mgimo.ru 1- british core values.docxweb viewmgimo.ru

UNIT 1 BRITISH CORE VALUES

LEAD-IN

Schoolchildren should be taught "traditional British values" as part of an attempt to challenge extremism and promote a more cohesive society, the UK higher education minister claimed.

Under the proposals, all 11 to 16-year-olds will learn about free speech and democracy in the UK, as well as about the contribution of different communities to building a modern, successful country. What are “core values”? Do you think core values should be taught at

schools? Should governments promote "traditional values" in their societies? How in your understanding are core values learned?

READING-1 (British core values)

Pre-reading: Do values differ from nation to nation? What factors influence the set-up of traditional national values?Read the texts, answer the questions that follow.

TEXT 1WHAT'S BRITISH ABOUT CORE VALUES?

Martin Kettle The Guardian May 15, 2006

Now, if there is one thing that most people will accept (happily in some cases, unhappily in others) about a country like ours in the 21st century, it is that the old nation state no longer comfortably embodies the people who inhabit it - call that the Tebbit test or the melting pot according to choice. But it's a fact that we all know we live in interconnected and weakened nations. So I'm very sceptical that a dose of shared national values are really the answer to any of these issues. I fear they might merely be a source of fresh divisions and disagreements.

I'd be more in favour of kids being taught Core British Values if I knew what CBV actually were. But in every discussion I've ever been involved in on this subject (and I've been in a few) it's not long before someone (sometimes me) makes the blindingly obvious point that fairness or ingenuity or respect or love of the countryside - or whatever virtue some other speaker has identified as essentially British - isn't in fact uniquely British at all. If I were French, I would have no trouble claiming that all these qualities were French Values too. Or if I were American. Or Chinese. And so on around the world. It is just daft to pretend that we British, however polite or pastoral we may imagine ourselves to be, are uniquely defined by them.

I'm not going to pretend that there isn't something worthy of the name that I would want to call Britishness. I think it's a fascinating challenge to define what, if anything, really differentiates

Ekaterina D. Prodayvoda Graduation Course 1

one group of human beings from another. But this is an incredibly slippery and elusive subject and too much of the debate is owned by scoundrels.

Yes, some aspects of what I would define as truly distinctive Britishness are rather admirable, like our pride in our particular independence, or an inherent scepticism towards theory and authority and a rumbustiously creative and adaptive use of language. But there are other British values, like drunken aggression and a seemingly unquenchable appetite for smut, that do less for me. And in any case, as I've said, a lot of what we tend to pass off as British is actually common to all humankind, while quite a lot of the rest is more accurately labelled, I suspect, as English.

So my view is that we should abandon the rather quaint and daft (and perhaps rather British) idea of trying to define the Britishness of core values, and should concentrate instead on the Core Values themselves, without trying to plant the Union Jack on any of them. I'm all for kids being taught about good citizenship and the principles of democracy, about respect for others, about non-violence, the rule of law, the ethical life, respect for the environment, individual freedom and the ties of community - and about how we can reconcile them.

Reading NotesNorman Beresford Tebbit, Baron Tebbit, CH, PC (born 29 March 1931) is a British

Conservative politician and former MP. He proposed the "Cricket test", also known as the "Tebbit Test", where he suggested that people from ethnic minorities in Britain should not be considered truly British until they supported the England cricket team, as opposed to the country of their or their ancestors' birth.

The melting pot - is a metaphor for a heterogeneous society becoming more homogeneous, with different elements "melting together". It is particularly used to describe the assimilation of immigrants to the United States.

The first use of the concept of immigrants "melting" into the receiving culture is found in the writings of J. Hector St. John de Crevecoeur. In his Letters from an American Farmer (1782) Crevecoeur writes, that the American is one who "leaving behind him all his ancient prejudices and manners, receives new ones from the new mode of life he has embraced, the government he obeys, and the new rank he holds. Here individuals of all nations are melted into a new race of men, whose labour and posterity will one day cause great changes in the world."

How important are the shared national values according to the author? What qualities does the author define as distinctively British?

TEXT 2WHAT ARE BRITISH “CORE VALUES”?

Archbishop Cranmerwww.dailymail.co.uk February, 2011

In recent years, we observe that ‘Britishness’ for Margaret Thatcher was about individual responsibility and industry - the Protestant work ethic; the place of the United Kingdom in the world; the maintenance of democracy; the flourishing of liberty; the importance of the family; respect for Parliament, Church and Monarchy; and a patriotism which was not ashamed to fly the Union Flag. For John Major it was concerned with warm beer and cricket on the village green; ‘back to basics’; traditional values. For Tony Blair it was about social justice and


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/

rebranding for the postmodern era: ‘Cool Britannia’; of standing shoulder-to-shoulder with the United States in support of an interventionist foreign policy to rid the world of evil dictators. For Gordon Brown it was... well, he never quite got there, but he did talk an awful lot about tolerance and fairness.

David Cameron hasn’t yet synthesised his views, but in 2007 he observed: “It is mainstream Britain which needs to integrate more with the British Asian way of life, not the other way around.” On social cohesion, he said that ‘integration is a two-way street. If we want to remind ourselves of British values - hospitality, tolerance and generosity to name just three - there are plenty of British Muslims ready to show us what those things really mean’. He was, of course, on the campaign trail, but he could scarcely have said anything more provocative to the indigenous peoples of these islands than to laud Islam as the paragon of family and community values to which all Christians must aspire. And yet he was right to observe that many British Asians do value what it means to be British far more than many of those with a genetic heritage going back millennia, and they have achieved an admirable level of integration within just one generation. But these developments have caused something of an identity crisis in the nation, spawning numerous books and articles which seek to define what is meant by ‘Britishness’.

First and foremost, Britishness is about tolerance: it is the attribute which has enabled five million immigrants and their descendants to comprise a tenth of the country’s population. This pluralism is a priceless ingredient of the nation’s culture, and it is incumbent upon people of all creeds, philosophies, ethnicities and political ideologies to tolerate those with whom they do not agree.

But British culture cannot be cohesive when there is diversity of language, laws, traditions, customs and religion. As far as England is concerned, foreign encroachments have been fiercely resisted since the Reformation, yet the accommodation of Roman Catholics has developed of necessity to the extent that they agreed to abide by the laws of the state. A logical corollary of this is that Asian immigrants to the UK ought now to adapt their cultural traditions and religious expression to accommodate ‘British toleration’ or conform to those aspects of ‘Britishness’ which make society cohesive. And so a Briton has the right to oppose or support British policy in Iraq and may campaign to that effect, write, agitate and stand for election towards the chosen end. But it is also elementary that he does not have the right to stone adulterers to death, hang homosexuals or blow up the underground or an aircraft. Toleration of the intolerant is distinctly un-British.

And so, secondly, we observe that the rule of law and equality under the law are core British values. There is no doubt that some religious practices may coerce some. But mindful of minority ethnic voting communities, politicians have trod carefully along the via media between religious liberty and cultural prohibition.

Over recent centuries, it is Protestantism which has defined the character of Great Britain: from the Armada, through the Act of Union in 1707 to the battle of Waterloo, Britain was involved in successive wars against Roman Catholic nations. It was a shared religious allegiance that permitted a sense of British national identity to emerge. Of course, history is peppered with myth, sentiment and flights of fancy - notions that somehow God had chosen England, and the nation is singularly blessed by virtue of the purity of Protestantism over the discredited and sullied Catholicism of continental Europe. This selective sense of religious history and an idealised perception of the moral purpose of the United Kingdom in the world are part of our ‘Britishness’. We have a cohesive religious base, which is intrinsic to the national psyche: essentially, whilst acknowledging the liberties of atheists and rights of secular


humanists, to be ‘religious’ is to be British.And so, thirdly, to be British is to be free - to believe, to own, to contract and to

associate. The state only has authority to the extent granted by Parliament, which is subject to the assent of the people. The foundations of those liberties - Magna Carta, Habeas Corpus, Bill of Rights, Act of Union - guard against state coercion. To abrogate them is to diminish our liberty and to deny our heritage. It is not British to be subject to foreign parliaments or alien courts - temporal or spiritual - especially where they seek to impose a doctrine or creed which is antithetical to that which we have evolved over the centuries.

To be British is sometimes to tolerate conflicting philosophies, mutually-exclusive theologies and illogical propositions. But not at any cost.

Can a culture be cohesive when there is diversity of language, laws, traditions, customs and religion?

