"London is the world’s greatest city; we cannot sit back and do nothing about the rough sleeping crisis."

 2015 photo from theguardian

The text below was adapted from an article published in theguardian, dated Sunday 17 July 2016 (click HERE), written by Sadiq Khan.

Close partnership and innovative approaches are needed to curb the rising numbers of homeless people inherited from the Conservative administration of London. I am committed to tackling London’s housing crisis in whatever form it takes – and the rise in rough sleeping over recent years is a growing source of shame that we have a moral imperative to stop.

People end up on the street for many different reasons – leaving care or hospital, problems with debt, unemployment, mental health, family breakup – and so the help they need is varied too. We can support some rough sleepers, particularly when they have become homeless recently, through programmes such asNo Second Night Out.

In more entrenched (i.e. long-term) cases regarding homeless people, a more intensive intervention may be needed, as a one-size-fits-all (i.e. one solution to all problems) approach does not always work. We can promote innovative approaches by making our funding of agencies that help homeless people conditional on these agencies achieving results – an approach that has proved successful in helping people access and remain in stable accommodation.

But, crucially, we need not only to help rough sleepers on the street, but also to prevent people from becoming homeless in the first place – and that’s why I’ll be launching a No Nights Sleeping Roughtaskforce with prevention central to its approach. This taskforce will bring together all the agencies to tackle rough sleeping as we will only make a difference through close partnership. The taskforce will set the strategic priorities for services the mayor provides, come up with proposals for new initiatives and projects, and lobby government for the changes we need.

A Labour mayor and government dramatically reduced rough sleeping at the start of this century and I’m determined we’ll do it again. Making a difference won’t be easy, but I will lead the way.

To do:

1) Listen to the teacher read and comment the article, noting pronunciation, vocabulary and expressions, and summarising the main points of the article.

2) Read the following information on theguardian:

theguardian is a British national daily newspaper. It was founded in 1821. It is edited by Katharine Viner. It is part of an international media group which includes The Observer (a British Sunday paper) and The Guardian Weekly (an international roundup of articles from various papers). In 2013, The Guardian's print edition had an average daily circulation of 189,000 copies, behind The Daily Telegraph and The Times, and ahead of The Independent. The newspaper's online edition was the fifth most widely read in the world as of October 2014, with over 42.6 million readers.  In the UK, its combined print and online editions reach 9 million readers. The Guardian was named newspaper of the year at the 2014 British Press Awards for its reporting on government surveillance.

3) Answer the following question:

What type of people read The Guardian do you think?

4) Translate the title:

"London is the world’s greatest city; we cannot sit back and do nothing about the rough sleeping crisis."

5) Read the following information about Sadiq Khan:

Sadiq Aman Khan (born 1970) has been Mayor of London since May 2016, succeeding Conservative Party Mayor Boris Johnson. Khan was the Member of Parliament (MP) for Tooting from 2005 to 2016. He is a member of the Labour Party. His election as Mayor of London made him the city's first ethnic minority mayor, and the first Muslim to become mayor of a major Western capital. As mayor he has limited charges on London's public transport and focused on uniting the city's varied communities. He was an active supporter of the unsuccessful Britain Stronger in Europe campaign to retain the United Kingdom's membership of the European Union.

6) Answer the question:

Why does Khan describe London as “the world’s greatest city”?

7) Read the following information about the Labour Party:

The Labour Party is a centre-left political party in the United Kingdom. Growing out of the trade union movement and socialist parties of the nineteenth century, the Labour Party encompasses a diversity of ideological trends from strongly socialist to moderately social democratic (social democracy includes the belief in collective responsibility for social welfare). Founded in 1900, the Labour Party overtook the Liberal Party as the main opposition to the Conservative Party in the early 1920s, forming governments under Ramsay MacDonald in 1924 and from 1929 to 1931. Labour later served in the wartime coalition from 1940 to 1945, after which it formed a majority government under Clement Attlee. Labour was also in government from 1964 to 1970 under Harold Wilson and from 1974 to 1979, first under Wilson and then James Callaghan. The Labour Party was last in government from 1997 to 2010 under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. Having won 232 seats (out of 650) in the 2015 general election, the party is the Official Opposition in the Parliament of the United Kingdom. In September 2015, Jeremy Corbyn was elected Leader of the Labour Party.

8) Question:

Why does Khan want to solve the problem of rough sleeping?

