1.1. Look Through These Questions Before Reading the Text

1

UNIT I

THE CONSTITUTION

Section 1. Read and study.

1.1. Look through these questions before reading the text.

1. What is meant by “constitutional monarchy” and “parliamentary democracy”?
2. Why is the British Constitution one of the most notable features of the British system of government?
3. Why does Britain not have a written constitution? Does it need one?
4. What are the sources of the British constitution?

TEXT

THE CONSTITUTION

Britain is a constitutional monarchy. That means it is a country governed by a king or queen who accepts the advice of parliament. It is also a parliamentary democracy. That is, it is a country whose government is controlled by a parliament which has been elected by the people. In other words, the basic system is not so different from anywhere else in Europe. The highest positions in the government are filled by members of the directly elected parliament. In Britain, as in many European countries, the official head of state, whether a monarch (as in Britain, the Netherlands and Denmark) or a president (as in Germany, Greece and Italy) has little real power.

However, there are features of the British system of government which make it different from that in other countries and which are not ‘modern’ at all. The most notable of these is the question of the constitution.

Britain has a constitution, but not as an authoritative document or set of rules which describes the powers and duties of government institutions and the relations between them. It is not unwritten; rather, it is uncodified. There is no single written document which can be appealed to as the highest law of the land and the final arbiter in any matter of dispute. Nobody can refer to ‘Article 6’ or ‘the first amendment’ or anything like that, because nothing like that exists.

Instead, the principles and procedures by which the country is governed and from which people’s rights are derived come from a number of different sources. They have been built up, bit by bit, over the centuries. Some of them are written down in laws agreed by Parliament, some of them have been spoken and then written down (judgements made in a court) and some of them have never been written down at all. For example, there is no written law in Britain that says anything about who can be the Prime Minister or what the powers of the Prime Minister are, even though he or she is probably the most powerful person in the country. Similarly, there is no single written document which asserts people’s rights. Some rights which are commonly accepted in modern democracies (for example, the rights not to be discriminated against on the basis of sex or race) have been formally recognised by Parliament through legislation; but others (for example, the rights not to be discriminated against on the basis of religion or political views) have not. Nevertheless, it is understood that these latter rights are also part of the constitution.

Most written constitutions are adopted by states which are newly independent or have suffered a rupture in their evolution (e.g. France in 1958). In the case of Britain, we cannot date the system of government or set of rules as being constituted at one point in time.

The British system has been widely admired. Britain prepared written constitutions for many of the colonies when they became independent and many states, in drawing up constitution, tried to copy British features.

Sources of the British constitution

1. Common law, or traditions and customs administered by the old common law courts, e.g. freedom of expression, which have come to be accepted as constituting the law of the land.
2. Laws

(a)Statutory, or parliamentary, law overrides common law and provides a substantial written part of the constitution. It includes such measures as the Act of Union, 1707, the Bill of Rights, 1689, etc.

(b)Judges’ interpretations of statute law, or “judicial Review’, as it is called. Judges do not decide on the validity of laws duly passed by Parliament but on whether the law has been applied properly (e.g. in 1975, when the courts found against the Minister's of Education interpretation of his discretionary power in refusing to allow Tameside to select for secondary education)

1. Conventions are rules which, lack the force of law but have been adhered to for so long that they are regarded as binding. Examples include the resignation of the Prime Minister following defeat on a no-confidence vote in the Commons; the Sovereign’s assent to a Bill passed through Parliament.

Conventions loom large as an element in the British constitution: they are the key to its flexibility. Many essential features of the political system – e.g. ministerial responsibility, collective responsibility, occasions for a dissolution of Parliament, and constitutional monarchy are all largely the product of convention.

1.2. Give the English equivalents to the following Russian words and word-combinations:

1. занимать основные посты в правительстве
2. официальный (исходящий от законной власти) документ
3. статья конституции
4. поправка (к конституции)
5. происходить из разных источников
6. отстаивать права
7. подвергаться дискриминации по какому-либо признаку
8. перелом, резкий поворот в развитии (государства)
9. общее право
10. статутное право
11. конституционные соглашения
12. вотум недоверия
13. королевская санкция
14. роспуск Парламента

Section 2.

Use the above given text and the glossary (2.2) to discuss the constitutional process in Britain and in your own country.

2.2. Glossary.

constitution / конституция, основнойзакон
“unwritten” constitution / «неписаная конституция», в Великобритании нет конституции в полном смысле этого слова, ее заменяют Парламентские статуты (статутное право), конституционные обычаи (соглашения) и общее (прецедентное) право
to adopt a constitution / принять конституцию
to draft (draw up) a constitution / составить проект конституции
Constitutional / unconstitutional / конституционный /противоречащий духу конституции, неконституционный
democracy /

1. демократия
2. демократическое государство

inroads on democracy / наступление (посягательство) на демократию
to set up a facade of democracy / создавать видимость демократии
to advance democracy
to new levels / развивать демократию дальше
assaults on democratic liberties / наступление на демократические свободы
a sustained attack on democracy institutions and rights / непрекращающееся наступление на демократические институты и права
to extend (restrict)
democracy rights / расширить (ограничить) демократические права
Common law / общее, некодифицированное право, основанное на прецеденте
statutory (statute) law / статутное право, «писаный закон»; закон, принятый Парламентом
Convention(s) / Конституционные соглашения (обычаи) в Великобритании

Section 3. Read the article, do task 3.2 given below the text.