TEXT 3TEN CORE VALUES OF THE BRITISH IDENTITY

Telegraph.co.uk 27 Jul 2005

It cannot be said too often that terrorist atrocities are solely the responsibility of those who perpetrate them. To blame the invasion of Iraq, or the occupation of the West Bank, or poverty, or racism, or Western decadence, is both intellectually and morally wrong. What is reasonable, however, is to ask why modern Britain is breeding so many anti-British fanatics.

Part of the answer has to do with how Britain sees itself. The ancestors of the Leeds bombers, who arrived here in the mid-20th century from countries which had prospered under colonial rule, were infected by the self-belief of the British Empire. They were content, as it were, to buy into a nation whose subjects were so obviously proud of it.

Many countries try to codify their values in law. Some oblige their citizens to speak the national language; others make it a criminal offence to show disrespect to the flag. But statutory patriotism is an intrinsically un-British notion. We prefer simply to set out, in general terms, the non-negotiable components of our identity - the qualities of the citizenship that so many people crave for.

I. The rule of law. Our society is based on the idea that we all abide by the same rules, whatever our wealth or status. No one is above the law - not even the government.

II. The sovereignty of the Crown in Parliament. The Lords, the Commons and the monarch constitute the supreme authority in the land. There is no appeal to any higher jurisdiction, spiritual or temporal.

III. The pluralist state. Equality before the law implies that no one should be treated differently on the basis of belonging to a particular group. Conversely, all parties, sects, faiths and ideologies must tolerate the existence of their rivals.

IV. Personal freedom. There should be a presumption, always and everywhere, against state coercion. We should tolerate eccentricity in others, almost to the point of lunacy, provided no one else is harmed.

V. Private property. Freedom must include the freedom to buy and sell without fear of confiscation, to transfer ownership, to sign contracts and have them enforced. Britain was quicker than most countries to recognise this and became, in consequence, one of the happiest and most prosperous nations on Earth.


VI. Institutions. British freedom and British character are immanent in British institutions. These are not, mostly, statutory bodies, but spring from the way free individuals regulate each other's conduct, and provide for their needs, without recourse to coercion.

VII. The family. Civic society depends on values being passed from generation to generation. Stable families are the essential ingredient of a stable society.

VIII. History. British children inherit a political culture, a set of specific legal rights and obligations, and a stupendous series of national achievements. They should be taught about these things.

IX. The English-speaking world. The atrocities of September 11, 2001, were not simply an attack on a foreign nation; they were an attack on the anglosphere - on all of us who believe in freedom, justice and the rule of law.

X. The British character. Shaped by and in turn shaping our national institutions is our character as a people: stubborn, stoical, indignant at injustice. "The Saxon," wrote Kipling, "never means anything seriously till he talks about justice and right."

Not for the first time, we have been slow - perhaps too slow - to wake up to the threat we face. Now is the time to "talk about justice and right", and to act on our words.

How do you understand the words of the author: “… statutory patriotism is an intrinsically un-British notion”?

In what way are the British ‘core values’ different from the core values of other nations, or are they?

LANGUAGE FILE to READING 1

Go to TEXT 2 and do the exercises that follow:Ex.1 In the text find words and expressions that match the following definitions:

shared by most people and regarded as normal or conventional to praise highly sth regarded as a perfect example of a particular quality to produce or generate a large number of a component part or element of something to be necessary for (someone) as a duty or responsibility a gradual advance beyond usual or acceptable limits to accept or act in accordance with a proposition that follows from one already proved to campaign to arouse public concern about an issue in the hope of prompting action to persuade (an unwilling person) to do something by using force or threats loyalty or commitment to a superior or of an individual to a group or cause to damage the purity or integrity of

Ex.2 Continue the strings of synonyms to the words in bold. Write 10 sentences to illustrate the collocations you could find for the words:to laud, praise, extol….paragon perfect example, model…ingredient constituent, component…


encroachment intrusion on, trespass on…to agitate, campaign, strive…to coerce pressure, pressurize, press…allegiance, loyalty, faithfulness…

Ex. 3 Explain and expand on:1. a patriotism which was not ashamed to fly the Union Flag2. For John Major it was concerned with warm beer and cricket on the village green; ‘back to

basics’;3. For Tony Blair it was about social justice and rebranding for the postmodern era: ‘Cool

Britannia’;4. integration is a two-way street5. He was, of course, on the campaign trail…6. But British culture cannot be cohesive..7. Toleration of the intolerant is distinctly un-British.8. …politicians have trod carefully along the via media between religious liberty and cultural

prohibition.9. It was a shared religious allegiance that permitted a sense of British national identity to

emerge.10. Of course, history is peppered with myth, sentiment and flights of fancy..11. We have a cohesive religious base, which is intrinsic to the national psyche12. It is not British to be subject to foreign parliaments or alien courts - temporal or spiritual

TOPICAL VOCABULARY LIST - 1

a set of valuesshared national valuesintrinsic, enduring, fundamental, moral, spiritual ~to adopt / embrace / acquire ~ to cherish / foster ~ to encourage national ~ to sacrifice one’s ~ to be committed to democratic ~ to codify ~

SPEAKING-1 Сlass Discussion + Individual Statements

The Russian Government has put the concept of a national vision for Russia back on the political agenda, arguing the need to fill the current "ideological vacuum" in the country. It is widely recognized that reforms had left Russia without a unifying theme. To fill this void, a new national idea should be constructed, one based on "patriotism in the most positive sense of the concept."What ideas can form the basis of the unifying theme in your country?Do traditional values help maintain order?Are family values equally important?


In a 2-minute statement suggest an idea for a unifying national theme (value) for your country. Consult MANUAL for guidelines on speaking

SPEAKING-2 Pair Work

1. In pairs make a list of personal values. Get ready to speak about two most important values that have shaped your life. Also think about specific ways they have benefited you in your life. Consider which one or two new values you would like to implement in your life.

2. The following is a list of values characteristic of either western or eastern culture. In pairs define which belongs where organizing them into opposing pairs:

honor achievementvalue restpassiveattempt to get some moreideal – being successfulfreedom of speechaccept what islove first, then marrywant to know meaningfreedom of silencewealth/poverty – results of enterpriselapse into meditationvalue activity marry first, then lovelearn to do with lessideal – love of lifewant to know how it worksassertiveretire to enjoy the rewards of your work honor austeritystrive for articulationcherish vitality of youth wealth & poverty – results of fortunecherish wisdom of yearsretire to enjoy the gift of your familyseek change

Analyse the lists, generalise the information and draw a conclusion.

PROJECT WORK

In your project you may want to develop one of the topics below or suggest your own: Great Britain: a republic or a constitutional monarchy? The ways in which Britain is different from the rest of Europe. Britain – an island nation How effective is the current British political/voting system?


Will English remain the world’s lingua franca? Does the Commonwealth serve its purpose? How has British culture influenced the world? People who influenced British history

Consult Annex 5 of the MANUAL for guidelines on Project Work

BRITISH CITIZENSHIP TEST

WOULD-BE BRITONS 'TO RECITE GOD SAVE THE QUEEN' FOR CITIZENSHIP TEST

Foreign nationals wishing to become British citizens will be required to know the first verse of God Save the Queen and key historic facts under a rewritten test, it has been claimed. Io

The new test focuses on the UK's culture and past rather than practical information, according to the Sunday Times.

Key battles, inventions, discoveries and culture form the base of the 45-minute test, which also requires applicants to memorise profiles of William Shakespeare and Sir Winston Churchill among others. The new test replaces the Life in the United Kingdom test introduced by the then Labour government in 2005, which included questions on welfare payments, borrowing money, dealing with the local council and the Human Rights Act.

A Home Office spokesperson commented: 'Putting our culture and history at the heart of the citizenship test will help ensure those permanently settling can understand British life, allowing them to properly integrate into our society.'

For getting a citizenship is the knowledge of the country’s history and culture more important than understanding social security schemes and being aware of one’s rights?

