We need a new approach to enlargement policies, lest their complete failure. And it is necessary to start afresh from the abolition of unanimous voting. An interview with Srdjan Cvijić, author together with Adnan Ćerimagić of “Rebuilding Our House Of Cards: With More Glue”
Srdjan Cvijić is a Senior Policy Analist at the Open Society European Policy Institute, a member of the Balkan Europe Advisory Policy Group, and currently contributes to the “Europe’s Futures” project of the Institute for Human Sciences in Vienna. He recently published “Rebuilding Our House Of Cards: With More Glue ”, a study-proposal on EU enlargement policy. We interviewed him.
Recently, you and your Bosnian colleague, Adnan Ćerimagić, published a paper with the undoubtedly original title “Rebuilding Our House Of Cards: With More Glue, which proposes a new approach to EU enlargement policies. Let’s start with the title: house of cards and glue…
It was not actually us who invented this term, all the questions or statements with which we began the paper were asked during a meeting with some European politicians in June 2016. We wanted to advocate for an enlargement policy but everything happened shortly after Brexit… It wasn’t exactly the right time: at that time the EU really looked like a house of cards and how could we imagine adding more cards if one card had already fallen? Inspired by this conversation, we decided to use the metaphor of glue, which is necessary to hold everything together.
What makes this house so fragile?
One of the main problems is the procedure used by the EU for enlargement: often the mistake is made of focusing only on the political aspects and not on the institutional ones. But now we are experiencing an absurd situation. Due to the unanimous vote system, a country like Bulgaria is blocking the entry of North Macedonia for purely political reasons. The veto was placed on the basis of issues not only contrary to the values of the EU, but which are certainly not part of the Copenhagen Criteria which establish the conditions for membership. Bulgaria is using the system to protect bilateral interests. I believe that the motivation behind the various vetoes that have followed one another in recent years has never been institutional, but very often linked to internal politics.
Project
The EUWeBER project aims to offer university students a better knowledge of European foreign policy issues, particularly in relation to the countries of South-East Europe and the Eastern Partnership. It includes interactive classroom seminars and broadcast online for a wider audience, internship opportunities at the Osservatorio Balcani Caucaso Transeuropa (OBCT), a blog. The project is promoted by the Jean Monnet Centre of Excellence of the University of Trento in collaboration with the Osservatorio Balcani Caucaso Transeuropa and with the support of the European Union.
The veto has not always been used in these terms…
Before the accession process was so politicised, the European Commission held the steering wheel firmly in its hands. This was not the case, however, in the case of Macedonia, a country that is entitled to membership as much as Croatia, for example, was. The EU has proposed 10 times to open negotiations. The member countries, however, opposed it because of the dispute with Greece over the name of the state, Macedonia or North Macedonia.
It must be remembered that bilateral issues are not the only cases in which countries have exploited the bond of unanimity for their own interest. For example, we have the case of France, where last year the opening of negotiations with Albania and North Macedonia was vetoed for internal political reasons. The reasons were the European and administrative elections at the beginning of 2020. Then last spring, in the middle of the pandemic, when no one cared about negotiations, the accession agreements with the two countries were given a “green light”.
What would enable the EU to overcome this impasse?
We propose a reform of the system: to introduce qualified majority voting in the accession negotiation process, made up of 55% of the member states making up 65% of the European population. Indeed, it is unlikely to find a coalition of small countries to take sides against Italy, France, and Germany…
When we made this proposal we were told that it was not realistic on two points: there is no political push to change the procedure; the solution would involve changing the treaties.
However, the criticisms are false. Already in 2018, the European Commission had proposed to expand qualified majority voting to three areas of the common foreign and security policy. In addition, it is not necessary to change the treaties because art. 31 par. 3 provides that the European Council with unanimity vote can decide whether to introduce a qualified majority in matters of foreign policy.
In addition, many believe that this new procedure would only speed up the process by losing the possibility of punishing countries that did not respect the procedures. That’s not true, just remember the case of Turkey – in 2017 and 2019 the European Parliament voted for a formal suspension of negotiations with a country that has practically become a dictatorship. But this did not happen, because the European Council did not reach unanimity on the issue: in this case, therefore, it was the unanimous vote procedure that prevented sanctions against Turkey. Voting with a qualified majority would restore rationality to the entire process.
Which member states could give momentum to this change?
France is reluctant to take this step because it already has a dominant position in foreign policy thanks to its vote in the UN Security Council, its nuclear weapons, its role of global importance. For example, it has more international power than Germany. France, therefore, would never give up unanimity without receiving something in return, e.g. the introduction of qualified majority in fiscal policies.
For a long time Germany did not have the slightest intention of talking about this, but a few years ago there was an opening in this sense; in the light of these changes one could imagine future changes.
If there is a push from the larger countries, I find it difficult for the smaller ones to oppose it.
It should also not be forgotten that the qualified majority does not actually deprive a country of the right to block the entry of a candidate. Member states would still have the opportunity not to ratify the accession treaty. But the latter is a completely different scenario: it would be just one last step to be taken and there would not be, like now, hundreds of intermediate steps, each of which can be vetoed.
Have the European institutions already reflected on the possible modification of the procedure for accession negotiations?
Yes and no. What we saw in 2019, the discussion on the new methodology for the accession process, which was then adopted at the beginning of 2020, is a kind of “scalpel” that touched on some points, but was not a real institutional reform. And this was seen in the recent case of Bulgaria.
Our proposal seems sensible to us and in any case it is the only way forward. What we have experienced so far, despite the promises of 2003 in Thessaloniki, is the absence of a profound, radical, and sensible change, and we are paying for this as the EU in the candidate countries.
Do the Balkan countries really want to join the European Union or is Euroscepticism starting to emerge?
That’s the point. First of all, which countries are negotiating? Serbia and Montenegro are negotiating, Montenegro is ahead, closing several chapters, but still we are far from the accession treaty. Serbia is moving more slowly due to internal political problems, the democratic backsliding of the last eight years.
North Macedonia, on the other hand, is only knocking on the door.
Unfortunately, to answer the question it is enough to mention a statistic. In 2009, a few months before visa liberalisation – the only real “carrot” that countries have received since 2003 – 73% of Serbs supported EU membership. In 2019 the percentage was around 50%; in 2016 when we started these discussions it was 46%.
However, the conclusion should not be drawn that there are real geopolitical alternatives. In my opinion, a referendum would give a very different outcome from the polls: the latter only illustrate the deep desperation, the broken dream of an entire population.
Furthermore, for example in Serbia, the EU is losing the support of the pro-European population. What the Union is letting Orbán get away with is also apparent to the candidate countries, that wonder: if the Union tolerates this, do we really want to join?
In the accession process, the European Union is like someone who has water leaking into their apartment due to the bathroom of the neighbour upstairs; what we are doing is painting our ceiling without taking the tools and fixing the problem in the neighbour’s bathroom. As long as we have this absurd situation in the EU countries where we tolerate undemocratic regimes, in the candidate countries on the one hand we will have similar regimes, and on the other hand the population itself, the real engine of the European Union, will stop believing in the common project.
I commenti, nel limite del possibile, vengono vagliati dal nostro staff prima di essere resi pubblici. Il tempo necessario per questa operazione può essere variabile. Vai alla nostra policy
Ill-timed blazes may be damaging the Mother City’s most famous natural landmark. And they have a lot to do with homeless campers, the roaming people who seek refuge on the mountain while the city sleeps below.
