Riassunti modulo 2 prof Demata, Sintesi del corso di Lingua Inglese

Scarica Riassunti modulo 2 prof Demata e più Sintesi del corso in PDF di Lingua Inglese solo su Docsity! LINGUA E TRADUZIONE INGLESE II- DEMATA MODULO 2 RELUCTANT EUROPEANS- PUBLIC OPINION ON THE EUROPEAN UNION 9.BRITISH PUBLIC OPINION ON THE EU: British public opinion is not well informed about Europe: in fact in tabloid newspapers the portrayal of Europeans of Europeans is derogatory and Germany, for example, is likely to have reference to World War II. THE LACK OF KNOWLEDGE ABOUT EUROPE AND EU IS NOT NEW: • In 1971 the public opinion was asked about the names of members of the COMMON MARKET (this phrase was used in order to avoid any prompt about Europe) and some responses included South Africa or Russia while France and Belgium were the most identified as members and finally, Luxembourg was identified by less than half of the respondents; • Apart from these kinds of survey, British public opinion has been tested just one time on the issue of European membership by a referendum in 1975: there was no guidance from the major parties and people were given small books explaining both the cases for and against membership resulting in the victory of membership; • Since the referendum, Britain showed a great dislike of Europe probably attributed to false tales as that of Brussels banning the British sausage. In 2002 it was noted that UK had a low level of interest in the European Union but despite this pessimistic perspective on British interest, the Eurobarometer showed some surprising informations: in fact in the period from 1996 to 2002, Eurobarometer has found that more people in Britain think that EU membership was a good thing rather than a bad thing even if the level of “don’t know” is disconcerting given that Britain joined EU over 30 years ago; DESPITE THIS, IT MIGHT BE INTERASTING TO UNDERSTAND WHY PEOPLE IN THE OPINION POLL RELATED TO THE NAMES OF MEMBER STATES OF EU INCLUDED UNITED STATES OR RUSSIA. PRESSURE GROUPS AND THE EUROPEAN UNION: Within Britain there are ANTI-EUROPEAN PRESSURE GROUPS and PRO-EUROPEAN GROUPS (some of these groups have links with MPs and political parties although some groups feel that it may be harmful to be too closely connected with a political party or MPs). ANTI-EU PRESSURE GROUPS: these groups cover a wide range of issues: for example the British Weights and Measures Association wants to reintroduce imperial measures as miles or pints instead of metres, kilograms... • THE BRUGES GROUP: was established in 1989 after a speech of Margaret Thatcher (British PM at the time) who wanted less EU involvement in British affairs. Its members include Baroness Thatcher, Duncan Smith (Conservative MP and former party leader)... • CAMPAIGN FOR AN INDEPENDENT BRITAIN: has not strong links with political parties. The chairman is Lord Stoddard and the president is Sir Richard Body and they work towards Britain leaving EU. It was formed in 1976 but the name was “British Anti-Common Market Campaign” before adopting the current moniker PRO-EU PRESSURE GROUPS • EUROPEAN MOVEMENT: was founded in 1948 and chaired by Sir Winston Churchill with the aim of preventing war in Europe. Now, within this group, there are politicians as Kenneth Clarks. This organisation provides informations about the positive aspects of membership; HOW DO PRESSURE GROUPS LOBBY THE EUROPEAN UNION?: In EU there’s a specific body, the ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE, which include pressure groups. It’s an advisory body and although it should be consulted, there’s no obligations on other EU institution to follow its advices. There are hundreds of “recognized groups” and the Commission admits the knowledge and contribution that could be made by these groups which have resources and specialisations. For example: in Britain there’s the TUC (Trades Union Congress) that could lobby the EU on matters related to the welfare of employees and, as part ETUC (European Trade Union Confederation) they have a more powerful collective voice So, a permanent office may respond to any issue that may arise, in fact lobbying processes are not dissimilar to those used in national politics with the difference that the focus tends to be on the Commission rather thn on politicians. PUBLIC OPINION ACROSS THE EUROPEAN UNION: Polls on the goodness of EU membership and benefits from EU from 2000 to 2005 show that Britain, Austria, Finland and Sweden are in the descending positions of the scale while, on the other hand, there are Luxembourg, Ireland and Netherlands. Considering both sets of surveys, it’s clear that Britain, Sweden and Austria are the least enthusiastic members of EU while Ireland showed