmed of Mumps amongst students at Nottingham University.

Exeter and Magdalen have been contacted for comment.

If you are worried that you might have contracted scabies contact your GP for advice.

Gender pay gap: Vice-Chancellor criticises “frustratingly slow” progress

News

Fraser Maclean

-

31st March 2019

0

Gender pay gap: Vice-Chancellor criticises “frustratingly slow” progress

Little progress has been made in reducing the earnings gap between male and female staff members, a report by the University has revealed.

Since the first such report last year, the mean gender pay gap amongst Oxford University staff has decreased slightly from 24.5% to 22.6% but remains higher than the national average. The median figure has remained at 13.7%.

Although more women are in receipt of bonus payments, the mean gap between male and female bonus pay is 64.1% (down from 79% last year). The median figure has decreased substantially, however, from 48.7% to 6.7%, suggesting that the bonuses of senior male staff are responsible for much of the gap.

The report finds that: “The gender pay gaps identified are mainly attributable to a lack of women in senior roles in the University.” Of the 25% highest-earning staff, just 38% are women. A majority of all other staff are women, including 62.5% of the 25% lowest-paid staff.

In introduction to the report, Vice-Chancellor Louise Richardson, writes: “[W]e have made progress, but the progress is frustratingly slow.”

The report reiterates a commitment by the University to achieve yearly increases in the proportion of female professors at the university, with a short-term goal of 30% by 2020 for all professors and 20% for statutory professors. This is coupled with a commitment to see a third of University leadership roles, such as departmental heads and senior management positions, occupied by women.

As an organisation with over 250 employees, the University is legally required to release gender pay data. Last year, a number of colleges released their own statistics, with Balliol and Keble reporting the highest mean pay gaps this time last year.

The 2019 report is available on the University website.

Mackintosh at the Liverpool Walker

Sam Riley

-

31st March 2019

0

Being met by a single, rather old, wooden chair is a bold opening statement for any exhibition, though the Liverpool Walker’s current exhibition of the Scottish architect, painter and designer, Charles Rennie Mackintosh, carries this off with aplomb. In many ways, this single piece of everyday furniture captures the essence of Mackintosh, or at least what the curators wish to present him as, a working-class liberator of the arts. This presentation is indeed a convincing one, acting as a showcase of his strikingly aesthetic images, ones that were not meant to be kept in private homes or collections, but instead to adorn the streets, tea rooms, and advertising boards of Glasgow, to be appreciated by all.
Likewise, Mackintosh’s numerous architectural plans seem something more than preparatory sketches, mere functionalist slaves to the construction of the building represented. Instead, the plans for Glasgow’s New School of Art, with their striking red borders, and washed interiors of blues and greens, directed by bold black lines are inherently attractive. Even the elevations of the stairwells are precisely inked, down to individual bannisters and supports showing a draughtsman with an eye for a quotidian beauty that needn’t be confined to traditional spheres of art, but one that could permeate technical plans.
This intersection between the practical and the aesthetic sums up much of Mackintosh’s work, whilst seemingly echoing aspects of the Mucha exhibition held at the Walker in 2017 and the gallery’s permanent collection of Pre-Raphaelite work. Like Mucha and the Pre-Raphaelites, Mackintosh’s figures blur the distinctions between nature and humanity, many containing an ethereal, subaqueous, even disturbing quality. This is apparent in Mackintosh’s 1898 painting of an auburn-haired woman who is as much a part of nature as the landscape- strewn with roses -from which she emerges.
Likewise his advertisement, two years earlier for the Scottish Musical Review, though not highly ornamented nevertheless demonstrates this breakdown of boundaries, whilst amplifying the sexuality that in the other work is a mere undertone. A pair of swifts are foregrounded against two crimson spheres, which when considered in light of the central figure’s voluptuous crimson lips emerge as stylised breasts. The birds’ elongated tails reaffirm the sexuality of the image, creating a border for the lower part of the image before forming the vulvic shroud of the woman’s head. This morphing takes place in the pair of Scottish thistles which flank the upper portion of the image, where they seemingly sprout the keys of a brass instrument, which remind the audience what the poster is advertising. All this is synthesised precisely and simply, using the same colour scheme as his architectural plans, the classic Mackintosh crimson, mid-green, and black.
Some of the most moving pieces in the exhibition were not the vast posters, stained-glass windows, or tapestries. Instead, the pocket sketchbooks of Mackintosh and his contemporaries, such as Talwin Morris, show scores of pencil and watercolour manifestations of internal ideas, most of them remaining in this inchoate form, never realised. These range from a lilac budding in five vulnerable stages to three separate patterns for wallpaper or carpet, verdant and vine-like. Though these were designed to be scaled up, the power of these works lies in their intimacy, coupled with the Romantic poignancy in the knowledge that they never progressed past this initial stage. Their spatial proximity on the page contrasts with their undoubted relational separation to create a distinct intimacy with the artist and his works in a way that is rare to find in larger or completed pieces.
Much of the success of the exhibition lies in the variety of the scale of the works on display, for instance the comfortable cohabitation between small, standalone drawings with larger glorious poster cycles. Similarly, though the work is predominantly by Mackintosh, included is a significant amount of work by British contemporaries but also, more thought provokingly, coeval works from places as disparate as Anatolia, Japan, and Turkey. A Japanese book of crests and watercolours from 1881, strikingly like Mackintosh as they may be, displays a marked abstraction, something Mackintosh only really experimented with at the end of his life in the 1920s when his city and landscapes contain a subtle surrealism. Eastern ceramics and woodblocks invite further stylistic comparisons through geographic range.
It is an ironic but fitting valediction to Mackintosh that his fundamentally ‘everyday’ Art- whether in subject matter or in design -now finds itself transported from the bustling streets and private notebooks of its origin to galleries across the country, where it is completely at home.