Covered in sandy, nutrient-starved soils, scorched by fire, and pummelled by the prevailing gale-force southeaster in summer, the Cape Floral Kingdom has persisted as a land of extreme paradoxes for millenniums.
Given the harsh conditions that assail life here, this world seems to have every reason not to be a botanical number cruncher’s wet dream: the untrained eye may hardly conceive that it gives refuge to nearly 20% of Africa’s flora on less than 0.5% of the continent’s surface. It seems implausible that some 9 000 plant species should thrive in these coastal extremities, 70% of which live nowhere else on Earth.
Yet, forged through the ages by a natural baptism of fire — as well as by mountains, soils, a Mediterranean climate and a somewhat stable geological history — the Cape Floral Kingdom is all these things. Its fine-leaved shrublands, or “fynbos” as the locals call it, represent the smallest but most diverse of the planet’s six recognised floral kingdoms. The 500-million-year-old Table Mountain chain and its newer national park, today surrounded by the metropolis of Cape Town, are the crowning glory of this floral cornucopia.
Display Adverts
There are indeed pockets of renosterveld and fire-sensitive Afromontane forests in the 265km2 park, but, for the large part, it is flame-loving fynbos that bursts into a preposterously pretty palette after the annual winter rains.
Nearly 60% of fires are started by ‘vagrants’
Blazes of an entirely different nature, however, have dominated the local fire regime in recent years, park fire manager Philip Prins told Daily Maverick’s Our Burning Planet.
Starting campfires, except in a minimal number of designated picnic spots, is illegal. Visitors may only stay overnight in recognised facilities. Yet Prins says that, in past weeks alone, crews have responded to and extinguished illegal “vagrant-caused” fires in various parts of the park, including Tokai and Red Hill towards the centre and south; and Oudekraal and Deer Park in the park’s northern sections.
High numbers of park visitors, and potentially illegal fires, may yet prove particularly true of the 2020/21 summer period.
“It’s just unbelievable,” says Prins. Head of the park’s fire operations since the reserve was proclaimed 23 years ago, he offers institutional knowledge spanning nearly 40 years of conservation service to the Cape Peninsula. Despite the hard lockdown this year, he says he has seen “a massive increase in visitor numbers”.
Fanned by a raging southeaster, Deer Park’s “Halloween fire” on 31 October has so far proven the largest of the spring/summer blazes to be traced to illegal campfires. To contain the inferno, which singed 50 hectares 0n the mountain’s frontal slopes, it would take 16 fire trucks heaving with up to 6 000 litres of water per tank, plus crews from across the firefighting spectrum: city, park and volunteer corps.
As for the previous summer season over 2019/20, there were 108 fires in the park, according to official fire-investigation data seen by Our Burning Planet. The majority of these blazes — 58% — were associated with fires kindled for cooking, heating and socialising. In a few cases, arson looked to be the cause. Additionally, the red wedge of the pie chart attributes 32% to “malicious” origins; while 9% were sparked by “negligence”. Much of it starting over summer weekends on the front of Table Mountain as well as adjacent Lion’s Head and Signal Hill, crews contained close on 90% of fires within 90 minutes.
“A lot of vagrants come in during the night, or late in the afternoon,” explains Prins. “They move from the city into the park and, early the following morning, they move from the park back towards the city, and so it continues.”
Thick bushes, watercourses and public drinking points on the mountain’s lower slopes tend to be a haven for illegal campers, driven into such spaces by poverty, homelessness and hunger. Shallow, overhanging caves, set a considerable distance from the urban edge, tend to attract church groups practising fire ceremonies. (Recently, the Noordhoek Ratepayers’ Association also reported that subsistence/muti poachers around the nearby wetlands use fire to flush out wildlife.)
Prins adds that “we now sit with a serious issue, not only with vagrants, but church groups, who tend to arrive on Friday or Saturday nights. One evening we put out a group of 50. Newlands Forest is especially popular. And, they divide into smaller groups, each of which has to make its own fire.”
To tease conspiracy theory from fact, and stitch together a bird’s-eye view of ignition trends, each incident is scrutinised by Enviro Wildfire Services’ Rob Erasmus, the park’s independent fire investigator.
In 2018/19, “vagrant activities” caused 32% of fires, marginally down from 2017/18’s 36%.
“We accept that the time period of three fire seasons is too short to suggest any significant trends,” Erasmus cautions. However, “to start determining patterns and trends, from 2017 we started tracking and keeping a record of all fires that we investigated within the park.”
“I think it does require looking at the data,” says Nicky Schmidt of the non-profit organisation Parkscape, which campaigns for user safety within the buffer zones that abut the urban interface. “You could have few people doing this, but repeatedly. For example, in 2018 in Tokai, we had something like 27 starts over a two or three-month period. We soon realised the starts were on weekends, in the early hours of the morning. The pattern, and evidence found, tells you what you’re dealing with.”
Dr Jasper Slingsby is not as much concerned about “vagrants” as he is about people at large: “About 99% of the fires are started by people — vagrants or not. To my memory, the 2015 Cape Point fire, ignited by lightning, was the only natural fire to have taken place in the park for some time.”
Of course, Slingsby, a fynbos/biodiversity scientist with the South African Environmental Observation Network (SAEON), is not referring to the great fire of March 2015. Igniting above Boyes Drive in Muizenberg and sweeping across the peninsula to Chapman’s Peak, it left a swath of significant damage, including destroying several properties. Here, again, the evidence tracks to an illegal campfire.
“A small fire was made to keep warm once entering into the low, thick cloud on the mountain that night,” Erasmus told Our Burning Planet. The accidental fire starter had “walked over the mountain from Muizenberg to Sun Valley … the fire either got too big or was left unattended once the person proceeded on their way.”
Home is where the hearth is
The human element aside, natural fynbos blazes should ideally ignite, on average, every 12 to 15 years as a result of dry, hot, windy conditions interacting with mature, indigenous vegetation. As Dr Alanna Rebelo of Stellenbosch University’s Department of Conservation Ecology and Entomology explains, well-timed flames are to fynbos what raindrops are to desert. “Most fynbos needs fire not only to flourish but to survive. This is because many fynbos guilds [types of plants] are dependent on fire to complete their life cycles.”
Enter the private lives of protea “babies”, stockpiled as seeds in closed cones, lying in wait for the rousing kiss of veldfire.
The fire, says Rebelo, “stimulates the cones. After the fire, the cones spring open, popping the protea seeds into the air and all over the ground. These seeds germinate, and more protea babies survive to the next generation, ready to make babies in time for the next fire.”
Some fynbos species have evolved ways to stuff their seeds in the ground, rather than in cones. “If they want to get babies from seed to adult plant, these seeds under the ground need to germinate. What germinates these seeds?” she asks. “The heat and smoke from fires.”
It is likely no one knew fire better than the Cape’s first people themselves.
Over time, these early agriculturalists had ample opportunity to gather mental data of the land’s bursting into abundance after good fire had rippled through it. They may have had such an implicit understanding of fire and its uses, the original theory suggests, that they would have used the practice of “fire-stick farming” to broker access to pantries of underground bulbs. This year, a South African/US study claimed to have unearthed vital clues supporting that hypothesis — the first quantified evidence of significantly amplified returns in post-fire fynbos.