9) Read the following information about sleeping rough in London:

According to the CHAIN (Combined Homelessness and Information Network) database, 8,096 people slept rough at some point in London during 2015/16, an increase of 7 per cent compared to 2014/15 (though these figures are probably an underestimate). 57 per cent are aged between 26 and 45 years with 1 in 10 under 25 and 11 per cent over 55. 43% have problems due to alcohol, 31% have problems due to drugs, and 46% have mental health problems. 32% had served time in prison. 41% are UK nationals, 37% are from Central and Eastern European countries, 2% are refugees from Eritrea and Somalia. About 15% of rough sleepers in London are women (many have been physically attacked, verbally abused and sexually assaulted). Reasons men end up on the streets include: relationship breakdown, substance misuse, and leaving an institution (prison, care, hospital, etc.). Reasons women end up on the streets include physical or mental health problems and escaping a violent relationship. Social causes include: high levels of poverty, unemployment, the inadequate benefits system, lack of affordable housing and poor management of social (council) housing. Emergency accommodation includes: cold weather or winter shelters, night shelters, emergency hostels, nightstop schemes for young homeless people aged 16 to 25, women's refuges for women fleeing domestic violence.

10) Questions:

> What do you think the consequences of sleeping rough are on individuals?

> What do you think the consequences for London are of having people sleeping rough?

> Is there a problem of people living on the streets in the area you live?

> What solutions to solving the problem of homelessness can you come up with?

Further research:

> Crisis (homelessness charity) website

> Article from The Mirror: There are 10 empty homes for every homeless family in England
> How do I... help rough sleepers.

‘Bullying is soul-destroying’

Tamanna Miah

Tamanna Miah is 22 and in her third year at university, but still carries the emotional and physical scars from the racial bullying she suffered throughout primary and secondary school.

Her family are from Bangladesh and she grew up in Sevenoaks, Kent, where she was the only non-white child in her primary school. The bullying started almost as soon as she began school, she says, around the age of four.

“I was the only Asian kid in my area and in my school. People used to bully me for my looks, my skin colour ... they did everything to make my life hell. They called me names, put sticks and rubbish and chewing gum in my hair. They would chase me and throw things at me. They pushed me off a wall. Even today I’ve still got the marks on my leg from when that happened. Staff often ignored it. They would say I was being silly, that I was making it up.”

Miah was so unhappy at school her parents had to drive her there “kicking and screaming”; she would pretend to be ill and try to hide to avoid going to school. She began to lose confidence in the way she looked and used her mother’s skin products to try to lighten her skin so she would “fit in” with her peers.

Bullying has changed her life, she says. “It’s soul-destroying, it really is. I know how much I suffered and I wouldn’t want anyone else to go through it. I suffered severe depression and anxiety as a result. I was so isolated.

“I had no confidence, I had no self-esteem. I couldn’t talk to my parents and my teachers didn’t understand. I felt suicidal a lot of the time.”

Far from school being a safe haven, Miah believes children feel particularly vulnerable there, and that teachers don’t realise how much of an impact experiences of bullying have on a child’s wellbeing.

“You should be feeling safe – you spend such a lot of your life at school. But you are open to so much there. You’re meeting other young people. You have to be there. You are there on a daily basis.”

Miah believes her grades suffered as a result of the bullying, which was a constant distraction from her studies. Now she campaigns on issues surrounding bullying and has made a film to show what it’s like to be a victim.

“These days schools do have more policies in place but it’s almost like bullying is a normal part of childhood. We need to break out of that. It’s not normal. I don’t think people realise how detrimental it is.”

> TED talk given by Tamanna: click HERE!

> Tamanna's video: click HERE!

> "Agir contre le harcèlement à l'école" (short film in French): click HERE!

> Article on bullying from theguardian: click HERE!

Why team GB has won so many medals...

Video from The Guardian: click HERE!

Transcript of the video:

Rio 2016 has seen GB’s most successful overseas Olympic Games ever. Team GB won 27 gold medals in Brazil. At Atlanta 1996, they won just one event. So what’s behind the gold rush? Well, maybe it’s more money. The team received £274,5m ahead of Rio. That’s around £40m more than Beijing 2008. So each medal won by Team GB this year cost £4m. The aim this time was simple: become the first nation to increase its medal count immediately after its own Games. And it worked!

But it’s not good news for everyone. Sports that fail to hit medals targets usually face budget cuts. While those that perform well get more cash. Critics argue that the money could be better spent elsewhere – such as grassroots sport. Since 2010, local authority grants have shrunk by a fifth. And a quarter of people in the UK now do less than 30 minutes of activity a week. So, with current public health and NHS crises… How much are Olympic medals really worth?

UK Sport, which determines how public funds raised via the national lottery and tax are allocated to elite-level sport, has pledged almost £350m to Olympic and Paralympic sports between 2013 and 2017, up 11% on the run-up to London 2012. Those sports that have fuelled the rise in Britain’s medal-table positions over the past eight years – athletics, boxing and cycling, for example – were rewarded with increased investment. “It’s a brutal regime, but it’s as crude as it is effective,” said Dr Borja Garcia, a senior lecturer in sports management and policy at Loughborough University.