See how you can deal with some of the questions from the Life in the UK Practice Test:

1. When are general elections held in the UK?A. At least every yearB. At least every four yearsC. At least every five yearsD. At least every six years

2. How is it decided which party forms the Government?A. The members of the House of Lords vote for their preferred partyB. The party that wins the majority of the constituencies forms the GovernmentC. The party with the most candidates forms the GovernmentD. The party with the most votes forms the Government

3. How often does the Cabinet normally meet?A. Bi-weeklyB. DailyC. MonthlyD. Weekly

4. What politicians are members of the Shadow Cabinet?


A. Civil servants working in the GovernmentB. Peers from the House of LordsC. Senior members of the main opposition partyD. The remaining MPs in Government who are not in the Cabinet

5. What is the name of the system that governs how MPs are elected into the House of Commons?

A. Electoral College systemB. First past the post systemC. Proportional representation systemD. Absolute majority

6. What is the name of the official record of proceedings in Parliament?A. HansardB. Parliament NewsC. The RecorderD. Westminster hour

7. What are the roles of the Whips in Parliament? Select two correct roles from below:A. Responsible for discipline in their partyB. Ensure attendance of MPs at voting time in the House of CommonsC. Ensure the House of Commons is always safe and secureD. Keep order in the House of Commons during political debates

8. How many parliamentary constituencies are there?A. 464B. 564C. 646D. 664

9. A by-election is held A. Half-way through the life of a ParliamentB. Every two yearsC. When an MP dies or resignsD. When the Prime minister decides to call one

10. What is an important ceremonial role that the King or Queen performs?

A. Chairing proceedings of the House of LordsB. Meeting weekly with Prime MinisterC. Opening of a new parliamentary sessionD. Voting in the House of Commons in case of a tie

11. Who is the monarch not allowed to marry? A. Anyone who is not of royal blood

B. Anyone who is not a Protestant C. Anyone who is under the age of 25 D. Anyone who was born outside the UK 12. When did all 18-year-olds get the vote? A. 1918 B. 1928 C. 1939D. 1969

13. When did the UK join the European Union?


A. 1965B. 1973C. 1989D. The UK is not a member of the EU

14. What is the name of the patron saint of Scotland?A. St AndrewB. St DavidC. St GeorgeD. St Patrick

15. What flower is traditionally worn by people on Remembrance Day?A. PoppyB. LilyC. DaffodilD. Iris

READING-2 (Famous Brits)

Read the article about the legacy of Margaret Thatcher. Take a look at the italicized word combinations, explain and expand on them. Search the Internet for the background information on the asterisked items

NOW ESPECIALLY, THE WORLD NEEDS TO HOLD FAST TO MARGARET THATCHER’S PRINCIPLES

April 13, 2013The Economist

ONLY a handful of peacetime politicians can claim to have changed the world. Margaret Thatcher was one. She transformed not just her own Conservative Party, but the whole of British politics. Her enthusiasm for privatisation launched a global revolution and her willingness to stand up to tyranny helped to bring down the Berlin wall. Winston Churchill won a war, but he never created an “-ism”.

The essence of Thatcherism was to oppose the status quo and bet on freedom—odd, since as a prim, upwardly mobile striver, she was in some ways the embodiment of conservatism. She thought nations could become great only if individuals were set free. Unlike Churchill’s famous pudding*, her struggles had a theme: the right of individuals to run their own lives, as free as possible from micromanagement by the state.

In her early years in politics, economic liberalism was in retreat, the Soviet Union was extending its empire, and Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek* were dismissed as academic eccentrics. In Britain the government hobnobbed with trade unions (“beer and sandwiches in Number 10*”) and handed out subsidies to failing nationalized industries and primed the pump through Keynesian demand management. To begin with the ambitious young politician went along with this consensus. But the widespread notion that politics should be “the management of decline” made her blood boil. The ideas of Friedman and Hayek persuaded her that things could be different.


Most of this radicalism was hidden from the British electorate that voted her into office in 1979, largely in frustration with Labour’s ineptitude. What followed was an economic revolution. She privatized state industries, refused to negotiate with the unions, abolished state controls, broke the striking miners and replaced Keynesianism with Friedman’s monetarism. The inflation rate fell from a high of 27% in 1975 to 2.4% in 1986. The number of working days lost to strikes fell from 29m in 1979 to 2m in 1986. The top rate of tax fell from 83% to 40%.

Her battles with the left—especially the miners—gave her a reputation as a blue-rinse Boadicea*. But she was just as willing to clobber the right, sidelining old-fashioned Tory “wets” and unleashing her creed on conservative strongholds, notably by setting off the “big bang” in the City of London. Many of her pithiest put-downs were directed at her own side: “U-turn if you want to,” she told the Conservatives as unemployment passed 2m. “The lady’s not for turning.” She told George Bush senior: “This is no time to go wobbly!” Ronald Reagan was her soulmate but lacked her sharp elbows and hostility to deficits.

She might not be for turning, but she knew how to compromise. She seized on Mikhail Gorbachev as a man she “could do business with” despite warnings from American hawks. She backed down from a battle with the miners in 1981, waiting until she had built up sufficient reserves of coal three years later. For all her talk about reforming the welfare state, the public sector consumed almost the same proportion of GDP when she left office as when she came to it.

She was also often outrageously lucky: lucky that the striking miners were led by Arthur Scargill, a hardline Marxist; lucky that the British left fractured and insisted on choosing unelectable leaders; lucky that General Galtieri decided to invade the Falkland Islands when he did; lucky that she was a tough woman in a system dominated by patrician men (the wets never knew how to cope with her); lucky in the flow of North Sea oil; and above all lucky in her timing. The post-war consensus was ripe for destruction, and a host of new forces, from personal computers to private equity, aided her more rumbustious form of capitalism.

The verdict of historyCriticism of her comes in two forms. First, that she could have done more had she

wielded her handbag more deftly. Hatred, it is true, sometimes blinded her. Infuriated by the antics of left-wing local councils, she ended up centralizing power in Whitehall. Her hostility to Eurocrats undermined her campaign to stop the drift of power to Brussels. Her stridency, from her early days as “Thatcher the milk snatcher*” to her defenestration by her own party, was divisive. Under her the Conservatives shrank from a national force to a party of the rich south. Tony Blair won several elections by offering Thatcherism without the rough edges.

The second criticism addresses the substance of Thatcherism. Her reforms, it is said, sowed the seeds of the recent economic crisis. Without Thatcherism, the big bang would not have happened. Financial services would not make up such a large slice of the British economy and the country would not now be struggling under the burden of individual debt caused by excessive borrowing and government debt caused by the need to bail out the banks. Some of this is true; but then without Thatcherism Britain’s economy would still be mired in state control, the commanding heights of its economy would be owned by the government and militant unions would be a power in the land.

Because of the crisis, the pendulum is swinging dangerously away from the principles Mrs Thatcher espoused. In most of the rich world, the state’s share of the economy has stubbornly risen. Regulations—excessive as well as necessary—are tying up the private sector. Businesspeople are under scrutiny as they have not been for 30 years and bankers are everyone’s


favourite bogeyman. And with the rise of China state control, not economic liberalism, is being hailed as a model for emerging markets.

For a world in desperate need of growth, this is the wrong direction. Europe will never thrive until it frees up its markets. America will throttle its recovery unless it avoids overregulation. China will not sustain its success unless it starts to liberalise. This is a crucial time to hang on to Margaret Thatcher’s central perception: that for countries to flourish, people need to push back against the advance of the state. What the world needs now is more Thatcherism, not less.

Reading Notes:*Milton Friedman - was an American economist and writer. He was a

recipient of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, and is known for his research on consumption analysis, monetary history and theory. A survey of economists ranked Friedman as the second most popular economist of the 20th century after John Maynard Keynes."

Friedrich Hayek - an Austrian, later British, economist and philosopher best known for his defense of classical liberalism. In 1974, Hayek shared the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences (with Gunnar Myrdal) for his "pioneering work in the theory of money and economic fluctuations and ... penetrating analysis of the interdependence of economic, social and institutional phenomena"

LANGUAGE FILE to Reading 2

Ex.1 Choose nouns from the list that follows that collocate with the verbs below. Give as many synonyms to the verbs as you can.disease, arms race, rage, change, influence, emotions, conflict, a cause, authority, war, a bomb, recession, retirement, a way of life, aggression, a case, principles, charges, power, terror, angerto espouseto be ripe forto be mired into stand up to

to dismissto wieldto unleashto set off

Ex.2 Fill the gaps with the verbs from the previous exercise according to sense and collocability patterns

1. After weeks of confrontation with police “silent standing” ______ a new wave of protests in Turkey.

2. There is no doubt that the leaders of the world's eight largest economies still ______ enormous power.

3. Most of the eurozone remains ______ a severe recession – now spreading from the periphery to parts of the core.

4. As a society, we must ______ terrorism and not allow fear and anxiety to dominate our lives.


5. Blair saw the Quartet role as a continuation of the principles he had ______ as prime minister.

6. Nato today ______ accusations by Amnesty International that it committed war crimes during its air war against Kosovo and Serbia.