Given this deep human-fire-fynbos symbiosis, it is tempting to dismiss contemporary human-caused fires from the park’s laundry list of conservation challenges — critical resources may arguably be better directed at tackling the cascading effects of climate change, poaching, litter and violent crime in a park that generated a pivotal R300-million for tourism coffers in 2018/19.
The area affected by the Halloween fire, for instance, had not received a proper burn in some 15 years, so this was one piece of land crying out for fire, Prins stresses.
Still, the science of fire ecology tells us that a “Goldilocks” confluence of conditions is necessary to maintain these natural cycles, which are delicate and may be easy to disrupt.
“It takes proteas a few years to make their cones. Fires that ignite too soon could end up killing the proteas before they have had time to set seed, leading to local extinctions,” Rebelo warns. “A fire that is too hot, due to invasive alien plants, could scorch underground seeds and kill them, as well as the organic matter in the soil, making soils hydrophobic. A fire that is too cool — in the wrong season — may not stimulate seeds at all, and only weeds may grow.”
Similarly, unseasonal fire “could also kill babies of animals that have timed their own life cycles with periods when there would be very low risk of fire”.
Slingsby, the SAEON biodiversity scientist, also notes that “increased fire frequency is the common story across fynbos because of added human ignitions. Parts of the mountain, such as the Cape Town City Bowl section, have burnt too frequently … if you consistently have hotter or more frequent fires,you’re going to see changes in the ecosystem.”
Although “very few fires are started by vagrants with malicious intent”, park fire investigator Erasmus adds that “any fire started by vagrants in young veld — five years or younger — is detrimental to the environment … In many cases this young veld consists of fine fuels — shrubs and young woody plants — that ignite and spread fire quickly.”
Last year, “a number of fires occurred in youngish veld”.
Thus, layer the ill-timed effects of bad fire on top of the rejuvenating effects of good fire and you feed too much fire into the system. And the Halloween fire’s timing, experts interviewed for this article agreed, was … well … somewhat off.
It was “very early for such a big fire” — the “official start of the Western Cape fire season is only 1 December”, says Prins.
Slingsby agrees the fire was “certainly early. Almost all fires happen in December and January. October/November fires are rare on the peninsula.”
Malicious or accidental fires, especially those that ignite out of season, may also conflict with issues such as firefighting readiness and fire management.
Cutting firebreaks, wide strips of land designed to stop fire from spreading, is an expensive, big operation: in the region of R2-million annually. This takes place once a year, and then largely within a certain time frame in November and December to avoid vegetation regrowth.
There is also the cost of the firefighter’s arsenal: the park helicopter is only on standby from 10 November each year; City helicopters are on standby from 1 December. Keeping a helicopter in the air now costs R36,000 an hour.
“We can spend up to R12-million on integrated fire management, depending on the season,” says Prins. “During a busy season, we spend more than that.”
Grace under fire: Job on the job
During Our Burning Planet’s conversation with Prins in his office at the Newlands Forest firebase, the white-haired, bearded fire veteran wields an unwavering gaze as he sets out the occupational hazards of running a portfolio that unsurprisingly generates a lot of public emotion. His daily to-do list ranges from pacifying the fire Karens on the park’s fabulously wealthy urban edge to juggling the politics of prescribed burns.
“If we do a prescribed burn, the people complain,” he says. “They complain about the smoke. They complain about the ash. After the fire, they complain about the wind blowing ash into their houses and they complain about the wind blowing ash into their swimming pools.”
The point behind these burns is to reduce fire hazards, such as alien vegetation.
“And it’s a process we have to go through in terms of applying for permits, especially on the wildland-urban interface,” he says. “I think people definitely need some more education when it comes to that. And they also must take some responsibility — they can’t expect the park and the City to do everything.”
For her part, Rebelo suggests the debate on fire ought to direct its attention at what she considers to be the “root issue” — vegetation fuel loads, rather than only the ignition source and its associated “conspiracy theories”, whether the latter may involve supposed natural causes such as lightning; or human causes such as cigarette “stompie” offenders.
“Everyone makes a huge fuss about arson, and there are all kinds of conspiracy theories every time there is a fire,” she says, referring to the 2017 Knysna megawildfires as an example. “And while that is understandable, what about the officials/landowners responsible for the vegetation itself? It’s not only about ignition, but about fuel management. This always seems to be ignored. It is so much less exciting for people.”
She recommends allowing naturally ignited fires to “burn out” at regular intervals in keeping with the natural fire regime, “or you need to actively manage vegetation using ecological burns to make sure the fuel loads don’t increase too much”.
However, “authorities often do neither”, she argues. For this, she fingers an “unfavourable policy environment” as a “dangerous, counterproductive and passive approach to fire management”. In terms of prescribed burns, “if they start a fire, they are liable. In terms of non-prescribed burns, if adequate attempts are not made to stop a fire, the landowner on whose land the fire crossed is liable.”
She says putting out every fire and doing no ecological burns “results in ageing vegetation. When it does burn, it burns very hot, and can result in megawildfires.”
“There are some 50,000 or so landowners bordering the park, and everyone has their own opinion on fire management, but not everyone is well-versed in fire ecology and fire safety. Managing fire is really more of a people problem than an ecological problem,” says Slingsby.
Given what he calls “the practical and financial constraints”, he says the park’s fire department is “doing a world-class job, for the most part. We also need to consider that the human factor has distorted fire on the peninsula to such a degree that mimicking the natural regime through fire management is a huge undertaking and can be at odds with managing fire risk. For an ecological burn, you need the hottest, driest conditions.”
But that is not what you want for fire risk, he says, because it is hot, dry conditions that set off wildfires in summer.
He acknowledges alien vegetation as both a fire and an ecological risk but deems the issue “reasonably well managed — just look at the Cape Point section as an example … bearing in mind that alien vegetation is always going to be a problem. People forget that Table Mountain was once under the cover of 75% pine trees. The problem is budgetary constraints and, when funds do become available, there are other priorities to compete with, like security.”
‘More eyes and ears’
More lateral interventions may have to address a problem that Prins, due to retire next year, says has existed in the park for decades: “We manage a park in a city. We had a problem with vagrants in 1983 and we still have a problem with vagrants.”
In interviews with park staff, City officials and non-profit campaigners, two conflicting themes dominated: the obvious, staggering complexity of the deeply systemic social dilemma driving the phenomenon of illegal campfires in particular. And the need to police hotspots with increased patrols.
Parkscape’s Schmidt stresses that resolving issues “like this” is, well, Sisyphean in scale. The cycle of visitors ebbing and flowing through the park’s porous, flammable borders from a city of about 4.6 million people, and thus policing potential fire starters, may be akin to plugging the Atlantic with a sieve.
She observes that “indigent people have lived on the mountain for many years and continue to do so. It’s a difficult and sensitive issue, as is any issue of homelessness across the city, and reflects any number of unresolved social issues and failures.”
Within the park itself, the issue “begs questions of human rights versus environmental legislation”.
The park is home to sacred sites for church groups, she argues, so there ought to be ways of accommodating such practices, such as building firebreaks around designated zones that meet ceremonial needs.