3.1.

THE MODERN SITUATION

During the last half century, the traditional confidence in the British political system has weakened. At first sight, this phenomenon seems paradoxical. After all, the general direction of public policy has been the same for several decades, suggesting stability and a high level of public confidence. Two developments may help to explain it.

The first concerns the perceived style of politics. Top politicians have always had various personal advisers to help them with matters of policy and presentation (for instance by writing their speeches). But in recent years it is their public relations advisers, whose job is to make them look good in the media, who have become their closest (and therefore most powerful) advisers. To characterize this role and the importance attached to it, the word “spin doctor” has entered the British vocabulary.The second is a more serious matter. It concerns the style of

democracy and it has constitutional significan-

ce. There are signs that the traditional right

of the individual to freedom from interference

by the state is being eroded. The proliferation o of CCTV cameras is one example. Another is t the national DNA database. In 2007, about 5% 5% of the population had their DNA stored on on police databases. This proportion is growin growing rapidly. A further example is the incr increased powers the authorities have to searc search people and their homes and to detain them them without charging them. Under the presen present anti-terrorist laws, a suspect can be ke kept in police custody for 42 days without charge.

These changes have not take place without protest. But it seems that fear of crime, illegal immigration and terrorism have been enough to allow them through.

There has been a long history of migration from Scotland, Wales and Ireland to England. As a result there are millions of people who live in England but who would never describe themselves as English. They may have lived in England all their lives, but as far as they are concerned they are Scottish or Welsh or Irish - even if, in the last case, they are citizens of Britain and not of Eire. These people support the country of their parents or grandparents rather than England in

sporting contests. They would also, given the chance, play for that country rather than England.

There is, in fact, a complicated division of loyalties among many people in Britain, and especially in England. But the same person is quite happy to support England just as passionately in a sport such as football, which the West Indies do not play. A person whose family are from Ireland but who has always lived in England would want Ireland to beat England at football but would want England to beat (for example) Italy just as much. This crossover of loyalties can work the other way as well. English people do not regard the Scottish, the Welsh or the Irish as 'foreigners' (or, at least, not as the same kind of foreigners as other foreigners!). An English commentator of a sporting event in which a Scottish, Irish or Welsh team is playing against a team from outside the British Isles tends to identify with that team as if it were English.

A wonderful example of double identity was heard on the BBC during the Eurovision Song Contest in 1992. The commentator for the BBC was Terry Wogan. Mr. Wogan is an Irishman who had become Britain's most popular television talk-show host during the 1980s. Towards the end of the programme, with the voting for the songs nearly complete, it became clear that the contest (in which European countries compete to present the best new popular song) was going to be won by either Ireland or the United Kingdom. Within a five-minute period, Mr. Wogan could be heard using the pronoun 'we' and 'us' several times; sometimes he meant the UK and sometimes he meant Ireland!

Notes:

blasphemy / [blæsfimi] or bad language about God or holy things – богохульство
obscenity / smth offensive to accepted ideas or morality, indecent –непристойность

CCTV cameras - closed-circuit TV cameras

3.2.

1. What are the main developments that may help to explain the weakening confidence in the British political system?

2. Why has the role of “spin doctors” become so powerful in the modern political process?

3. In what kind of a society could an unwritten constitution work?

4. Do you think Russia is a multicultural society? Why?

5. Are there any distinct national loyalties in your country? If so, is the relationship between the 'nations' in any way similar to that between the nations in Britain? Do these loyalties cause problems in your country?

FOR YOUR INFORMATION…

The Scottish Parliament

Before the 1980s, most Scottish people, although they insisted on many differences between themselves and the English, were happy to be part of the UK. But there was always some resentment about the way their country was treated by the central government in London. From the mid 1980s onwards, opinion polls consistently showed that a majority of the Scottish population wanted either internal self-government within the UK or complete independence. A referendum finally decided the issue and in 1999, nearly 300 years after it abolished itself, the Scottish Parliament was reborn. It has considerable powers over internal Scottish affairs.

Support for the Scottish Parliament has grown since that time, and currently the Scottish National Party (SNP), which wants complete independence from the UK (but with the English monarch as the head of state too), is the largest party in the Scottish Parliament. The present arrangement puts pressures on the relationship between Scotland and England.