7. The time is not yet _____ settlement in Scotland.8. Demonstrators gathered outside the Cypriot parliament to ______ their anger at bailout

tax proposals.

Ex.3 Translate the following sentences into English using collocations from Ex.1

1. Президент США Барак Обама заявил Конгрессу, что пришло время реформировать иммиграционную систему.

2. Она отказывается регистрироваться в социальных сетях, называя их пустой тратой времени.

3. Все политические силы, пользующиеся влиянием в обществе, по итогам выборов в Армении оказалась в парламенте.

4. Только после победы в решающей партии сдержанные игроки сборной Швеции дали волю чувствам.

5. Согласно результатам проведенного исследования 47% опрошенных молодых людей не разделяют политических взглядов своих родителей.

6. Греция погрязла в политических распрях и спустя неделю после выборов правительство по-прежнему не сформировано.

7. На Филиппинах снос городских трущоб вызвал целую волну протестов.8. Хотя армия готова противостоять агрессии врага, но конфликт должен быть решен

мирным путем

SPEAKING-3 Team Work + Individual Statements

In 2010 the BBC conducted a television poll to determine whom the United Kingdom public considered the greatest British people in history. The poll resulted in nominees including Guy Fawkes, who was executed for trying to blow up the Parliament of England; Oliver Cromwell who created a republican England and Richard III, suspected of murdering his nephews. Diana, Princess of Wales was judged to be a greater historical British figure than William Shakespeare by BBC respondents to the survey. The highest-ranked then living person was Margaret Thatcher, who placed 16th. Perhaps the most surprising high entry was Isambard Kingdom Brunel, whose 2nd place was due largely to "students from Brunel University who have been campaigning vigorously for the engineer for weeks."

In teams make your own list of 5 people known for their unparalleled contribution in changing the course of history.

FOLLOW-UP:Go to the full list of 100 Greatest Britons Choose the person

whose contribution to British history in your opinion is the greatest. Get ready with a 3-minute statement making the case for your choice.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_Greatest_Britons.

READING-3 (British Class System)

Pre-reading: What is social class? Do class divisions exist only in monarchical societies? Do democratic societies recognize classes?Read the texts and answer the questions that follow:

TEXT 1ABOUT THE GREAT BRITISH CLASS

www.bbc.co.uk/labuk/articles/class/It's said that the British are obsessed with class, but does the

traditional hierarchy of ‘working’, ‘middle’ and ‘upper’ class really exist anymore? And does social class even matter in 21st century Britain?

Can a Victorian system still be relevant today?The labels ‘working’, ‘middle’ and ‘upper’ first appeared in the 19th

century as a way of classifying the sharp social differences that arose in Britain as it led the world in the Industrial Revolution. But can a Victorian system designed to describe the relationship between industrial workers, managers and owners still be relevant today?

We simply don’t know. It’s clear that social divisions have far from disappeared, and the traditional language of class still pervades public affairs, shapes political thinking, and influences our personal careers. So what does class really mean in Britain in the 21st century?

It used to be thought that social class was defined by the occupation. Teachers or doctors, for instance, have different income levels, job security, and social experiences than ambulance drivers or gardeners.

Another way of putting this is to say that people in professional occupations have different lifestyles to people who earn money by physical labour. But our economy and our lifestyles have changed profoundly since these categories were invented, so this may no longer hold true.

Indeed, some sociologists have come to see classification by occupation as too simplistic, and argue that social class actually has three dimensions: economic, social, and cultural. To measure an individual’s ‘resources’ in each of these dimensions, sociologists look at many factors which can collectively be referred to as ‘capital’.

Economic capital is about wealth (your occupation, earnings, assets and savings).

Social capital is about social connections (the sort of people you know, how many people you know and whether you are engaged in any organised groups, like political parties, sports teams, shared hobbies or social clubs)

Cultural Capital is about interests. (your education, your participation in cultural activities and how you like to spend your free time)


Policy makers tend to focus primarily on the economic dimension of class. Concepts like progressive taxation (taxing richer people more heavily than poorer people) are a good example of this.

Increasingly, the social dimension of class is receiving some attention, with initiatives to improve networking opportunities for people who are otherwise socially excluded.

But the cultural aspect of class has so far largely been ignored, perhaps because it is a broad yet subtle concept that can be difficult to measure. The problem is, if we don’t measure it, we can’t know how important it is and how much it influences people’s chances in life.

There is strong evidence to suggest social class divisions have not disappeared from British life. Indeed, there is some evidence that class matters more in contemporary Britain than it did a couple of decades ago. And the global financial crisis and subsequent recession may even have acted to make class divisions more, rather than less defined.

Do you agree that nowadays a class can be defined by the occupation? Which of the capitals in your opinion is central to shaping a class?

TEXT 2SOCIAL MOBILITY: IS IT THE POLITICAL ISSUE OF OUR TIME OR A

SMOKESCREEN?August 21, 2012http://canvas.union.shef.ac.uk

Economies are evaluated in regard to what extent where you are born determines where you end up. In a culture which values people’s talents and hard work, social mobility is an indication of whether society is succeeding in ensuring that skills and effort, and not background, allow people to progress. Social mobility is the key to a society which is ostensibly meritocratic. If social mobility is low it suggests either that there are factors other than an individual’s talents (such as a rigid class structure) affecting people’s life chances or it means that the education system is not ensuring those from poorer backgrounds gain the skills necessary for success in a capitalist economy. Social mobility acts as an indication of whether an education system is working and whether professions are open to those from diverse backgrounds. If a public education system is succeeding in helping the worst off then you will see a more socially mobile society.

The concept of social mobility is predicated on a hierarchy of incomes or professions. There are professions such as law and business management, which are economically distinct from shelf stacking and fishing. Social mobility works on the condition that there are classes of jobs which pay significantly better whilst there are other classes of jobs which pay less. It is social mobility’s aim to ensure that people can move between these socio economic groups.


The aim of intergenerational social mobility is to enable those born to parents in poorer income bands move into better-paid jobs. Social mobility has such widespread support as a societal aim, because a society in which people can end up in better paid and arguably more desirable jobs seems fair.

Furthermore, social mobility ensures that professions include those from diverse backgrounds. Many people argue that it is important that professions like law, journalism and politics are not simply middle class professions. This is because people from poorer backgrounds may have particular experiences, which will improve those industries. For example, a journalist from a working class background may understand certain news better than journalists from middle class backgrounds.

However, social mobility has been criticised, at least to the extent it acts as a smokescreen to other issues. Social mobility inherently involves individuals from one class moving to another class. Marxist commentators have pointed out that this has several drawbacks. Firstly, social mobility is ultimately unworkable. No society can have every single person join the higher paid jobs. There are not enough of these jobs and society requires people to be in working class jobs. How would society function without nurses, cleaners and workers?

This connects to a further criticism. The Marxist philosopher G.A. Cohen argued that the working class as a whole are unfree to move between classes. Although some people can move between classes it is true that there are not enough opportunities for the whole of the working class to leave. There are simply not enough jobs – there is only the opportunity to leave for a minority of individuals. Instead Cohen argues we should accept the principle ‘I want to rise with my class, not above my class.’ By this, Cohen means we should strive to improve the conditions of the less well off rather than seek to ensure that only a few gain better standards of living by moving class.

Another criticism of social mobility is that it is not a reality. Some people contend that it is impossible for any individual to move between classes. This argument is falsified by the evidence because there are many examples of people not ending up in the same economic position they were born in.

Although Cohen’s criticism is a strong one it is still the case that social mobility is very important within society. People should not be constrained by their background. If young people born in poverty want to become doctors or lawyers then it is important that society allows them to. Even if it is the case that only a minority of people from the poorest background are able to leave, a fair society would be one which allows the people who want to end up somewhere differently in life to do so. Everyone has different talents and ambitions and the extent to which one achieves success with them should not be determined by birth.


Give your own definition of what social mobility is. Say, if in your understanding social mobility is directly linked to education. Is Marxist criticism of social mobility justified?


hierarchy of classsocial differences / divisionsto have different lifestyle to other peopleeconomic, social and cultural dimensions of classto improve networking opportunities (возможности для налаживания контактов)socially excluded people (ant. social inclusion)to affect/influence people’s life chancesthe importance of social mobilityto value people’s talents and hard workto ensure that skills and effort allow people to progressmeritocratic societyto affect people’s life chancesfrom poorer background / diverse backgroundto be constrained by background

SPEAKING - 4 Class Discussion

1. In teams make a list of factors (lifts) that promote social mobility. Rank them from the most to the least efficient. Present your lists to the class.