Liz Nicholl, the chief executive of the funding agency UK Sport (quoted in The Guardian) said: “I think we’ve all seen and felt the impact of medal success on ourselves and on the UK. Success in sport can inspire the nation, make everybody proud and unite the nation. There’s no doubt about that. We can all see it and feel it. Why do we invest in medal success? We invest in medal success to create a proud, ambitious, active, healthy nation.”

But the UK Government has come under fire… Why does it give money to successful sports rather than to sports that need money in order to achieve better results? And why does it not give more money to grassroots sports? Some say its priority is to get as many medals as possible to show that the UK is a “successful” country. It also considers that the more medals the UK wins, the more patriotic the country will feel… And does winning lots of medals really inspire the nation to practice more sport as Mrs Nicholl says?

If you divide the £274,5m subsidy from UK Sport by the total number of medals won, the medals cost the UK £4m each (the medals are worth £4m each) in terms of how much was spent (i.e. the cost of) training the athletes. The medals are worth a lot too (i.e. the value given to them) in terms of how much prestige they bring the UK. But the cost to (the price for/the effect on) those who lose out from the Government’s meritocratic system is also very high, namely: the sports that have not won medals (and are therefore no longer subsidised), and grassroots sports (which are essential to improving the health of the nation and would reduce the cost of health care).

Who plays sport in England? Click HERE!

Are Olympic champions born or made?

Mo Farah writes…

I always loved football at school and playing for Arsenal was my dream. But my PE teacher saw something in me when I was running down the wing. He pulled me aside and said to focus on athletics – it all started there.

I began racing seriously at 13 but it was after winning the European Junior 5,000m title in 2001 I started to really believe this could be my full time job. I dedicated myself to it 24/7 but I couldn’t have imagined I would become a double Olympic champion, especially not in my own back yard.

London 2012 and the Rio games have both been a dream come true for me. But what does it take to win an Olympic gold medal?

It is seriously tough to become an Olympic champion. The most important thing is commitment; it’s all about getting on top of that podium. I don’t dream of winning – I train for it. In the run up to Rio I was running about 120 miles a week. I become a bit of a robot – eat, sleep, train, repeat! Sometimes you have to make big sacrifices, like running until your body is crying out for you to stop, or missing your child's birthday because you are at a training camp.

When preparing for a long race, like the 5k or 10k, I practice running that distance the weekend before. Then in the week leading up to it I ease down. Just before the race I like a seriously strong espresso too – then I’m ready to go. The mental side is really important too. I always like to plan my race tactics in my head – visualizing how I’m going to beat my competitors.

Preparation is vital. Combine those hard yards in training with mental toughness and you give yourself the best chance of winning. If you’re anxious and worrying about your rivals then you can throw it all away. You can have all the natural talent in the world, but there is no substitute for hard work.

Educating the elite in the UK

Eton’s confidence trick is a lesson for life

Article from THE TIMES by Janice Turner

September 3 2016

 Boys who blagged their way into meeting Putin show why Britain is still a divided nation, with state schools left behind

We will see that photograph again, the snap of ten Eton sixth-formers after their hour-long meeting with Vladimir Putin. And the boys knew it. A few were pulling gangsta moves and goofy faces, lolling on the Kremlin carpet, thinking of the Facebook “likes”. Others, conscious that the internet never forgets, recalling maybe the Bullingdon picture Boris and Dave fought to repress, were composed, aloof, putting destiny before “bantz”.

How did they pull off this summit? Well, invite Putin’s personal priest (who knew he had one?) to speak at your school, then cheekily ask him to arrange a visit. Call in Russian contacts to ease your path, send 1,000 emails, blag, never be deterred by “No” . . . until you stand immaculately suited, looking wholly entitled at 18 not just to shake the Russian president’s hand but later to opine on his record: that Putin is misunderstood over Ukraine and right to bomb Syria. “Chutzpah” doesn’t even come close.

The more I interview famous people, the more I’m convinced success is a confidence trick. Not entirely, of course. Putting aside luck, the recipe seems roughly three parts talent, one part drive and one part audacity. In those from humble backgrounds, audacity means “going for it” when you’ve little to lose. In the privileged, it is an acquired confidence which drowns out that querulous inner voice forever whispering: “Who am I to apply to Cambridge or Rada, to work at Goldman Sachs, to write for The Times?”