“Flora and fauna may take priority in a rural park, but it doesn’t work like that in an urban national park with a diverse population with multiple needs,” she says. “Our Constitution is anthropocentric. It’s a people-centred democracy. We need protocols for an African country.”
Focusing on hotspots, however, she suggests, “the only way to begin to manage the situation is more eyes and ears, possibly drone usage — currently forbidden, and not without issue, in national park spaces”.
Her concerns speak to the regularity of policing as much as they do to the visibility of it: “Park users regularly complain about the visible lack of rangers, but that is what is needed here to prevent crime and fires, especially in the busier buffer zones, where fires, in particular, risk causing millions of rands in damage to property, and may even take lives.”
Andy Davies of the park-users forum Friends of Table Mountain (FoTM) is keen to point out that the group is “mindful of the housing crisis in Cape Town and South Africa at large. But the bottom line is Table Mountain is a national park. It is illegal to live on the mountain and unfortunately, vagrants are associated with litter, security and fire. This is where law-enforcement is critical.”
And, yet as both interest groups emphasise, being homeless in Cape Town is hardly a crime.
Few people understand this better than Hassan Khan, CEO of Haven Night Shelter welfare organisation, established in 1978. Khan is a well-known champion for the city’s homeless and is not convinced these roaming residents need lessons on making fire.
‘It is not illegal to be homeless’
Khan describes himself as a nature lover and passionate hiker who grew up in the suburb of Salt River, and made campfires in the mountain caves of his youth. He even watched homeless people in Van Riebeeck Park on the slopes of upper Oranjezicht stoking their own cooking fires during the winter lockdown period of June, July and August.
“Those fires were made of twigs between rocks next to a river. Three or four cooking groups used small pots — five litres max per pot. It’s totally impractical to have a big fire while you’re sitting with a small pot. You’re going to burn your hands and your eyebrows, nè?” he laughs.
“It’s just plain common sense, man,” says Khan, whose organisation runs 15 shelters in the Western Cape, nine of which are in Cape Town. It is the province’s largest shelter organisation. “Stack a pot like that onto some rocks, and you’ll quickly see it burns very efficiently and it burns out completely.”
Most veldfires ignite “as campfires left to smoulder when people go into their tents, and then the wind whips it up, but the cooking I saw didn’t cause fires and it was extremely unlikely to cause fires”.
Everyone wants pristine parks but few seem willing to support the most vulnerable people who have little choice but to survive on, or beyond, those park borders, he suggests. “Environmental fundamentalism”, as he calls it, is yet to integrate into South Africa’s democratic era.
“People love the park more than they love people, and much of that comes from an apartheid idea of South African society,” he says. “Environmentalists and academics always know where you can’t build houses for black people, but they’ve never been able to identify which areas are suitable for that purpose.
“The idea that poor people by their nature will go in and destroy the park is a fallacy. We don’t support them materially. We just make political statements from time to time. But if people were to find utility in the natural environment, they would protect it. We need to create good spaces for everyone instead of building fences, and just hoping for the best that future generations will still be able to enjoy these parks.”
Khan is also not convinced that the Covid-19 pandemic has created “an absolute increase” in the city’s homeless population: “It’s the movement of the same people” who have been displaced from their normal routines, and “they’ve certainly become more visible”.
When approached for comment on how the City of Cape Town may support park patrols, City officials suggested that they were doing enough; and that, short of reintegration, there was not much more they could do.
“The only solution to the challenges presented by street people … is through reintegration of people living on the streets, and mitigating the risk factors that result in them ending up on the streets,” says councillor Zahid Badroodien, mayoral committee member for community services and health. “Despite the best intentions of the City of Cape Town’s Street People Unit, it is a reality that many people simply refuse any form of assistance. They cannot be forced to accept help either, since it is not illegal to be homeless.”
Wayne Dyason, spokesperson for City law enforcement, insists that the Law Enforcement Tourism Unit “patrols the trails on the front face of the mountain. They have acquired ebikes to assist them with their patrols. The unit has been very active in the area.”
In its emailed response to Our Burning Planet, SANParks’ head office praises the City for being “very cooperative”, while also, somewhat ambiguously, hinting at past tensions: “[We] know how the problem is pushed to-and-fro if we do not act in concert.”
The agency adds that the “clearance of vagrants is complicated and sensitive; our forthcoming interventions will be within the law … We endeavour to roll the problem back, despite serious limitations that cannot be mitigated by SANParks alone … ”
A senior agency source speaking on condition of anonymity says “tens of millions” has been slated to be poured into a new mega security centre, one overseeing a range of issues, from poaching to crime.
The agency’s response confirms a “command, control and communications centre” has been launched without fanfare. This will cooperate with “TMNP SEAPLESS: Sustainable Environmental Asset Protection, Law Enforcement, Safety and Security”. The idea is to “rapidly grow from immediate intervention demands to a predictive analysis, not a quick fix; a sustainable and reliable partner in Cape Peninsula growth, safety and security”. The new operation is “loaded with the best professionals in our area of responsibility”.
Such a streamlined service would not be without merit if the experience of the person who reported the Halloween fire tells us anything. That person was Professor Wolfgang Preiser, head of Stellenbosch University’s medical virology division.
“We saw the smoke and thought how irresponsible it is to make fire in a howling wind,” Preiser wrote in a social media post shortly after the inferno. “Fire was quickly getting bigger so we called TMNP [Table Mountain National Park] offices, were cut off about 10 times, and finally told to call Newlands fire station. Then everything was very fast — when back down, fire engines all over.”
Preiser confirmed to Our Burning Planet that he had written the post “following our short hike with family and a friend from Deer Park up to Tafelberg Road and back down”. Noting the smoke in the region of Platteklip Stream flowing down from the gorge, his description echoes the findings of the park’s official investigation, which traced the ignition to Platteklip stream near Deer Park below Tafelberg Road.
“The Platteklip stream site is a favoured location for vagrants,” says Erasmus. “While it cannot be regarded as an illegal settlement — there are no informal structures and it is not used on a permanent basis — it is, however, frequently used.”
At the time of writing, the fire starter or starters were still at large, although Erasmus says “it’s not impossible to catch such a person”.
“In cases where accidental or malicious fires are set, considerable effort is required to identify such people as they are both devious and cautious,” he notes. “We have been successful on a number of occasions that have resulted in plea bargains, hence the outcomes not being publicised.”
Once upon a renosterveld
On the hot, blinding morning after Halloween, 16 fire trucks stationed at Deer Park had become one. Like the ghosts of dead plants and animals, smoke columns ascended the charred slopes. The mountain’s sandstone and granite face reared up behind the curtain of twirling wraiths.
An owner of an urban-edge mansion who preferred not to be named was philosophical about life on the fringe of this flammable mountain.
“If you want to live in a spot like this, you’ve got to take the rough with the smooth. You can’t complain because you’ve built a damn great big house where it’s not supposed to be,” he said. A thin shield of firefighters was all that had stood between his home and the fire the night before.
Still dusted with soot, he angled his shoulders to move back inside, but not before gazing out across his seared view.
“Sure, we’ve had too many fires, too often,” he said, but hesitated. “Look, I hate to blame somebody. When it’s someone throwing out a cigarette butt, that to me is inexcusable… but somebody trying to live? Everybody wants to talk and you can bet your bottom dollar there was someone trying to have a meal.”