New data reveals extent of access gaps in English universities

News

Charlotte Moberly

-

30th March 2019

0

New data reveals extent of access gaps in English universities

New data from the Office for Students shows 67% of English universities and other higher education providers had gaps in higher education access for young students from the least advantaged areas.

The dataset from the independent watchdog for higher education in England shows that while progress is being made, students from disadvantaged backgrounds and those with mental health issues still face gaps in access as well as higher drop-out rates.

There is also a significant achievement gap, with 74.6% of students from disadvantaged backgrounds being awarded a first or a 2:1 compared to 84.1% of students from the most advantaged backgrounds.

The data looks at the gaps between students from the most and least advantaged areas; white, black, Asian and minority ethnic students; and disabled and non-disabled students among other categories. It considers each university’s student intake, drop-out rates, degree attainment and progression to further study or employment for different groups of students over the last five years.

Although there has been some improvement in recent years, the access gap between students recruited from the most and least advantaged areas for Oxford University was one of the highest. In 2017-18, the gap was 54.1%, while the national average was 18.1%.

A University spokesperson said: “We welcome the Office for Students’ initiative on openness about access, complementing Oxford’s own work in recent years in sharing its admissions data widely. We are pleased to see the figures highlight our outstanding record of inspiring students to good degrees and into stimulating and rewarding careers and further study.

“The OfS figures for 2017 entry demonstrate our steady progress in attracting talented undergraduates from diverse backgrounds. This reflects the success of one of the UK’s most ambitious student outreach and support programmes and we know that our figures for 2018 entry, to be published shortly, will show further advances, but we know we have more to do and are keen to meet the challenge.

“We also welcome the OfS call for ever-greater accessibility to student places across the sector. We are exceeding our current OfS targets on this, but will shortly be announcing ambitious plans which will push us further in widening participation for all in Oxford’s outstanding education.”

Chris Millward, Director for Fair Access and Participation at the OfS, said: “The dataset is a game changer for the way in which we hold universities to account on access and successful participation. It provides a more transparent picture of equality of opportunity in different universities than ever before.

“Universities will be held to account for their performance, not just by the OfS but by students and the wider public, who are increasingly expecting stronger progress in this area. We expect to use it to ensure that all now make significant improvements during the coming years.”

“We have set ambitious targets to reduce equality gaps during the next five years. Universities now need to focus their attention on the specific areas where they face the biggest challenges. While some universities will need to focus on improving access to higher education for students from disadvantaged backgrounds, the data shows that for many universities the real challenge is in ensuring these students can succeed in their studies, and thrive in life after graduation. This data will help them to do that, and to showcase their achievements.

“It will enable us to make consistent judgements of how well different universities are doing, and provide clarity to universities on how their performance will be assessed.”