When I interviewed Tony Little, the departing head of Eton last year, he remarked that in the very fabric of the ancient building, carved with initials of poets, princes and politicians, was the question: “Why not you?” Old Etonian David Cameron, when asked why he wanted to be PM, answered: “Because I think I’d be good at it.” Why not me? And his tenure — which seems so long ago now — was kingly and gracious. Whatever you thought of his policies, you could never fault his choreography or demeanour. Did he ever doubt his right to be there, even after he almost broke the Union, after he staked his legacy (and Britain’s future) on the referendum, and lost? I doubt it. You aren’t destroyed by defeats if you feel you own the game.

How does Eton create such men? (Putin is clearly as fascinated as the rest of us.) It treats every boy as a rugged individual. No dorms, but separate rooms and solo chats with tutors. It makes boys organise outside speakers without help from masters, even if they occasionally forget to meet a cabinet minister off his train. (The Russian trip was planned without the school’s knowledge.) And it tells boys, in Little’s words, “not to lead with their chin” but employ charm first. Then, if this isn’t enough, a steely arrogance is unsheathed. I’ve heard the wife of a cabinet minister who didn’t go to Eton complain: “The Camerons treat us like staff”.

Above all, Eton, like other private schools, offers “polish”, which as a report into social mobility this week made clear, can count for as much as grades. The study showed that state-school candidates were turned down for jobs in banking for the faux pas of wearing brown shoes, loud ties or not being the right “fit”. In these “customer-facing” roles, banks believe the rich will only trust you with their money if you can pass as moneyed.

More state school pupils — 59 per cent this year — are now admitted to Oxford. Other top universities from which bankers are mainly recruited are selecting more widely too. But still working-class students are let down by their ignorance of hidden social codes. In Scandinavia and Germany I’m always struck by how hard it is to guess someone’s social standing from their appearance: in Britain I can tell at first glance. Obviously I’m more attuned to our signifiers but in other countries working and middle-class people and their culture are not so far apart.

The solution to improving social mobility in Britain has been to admit a few extraordinary poorer kids into the golden circle. Eton, a canny luxury brand, which constantly evolves with the times, is more generous with its resources than most. (And can afford to be.) A fifth of boys are on some kind of bursary, like the son of Somalian refugees in Brixton who has just won a sixth-form scholarship. Eton also sponsors the London Academy of Excellence, twinning clever East End kids with its tailcoated boys. This academy encourages sharp dressing, punctuality, resourcefulness, manners and boundless aspiration: values which are too lacking in the state sector, especially in provincial towns.

In London, at least, you can see bastions of privilege from the bus. Visiting my old Doncaster comprehensive I was struck by the uniforms: polo shirts and baggy trousers, as if training to mix paint in B&Q (DIY store). Why not insist boys wear suits to sixth form to raise their expectations and show them how to dress for a professional job? And the headmaster, although mentioning media studies A level, didn’t invite me to meet students. Perhaps he thought I’d bore them. But it is easier to imagine becoming a journalist if you’ve met one who comes from your housing estate. By contrast, my sons’ London private school is forever asking media parents to help ease their pupils’ career paths.

Because those Eton boys, with their resourcefulness, fine manners and the coolness to look a Russian tyrant in the eye, will end up running City banks and Westminster and be given platforms to present their views. Confidence is rarely born, it is acquired: every bright pupil should be encouraged in their audacity, to ask the question: “Why not me?”

Seven of the top ten universities in Europe are British... Why?

Times Higher Education university rankings: click HERE!

The Olympic Games: making the world a happier place?

One mo' gold for Great Britain!

Champions celebrated as glorious Olympics end

Text adapted from an article in THE DAY, Monday, 22 August 2016

Early this morning, the curtain fell on the 2016 Rio Olympics. At the closing ceremony in the Maracana stadium, the Olympic flame was extinguished and the official flag of the Games was handed to Tokyo, the host in 2020.

306 gold medals have been won, but thousands of athletes have left empty-handed. Are the Games inspirational because they harshly divide winners from losers?

During Brazil’s Olympic fortnight, 19 new world records and 65 Olympic records were set. Michael Phelps won his 23rd gold medal. Usain Bolt once again won all three men’s sprinting titles. Young competitors Simone Biles and Katie Ledecky won four events each.

According to the website Medals per Capita, the USA - which finished top of the official medal table - was 63rd when medals were weighted and divided by each country’s population size. Great Britain was 19th (France 30th). Grenada (population: 106,825) has the distinction of being the most efficient country at the Rio Games as regards the medal tally (number of medals) when compared to the country's population (one silver in the Men's 400m).