2. What is downshifting? Why do people choose to downshift? Is it at all a matter of choice?

READING-4 (British Monarchy)

Pre-reading: Think of the arguments monarchists would give in support of the institution.Read the text and say if in your opinion monarchy is an outdated institution. Give your reasons.

TEXT 1OUTDATED, UNDEMOCRATIC OR MERELY ANCIENT?

by George Richards, David Jeffery, Nathan Tanswell and Ben Mackaywww.theroyalarticles.com

Notions of political systems being antiquated or outmoded by modernity are fallacy. After all, today's existing systems of government- constitutional monarchies, republics, absolute monarchies, and outright dictatorships- have in fact existed since antiquity and taken many, many


forms. Some political systems- such as the (unwritten) constitutional monarchy of Great Britain or the republican system of San Marino (not short of pomp or tradition) - evolved over many centuries, but modern notions of liberal democracy as most understand it date back to such events as the Glorious Revolution of 1688, the American Revolution, and the French Revolution, even though such systems of government could be found in Ancient Greece and Rome. Thus any notion of a political system being more modern and relevant than the rest does not hold much weight.

Let's ask the question if monarchies impede true democracy and equality. The constitutional monarchies of the Low Countries and Scandinavia happen to be some of the most tolerant and equitable societies in the world. And all this while the monarchies of these countries provide unity, continuity and safeguard the political system. Europe over the 20th century experienced some particularly traumatic changes through World War I, World War II and the Cold War. And such changes are too fresh in the minds of many to want to make serious changes. Indeed, one can learn from the experiences of Portugal, Germany and Austria, where the demise of those monarchies was profoundly destabilising, and indeed may have contributed to the rise of totalitarianism. Because of this, it is unlikely that most people would want to change something that works. Far from losing relevance, monarchies are as relevant as ever in serving as a tent pole of society and nation.

Though even 20 years after the end of the Cold War, there are some countries still dealing with the legacy of the not so distant past. It's in places like Serbia and Georgia where monarchist sentiment has arisen in response to these issues. Both are countries which have had particularly demoralising experiences, where the current political class and system inspire very little in a way of trust and confidence.

But how having an elected head of state is any better alternative. Such a position can never claim to be free of partisan influence, whether chosen directly or indirectly. And while Americans may trumpet their presidential republic, it is a system with serious flaws- namely that an elected head of state can never truly represent everybody, and is very often a divisive figure. There is no tent pole around which people can rally and look to for moral authority and unity. It's an important issue to consider in the current political climate which has become increasingly polarised and unpleasant. This is where the qualities of a monarchy, where a monarch is not affiliated with a political movement and is expected to have been prepared for the job from the beginning, and will look out for the best interests of the nation and its people, as opposed to elected leaders who have become increasingly preoccupied with gaining and retaining power.

History shows that monarchies have not impeded the move towards greater democracy and social justice, as Scandinavia and the Low Countries have demonstrated. There have been, of course, rare exceptions of monarchies which have failed to do so- and the only European monarchies


which have ever been abolished by popular vote have been Italy and Greece, arising out of exceptional circumstances. Luxembourg, on the other hand, had voted overwhelmingly to retain its monarchy after World War I ended. A monarch who performs the tasks they are required to admirably can win respect and love from all, regardless of their political affiliation, affluence or background, because of the continuity and history they represent. An elected head of state cannot do that and very few have proven exceptional, such as Germany's Richard von Weizsäcker. Those statesmen who can inspire and captivate are very rare indeed. A monarchy is far more able to inspire and capture the imagination of the people. Who would you be more likely to respect- an exemplary and gracious monarch like Margrethe II of Denmark, a symbol of a historic democratic transition like Juan Carlos of Spain... or politicians whose opinions polarise and have vested interests behind them?

Compare this with the history of the United States, where moves towards greater equality- whether abolishing slavery, ending segregation, or even more recently the establishment of universal healthcare- have often met with fierce opposition. Yet the German Empire had introduced universal male suffrage from the very beginning, and subsequently the world's first welfare state.

The other irony that is often lost on critics of monarchy is the fact that the republics of Latin America, who took pride in their republicanism and their rejection of monarchy, proved to be anything but models of democracy or equality. In most of these countries, dictatorship and human rights violations were widespread, and indeed it has only been the last quarter of a century that democracy and free elections have been the rule rather than the exception, or even efforts to address the inequities. And even there, such efforts face fierce resistance. In fact, with few exceptions, most of the most undemocratic regimes of recent history have not been monarchies. There, as in many other places, one can find that elected institutions are not always held in high regard by the population. Do you really want to give more power to such people? And what costs? The costs of monarchies are often talked about but not particularly large in the greater scheme of things- and indeed politicians and elections do cost the taxpayer, and even more so in more fragile democracies.

At this moment, the Middle East is experiencing a profound change which may be comparable to the experiences of Europe of previous eras. And the people of the Arab world will have to consider what sort of political system will work for them. One hopes they can think long and hard and learn from past examples. Even there, most of the Arab world's monarchies have not fared so badly thus far, in comparison to some of the dictatorships that have been or will be ousted.

All these explain why I am a committed monarchist. While I follow the lives of today's royals and study royal history, I came to my position on the issue through much thought and observation. And many critics of monarchy and royalty clearly have not put such thought into that. I think it can be


safely concluded that a republic does not automatically represent greater democracy, progress or equality than a constitutional monarchy.


Advantages/merits/benefits - disadvantages/demerits/faults of monarchyto impede true democracy and equalityto retain/preserve - to abolish/jettison/do away with monarchyto provide unity, continuityto represent historyto safeguard the political systemthe rise of monarchist sentiment to look to sb. for moral authority and unitynot to be affiliated with a political movement to look out for the best interests of the nation and its peopleto win respect and love from all, regardless of their political affiliation, affluence or background to stand the test of centuriesto defy the principle of equality and meritocracyto exercise little powerto embody central authorityto keep politicians in their placeto be duty-bound to uphold the democratic orderto command respectto feel loyalty for sb.to delegate duties to sb.to espouse many worthy causesto give sb. an enhanced social roleto be a unifying national symbol and a vital historical linkto waive powersto be bound by traditionto be evenhandedto add dignity and historical relevance to state occasions

SPEAKING-5 Pair Work

In pairs draft the lists of the merits and the demerits of monarchy. Decide which outweigh which? Give your arguments. Present your findings to the class using phrases from the Topical Vocabulary List-3.

READING 5: Reading for Summary

Read the text paying special attention to its structure. Read the text again making notes of the main ideas and arguments of the author.

WHY MONARCHY?


Paul JamesJanuary 30, 2005

We live in the 21st century, the age of democracy and equality of opportunity. We elect our leaders and hold them accountable to our representatives and to the law. Despite all this, a significant proportion of the World's democracies have as their head of state an unelected, hereditary monarch, chosen by nothing more representative or accountable than chance of birth, and normally removable by nothing other than death. The status of these individuals defies the principle of equality and meritocracy. Why do we continue to accept it? What does monarchy give us that makes this apparent anachronism worth preserving?

Part of the answer probably lies in the principle “if it ain't broke, don't fix it.” In Europe, monarchies have survived in countries which have remained relatively stable over long periods, evolving gradually into modern democracies, evolving the monarchy along with them. In their cases, there has been no sudden or radical shift in political philosophy, leaving the monarchy floundering as a symbol of the old and discredited regime. Monarchies have fallen as a result of revolution, invasion, or catastrophic defeat in war, but never (in Europe) through a lawfully taken decision of a legislature or constitutional process where no wider major conflicts were involved.

Whatever faults the British monarchy may have, they don’t appear to be enough to warrant its removal, or enough to outweigh the benefits. There are various constitutional and political arguments which may underline the benefits of its existence. Not all the arguments which apply to the British monarchy will apply to others (or even to other realms of Her Britannic Majesty), but I will concentrate here on the British arguments.