The vegetation here would “burst back into life after the next rains”, Volunteer Wildfire Services wrote in a 2 November social media post and, on the other side of Kloof Nek Road separating Lion’s Head from the rest of the mountain, nature was already telling stories of renewal.
The March 2020 fire, still under investigation, had turned 60 hectares into a wild necropolis, the gargoyles of burnt-out cars presiding over it. But this year’s winter had proven a good, wet one for these inclines: in spring and early summer, Lion’s Head popped out carpets of Watsonias, Chincherinchees, vygies and the rest of the blooming party.
However, two kilometres down the drag, where the Signal Hill parking area dips towards the Atlantic Seaboard’s wildland-urban interface, the slopes have burnt too often, suggests Prins. The dominant vegetation is fertile renosterveld — grasses, bulbs and daisies on nutrient-infused shale soils, rather than the typical proteas, restios and ericas of fynbos.
At least, renosterveld is what it is supposed to be. In images he is shown of the veld around the parking area, the University of Cape Town flora expert Tony Verboom also spots “weedy Eurasian annual grasses, such as Avena and Lolium; Paterson’s Curse (Echium), also from southern Europe; and Eurasian Plantago species”.
Verboom, an associate professor, says human-caused fires exaggerate this weedy effect “by upsetting the natural competitive hierarchies and generating gaps that provide invasive weeds with an entry point”.
Impacts such as these that play out over time, Slingsby co-writes in an article on disrupted fire regimes. Initially, those shifts are barely discernible, but they tend to create slow, deep change to the very “structure, composition and function of ecosystems”.
“Kyk daar in die see — ’n belangrike man met die naam Nelson Mandela het eens op ’n tyd in daai eiland se tronk gebly,” a father pointed out to his young son in Afrikaans while Our Burning Planet was photographing the scene. [Look at the sea — once upon a time an important man by the name of Nelson Mandela lived in that island’s prison.]
Out in the bay below, Robben Island shimmered like an auburn mirage. At the father’s and son’s feet, a changing mosaic of renosterveld rippling in the wind.
“Bly mense nogsteeds in daai tronk, Pappa?” [Do people still live in that prison, Daddy?]
“Nee my kind, nou’s hy dood.” [No my child, he is dead now.]
And so it is in the 2020s that our ancestors and natural heritage are proxies for each other: without being told either existed, it becomes harder for the youngest among us to know that these people and things were once real, let alone how much they mattered to many.
It is here, across a liminal border of urban creep, that a hotter, drier climate age risks slipping into the smouldering heart of the Pyrocene Cape. DM/OBP
In the event of a veld or wildfire, click here for SANParks’ emergency guidelines.
As the West becomes more and more secular, and the discoveries of evolutionary biology and cosmology shrink the boundaries of faith, the claims that science and religion are compatible grow louder. If you’re a believer who doesn’t want to seem anti-science, what can you do? You must argue that your faith – or any faith – is perfectly compatible with science.
But I argue that this is misguided: that science and religion are not only in conflict – even at “war” – but also represent incompatible ways of viewing the world.
My argument runs like this. I’ll construe “science” as the set of tools we use to find truth about the universe, with the understanding that these truths are provisional rather than absolute. These tools include observing nature, framing and testing hypotheses, trying your hardest to prove that your hypothesis is wrong to test your confidence that it’s right, doing experiments and above all replicating your and others’ results to increase confidence in your inference.
And I’ll define religion as does philosopher Daniel Dennett: “Social systems whose participants avow belief in a supernatural agent or agents whose approval is to be sought.” Of course many religions don’t fit that definition, but the ones whose compatibility with science is touted most often – the Abrahamic faiths of Judaism, Christianity and Islam – fill the bill.
Next, realize that both religion and science rest on “truth statements” about the universe – claims about reality. The edifice of religion differs from science by additionally dealing with morality, purpose and meaning, but even those areas rest on a foundation of empirical claims. You can hardly call yourself a Christian if you don’t believe in the Resurrection of Christ, a Muslim if you don’t believe the angel Gabriel dictated the Qur’an to Muhammad, or a Mormon if you don’t believe that the angel Moroni showed Joseph Smith the golden plates that became the Book of Mormon. After all, why accept a faith’s authoritative teachings if you reject its truth claims?
Indeed, even the Bible notes this: “But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.”
Many theologians emphasize religion’s empirical foundations, agreeing with the physicist and Anglican priest John Polkinghorne:
“The question of truth is as central to [religion’s] concern as it is in science. Religious belief can guide one in life or strengthen one at the approach of death, but unless it is actually true it can do neither of these things and so would amount to no more than an illusory exercise in comforting fantasy.”
The conflict between science and faith, then, rests on the methods they use to decide what is true, and what truths result: These are conflicts of both methodology and outcome.
In contrast to the methods of science, religion adjudicates truth not empirically, but via dogma, scripture and authority – in other words, through faith, defined in Hebrews 11 as “the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” In science, faith without evidence is a vice, while in religion it’s a virtue. Recall what Jesus said to “doubting Thomas,” who insisted in poking his fingers into the resurrected Savior’s wounds: “Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.”
And yet, without supporting evidence, Americans believe a number of religious claims: 74 percent of us believe in God, 68 percent in the divinity of Jesus, 68 percent in Heaven, 57 percent in the virgin birth, and 58 percent in the Devil and Hell. Why do they think these are true? Faith.
But different religions make different – and often conflicting – claims, and there’s no way to judge which claims are right. There are over 4,000 religions on this planet, and their “truths” are quite different. (Muslims and Jews, for instance, absolutely reject the Christian belief that Jesus was the son of God.) Indeed, new sects often arise when some believers reject what others see as true. Lutherans split over the truth of evolution, while Unitarians rejected other Protestants’ belief that Jesus was part of God.
And while science has had success after success in understanding the universe, the “method” of using faith has led to no proof of the divine. How many gods are there? What are their natures and moral creeds? Is there an afterlife? Why is there moral and physical evil? There is no one answer to any of these questions. All is mystery, for all rests on faith.
The “war” between science and religion, then, is a conflict about whether you have good reasons for believing what you do: whether you see faith as a vice or a virtue.
Compartmentalizing realms is irrational
So how do the faithful reconcile science and religion? Often they point to the existence of religious scientists, like NIH Director Francis Collins, or to the many religious people who accept science. But I’d argue that this is compartmentalization, not compatibility, for how can you reject the divine in your laboratory but accept that the wine you sip on Sunday is the blood of Jesus?
Others argue that in the past religion promoted science and inspired questions about the universe. But in the past every Westerner was religious, and it’s debatable whether, in the long run, the progress of science has been promoted by religion. Certainly evolutionary biology, my own field, has been held back strongly by creationism, which arises solely from religion.
What is not disputable is that today science is practiced as an atheistic discipline – and largely by atheists. There’s a huge disparity in religiosity between American scientists and Americans as a whole: 64 percent of our elite scientists are atheists or agnostics, compared to only 6 percent of the general population – more than a tenfold difference. Whether this reflects differential attraction of nonbelievers to science or science eroding belief – I suspect both factors operate – the figures are prima facie evidence for a science-religion conflict.
The most common accommodationist argument is Stephen Jay Gould’s thesis of “non-overlapping magisteria.” Religion and science, he argued, don’t conflict because: “Science tries to document the factual character of the natural world, and to develop theories that coordinate and explain these facts. Religion, on the other hand, operates in the equally important, but utterly different, realm of human purposes, meanings and values – subjects that the factual domain of science might illuminate, but can never resolve.”