satisfaction from benefits from EU. IT HAS BEEN SUGGESTED THAT THE EU REFUSES TO ACCEPT NEGATIVE VOTES AND IT WILL CONTINUE TO CONDUCT REFERENDUM UNTIL A “YES” VOTE IS ACHIEVED, SO THAT EU STRUGGLES TO STAY ABOVE THE 50% LEVEL. TURNOUT FOR EUROPEAN PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS: It has been suggested that the lack of enthusiasm is due to the TURNOUT for elections to the European Parliament: • These elections were first held in June 1979 and then on a fixed five-year term; • Belgium has always had a good turnout because of the COMPULSORY VOTING (other countries with good turnouts include Italy and Luxembourg while Britain has the poorest turnout for the elections to the European Parliament); • Between 1979 and 1999, Britain had the lowest turnout: in fact in 1999 only the 24% of population casted the vote; • Surprisingly, Britain and Luxembourg reached their highest levels of turnout in the 2004 elections: so with the Parliament gaining new powers through the Treaty of European Union, people might take interest even if national issues are seen to be of greater importance than those of EU; • New East European countries reached low levels of turnout because of the dissatisfaction with the EU with a high degree of disillusionment with the EU which was not necessairly a result of EU actions IT’S CLEAR THAT, IN GENERAL, THE PUBLIC IS NOT ENTHUSIASTIC ABOUT EUROPE. 10. WHAT IS A RELUCTANT EUROPEAN? There are several different types of reluctant Europeans: • For example: countries that do not want to apply for membership or have turned down membership could be considered to be reluctant Europeans (such as Norway or Switzerland). BUT UNDER SUCH A DEFINITION OF “RELUCTANT EUROPEAN”, BRITAIN COULD BE CONSIDERED AS SUCH ONLY FROM THE FORMATION OF THE EUROPEAN COAL AND STEEL COMMUNITY (ECSC); BUT THEN, WITH BRITAIN JOINING THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY (EEC) BRITAIN DOES NOT CONFORM TO SUCH A DEFINITION OF RELUCTANT EUROPEAN; • An alternative definition of Europe would encompass organisations such as European Free Trade Association (EFTA) and North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) which are European organisations (although NATO includes United States and Canada). This idea of Europe goes far beyond EU membership: in fact, some EU members such as Ireland, are not members of NATO because of its policy of neutrality while other European countries do not belong to any BRI TISH PEOPLE AND THE REST OF THE WORLD • British people had a particular attitude towards people in other countries and their ways: in fact, foreigners were often considered amusing, interesting or exotic but not to be taken seriously while Britain and British people did; • With the dismantling of the empire, this attitude had disappeared and today there are many admired foreign ways of doing and a great openess to foreign influences; • Modern British are not chauvinistic because CHAUVINISM is synonym of IGNORANCE. Actually most British people know little about Europe and people who live there; rather they have stereotypes only for the larger notions of Europe (the average British person does not consider Portuguese or Belgians in a particular way); • Furthermore, British people are very bad about learning other languages: they don’t refuse to speak other languages but they are lazy because of the role of English as world’s language. THE BRITISH STATE AND THE REST OF THE WORLD • Although Britain lost its empire in the second half of the 20th century, the inhabitants of Bermuda, Gibraltar and the Falklands, for example, wished to continue with the imperial arrangement. For British governments, this situation was a SOURCE OF PRIDE (because they suggest how beneficial the British empire have been), EMBARASSMENT (because the possession of colonial territories does not fit with the image of a democratic state) and IRRITATION (because it costs money); • In 1982 the British government spent a lot of money recapturing the Falklands Islands from the invading Argentinians: this government’s action received popular support. In fact, before this action,the government of the time was extremely unpopular but then, it suddenly became popular and won the general election in the following year; • Since then, opinions about military interventions have been less enthusiastic. In fact, in the 1990s there was a majority acceptance of Britain’s envolvement in the Gulf War; in 2003 the government’s decision to go to war in Iraq provoked debates and even the military presence of Britain in Afghanistan was unpopular (in fact in early 2008 the commander of a military barracks near the English town of Peterborough order his personnel not to wear their