The constitutional argument puts the monarch at the centre of the state. Although she exercises very little power at her own discretion, the Queen is the central cog in the machinery of state, the common link between executive, legislature, judiciary, civil service, military, church and other institutions, and keeps them all working. The Crown embodies the central authority under which these other bodies operate; it gives the final stamp of approval, the Royal Assent, to legislation. In a country without a written constitution, the Crown is the source of all state authority (although it is still subject to the law of the land – its authority is not absolute). The authority, and those who exercise it, could be codified in writing, and the particular functions of the Head of State granted to a President, but we would lose the flexibility of a constitution which can evolve to meet changing circumstances without the difficulties of a formal, and sometimes difficult, amendment process.

The existence of a hereditary monarch keeps the politicians in their place. However eminent a Prime Minister may become, he is always subject to a higher personal authority. Ambition, politicking and intrigue can never take someone to the highest office in the land, and he can never aggrandise himself by claiming to be the head and ultimate representative of the nation. A British Prime Minister can be verbally mauled in the legislature, and summarily


dismissed by it, with a level of disrespect which few nations would be happy to show to their Head of State, but might like to inflict on their lesser politicians. Although, in practice, it is always the politicians who give the orders and run the country, if they go far beyond their authority, others can, in theory, defy them by claiming allegiance to the higher authority of the Crown, which is duty-bound to uphold the democratic order without personal interest or favour. This argument has never been put to the test in the UK, and has had mixed success elsewhere.

Proponents of a republic might argue that their head of state has at least been chosen by the people, and so has a right to command their respect, but the flip-side of that is that every elected president was opposed by a sizable section of the population, which may feel little loyalty or respect for the man they didn't want to represent it. While it is true that nobody ever voted for Elizabeth II, it is equally the case that not one person has ever rejected her at the ballot box either. While we have a vague idea where she stands on some issues, we don't really know her views in the way in which we would with a politician or ex-politician, and it is difficult to feel resentment towards a person who has never imposed, or attempted to impose, an unpopular policy on anyone. Personal loyalty is easier to achieve, and personal loyalty perhaps has more resonance than loyalty to an inanimate flag or amorphous state.

That loyalty is also easier to feel towards people with whom one has been familiar all one's life. With only the gradual changes of births and deaths, the Royal Family has always been with us, without the constant changes which come with elections every few years. By the same token, members of the Royal Family know from an early age that their lives will be ones of public duty, and are brought up in that ethos, in a way which a private citizen is usually not. As a result, they rarely go wrong in their public role, even though they may be no more successful than the rest of us in achieving ideal private lives.

“Monarchy” means rule by one person, but modern monarchies can offer more than the services of one person, or one person plus a spouse, because they are supported by a royal family. The Queen alone is responsible for the constitutional functions of the monarch, but she can delegate other duties (such as investitures) when necessary to other members of the family, all as well-known and familiar as herself. Part of what gives constitutional monarchy an enhanced social role is its ability to espouse many worthy causes, and take the time to attend events and functions without having to take time out of the essential job of running the country to do so; and that role is greatly enhanced further by the fact that there are a number of princes and princesses to carry it out. By contrast, an individual non-executive President in a parliamentary republic is more limited in number of roles he can play and causes he can espouse.

As well as the familiarity with the members of today’s monarchy, the Crown also gives a sense of continuity with the past, in a way which a very modern institution doesn’t, and in a more personalized way than a non-hereditary, older institution can. It is instinctively conservative, and can preserve and represent traditions which date back centuries; its current representatives are the descendants of its former ones, and its family continuity over centuries enhances the sense of identity with a nation’s own history and culture.

The nation wouldn’t fall apart without the monarchy. Its culture isn’t entirely dependent on royalty, and ways can be found to preserve traditions and handle the constitutional issues which its absence would create (in fact, some would argue that such issues would be better dealt with through a written constitution, with clearly defined powers for the institutions of state). Because of its enduring nature, its importance can be romantically overemphasized. It’s not an institution which could be created today embodying all the features which give it its distinctive


character, because its history is part of what makes it distinctive. But given that it exists and that it enhances the character of the nation, it would be a shame to lose it.

WRITING: Summary

Now write a summary of the article Why Monarchy? by Paul James following the summary-writing technique (see MANUAL for the guidelines)

PROFICIENCY FILE

Multiple choice lexical cloze…On British Monarchy

I must say, I can’t understand the (1) .......... of the British nation toward the royal family. For years - shall I be candid here for a moment? - I thought they were insupportably boring and only marginally attractive, but everybody in England adored them. Then when, by a small (2) ……...., they finally started doing arresting and erratic things and started making the News of the World on merit— when, in a (3) ……....., they finally became interesting—the whole nation was suddenly saying, "Shocking. Let's get rid of them." Only that week, I had watched with open mouth a television program in which four (4) …….... of British intellectual life sat around discussing whether the nation should (5) ............ with Prince Charles and leapfrog to little Prince William. If you are going to have a system of hereditary privilege, then surely you have to take what (6) .......... comes your way no matter how ponderous the poor fellow may be.

1. A. feeling В. attitudes С. contacts D. attachment2. A. miracle В. way С. chance D. surprise3. A. time В. minute С. wonder D. word4. A. characters В. figures С. pillars D. cornerstones5. A. side В. dispense С. do away D. cope6. A. gives В. goes С. is D. comes

Open clozeNotes from a Small Island (excerpt)

...Daniel's, the most interesting department store in Britain, always puts me (1) …....... mind of what Britain might have been like (2) …….... communism.It has long seemed to me unfortunate—and I'm taking the global view here—that such an important experiment (3) .......... social organization was left to the Russians when the British clearly would have managed it so much better. All those things that are necessary (4) …….... the successful implementation of a rigorous socialist system are, after all, second nature (5) …….... the British. (6) …….... a start, they like going without. They are great (7) …….... pulling together, particularly (8) ..... the face of adversity, (9) .......... a perceived common good. They will queue patiently for indefinite periods and accept (10) .......... rare fortitude the imposition of rationing, bland diets, and sudden inconvenient shortages of staple goods. They are comfortable (11) .......... faceless bureaucracies and, as Mrs. Thatcher proved, tolerant (12) …….... dictatorships. They will wait uncomplainingly for years for an operation or the delivery of a household appliance. They have a natural gift for making excellent, muttered jokes (13) ……....


authority without ever actually challenging it, and they derive universal satisfaction from the sight of the rich and powerful brought low. Most of those (14) …….... the age of twenty-five already dress like East Germans. The conditions, (15) …….... a word, are right.

Please understand I'm not saying that Britain would have been a happier, better place (16) …….... communism, merely that the British would have done it properly. They would have taken it (17) .......... stride, (18) …….... good heart, and without excessive cheating. (19) …….... point of fact, (20) ..... about 1970 it wouldn't have made the slightest discernible difference to most people's lives.

Word formation

From The Times June 15, 2007Brown Will Put Reform Of The Lords On Back Burner

Peter RiddellThe reform of the House of Lords has been put off, again. Gordon Brown has decided that this is a “manifesto issue”, not a matter for early legislation in this Parliament.There has been a pause since the Commons voted three months ago for a wholly elected second chamber, and the Lords for a wholly appointed one. The problem is less this stalemate than the many (1) .......... questions. A meeting last month of the Cabinet committee on constitutional affairs (known as CA and chaired by Jack Straw, the Leader of the Commons) decided that a lot more work needs to be done. This was also the (2) .......... view of the cross-party group on Lords reform.At heart is the familiar dilemma over the balance between composition and powers: the more elected members there are, the more assertive the reformed House is likely to be. How can the supremacy of the Commons be (3) ..........? How will differences between the Houses be reconciled without gridlock? Also, what system will be used to elect members? If it is a regional list system asking voters to choose between groups drawn up by the parties, won’t party managers have effectively the same powers of patronage as under appointment? How will life peers be phased out?Mr Straw has been asked to prepare options for both an 80 and 100 per cent elected House. The main (4) .......... preference is still for the former (with the balance coming largely from nonparty peers), (5) .......... since the majority for a (6) .......... elected chamber was inflated by “wrecking” votes by supporters of an appointed House.A statement is (7) .......... before the end of July, promising further consultations and yet another White Paper. Specific proposals will then be set out in the next Labour manifesto. Including a detailed plan in the manifesto would be in order to (8) ..........any resistance in the Lords after the next election.Mr Brown has, for some time, been inclined to take this approach. This is partly because he does not want his government to be bogged down in a time-consuming battle in the Lords. But he is also keen for the future of the Lords to be considered as part of the (9) .......... debate on reviving constitutional reform.In the interim, the Government is keeping a close eye on a Private Member’s Bill put forward by Lord Steel of Aikwood, the former Liberal leader, which is due to have its second reading on July 20. It would prevent the remaining 92 hereditary

resolve

dominate

shrine

ministerspecialwhole

like

come

wide


peers from being (10) .......... through by-elections, put the appointments commission on a statutory basis and make it responsible for selecting new peers.Ministers support some of these aims, but fear the Bill risks preempting the question of election: along the lines that since anomalies have been removed, why do any more? But there is still momentum for change: elections could start around the time of the London Olympics

place

*Explain the meaning of the underlined words, translate them into Russian

Gapped sentences 1. Checks and balances guard against undue concentrations of power and make certain

that all the interests are properly taken into ..........Plato gave an .......... of how aristocratic government declines. These are the funds in the process of being transferred from one customer's .......... to

another.2. The party's failure hit her pretty hard and while she was .......... to comfort her husband,

it was he that ended up comforting her.The views of people like Ashley were .......... very clearly by their own class experiences.This ballot is about the right of our members to have their pay .......... by free collective

bargaining and not by government diktat.3. When we draw a picture of a planet's orbit we show the Sun, of course, and a single

line around it in the .......... of an ellipse.A few seconds later she disappeared: as the cloud changed .......... and then vanishedWith the team still taking new .........., Arsenal reached the Cup final for the first time in