Tim Black, a columnist for Spiked, thinks we should draw wider lessons from these champions. In the Olympics, he says, ‘there can only be one winner, not many or plural winners’. This ethos, he argues, is ‘almost entirely at odds with that writ large in today’s mainstream cultural script, rich as it is in relativism and low aspiration’. Relativism is the idea that nothing is absolutely right or wrong; all moral questions are relative to the circumstances around them. Relativists are more likely to argue that the winner of a competition is not the worthiest of praise. Black criticises this idea, saying the Olympics should simply be seen as ‘universally human’.

A similarly competitive instinct helps to explain Great Britain’s stunning Games. British athletes claimed 27 gold medals and second place in the medal table – behind only the USA. Just 20 years ago, at Atlanta 1996, Britain won only one gold.

Medals by country: click HERE!

The turnaround has largely been credited to UK Sport, which allocates funding and prioritises sports in which Britain has previously been successful. Sports in which athletes had missed their medal targets in 2008 and 2012, such as wrestling, table tennis and volleyball, were stripped of funds. ‘It is a brutal regime, but as crude as it is effective,’ says sports management lecturer Dr Borja Garcia.

Crosby cries victory!

But how meritocratic are the Olympics? Public policy decisions and countries’ relative wealth had a significant impact on the outcome. Whereas 48% of medallists came from Europe, only 5% were from Africa. How fair are the Olympic Games, when most of the athletes who have won medals are those who have benefitted from a decent sporting infrastructure, financial support, and moral support from their families and fans? The losers are often talented people who have received little encouragement or reward. For the Olympics to be more fair, surely all sportspeople should have the same quality of training?

Medallists however were not the only competitors to draw praise. When Abbey D’Agostino collided with Nikki Hamblin during the women’s 5,000m heats, Abbey stopped running to help up and encourage Nikki, her rival. Hamblin ran through the pain for the last 2,000m and then declared: "That girl (Abbey) is the Olympic spirit right there".

Abbey and Nikki

The winners should be our biggest inspiration, say some. They unashamedly pursue excellence and show what we are all capable of. Those who never settle for second best break boundaries and achieve things which improve the human condition. As Black writes, ‘the Olympics world is harsh, discriminating and judgmental’; that is why Rio was so good.

Winning is not everything, respond others. The true beauty of sport is its accessibility - anyone can give it a try. Winners’ medals only have value if they are won against many other people. We can learn more from those who battle against the odds or put sporting values ahead of personal glory than from a procession of successful people.

And, what, in the end, is the point of the Olympic Games? Are they merely entertainment, a celebration of the sporting ethos,  a means to promote a more peaceful and happier world? Or are they rather more the veneration of medal winners, and a way for powerful countries to symbolize their superiority, promoting aggressive competition among not just athletes in a race for the greatest number of medals but between the countries the athletes represent?

Questions:

1. Did you enjoy watching the Rio Olympics?
2. In what ways are the Olympic Games inspirational (and have the Games inspired you to do (more) sport)?
3. Do you agree that nowadays people's aspirations are low?
4. What does Black mean by 'universally human'?
5. Do you approve of the 'brutal' meritocratic regime of UK Sports? 
6. Do you agree the Games are good thanks to the fact that the Olympic world is 'harsh, discriminating and judgmental'?
7. In sport, is winning (in order to gain 'personal glory') more important than participating do you think (cf. "The important thing is not to win, but to take part", dixit Pierre de Coubertin)?
8. Do you think YOU can become the best you can be?
9. Should Olympic athletes no longer represent their countries?
10. Is the Olympic spirit dead?

Our new region: Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes

A few links:

> Web site of the Région Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes
> Wikipedia article in English about the new region
> Wikipedia article about the new region in FRENCH
> Articles in La Montagne about the "pôle métropolitain" Clermont-Vichy

Here are the titles to choose from for your essay (+ oral presentation):

1. Would you prefer to live in Perth, Australia?
2. Why, from your point of view, is democracy “the worst form of government, except for all the others”?
3. Does power inevitably corrupt?
4. How easy is it for teenagers to set up a project (civic action, cultural activity, etc.) in the region you live in (give as an example a project you have set up or are involved in or have tried to set up)?
5. “In Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes, what are the possible economic, social and political consequences of concentrating power in Lyon?”
6. Is it possible to feel one “belongs” to a region as big as Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes?
7. Is the Auvergne the “Wild West” of Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes?
8. How dynamic a region can Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes become within the EU?
9. How would you increase learning opportunities for the pupils, students and apprentices from the Région Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes?
10. What would make you want to continue living in the Région Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes?
11. How would you increase employment opportunities in the Région Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes?
12. How can the Région Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes facilitate labour mobility, both geographical and occupational?
13. How would you improve transport to and out of, and within, the Région Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes (especially for under-25 year olds)?
14. How should the Région Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes promote social justice?
15. Should we do more for refugees in our region (Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes)?
16. What should the priorities of the Région Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes be do you think?
17. What are your suggestions to make the Région Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes a great place to live and work?