uniforms in the town for the fear of threats: this precaution showed the strenght of feeling that existed against Britain’s role in Iraq and Afghanistan); • SO, THERE HAS BEEN UNCERTAINTY ABOUT THE PROPER LEVEL OF BRITAIN’S ROLE IN WORLD AFFAIRS: THERE IS STILL A FEELING THAT BRITAIN SHOULD BE ABLE TO CONTRIBUTE TO INTERNATIONAL PEACEKEEPING WITH THE HELP OF UNITED NATIONS AND EUROPEAN UNION (in fact, the Cold War between the West and the Soviet Union came to an end at the end of the 1980s and the government began to cut spending of defense provoking protests of politicians and military professionals); TRANSATLANTIC RELATIONS: Britain has a special relationship with the USA: public opinion about this relationship is ambivalent: • On the one hand, it’s reassuring to be linked to the most powerful nation in the world and the shared language gives people a sense of belonging with America; • On the other hand, there’s a sense of bitterness about the power of the USA with a little sense of distrust THE SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP HAS DECLINED SINCE BRITAIN JOINED THE EC: IN FACT, IN GLOBAL TRADE NEGOTIATIONS, BRITAIN IS SEEN AS PART OF EUROPEAN TRADING BLOCK AND THERE’S NOT REGARD TO AMERICA. COMMONWEALTH: although the dissolution of the British empire, Britain kept good relations with the independent countries of the EUROPEAN RELATIONS: It’s very important ot mention a particular episode to explain the British attitude to its membership of the EU: on the morning of 13 December 2007, the PMs of the 25 member states of EU met to sign the latest European treaty but Gordon Brown did not turn up because he was busy in Britain, in fact he went to sign the treaty in the afternoon. So, the British attitude has been ambivalent: • On the one hand it’s seen as an economic and political necessity as shown by the referendum of 1975; • On the other hand, the acceptance has never meant enthusiasm, in fact the majority of people in Britain feel a profound lack of enthusiasm. But how this attitude can be explained? • It’s important to mention the sense of apartness, in fact British people know that their country is part of Europe from a geographical point of view and a full member of the EU but in their eyes Britain and Europe are two different things; • EU laws are perceived as interference or as a threat to sovereignty of the UK (this is the vision of a politician) or as a threat to the British way of live (this is the vision of the average person). In fact, if we ask the average British person what comes into the mind if we say “EU” and they will tell a lot of interfering things (probably because British people tend to take laws seriously, so that they prefer to have as few laws and regulations as possible). For example: let’s take the case of STANDARDIZATION OF PRODUCTS, PACKAGING... To many Europeans, standardization means quality and reliability but to many British people it means restriction and boring uniformity. Another example of Britain as a problematic part of Europe is that of car hire: in fact, throughout continental Western Europe, you can hire a car and drive it without special permission while when you hire a car in Britain you can only drive it to the continent if you have a lot of legal documents and pay a lot of money for insurance. RELATIONS INSIDE GREAT BRITAIN: Another reason why some politicians at Westminster feel distrust about the idea of European integration is the matter of giving extra power to the regions of Britain, especially its different nations. SCOTTISH SITUATION • Before the 1980s, most Scottish people despite the differences between themselves and the English, were quite happy to be part of the UK despite the way there were treated by the central government in London; • From the mid 1980s onwards, opinion polls showed that the majority of Scottish population wanted self- government or complete indipendence. Finally, a referendum decided the issue in 1999 and the Scottish Parliament reborn with powers over Scottish but not in defence, foreign and economic policy. The Scottish Parliament has a growing power with the Scottish National Party (SNP) which wants complete indipendence from the UK; • In 2007 an opinion poll produced interesting results: people wanted more powers for the Scottish Parliament and more and more people identified themselves with the Irish (already independent) rather than with English. WALES SITUATION • In Wales the situation is different: in fact the nation as a whole has been incorporated into the English governmental structure. Nationalism is felt in the central and western parts of the country from a cultural (and not political) point of view. The referendum on the establishment of a