For the first time, the data also shows the gaps between students with and without known mental health conditions. 86.8% of full-time students with a declared mental health condition progress into their second year of study, compared to 90.3% of full-time students with no known disability.

Yvonne Hawkins, Director of Teaching Excellence and Student Experience at OfS, said: “The data shows there are clear differences in outcomes for students who declare a mental health condition, compared to those students who have no known disability.

“Universities should look at the data closely and consider how they can continue to support students reporting mental ill health.

“Work to improve the mental health of all students is a priority for the OfS. We have made funding of up to £6 million available to drive a step-change in improving mental health, and are working with Research England to deliver further funding of up to £1.5 million to enhance mental health support for postgraduate research students.”

Review: Betrayal – ‘all the poise, restraint and subtlety that Pinter’s masterpiece requires’

Alison Porter

-

30th March 2019

0

Review: Betrayal – ‘all the poise, restraint and subtlety that Pinter’s masterpiece requires’

Harold Pinter’s 1978 masterpiece Betrayal may be set in a privileged world, but Lloyd’s production (now running at the Harold Pinter Theatre) expertly conveys how betrayal can overwhelm us all.

Pinter’s masterpiece follows the lives of married couple Robert and Emma (Tom Hiddleston and Zawe Ashton), and Jerry (Charlie Cox) – Robert’s best friend, and the man with whom Emma is having an affair.

Famously unfolding in reverse order, the play’s first scene features Emma and Jerry meeting for the first time since their affair ended two years ago, before Pinter takes us incrementally backwards in time, through various lunches and secret late-night meetings, to its very inception nine years earlier.

Despite the play’s setting of affluence (Robert and Jerry are publishers, while Emma runs an art gallery) Lloyd’s stripped back and starkly minimalist production emphasises the universality of these human experiences.

The set, consisting of a mostly blank white wall and a few chairs, acts as a canvas upon which we the audience can project ourselves, the only real remarkable elements being the revolving segments of the stage floor.

Their subtle rotation helps to illustrate both the passing of time (one of Lloyd’s ingenious ways of handling the play’s tricky chronology) and the characters’ emotional stasis or development. This is heightened through Lloyd’s choice to keep all three characters on stage throughout the majority of the play, even though Pinter’s scenes are mostly between two characters at a time.

The third ‘other’ is perpetually there, and they almost insist upon this presence, sometimes stood completely still at the back of the stage, or gradually moving as they almost eerily watch on. And when the name of the ‘other’ is mentioned, a subtle glance from the third party, or a movement of their head, reminds us that the betrayed individual is always very much there.

Ashton’s Emma in particular makes for a compelling ‘other’ in the scenes where she is typically absent. She creeps barefoot at the back of the stage, idly tracing patterns on the white backdrop while in the scene Robert and Jerry share one of their rapid, machismo-fuelled exchanges.

Much criticism towards Pinter takes aim at his depiction of women; however, Ashton refuses to let Emma be submerged in this masculine world. When she asks if she can take both men to lunch, it’s a surprisingly measured and assertive request, and in the final (but chronologically first) scene, her sense of choice and freedom is prominent.

But perhaps no one encapsulates their character’s emotional fluctuations more than Hiddleston, whether savagely attacking his dish of prosciutto e melone during dinner with Jerry, or quietly crying as his darkest suspicions are confirmed, or trying to assert dominance during quick-fire dialogue concerning a game of squash.

This is a role which Hiddleston has supposedly wanted to play since drama school, and you most definitely believe him when you see his eyes start to glisten with tears, visible even near the back of the stalls.

Though Hiddleston does have superb chemistry with Ashton, it is the tension between Robert and Cox’s Jerry which really bites and cuts. In one moment of beautiful timing and with masterful use of the rotating stage, they are positioned in such a way for their paths to intersect and for a burning stare to be shared with each other while Robert, the scene’s ‘absentee’, circles slowly around Jerry who embraces Emma.

It’s these seemingly simple (yet hugely telling) exchanges which make the multiple betrayals feel so raw and cutting. The production abounds in pauses and almost unbearable silences laden with the weight of the unspoken: Lloyd is highly conscious of the significance of what remains unsaid, and all three actors demonstrate remarkable restraint in allowing these silences to run their course.

Much like the third character’s presence on stage even in the scenes where they are absent, the lack of dialogue creates an undeniable sense of presence, pushing the unspoken to the forefront and leaving us to fill in the blanks.