EUROPAVOX

Click HERE for the programme!

Take part in the online GAME and win seats to the concerts!

Celebrating Europe throughout May!

Go on a treasure hunt and maybe win a trip to a European capital! Click HERE!

The UK, EU Member State, introduction

This course uses chapter 7 (pages 82 to 93) of the Hatier classes européennes HISTORY GEOGRAPHY text book, entitled: "The United Kingdom, between Europe and the open sea" .

2016 editorial cartoon by Tom Janssen

Pages 82-83, introduction

Teacher’s analysis of the title "The UK, between Europe and the open sea":

What is the “United Kingdom”?

• The UK (aka Britain or Great Britain) is a sovereign state in Europe.
• Its full name is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
• It is a member state of the European Union (it joined the European Economic Community in 1973).
• It lies off the north-western coast of the European mainland, includes the island of Great Britain, the north-eastern part of the island of Ireland, and many smaller islands. The UK is surrounded by the Atlantic Ocean, with the North Sea to its east, the English Channel to its south and the Celtic Sea to its south-southwest. The Irish Sea lies between Great Britain and Ireland.
• It is the 8th-largest country in the EU (248,500 km²).
• The UK consists of four countries: England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland (though Northern Ireland is also described as a region).
• The population is estimated at 64.5 million inhabitants (third largest of the EU). England's population is about 53 million (one of the most densely populated countries in the world, with 417 people per km², concentrated in London and the south-east).  Scotland's population is about 6 million, Wales’ population is about 3 million, and Northern Ireland about 2 million.
• The UK is a constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary system of governance (House of Lords and House of Commons). The government of the UK is based in Westminster (London). There are devolved administrations in Edinburgh (for Scotland), Cardiff (for Wales), and Belfast (for Northern Ireland).
• The capital city is London (10,320,000 inhabitants, second-largest in the European Union). It is a global city and a main financial centre.

What is “Europe”?

It means the continent of Europe (geographical area), all the European countries, and it can mean the European Union (EU).

What is “the open sea”?

It means the main body of a sea or ocean, especially the part that is outside territorial waters and not enclosed, or partially enclosed, by land. Here, the term is used to describe the Atlantic Ocean. For the British (the inhabitants of the UK), the ocean is the natural barrier that makes them an  island nation (it puts them physically but also culturally apart from the rest of the world, in particular “the continent”, i.e. Europe). The ocean is also the thing that has to be dominated (cf. “Britannia rules the waves”). The British are a (proud) maritime nation; they sailed the sea to conquer a world-wide Empire from the 16^th to the 19^th centuries. 

The “open sea” also refers to the atlanticist foreign policy of the UK (Atlanticism, according to Wikipedia, is "a belief in the importance of cooperation between Europe and the United States and Canada regarding political, economic, and defence issues, with the purpose of maintaining the security and prosperity of the participating countries, and to protect the values that unite them"). According to Charles De Gaulle (in his Mémoires de guerre, published in the 1950s), Winston Churchill had said (in 1944) that: “Each time we (the British) must choose between Europe and the open sea, we shall always choose the open sea”. This would appear to be Eurosceptic, and to favour Atlanticism; the British are often reproached for having this attitude… However, Churchill, one of the founding fathers of post-war Europe, also said (in 1947, at the start of the Cold War, when European cooperation was seen as the means of rebuilding the continent and resisting communism) that: “If Europe united is to be a living force, Britain will have to play her full part as a member of the European family”. These two contradictory quotes by Churchill reflect Britain’s ambivalent attitude towards its European partners: should the UK be a more active member of the EU or should it be more independent and deal unilaterally with its economic and political partners in the world (notably North America)? The “Brexit” referendum (on whether the UK wishes to remain within or leave the EU) is the consequence of the UK government being unable to resolve this long-standing quandary… So, “between Europe and the open sea” in the title does not simply refer to the UK’s geographical position, but also its political position within the EU.

Analysis of the Key question: "How does the UK combine its own original model with EU membership?"

The UK has an “original model”; this means it is different from the other EU member states on the political, economic and social levels.

Politics

For the British government, “Brussels” is synonymous with EU “interference”. The UK parliament (often proudly described as “the mother of parliaments”) resents having to comply with EU directives and has negotiated with the EU numerous “deals” (the latest by David Cameron) and opt-outs to the UK’s advantage (like not being part of Schengen or the Eurozone).

Economy

The UK (fifth-largest economy in the world and the second-largest in Europe after Germany), has a laissez-faire economic system and a weak welfare system (there is wide-spread poverty). Its financial sector is very dynamic and gives it a degree of independence from the EU. The UK sees the EU essentially as a market, not as a means to political rapprochement or to favour better working or living conditions for the people (a “social” Europe).