Welsh Assembly produced a small majority in favour in fact its powers are limited but there’s a growing support for self-government. GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND: On 31 July 2007, something occurred: the last contingent of British soldiers withdrew from Ulster (Ulster is the name used for the part of Ireland which belongs to UK) putting an end to a military occupation which lasted for 38 years. Why were they there? • Historically talking, there were two communities: the CATHOLIC as nationalist and republican and the PROTESTANT as unionist; • After the partition of Ireland in 1920, Northern Ireland was given its Parliament and PM; • In the late 1960 it began a Catholic Civil Rights movement which led to a Protestant reaction in 1969 and British troops were sent to keep order. Despite a calm initial period, troops act without regard to democratic principles and unacceptable in a modern democracy such as the imprisonment without trial. The crisis point was reached after 30 January 1972, known as “Bloody Sunday” where the troops shot 14 unarmed Catholic marchers. As a result, acts of terrorism increased (as the Provisional IRA which started a bombing campaign on the British mainland and the British government imposed direct rule from London BUT THE SUPPORT FOR EXTREMIST POLITICAL PARTIES INCREASED); • The first step toward resolution was the Good Friday Agreement of 1998 that involved all the political parties and the Irish and British governments giving a small degree of power to the Republic of Ireland and everybody born in Northern Ireland was given the right to be citizen of the Republic. At the same time it stipulated that the six sounties would remain a part of UK for as long as a majority of its people wanted it that way; DESPITE EVERYTHING, SPORADIC EPISODES OF VIOLENCE OCCURR BUT IN 2007 THE INTERNAL SELF- GOVERNMENT WAS ESTABLISHED WITH A PROTESTANT “FIRST MINISTER” AND A CATHOLIC “DEPUTY FIRST MINISTER” WHO ARE FORCED TO GET ALONG WELL. JEREMY RIFKIN- “THE EUROPEAN DREAM” 9.THE “UNITED STATES OF EUROPE” The European Union is the third largest governing institution with 455 million citizens spread out over a territory which is half the size of the continental United States. WHAT IS EUROPE? There has never been any governing institution like the EU: it’s not a state but it acts like one. EU has laws that surpass the laws of the nations that make it up. It has a single currency, the euro, used by many of its members. It regulates commerce and trade and coordinates energy, transportation or education across the many national borders that make it up. Its citizens enjoy a EU passport. It has a European Parliament (which makes laws) and a European Court whose judicial decisions influence on member countries and citizens. It also has a president and a military force. SO, EU IS NOT A TERRITORY-BOUND ENTITY, ALTHOUGH IT REGULATES ACTIVITIES THAT TAKE PLACE WITHIN THE TERRITORIAL BOUNDARIES OF ITS MEMBERS AND IT QUALIFIES AS AN EXTRA-TERRITORIAL GOVERNING INSTITUTION. PARALLEL: The only historical parallel to the EU is the Holy Roman Empire of the early 8th to the early 19th century: in that period the Vatican claimed sovereignty over city-states and kingdoms of much of Western and Northern Europe while the actual influence over the territories is related to moral matters. The member states of the EU still control their territories but their absolute power over geography has been eroded by EU legislative encroachements. For example:the Schengen Agreement forged in 1985 gives the EU the power to create a wide set of rules governing immigration into the EU including a European police force to protect EU’s members’ borders. The individual states have the right to decide how many immigrants to allow into their country and once a person becomes a citizen in a member country, he/she is allowed to take up residence anywhere else in the Union with the possibility to vote and run for office in local elections and European parliamentary elections. BORDERS: EU is not bound by territorial constraints, so it can continue to bring new states under its umbrella. The criteria for membership is value-based and it does not depend on geography: IN FACT ANY COUNTRY CAN APPLY FOR MEMBERSHIP IF IT FULFILS THE REQUIRED QUALIFICATIONS. But the inclusive nature of this institution has caused concern among existing members: some argue that despite membership is value-based, it should be limited only to the countries that make up “historical Europe”; others claim that Europe has a common cultural point to its Greco-Roman roots, so that Europe is a state of mind that results from shared past and values; the Catholic Church argues that Christianity is the