19274. True, there is a hard .......... of youngsters who are totally beyond the control of their

parents or the social servicesAt the .......... of this debate is the threat of reductions in public funding at a time when

cutting the government's colossal budget deficit is a national priority.Yes, quality training will be needed which addresses the .......... values and the health and

safety perceptions that are the key to our success.5. The slowly evolving British family leaves a more discernible impact on women's

employment than the possible .......... influence of women's earning opportunities on family formation.

Often the paintings appear to be signed on the .......... and occasionally a date is inscribed there also.

The Gulf war can be viewed as an attempt to .......... the irreversible.6. If the Government were serious about this matter, would they not .......... some of the

obstacles that now stand in the way of successful prosecutions of the Theft Act?It is essential that engineers are in a position to demonstrate that they have carried out

their professional responsibilities and have acted to .......... or reduce risks to acceptable levels.Perhaps it may even spur them to have a rethink and .......... the threat of closure from

many wonderful facilities up and down the country.

Key word transformations1. The present government has never promised to lower taxation. (time)


At __________ promised to lower taxation.

2. William tried to remain impartial in the quarrel between his cousins. (sides)William tried __________ in the quarrel between his cousins.

3. I really enjoy reading, but sometimes I feel like doing something more active. (times)Much __________ I prefer to do something more active.

4. The president only made his formal announcement after the publication of the leaked information. (still)

Not until the leaked information __________ his formal announcement.

5. Without your support, I would never have been able to find a new job. (still)If it hadn’t __________ doing my old job.

6. The villagers said they opposed the plans for the new shopping center. (disapproval)The villagers __________ the plans for the new shopping centre.

7. The prime Minister resigned because of his sudden illness. (resulted)The Prime Minister __________his sudden illness.

8. The news of the merger came as a complete surprise to the workers. (aback)The workers __________ the news of the merger.

British Eccentricities Quiz

By J. B. MorrisAll the situations below describe ways in which England is different from the rest of Europe.

A. English taps in bathrooms and kitchens are different from the ones used in Europe. In England they have two taps — a hot and cold tap on each side of the basin, instead of one tap with which you can mix the temperature of the water. Why?

1. It is law: taps must be different because hot and cold water comes from different reservoirs. Hot water, because it is for washing only, is not treated with chemicals. You can only drink from the cold tap.

2. Hot water is heated in a tank in the roof of the house. Cold water comes straight from a pipe under the street. The pressure of the water is different and so it's difficult to use a mixer tap.

3. English people are used to very cold water (try swimming when you next visit the UK!). They don't need mixer taps!

B. In most countries, cars drive on the right side of the road. In England (and a few former colonies) they drive on the left-hand side of the road. Why?

1. Because of Napoleon. Most countries drove on the left in the past because when passing someone it is easier to shake hands or draw a sword against an enemy. England was the only place Napoleon didn't invade, everywhere else he forced people to drive on the right.

2. The government wants to protect the British car industry from foreign competitors. Driving on the left, makes foreign cars expensive - they have to change the position of the steering wheel. British cars are therefore cheaper.


3. It is safer to drive on the left. Statistics prove that the brain can work better when the driver is changing gear with the left hand and looking to the right at the other traffic.

C. The English police do not carry guns. They are the only police force in the world not to be armed. Why?

1. In the old English constitution there is a law that says the police can carry swords, but not guns. The constitution has never been updated.

2. All British policemen and women are trained in judo, karate and other martial arts. They don't need guns as their arms and legs are deadly weapons and they wear bulletproof vests.

3. The police don't need guns. Criminals don't have many guns, and it is difficult to buy guns, even illegally, in Britain. If the police started using guns, then criminals would also arm themselves and more people would die.

D. The BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation), channels of British TV do not show any adverts — only programmes. Why?

1. Everybody who owns a television set in the UK has to pay 110 pounds a year for a license. The money from this license is given to the BBC and so they don't need to raise money from adverts.

2. Each programme is made by different companies like McDonalds or Pepsi. These companies are allowed to put their products in the programmes for people to see (a newsreader drinks Pepsi on the screen, an actor eats a hamburger). The companies then give the programmes to the BBC for free.

3. The BBC is so successful. It sells its programmes to other countries and makes a big profit. It doesn't need to make money from adverts.

E. The United Kingdom (England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland) has two currencies. What are they, and why have two different forms of money!?

1. You can use dollars in England — they are like a second currency in Britain.2. Scotland has its own currency: Scottish pounds. You can use them anywhere in the UK.3. The Euro is the second currency, it is accepted everywhere in the European Union.

F. Travelling by train between cities you can choose between two or three completely different prices (they can be one-hundred pounds in difference). Why?

1. England has many different train routes; some of them go through mountains and are more beautiful. These routes cost more.

2. There are first-class trains (faster with restaurants, shops, bars and more comfortable), and second-class trains with no facilities. They vary in price a lot.

3. English trains have been privatised. Different companies compete with different trains on the same routes. You can choose which train company to travel with.

G. The French eat frogs and snails, but in England they eat toads. Why?

1. Toads have more vitamins than frogs, and they love a rainy climate. There are many toad farms in England.

2. 'Toad' just means sausage. 'Toad in the hole' is an English dish of sausages baked in dough.3. French cooking is the best in the world. English cooking is rather boring. Recently the

English started eating toads to show off to the French.


H. On the fifth of November in many places in England there are fireworks and demonstrations with flaming torches and bonfires. People burn effigies of politicians and some other unpopular people. Why?

1. To celebrate the day of independence from America.2. This is Fire Day, a prehistoric ritual. It is the only day on which English people are allowed to

burn fires on the streets and have fireworks.3. To celebrate the saving of Parliament and the king from a plan to blow them up by rebels

hundreds of years ago. Now it is just the excuse for a big party.

SPEAKING-6 Debate Club

See Annex of the MANUAL for Debate format:

Topic: THE UK SHOULD HAVE A WRITTEN CONSTITUTIONGiven below are the statements (points) made by the Affirmative Team in a debate. Think of a question you would ask the presenter in a cross-examination. Get ready with the points of the Negative Team and brainstorm for the rebuttals and closing statements.Point 1

The UK's integration with Europe depends on having a similar legal foundation. Every other EU member has formal legal documents, such as the French Constitution or German Basic Law. The only other European nation without a written constitution is San Marino, and its government's operations are only a fraction of the UK's size. It is important to enshrine clarity in the legal code in order to engage in intra-EU economic, social, and political relations, because it creates a common conception of the foundation of a state's laws.Point 2

A written constitution acts as a safeguard against extremists and politicians attempting to usurp power. In the unlikely event that a political party gained power and attempted to impose radical change upon the citizenry, specific constitutional limits on the power of government, and specific protection for rights vital to would provide a major obstacle. A constitution would deprive any potential extremist of the ability to achieve it within the confines of the law. So for example the German constitution allows the German Federal Constitutional Court to declare parties unconstitutional and dissolve them, this is in order to prevent the rise of extremists to power in the way Hitler managed it. It has twice declared parties unconstitutional; these were the Socialist Reich Party and the Communist Party of Germany both in 1951.Point 3

A formal constitution provides the separation of powers necessary to keep each part of the government in check. Clearly delineated oversight powers in an independent judiciary would halt Parliament's attempts to overstep its mandate, and provide a mechanism to redress flagrant violations of ethics by MPs. Such a check on the power of the Parliament would be a welcome change from the status quo of a government who may act with little accountability short of an election. Similarly, explicit and independent powers for the House of Lords and the House of Commons would codify a role to hold each other accountable. This would be similar to the way that the United States constitution works with its famous separation of powers and checks and balances with the exception that the executive would still be within the legislature rather than completely separate.