The existence of two parliaments in Great Britain, one for the whole of the UK and one for Scotland alone, has led to a curious situation which is known as the West Lothian question (this being the name of the British parliamentary constituency whose MP first raised it). Westminster MPs cannot vote on matters of health, education, law and order, or welfare in Scotland because Scotland has a separate parliament which decides these matters. They only decide these matters for England and Wales. But they include in their number, of course, MPs from Scotland, who are thus able to vote on matters which have nothing to do with the people they represent! At the same time, these MPs do not have a vote on matters of great concern to those people because, again, Scotland has a separate parliament for these things! The situation has caused some resentment in England.

NORTHERN IRELAND ASSEMBLY

The New Northern Ireland Assembly was constituted under the Northern Ireland (Elections) Act 1998. 108 members were elected to the Assembly on the 25 June 1998 by Proportional Representation from the existing 18 Westminster constituencies. But it was only in 2007 that internal self-government, with an elected assembly and a cross-party cabinet, was firmly established. Ironically, the new “First Minister” (a Protestant) and “ Deputy First Minister” (a Catholic) were people who each came from the more extremist wings of their communities. But nothing could be more indicative of the changedclimate than the fact that during the ceremony in which they took up their new positions, while these two former mortal enemies sat chatting and joking together over a cup of tea, the only trouble which police encountered was from demonstrators protesting against the Iraq war!

The Assembly has full legislative and executive authority in respect of the following matters:

Agriculture

Economic development

Education

the Environment

Finance and Personnel

Health and Social Services

THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY FOR WALES

The Welsh Assembly was set up in the same year as the Scottish Parliament, 1999. Its powers are much more limited than those of the Scottish body. However, in Wales too, there is growing support for greater self-government.

UNIT II

THE MONARCHY

Section 1. Read and study

1.1. Look through these questions before reading the text.

1. What are the powers of the Queen from the evidence of written law?
2. What are the real powers of the Queen?
3. Why does the British Prime Minister continue to “advise” and “request” the Queen, when everybody knows that he or she is really telling her what to do? What then, is the monarch’s role?
4. Why is it believed that the British monarchy is probably more important to the economy of the country than it is to the system of government?
5. The attitude of the British people towards their royal family has changed over the last quarter of the twentieth century. In what way has it changed, and what demonstrates that there has been a change? Why do you think this has happened?
6. Would you advise the British to get rid of their monarchy?
7. Do you think your country would benefit from having a figurehead who could perform the functions of a monarch?

TEXT

THE MONARCHY

The monarchy and the Commonwealth.The British people look to the Queen not only as their head of State, but also as the symbol of their nation’s unity. The monarchy is the most ancient secular institution in Britain. During the last thousand years its continuity has only once been broken (by the establishment of a republic which lasted from 1649 to 1660) and, despite interruptions in the direct line of succession, the hereditary principle upon which it was founded has always been preserved. The royal title in Britain is: ‘Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith’. The form of the royal title is varied for those other member states of the Commonwealth of which the Queen is head of State, to suit the particular circumstances of each. The Commonwealth countries where the Queen is head of State include Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Canada, Grenada, New Zealand, Solomon Islands and others. Some member states of the Commonwealth are republics or have their own monarchies.

The seat of the Monarchy is in Great Britain, while in other member nations of the Commonwealth the Queen is represented by the Governor–General, appointed by her on the advice of the ministers of the country concerned and completely independent of the British Government.

The appearance.The position of the monarch in Britain is a perfect illustration of the contradictory nature of the constitution. From the evidence of written law only, the Queen has almost absolute powers, and it all seems very undemocratic. The American constitution talks about ‘government of the people for the people by the people’. There is no law in Britain which says anything like that. If fact, there is no legal concept of ‘the people’ at all.

Every autumn, at the state opening of Parliament, Elizabeth II, who became Queen in 1952, makes a speech. In it, she says what ‘my government’ intends to do in the coming year. And indeed, it is her government, not the people’s. As far as the law is concerned, she can choose anybody she likes to run the government for her. There are no restrictions on whom she picks as her Prime Minister. It does not have to be somebody who has been elected. The same is true for her choices of people to fill some hundred or so other ministerial positions. And if she gets fed up with her ministers, she can just dismiss them. Officially speaking, they are all ‘servants of the Crown’ (not servants of anything like ‘the country’ or ‘the

people’). She also appears to have great power over Parliament. It is she who summons a Parliament, and she who dissolves it before a general election. Nothing that Parliament has decided can become law until she has given it the royal assent.

Similarly, it is the Queen, and not any other figure of authority, who embodies the law in the courts. In the USA, when the police take someone to court to accuse them of a crime, the court records show that ‘the people’ have accused that person. In other countries it might be ‘the

state’ that makes the accusation. But in Britain it is ‘the Crown’. This is because of the legal authority of the monarch. And when an accused person is found guilty of a crime, he or she might be sent to one of ‘Her Majesty’s’ prisons.