This fails on both ends. First, religion certainly makes claims about “the factual character of the universe.” In fact, the biggest opponents of non-overlapping magisteria are believers and theologians, many of whom reject the idea that Abrahamic religions are “empty of any claims to historical or scientific facts.”
Nor is religion the sole bailiwick of “purposes, meanings and values,” which of course differ among faiths. There’s a long and distinguished history of philosophy and ethics – extending from Plato, Hume and Kant up to Peter Singer, Derek Parfit and John Rawls in our day – that relies on reason rather than faith as a fount of morality. All serious ethical philosophy is secular ethical philosophy.
In the end, it’s irrational to decide what’s true in your daily life using empirical evidence, but then rely on wishful-thinking and ancient superstitions to judge the “truths” undergirding your faith. This leads to a mind (no matter how scientifically renowned) at war with itself, producing the cognitive dissonance that prompts accommodationism. If you decide to have good reasons for holding any beliefs, then you must choose between faith and reason. And as facts become increasingly important for the welfare of our species and our planet, people should see faith for what it is: not a virtue but a defect.
This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit news site dedicated to sharing ideas from academic experts.
Read more:
Jerry Coyne does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
An actress friend has been working as a Tesco delivery driver. She applied online in March, when all her other jobs were cancelled. Far from resenting this emergency role, she has found bringing strangers their groceries a humbling, life-affirming experience. ‘You’re going to people’s homes and bringing them what they need,’ she told me.
The run-up to Christmas should be boom time for the retail sector. Instead, High Street giants such as TopShop and Debenhams have buckled. Tesco and Morrisons deciding to repay £850m of Covid business rates relief has been one of the few happy shopping headlines.
In desperate times for our High Streets, I’ve been wondering what, as a consumer, I can do to keep the businesses I value afloat.
Author Patricia Nicol recommends best selection of books on shops including Chocolat by Joanne Harris (left) and Barbara Taylor Bradford’s A Woman Of Substance (right)
Charles Dickens’s The Old Curiosity Shop is exactly the sort of wilfully eccentric, mismanaged bric-a-brac establishment that would go to the wall in these hard times. It does in the book, too, beggaring Nell and her grandfather. As such it is a story of our times — Dickens shows us that behind every business, however humble, are people. It is not just Nell and her grandfather who suffer when the evil Quilp takes possession, but also their employee, Kit.
As a teenager, I devoured Barbara Taylor Bradford’s rags-to-riches shopkeeper’s saga A Woman Of Substance. It charts the success of single-minded heroine, Emma Harte, from sexually-exploited maid at Fairley Hall to head of a global retail empire. Would she have had the agility to survive these times?
Chocolat by Joanne Harris depicts a high street star. The enigmatic Vianne Rocher’s chocolaterie, La Céleste Praline, is one of those stores nobody thought their community needed until its sweet, attractive wares start to transform lives, and the town, for the better.
Local to us, we have a few imaginative independent stores. They worked tirelessly, through lockdown, to deliver to our community.
Last week I popped in to a few and picked up some one-of-a-kind gifts I might have spent soulless hours scouring for online.
If you have an attractive high street, use it or risk losing it.
Rule of Law Conditionality Preserved, but Implementation Severely Delayed
It smacks of irony that on Human Rights Day, the European Union caved into pressure and granted another concession to Hungary and Poland’s rights-abusing leaders in order to reach a deal on the EU budget. Germany, in one of its last acts as rotating EU president, brokered the compromise with an “interpretative declaration” that ties the European Commission’s hands when it comes to conditioning EU funding upon respect for the rule of law.
The declaration, agreed last night, will likely have the effect of delaying for months, even years, the use of this innovative and once-promising tool. It commits the Commission to draft additional guidelines before applying the conditionality regulation, but then also says that the Commission should wait for a ruling of the EU Court of Justice before finalizing such guidelines, if Hungary or Poland decides to contest the legality of the regulation.
While the new concession won’t be a long-term victory for Hungary and Poland’s leadership, it offers them a chance to buy considerable time and consolidate their autocratic power with little consequences for years.
At the very least, the European Council should insist that any case before the EU Court be expedited to minimize delays in the effective use of rule of law conditionality. The European Commission should also make it clear that it could apply the conditionality regulation right from its entry into force – because the declaration is a non-legally-binding mechanism.
Although the German government had put the protection of fundamental values and rights in its top priorities for its presidency, it failed to propel forward the Council’s scrutiny of Hungary and Poland under Article 7 – the EU’s process to deal with governments putting the Union’s values at risk – and even declined recently to participate in a European Parliament debate on the rule of law in both countries. It is disappointing that Germany’s time in the EU rotating presidency ended with yet another concession to the bloc’s authoritarian-minded rulers.
The last weeks have shown that leaders who violate human rights have no shame in bullying and blackmailing the whole EU to shield themselves from any consequences for their actions. Now that the budget saga is over, EU leaders should urgently give Hungarian and Polish citizens fighting for their rights the attention they deserve, give full way to the new conditionality mechanism, and revive their scrutiny under Article 7.
Fifty-one years ago today, on 13 December 1969; and just a few days before his thirty-third birthday, Jorge Mario Bergoglio was ordained to the sacred priesthood.
Eleven years earlier, on 11 March 1958, he had entered the novitiate of the Society of Jesus where, less than four years after his ordination, he made his perpetual profession on 22 April 1973.
The future Pope discovered his vocation in 1953, on 21 September – the liturgical commemoration of St Matthew. On that day, the 17-year-old Jorge Bergoglio, passing by the parish he normally attended in Buenos Aires, felt the need to go to confession. He found a priest he did not know, and that confession changed his life.
“For me this was an experience of encounter,” Pope Francis later recounted. Speaking at the Pentecost Vigil on 18 May 2013, the Pope said of that long-ago visit to the church, “I found that someone was waiting for me. Yet I do not know what happened, I can’t remember, I do not know why that particular priest was there whom I did not know, or why I felt this desire to confess, but the truth is that someone was waiting for me. He had been waiting for me for some time. After making my confession I felt something had changed. I was not the same. I had heard something like a voice, or a call. I was convinced that I should become a priest.”
Stamps issued for last year’s 50th anniversary of Pope Francis’ priesthood
Jorge Bergoglio experienced the loving presence of God in his life, felt his heart touched and felt the outpouring of God’s mercy, which, with a look of tender love, called him to religious life, after the example of St Ignatius of Loyola. It was this episode of his life that inspired the choice of his episcopal, and later papal, motto “Miserando atque eligendo,” taken from the Homilies of St Bede the Venerable (Hom. 21; CCL 122, 149-151), who, commenting on the Gospel episode of the vocation of St Matthew, writes: “Vidit ergo lesus publicanum et quia miserando atque eligendo vidit, ait illi sequere me” (Jesus saw the tax collector and, because he saw him through the eyes of mercy and chose him, he said to him: Follow me).
Priests in the heart of the Pope
Pope Francis often addresses priests in his homilies and speeches. This year, in particular, he mentioned them several times in reference to the current pandemic and his commitment to the faithful tried by the health emergency.