Society

British society values its own particular values and practices (its own currency, driving on the left, the monarchy, etc.). It is also very much open to the world (London is a world city). The 2012 Olympic Games held in the UK were an interesting insight into how the British perceive themselves and how they would like the world to see them: creative, dynamic, different (a little eccentric, self-deprecating, with a sense of humour), open to the world but proud to be themselves (patriotic)… The British, because of their history (empire-building), their insular mentality (independent-mindedness), and perhaps their “heroic” role during WW2, see themselves as leaders and trend-setters. The British are, according to most surveys, the most Eurosceptic of Europeans; most people reject the EU's perceived "federalism" and "bureaucracy". One can say that the UK combines with some difficulty its "original model" with EU membership...

Questions:

1. What does the phrase "the open sea" refer to?
2. Why did Winston Churchill say that the UK would "always choose the open sea"?
3. Why are so many British people Eurosceptic?

Translate the introductory paragraph (p. 82).

Describe and comment the photo of City Hall and Tower Bridge using the FACTFILE and all the words of the WORD BOX.

For a description of, and comments on, the editorial cartoon By Tom Janssen, see below!

Brexit referendum (June 2016)

Teacher's introduction (written on the 9th April 2016):

The British Prime Minister (PM) David Cameron, gave a long-awaited speech (known as the “Bloomberg speech” because it was given in the City of London at the offices of Bloomberg) on the 23rd of January 2013 to people (businessmen and politicians) interested in the UK’s European policy. In this speech he said what he thought about the EU (he said he was pro-European) and outlined what he wanted for Britain as a Member State of the Union (he said that he wanted to renegotiate the status of the UK within Europe and that the EU had to become more “economic” and less “social”). He also promised that a national referendum would be held (if he were re-elected at the 2015 General Election) asking the British people if they wanted the UK to remain a Member State of the EU. He did this for two reasons: firstly, as a way to put pressure on Britain’s European partners (it was a threat: if the EU did not change, Britain would probably leave…), and, secondly, as a way to pander to the Eurosceptics of his own party - the Conservative Party - and to the increasingly popular UKIP (the United Kingdom Independence Party, led by Nigel Farage). UKIP’s main policy is that, because all the problems of the UK are due to the fact that it is a Member State of the EU, the UK should leave the EU. Cameron thought that he needed the votes of these Eurosceptics in order to be re-elected at the General Election (it was held in May 2015, and Cameron was re-elected Prime Minister). David Cameron said in his speech that he would campaign for Britain to stay in the EU in the run-up to the referendum.

In June 2016, the British people will, finally, vote in the national referendum (described as the “in or out” referendum and also “Brexit”, i.e. “British-exit”) on whether they want the UK to remain a member State of the European Union (EU) or to leave it. The probable outcome of the referendum (the UK leaving the EU) has created great disquiet among Britain’s EU partners (and pro-Europeans in the UK). It has also been the cause of dissention within the British Government: Cameron has continued to campaign for Britain to stay “in”, while several important Cabinet members and influential Conservatives (notably Boris Johnson, a likely future leader of the Conservative Party) are campaigning for the UK to get “out” of the EU. If the “out” camp wins, Cameron will undoubtedly resign (if he has not resigned before then because of the “Panama Papers” debacle)…

Cartoon commenting Cameron's 2013 "Bloomberg speech":

Cameron in a predicament...

The cartoon above is by Dave Brown. It was published in The Independent on 24th January 2013. It is criticizing David Cameron's Bloomberg speech (given the day before), accusing the Prime Minister of having taken a "wrong turn" politically, pandering to eurosceptics by promising an "in or out" referendum. His political misjudgement, according to the cartoonist, has left him "out in the cold". The "toad" is a zoomorphic caricature of Nigel Farage, the leader of UKIP. The "British bulldog" (an animal that symbolises the British and their national character) is here shown in its nationalistic (anti-EU) avatar. The "audience" of Cameron's speech was not in fact the pro-Europeans (shown in the brightly-lit room) but the Eurosceptics (the toad and the bulldog). Dave Brown thinks that Cameron should not have promised a referendum in his speech (because the UK will probably leave the EU) to satisfy short-term elecoral gains (i.e. winning back support from Eurosceptics); he should have had the political courage to say to his audience that the UK will continue to be an active member of the EU because the danger is that the UK will ostracise itself from the EU (symbolized by the EXIT door being slammed shut).

HOMEWORK: describe and analyse the Dave Brown cartoon above (for a METHOD, cf. the end of this blog post!).