These crushing absences, along with the actors’ spectacular chemistry and Lloyd’s brilliant attention to detail, make Betrayal a triumphant culmination of the ‘Pinter at the Pinter’ venture. This beautifully understated production allows us to see ourselves in every glance, every tear, ending the season not so much with a ‘bang’, but with all the poise, restraint and subtlety that Pinter’s masterpiece requires.

FIFA politics strike again with latest proposal

Sport

Guillaume Paugam

-

29th March 2019

0

FIFA politics strike again with latest proposal

The FIFA Council, which met in Miami earlier this month, discussed the possibility of increasing the number of countries taking part in the 2022 football World Cup from 32 to 48.

Gianni Infantino, the president of the football governing body, said that such a change, originally planned for 2026, was possible.

This is consistent with the trend set by UEFA, Infantino’s former organisation: the European Football legislating authority increased the number of sides allowed in the Euros’ group stages from 16 to 24.

I believe that the aim to make football more universal is laudable, but the way FIFA does it is wrong and primarily results from its own financial and political considerations.

To understand the topic better, a bit of history is needed. The first World Cup took place in Uruguay in 1930: although 16 teams were expected, only 13 of the invited sides could make it to Montevideo.

As early as 1934, invitations were abandoned, and qualifying rounds were implemented. 16 remained the number of participating nations until the 1982 Spanish Mundial, where it was raised for the first time to 24. Less than two decades later, it was increased yet again to its current level of 32.

This increase in competing sides parallels a trend of universalisation in World Cup Access: while the first tournaments saw almost no nations outside Europe, and, to a lesser extent, Latin America, involved, raising the numbers has allowed the world’s most popular sporting event to open up.

The rise from 16 to 24 sides, in 1982 coincided, for the first time, with the participation from two, rather than one, African Confederation sides and Asia/Oceania sides, following the wish of the then-FIFA boss João Havelange to diversify the tournament. For Cameroon, Algeria, Kuwait and New Zealand it was their first involvement at this stage of World Football.

The move to 32 teams further raised the number of teams from outside Europe which, however, remains the main provider with 13 teams. The planned reform, with 48 countries, follows the same logic. Africa, Asia, Oceania, and North and Central America, all see their representation almost double, while Europe and Latin America’s spots also increase – but much less in proportion.

This looks great on paper but carefully thinking about it reveals a number of issues. The first one is an obvious quality and quantity trade-off, already apparent at the 2016 Euros. It is clear that opening the door to so many teams from all continents, that would not normally be let in, will undermine the overall quality of the competition.

Whether this is problematic or not depends on personal values, and it is not up to me to decide. With the last Euros taking place in my home country, I was well-placed to witness the incredible and unique enthusiasm brought by fans of countries that did not make the cut in the old formula.

However, one also has to admit that the standard of the competition was much poorer than before the reform, with some games exhibiting appallingly low quality at this level. The Wales-Northern Ireland game, a Championship-level fixture if you are feeling generous (which is not even surprising if you look at the squads), springs to mind.

One could argue that this is not the first expansion, and that previous reforms did not harm the World Cup, but the 80’s and 90’s expansion matched a real boom in football universalisation that made such reforms necessary, something which is less evident today.

Moreover, the planned increase is a lot more worrying than previous changes due to its impact on the tournament’s organisation. Indeed, 48 teams is an awkward number that requires an overhaul of the group stages: from groups of four with the top two qualified, the World Cup is moving to groups of three. Yet, the number of teams going through remains the same, meaning that the degree of competitiveness of group games decreases sharply. As such, unlike previous changes to the number of teams, this specific reform undermines the very competitive nature of the World Cup. The question “where does it stop?” comes to mind.

At this stage, you might think that this may be true, but that I am definitely watching football through the lens of a privileged fan, one whose favourite team seldom misses big football tournaments and sometimes wins them (thank you Griezmann).

Why would my pleasure matter, you might ask, if more teams, hence more countries and people, can take part in the giant party atmosphere created by a World Cup? And you would be right. The point here is not to defend the privilege of established teams to partake, but to denounce a reform that in fact will do little to really benefit newer footballing nations.