READING-6 (British Imperial Ambitions)

TEXT 1Read the text paying attention to the italicized words and word combinations. See how you can explain them. Comment on the style of the article. Analyse the article following the instructions in the MANUAL.

THE LEGACY OF EMPIREDecember 3, 2009 From The Economist print edition

The many ways in which Britain is living in the shadow of its empireIn London conference centre, spooks and diplomats unpick Britain's involvement in the

Iraq war. In Parliament, politicians argue about the right approach to home-grown Islamists. In the City, financiers worry about their exposure to a foreign-debt crisis. In the Caribbean, the queen glad-hands the Commonwealth's presidents and prime ministers. What these disparate events have in common is that they are all, to some degree, part of the legacy of empire.

When Britons remember their dead empire, they tend to concentrate, with pride or shame, on its impact on the former colonies. The consequences for their own country are mostly thought of as so much pompous bric-a-brac and nostalgic trivia: honours with imperial names, archaic ceremonies, statues of forgotten heroes, a smattering of exotic vocabulary, curry and distressingly proficient rival cricket teams. This way of thinking about empire is mistaken. In important ways Britain is still - even, perhaps, increasingly - trapped by its imperial past.

The historian Linda Colley sees such imperial longing behind Britain's devotion to the "special relationship". "Playing Boy Wonder to America's Batman", as she puts it, is British politicians' only chance of maintaining a global role—as if the American Revolution could somehow be cancelled and the two nations confront the world as one. On the other hand, a yen for independent greatness may lie behind the fear of emasculation by America that afflicts some Britons as well.

The sun never really setsIf empire is the backdrop of Britain's foreign entanglements, it is also implicated in the

country's exposure to another great debacle, the financial crash. The City and the empire grew up symbiotically. Imperial trade and investment made London a world financial centre; the City became vital to the British economy, while at the same time, preoccupied as it was with foreign deals, largely separate from the rest of it. The empire thus bequeathed commercial habits, and an overmighty financial sector, which British taxpayers now have cause to regret. (Some historians trace Britain's trouble with real engineering, as well as the financial type, to the empire too, arguing that protected trade inside it coddled British industry and left it uncompetitive.)

The most obvious domestic legacy, of course, is in immigration. Because of worries about terrorism, much public policy and anxiety is currently focused on some Pakistani Britons. But empire helped to determine the attitudes and chances that awaited post-war immigrants to Britain as well as their origins.

Though notionally welcomed by a 1948 act, colonial caused alarm when they actually turned up, and from 1962 their entry rights were drastically curtailed. Instead of fraternity and fairness there was racism-sometimes overt, more often and insidiously the supercilious tolerance that the empire cultivated. Many immigrants were marooned at the bottom end of the labour


market, some in doomed industries such as textiles, cut off from their families and latterly relegated in government priorities, as they saw it, to a place below new European migrants.

Much of this is the routine lot of immigrants everywhere, but with a cutting post-imperial edge. I n some cases the grievances have reverberated through the generations.

The fallout of empire may include the fraying of the union (because the lost colonial opportunities bound Scotland in). Beneath all this is the peculiar British combination of bragging and bewilderment, an air of expectations great but unmet and of unrealised specialness. It is hard to think of another country so keen to magnify its accomplishments (everything must be "the best in the world"), yet also to wallow in its failings; so deluded and yet so morbidly disappointed. Every recent prime minister has struggled to overcome this sense of thwartedness and decline, and to come up with a notion of Britishness to replace the defunct imperial version. Mr Blair tried "Cool Britannia". It flopped. The gloom may be almost as acute now as it was in the late 1950s or 1970s.

It is arrogant to suppose that where other powers-Germany say, or France-were traumatised by their losses, Britain could have lost an empire on which the sun never set, give or take a few tax havens, without side effects. It didn't: looked at in a certain light, much of its recent history - military, political and economic - can be seen as a kind of post-imperial malaise. The empire is the Indian elephant in the living room, the tiger under the dinner table. Britain is still living in its own shadow.

TOPICAL VOCABULARY - 4impact on the former coloniesto be trapped by its imperial pastimperial longingdevotion to the "special relationship"to maintain a global roleforeign entanglementsto cultivate tolerancethe fallout of empirepost-imperial malaiseto be in declineto be overshadowed by other relationshipsto deploy “soft power”to transcend the imperial pastto find a role

READING-7 (The role of the English language)

Read the two texts and answer the questions that followTEXT 1

ENGLISH AS SHE WAS SPOKEDec 16th 2010The Economist print edition

The English is the most successful language in the history of the world. It is spoken on every continent, is learnt as a second language by schoolchildren and is the vehicle of science,


global business and popular culture. Many think it will spread without end. But scholars make a surprising prediction: the days of English as the world’s lingua-franca may be numbered.

English is expanding as a lingua-franca but not as a mother tongue. More than 1 billion people speak English worldwide but only about 330m of them as a first language, and this population is not spreading. The future of English is in the hands of countries outside the core Anglophone group. Will they always learn English?

In future two new factors—modern nationalism and technology—will check the spread of English. No confident modern nation would today make a foreign language official. Several of Britain’s ex-colonies once did so but only because English was a neutral language among competing native tongues. English has been rejected in other ex-colonies, such as Sri Lanka and Tanzania, where Anglophone elites gave way to Sinhala- and Swahili-speaking nationalists. In 1990 the Netherlands considered but rejected on nationalist grounds making English the sole language of university education.

English will fade as a lingua-franca but not because some other language will take its place. No pretender is pan-regional enough, and only Africa’s linguistic situation may be sufficiently fluid to have its future choices influenced by outsiders. Rather, English will have no successor because none will be needed. Technology will fill the need.

This argument relies on huge advances in computer translation and speech recognition. So far such software is a disappointment even after 50 years of intense research, and an explosion in the power of computers. But half a century, though aeons in computer time, is an instant in the sweep of language history. Scholars are surely right about the nationalist limits to the spread of English as a mother-tongue. If they are right about the technology too, future generations will come to see English as something like calligraphy or Latin: prestigious and traditional, but increasingly dispensable.

TEXT 2ENGLISH IS STILL ON THE MARCH

Feb 22nd 2001 The Economist print edition

IS ENGLISH becoming the European Union’s tongue? A survey of the linguistic skills of 16,000 of the Union’s citizens suggests that it is well on the way. Perhaps more surprisingly, it also suggests that more and more (non-British) Europeans accept the idea that all Europeans should learn English.

Over 40% of them claimed to “know” English as a foreign language. Add that to the almost 16% of the EU’s people who are native English-speakers, and already over half the EU claims to be able to converse in English.

The onward march of the English language is often assumed to raise hackles across Europe, particularly in France, but also in Germany and elsewhere. However, the survey suggests that the opposition may be exaggerated. Some 69% of respondents agreed with the proposition that “everyone should speak English”—including 66% of the French, which is only a shade less than the number in Britain.

Given that everyone else is learning English, it is perhaps unsurprising that the British are the worst at learning other European languages. Some 66% of them, judging by the survey, speak no foreign language at all, compared to the EU’s average of 47%. Luxembourgers are the best linguists: only 2.2% of them are monoglottal. The Dutch are pretty brilliant; over 80% of them speak English.


The rise of English may bolster some European federalists who have long battled against the idea that European political integration, as well as labour mobility within the single market, will be constrained by the lack of a common European language. But they should not be too confident. Even now, nearly half of all EU citizens still speak no language other than their own. And even bilingual countries can find themselves politically divided by language. For an example look no further than Belgium, whose capital, Brussels, serves as the EU’s headquarters. Belgian politics is bitterly divided between French and Dutch speakers—even though all schoolchildren, and certainly all politicians, are meant to speak both languages.

SPEAKING 7: TEAM WORK

In teams brainstorm to answer the following questions:What do you think about English as the world’s international language? Is it more a positive or a negative trend for you? What are the problems associated with English becoming lingua franca?Present your ideas to the class


mgimo.ru 1- british core values.docxweb viewmgimo.ru

Documents