When the Chrism Mass was postponed this year due to Covid-19 restriction, Pope Francis penned a Letter to the priests of Rome. The Pope warmly addressed the pastors of the people of God who “touched with [their] own hands the pain of the people,” remained close to them, shared with them and confirmed them on the journey. “As a community of priests,” Pope Francis wrote, “we were no strangers to these situations; we did not look out at them from a window. Braving the tempest, you found ways to be present and accompany your communities; when you saw the wolf coming, you did not flee or abandon the flock.”
The Holy Father urged priests to be wise, far-sighted and committed; and looking to the future, he wrote of the challenge to priests “to develop a capacity for listening in a way attentive yet filled with hope, serene yet tenacious, persevering yet not fearful.” He concludes his letter, noting that “As priests, sons and members of a priestly people, it is up to us to take responsibility for the future and to plan for it as brothers.”
The apostolic spirit of priests
Later, while speaking with doctors, nurses, and health workers from the Lombardy region in France, Pope Francis recalled “pastoral zeal and creative care” who “helped people to continue the journey of faith and not to remain alone in the face of pain and fear.”
“I have admired the apostolic spirit of so many priests, who reached people by telephone, or went knocking on doors, calling at homes: ‘Do you need anything? I will do your shopping…’. A thousand things,” the Pope said. “These priests who stood by their people in caring, daily sharing: they were a sign of God’s consoling presence.” Then he added: “Regrettably quite a few of them have died, as have doctors and paramedical staff too”; and he remembered, too, the many priests who had been ill, but, “thank God,” were subsequently healed. And he thanked all the Italian clergy, “who have offered proof of courage and love to the people.”
Today, the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) and the Africa Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (Africa CDC) launched a new partnership initiative to strengthen the capacity of Africa CDC to prepare for and respond to public health threats in Africa. The four-year project ‘EU for health security in Africa: ECDC for Africa CDC’, funded by the EU, will also facilitate harmonised surveillance and disease intelligence, and support the implementation of the public health workforce strategy of Africa CDC.
Commission Vice-President for promoting our European Way of Life, Margaritis Schinas said:
“The coronavirus pandemic has shown more clearly than ever that health security – a longstanding objective in the cooperation between the African Union and the European Union – must remain a global priority. The new partnership between the European Centre of Disease Prevention and Control and the Africa CDC is a crucial step to achieve this common goal. We are acting now, together, to end this crisis and be prepared for future outbreaks. Our AU-EU Commission-to-Commission meeting in February was instrumental in reinforcing the prospects of our cooperation that is now bearing fruit.”
Commissioner for International Partnerships, Jutta Urpilainen, stressed:
“The COVID-19 pandemic shows how crucial it is to invest in health systems to ensure they are prepared to deal with such crisis. The EU supports the continental leadership and coordination of the African Union in responding to the ongoing pandemic, and together we are helping partner countries to strengthen their capacities to prevent, detect and respond to health threats.”
H.E. Amira Elfadil Mohammed, Commissioner for Social Affairs, African Union Commission said:
“As a continent, we recognize the socioeconomic impact that disease outbreaks have had on our people. We know that fighting COVID-19 in Africa is not only about saving lives today, but about the future of the continent, it is about strengthening our health systems to better support preparedness and response to health emergencies in the future. This funding by the EU comes at a very good time and will go a long way in supporting capacity building of our public health institutions and experts.”
Supporting health security in Africa
This project illustrates the engagement of the European Union to help scale up preparedness for global health emergencies and to strengthen support to health systems in Africa.
Through this partnership, Africa CDC and ECDC will be able to exchange experiences and lessons learnt from working with African and European Member States on the continental harmonised surveillance of infectious diseases, data sharing, and early detection of threats, as well as on preparedness, risk assessment, rapid response, and emergency operations, and on how to adapt these to their needs. Capacity-building components in these areas of work will be integrated into the existing Africa CDC initiatives and strategies to support the African health security framework.
Funded under the European Development Fund, the project includes a contribution agreement with ECDC of €9 million and a complementary grant to Africa CDC of €1 million to cover staffing costs. This agreement will come into effect on 1 January 2021.
Background
Like the rest of the world, African countries face immediate healthcare needs and will bear economic and social consequences of the global coronavirus pandemic. From the overall ‘Team Europe‘ coronavirus response package, at least €8 billion will support actions in Africa. In healthcare, support focuses on strengthening preparedness and response capacities of countries with the weakest healthcare systems.
Already before the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, €2.6 billion of the EU’s sustainable development funding for the period 2014-2020 had been allocated to health. Part of these funds have directly targeted health security while also strengthening health systems, including with €1.1 billion in 13 African countries: Burkina Faso, Burundi, Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Guinea (Conakry), Guinea Bissau, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, Nigeria, Sudan, Zimbabwe.
Through the ‘Health Systems Strengthening for Universal Health Coverage Partnership Programme’ with WHO, the EU invests in building health care systems that provide quality services to everyone in more than 80 African, Caribbean, Pacific, and Asian countries. The EU contribution to the UHC-Partnership in the period 2012-2022 is €197.7 million.
The pandemic has amplified the need for global solidarity, multilateral cooperation and partnerships to tackle epidemics. In the longer term and throughout the recovery phase, this partnership-focused approach should also be brought to bear in revitalising initiatives for strengthening health systems and advancing universal health coverage, particularly through primary health care approaches that aim to meet the needs of the most.
ECDC is an independent agency of the EU whose mission is to strengthen Europe’s defences against infectious diseases. The Centre was established in 2004 and is located in Stockholm, Sweden. The Commission recently presented a proposal to significantly strengthen the mandate of the ECDC.
The Africa CDC was established in 2017 as a specialized institution mandated to support African Union Member States in their preparedness and response to diseases threats in Africa. Its headquarters are located in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
PARIS, Dec 13 — Charles Michel, the president of the European Council, said today the EU would not lose its composure as make-or-break talks with Britain over a Brexit trade deal approach their climax.
Michel, who chairs EU summits, told France Inter radio that the European Union wanted a good deal that respected the integrity of its single market.
Asked about Britain’s planned deployment of naval patrol ships to protect its fishing waters in the event of a no-deal outcome to talks, Michel said: “On the European side, we will keep our composure.”
Michel said there were no rifts among EU member states as London and Brussels face a make-or-break decision on an elusive trade agreement.
“You cannot put a cigarette paper between (us),” he said, “because there are important matters. We want to preserve, to protect the single market. We are reasonable. We want to maintain close relations (with Britain).” — Reuters
Throwing overboard Sunday’s self-imposed deadline, the European Union and Britain said they will “go the extra mile” to clinch a post-Brexit trade agreement that would avert New Year’s chaos and cost for cross-border commerce.
British Prime Minister Boris Johnson and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen had set Sunday as the deadline for a breakthrough or breakdown in negotiations. But they stepped back from the brink because there was too much at stake not to make an ultimate push.
“Despite the exhaustion after almost a year of negotiations and despite the fact that deadlines have been missed over and over, we both think it is responsible at this point in time to go the extra mile,” von der Leyen said.
Story continues below advertisement
</div> The negotiators were continuing to talk in Brussels at EU headquarters.
European Council President Charles Michel immediately welcomed the development and said “we should do everything to make a deal possible,” but warned there could be a deal “at any price, no. What we want is a good deal, a deal that respects these principles of economic fair play and, also, these principles of governance.”