Very likely, smaller teams will not make it through group stages. 16 teams will come for two games only. Besides the absurdity in terms of organisation (a World Cup requires a huge amount of preparation for a team, even more demanding for smaller teams with fewer resources, that is certainly not vindicated by the perspective of playing two averagely competitive games, seen as training rather than actual competition by the biggest team in the group), it is just illusory to think this will contribute to a country’s footballing development. FIFA might grant more countries an access to the table, but certainly not the right to eat.

What makes a nation improve at football are long-term policies and investments in people and infrastructure. This is precisely what enabled Iceland, a place about as populated as Croydon, to become a footballing nation to be reckoned with (no need to remind English fans). Not being granted an easy right to participate (and most probably lose after two games). Sadly, it seems like FIFA prefers to renovate the facade rather the inside.

Another problem emerges. By making the World Cup seemingly more universal in terms of country access, FIFA reduces the capacity of smaller, or less developed, countries to ever host the world’s most popular sporting event. 32 was already a lot for a country to host. 48 amplifies the problem. It is no coincidence that the 2026 World Cup was attributed to the gigantic geographic trio of the USA, Canada and Mexico, rather than Morocco, unsuccessful for the fifth time at this stage: the infrastructure required to accommodate nearly 50 squads, all the fans and the media will become out of reach for most.

As usual, FIFA’s decision to increase the number of countries in fact only follows the logic of money and politics. Bigger World Cups mean more TV rights and marketing fees. The French Press Agency (AFP) revealed in 2017 that FIFA already expected the increase from 32 to 48 teams to yield an extra 605 million euros for its budget. Electorally, FIFA presidents are elected by all 209 affiliated Football Associations, with each country having one vote, regardless of its size. No wonder why Infantino, who is running again this year, is so keen to please as many smaller FAs as possible with his reform project.

What alternatives are there, then? First of all, FIFA, being the wealthy organisation we know (five billion in expected income over the 2015-2018 period), has the financial power to fund extensive football development programmes everywhere in the World, especially in less-advanced footballing nations. As mentioned above, long-term policies work: countries need to build infrastructure and develop competence. Not all countries are as rich as Iceland, but this is precisely where FIFA should step in. There are so many countries that have the passion, pool of players, and talent to play football, but, due to a lack of resources, are unable to develop the infrastructure to succeed at top international level. Rather than giving these national team players an increased “chance” to maybe play two group games before, most likely, going home, FIFA should invest its money into making smaller footballing nations the heavyweights of tomorrow.

Of course, this is long-term. Meanwhile, FIFA could reform the allocation of spots given to each continent within a 32-team World Cup. Europe, representing 40% of teams in the group stage of the last tournament, and Latin America, with 50% of its affiliated national sides qualifying, dominate hugely. This obviously derives from these continents’ dominance over world football: they have provided all the World Cup winners. Countries from other continents making it to the last four, like South Korea in 2002, constitute rare exceptions rather than regular occurrences. As such, an overhaul of representation quotas would bring the risk of missing potential winners of the tournament, which is probably not desirable. Nevertheless, while massive expansions such as the one from 32 to 48 teams risk letting very average teams in, current repartition rules across continents have the opposite flaw, leaving some very decent non-European/Latin American sides at home, due to the very restrictive number of teams from similar areas being allowed entry.

As such, without arguing for a perfectly representative allocation of spots, I believe there is room for reform. A team like Ivory Coast, made up of players found in all the top leagues, missed out narrowly due to the restrictions imposed upon the number of teams Africa can send to the World Cup, while sides like Iceland, Serbia or Poland came bottom or second bottom in their groups. It is possible to marginally reform the system to make it fairer, while waiting for longer-term investments to work and balance the repartition of footballing power across the globe, with the ultimate aim being to not have any trade-off between fair continent representation and quality of the football, hence making it possible to more drastically reform the continent quotas. But FIFA’s current desire to increase the number of teams from 32 to 48, fuelled by economic considerations and petty politics, represents the worst of both worlds: lowering the level without giving smaller footballing nations an actual chance to really be important actors in international football.

It’s time to accept Brexit has failed

Opinion

Libby Cherry

-

28th March 2019

0

Noisy criticism has erupted over the petition to revoke Article 50, decrying it as yet another ugly, anti-democratic manifestation of the zombie Remain campaign, that continues to haunt this nation in the guise of forty-year-old centrist dads and Alexa Chung, spread by the ineradicable disease that is the #FBPE Twitter hashtag.

MPs who dare to speak out in support of such a proposal, including the Conservative, SNP, Lib Dem, Plaid Cymru and Independent Group members who signed Joanna Cherry’s resolution to revoke Article 50 (which was put to the Commons yesterday), have been lambasted as traitors throughout the Brexit process. Signatories have been demonised as fanatics, willing to overrule the current of public opinion in their attempt to turn the UK into the vassal state of the EU without mandate.

Yet our current default position – no-deal – would achieve exactly this, placing us instantly into the position of a petitioning poor relative, accepting whatever crust of a trade deal that the US or the EU deign to offer us while lacking any support from the British people or their representatives. Rather than having revoking Article 50 as the default situation in the event that Parliament failed to negotiate a deal that appealed to all members of parliament, we have instead adopted a self-destructive alternative that seems less to do with putting pressure on the EU to offer us a good deal then blackmailing MPs into accepting a highly inferior political and economic relationship.

Revoking Article 50 was one of the proposals debated in yesterday’s series of indicative votes, along with EEA/EFTA style arrangement and no-deal. It was practically inevitable that both no-deal and Revoke, as the two poles in this debate, would be nixed. Given that each of the other possibilities for our future relationship with the EU – EEA membership, a customs union, Canada-plus, May’s deal itself – have each ridiculed as ‘unicorns’ by some portion of the House, it is unsurprising that none garnered majority support, resulting in the day ending inconclusively.

Putting aside the fact that the government can completely ignore yesterday’s outcomes, Parliament itself has been stymied. Whatever anyone says, there is still a dangerous risk of crashing out on 12th April despite the Commons having twice rejected it. No-deal has no more mandate than revoking (at the time of writing, a petition for leaving with no-deal attracted just under 590,000 signatures, in comparison to Revoke’s 5,935,000 signatures) and will have real detrimental consequences for the entire population of this country that seems the height of naivety to ignore.

Like any term remotely related to Brexit, revoking Article 50 means different things to different people. Many of those calling for Article 50 to be revoked are also supporters of a People’s Vote, but conflating the two is a confusion of Brexit outcome and the process by which such an outcome is reached – hence the two were tabled separately yesterday. Personally, I think that any deal that we decide on should be ratified by the British people – whether Revoke/Remain is on the ballot paper or not.

Equally, revoking Article 50 need not require a second referendum: instead, it should be, instead of no-deal, implemented as our default option. Furthermore, while some would like to use revoking Article 50 to give us more time to negotiate a ‘compromise’ with the EU, there is an argument to be made for simply revoking and remaining a member. As pundits keep telling us, we want the government to ‘get on with it’. We have had two years to negotiate Brexit, and we have failed. If we revoke Article 50, it should be a decision to permanently remain.

This may sound controversial, undemocratic, taboo. This reaction has been created by the narrative that has been sown over the past two years, beginning with Cameron’s initial, perhaps throwaway, mention of the ‘will of the people’ that has served over the last two years to morph our popular conception of democratic principle to mean a fatalistic, blinkered, obstinate adherence to a notion of ‘Leave’ that itself changes meaning from week to week. Even if today’s statistics had not suggested that 55% of peoplewould now vote Remain in a second referendum, in any other situation of proposed change – for instance, in business – if such a change was unachievable, the natural position would always be the status quo.

Revoking Article 50 after two years of negotiations may sound defeatist. But given that even the series of ‘indicative votes’ yesterday have been branded a “constitutional revolution”, taking back control from the ERG ‘Grand Wizards’, who have been the architects behind the no-deal default, would be an act of strength. Neither, in the event of revoking, would the last two years have been for nothing. Both Leave and Remain voters were chronically ill-informed about the EU and the UK’s current relationship at the time of the initial referendum, that amounted on both sides to a lack of interest in European policy that had always rendered the Union’s actions tainted with accusations of unrepresentativeness.

In our new state of enthusiasm, as the one million marchers proved on Saturday, we are perfectly poised to go back into the European Union with new zeal and urge for greater collaboration. Today’s greatest problems – climate change, migration, populism – transcend national borders, and remaining in the most powerful collaborative bloc on the planet would surely only be a progressive step.

UrbanObserver

Oxford's oldest independent student newspaper, est. 1920