With less than three weeks until the U.K.’s final split from the EU, key aspects of the future relationship between the 27-nation bloc and its former member remain unresolved.
Progress came after months of tense and often testy negotiations that gradually whittled differences down to three key issues: fair-competition rules, mechanisms for resolving future disputes and fishing rights.
Brexit: ‘We don’t want the no-deal outcome, but we have to prepare for it,’ says Irish Taoiseach
Brexit: ‘We don’t want the no-deal outcome, but we have to prepare for it,’ says Irish Taoiseach
It has been four and a half years since Britons voted by 52%-48% to leave the EU and _ in the words of the Brexiteers’ slogan _ “take back control” of the U.K.’s borders and laws.
<div class="c-ad c-ad--bigbox l-article__ad" readability="32"> <p>Story continues below advertisement
</div> It took more than three years of wrangling before Britain left the bloc’s political structures on Jan. 31. Disentangling economies that have become closely entwined as part of the EU’s single market for goods and services took even longer.
The U.K. has remained part of the single market and customs union during an 11-month post-Brexit transition period. That means so far, many people will have noticed little impact from Brexit.
On Jan. 1, it will feel real. New Year’s Day will bring huge changes, even with a deal. No longer will goods and people be able to move between the U.K. and its continental neighbours.
<ul class="c-posts c-posts--inline">
<li class="c-posts__item">
<a href="https://globalnews.ca/news/7518768/coronavirus-update-canada-dec-12/" title="Health Canada warns people allergic to COVID-19 vaccine ingredients as cases surpass 450K" class="c-posts__inner" readability="26" rel="nofollow">
<div class="c-posts__media l-relatedStories__media">
</div>
<div class="c-posts__details" readability="32">
<span class="c-posts__headlineText" data-title="">Health Canada warns people allergic to COVID-19 vaccine ingredients as cases surpass 450K</span>
</div>
</a>
</li>
<li class="c-posts__item">
<a href="https://globalnews.ca/news/7512143/covid-19-effect-brain-coronavirus/" title="Coronavirus: How COVID-19 could damage the brain" class="c-posts__inner" readability="26" rel="nofollow">
<div class="c-posts__media l-relatedStories__media">
</div>
<div class="c-posts__details" readability="32">
<span class="c-posts__headlineText" data-title="">Coronavirus: How COVID-19 could damage the brain</span>
</div>
</a>
</li>
</ul>
</section>
Exporters and importers face customs declarations, goods checks and other obstacles. EU nationals will no longer be able to live and work in Britain without a visa _ though that doesn’t apply to the more than 3 million already there — and Britons can no longer automatically work or retire in the EU.</p><div class="l-article__part" data-shortcode="readmore" readability="3.8681318681319"> <p class="c-readmore">
<span class="c-readmore__label"><strong>Read more: </strong></span><a class="c-readmore__link" href="https://globalnews.ca/news/7508382/canada-uk-trade-deal-brexit-deadline/" data-track-region="content-read-more" title="Liberals plan to table Canada-U.K. trade deal this week as Brexit deadline looms" rel="nofollow">
Liberals plan to table Canada-U.K. trade deal this week as Brexit deadline looms </a>
</div>There are still unanswered questions about huge areas, including security co-operation between the U.K. and the bloc and access to the EU market for Britain’s huge financial services sector.
Without a deal U.K. will trade with the bloc on World Trade Organization terms, with all the tariffs and barriers that would bring.
Story continues below advertisement
</div> The U.K. government has acknowledged a chaotic exit is likely to bring gridlock at Britain’s ports, temporary shortages of some goods and price increases for staple foodstuff. Tariffs will be applied to many U.K. goods, including 10% on cars and more than 40% on lamb.
Still, Johnson says the U.K. will “prosper mightily” on those terms.
To jumpstart the flagging talks, negotiators have imposed several deadlines, but none have brought the sides closer together on the issues of fair trading standards, legal oversight of any deal and the rights of EU fishermen to go into U.K. waters.
While both sides want a deal on the terms of a new relationship, they have fundamentally different views of what it entails. The EU fears Britain will slash social and environmental standards and pump state money into U.K. industries, becoming a low-regulation economic rival on the bloc’s doorstep, so is demanding strict “level playing field” guarantees in exchange for access to its markets.
The U.K. government claims the EU is trying to bind Britain to the bloc’s rules and regulations indefinitely, rather than treating it as an independent nation.
Spanish Foreign Minister Arancha Gonzalez Laya said a no-deal Brexit would be a “double whammy” for economies already battered by the coronavirus pandemic.
U.K. PM Boris Johnson says Brexit deal hopeful, but unlikely
U.K. PM Boris Johnson says Brexit deal hopeful, but unlikely
“It is clear when you do a trade deal that you are a sovereign nation; they are made to manage interdependence,” she told Sky News. “The U.K. and the European Union are interdependent so let’s do a deal which reflects the need to manage this interdependence.”
<div class="c-ad c-ad--bigbox l-article__ad" readability="32"> <p>Story continues below advertisement
</div> Britain’s belligerent tabloid press urged Johnson to stand firm, and floated the prospect of Royal Navy vessels patrolling U.K. waters against intruding European vessels.
But others, in Britain and across the EU, urged the two sides to keep talking.
Brexit: Londoners on edge as trade negotiations show few signs of progress
Brexit: Londoners on edge as trade negotiations show few signs of progress
Irish Prime Minister Micheal Martin, whose economy is more entwined with Britain’s than any other EU state, said he “fervently” hoped the talks wouldn’t end Sunday.
“It is absolutely imperative that both sides continue to engage and both sides continue to negotiate to avoid a no-deal,” Martin told the BBC. “A no-deal would be very bad for all of us.
“Even at the 11th hour, the capacity in my view exists for the United Kingdom and the European Union to conclude a deal that is in all our interests.”
Iran has summoned the ambassador of Germany, current holder of the European Union’s rotating presidency, over EU criticism of the execution of an Iranian journalist, Iranian media reported on Sunday.
The Iranian Foreign Ministry also plans on Sunday to summon the French envoy to Tehran, the semi-official Fars news agency said. France also strongly criticised the execution on Saturday of dissident journalist Ruhollah Zam, who had been based in Paris before he was captured while on a visit to Iraq in October 2019 and forcibly returned to Iran, where he faced trial for his activism.
Zam was convicted of fomenting violence during anti-government protests in 2017. Founder of the popular Telegram channel Amadnews, feed had more than 1 million followers. The Supreme Court of Iran upheld the verdict on December 8.
The EU said in a statement after his execution: “The European Union condemns this act in the strongest terms and recalls once again its irrevocable opposition to the use of capital punishment under any circumstances.”
The French Foreign Ministry called the execution a “barbaric and unacceptable act”, saying in a statement: “France condemns in the strongest possible terms this serious breach of free expression and press freedom in Iran.”
Amnesty International and press advocacy group Reporters Without Borders (RSF) also condemned the execution.
Iranian officials have accused the United States, as well asTehran’s regional rival Saudi Arabia and government opponents living in exile, of stoking the unrest that began in late 2017as regional protests over economic hardship spread nationwide.
Officials said 21 people were killed during the unrest and thousands were arrested. The unrest was among the worst Iran has seen in decades, and was followed by even deadlier protests last year against fuel price rises.