The text below has been adapted from an article that appeared in The Day, dated 22 February 2016:

The debate: Westminster divided over EU vote

Hats in the ring: Leading Conservatives are facing off over Britain’s EU membership.

The date has been set... On 23 June 2016, Britain will make the most momentous decision of a generation. Should it remain a member of the European Union, or is it time to leave?

1. For the next 122 days the UK will be gripped by a debate which could change the course of its history. David Cameron, the prime minister, has spent months negotiating a new ‘special status’ in the European Union (EU). The reforms that Cameron negotiated include an amendment to EU treaties which exempts the UK from any movement towards an ‘ever closer union’. This means Britain will never be forced to join the euro or a European ‘super-state’. Now voters must decide whether it is enough to convince them to stay…
2. It will be ‘one of the biggest decisions this country will face in our lifetimes,’ said Cameron; and it ‘goes to the heart of the kind of country we want to be, and the future that we want for our children’.
3. For the prime minister the choice is clear. He will be campaigning with his ‘heart and soul’ to stay in the EU, where Britain will be ‘safer, stronger and better off.’ After all, the EU gives instant access to jobs and trade with 27 other countries, while offering ‘safety in numbers in a dangerous world’. The European Economic Area allows members to move and trade freely. It is possible that the UK could negotiate access to the EEA if it decides to leave, but this is not guaranteed.
4. Although they may disagree on details, many of the UK’s top politicians stand alongside him: the Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn stresses that being part of Europe has brought the UK ‘investment, jobs and protection for workers, consumers and the environment’. Meanwhile, Scotland’s first minister Nicola Sturgeon said that another independence vote would be ‘inescapable’ if Britain left the EU against Scotland’s wishes. In September 2014, Scotland voted to remain part of the UK. Scottish voters are more in favour of the EU than English voters, leading Sturgeon to warn that they will not be dragged out against their will.
5. But not everyone is so sure. Last night, London’s mayor Boris Johnson announced that he would be taking the ‘once-in-a-lifetime chance to vote for real change.’
6. He will be joined by Michael Gove, the justice minister, who has argued that membership includes too many laws made by people whom ‘we never elected and can’t throw out’. Britain should ‘take control’ of its democracy and ‘show the rest of Europe the way to flourish,’ he said.
7. Others have concerns about the EU’s ‘open border’ policy; the work and pensions secretary Iain Duncan Smith argued that it puts Britain at risk of ‘Paris-style’ terror attacks, while UKIP leader Nigel Farage said that membership is ‘seriously imperilling our security’. Being in the EU prevents Britain from controlling its borders, said Duncan Smith, which makes it easier for extremists to enter the country. However, it is important to note that Cameron insists that Britain is safer in the EU, as it is easier to share intelligence with other security forces.
8. The arguments each way are laden with technical details and conflicting statements. But the central question is this: does Britain want to be a part of a political union with shared laws and a common goal?
9. The club has many benefits, says the ‘in’ camp — including free trade and thus investment and jobs, and influence over Europe’s future. And the UK is better equipped to face global challenges as part of a strong and united Europe. It cannot retreat into nationalism now.
10. But the ‘out’ team insists Britain will thrive by regaining control of its own destiny. It is not dependent on the EU; it is a powerful country which can make its own trade deals and will still have a leading role in Nato and the UN. It is strong enough to make it alone. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization is a military alliance which includes Britain, the US, and several European nations.

The 'Brexit' referendum is open to UK citizens aged 18 or above. It is also open to citizens from Ireland, Malta and Cyprus if they are over 18 and live in the UK. If you live in the UK, then the decision is bound to affect your life at some point. There are short-term impacts, such as how easily you travel around Europe (a vote to leave could make that process more complicated). But it is the long-term effects that are the most important. For good or bad, the EU helps to shape Britain’s laws, economy and security, and those are the things which shape the careers, education, and safety of every person who lives there...

Pour la version en français de cet article, cliquez sur le lien suivant :

http://theday.co.uk/francais/le-d-bat-westminster-divis-sur-le-brexit 

Comprehension questions (two questions per enumerated paragraph):

1. What is the name of the UK Prime Minister ("PM")?
2. What might convince the voters to stay in the EU?
3. What big decision does the UK have to make?
4. Whose "lifetimes" is Cameron talking about?
5. When does David Cameron want the UK to leave the EU?
6. What "gives instant access to jobs and trade"?
7. Who is Jeremy Corbyn?
8. Who is Nicola Sturgeon?
9. Who is Boris Johnson?
10. Does Boris Johnson favour 'Brexit'?
11. Who is Michael Gove?
12. Why does he want the UK to leave?
13. What is the name of the UKIP leader?
14. What do he and Ian Duncan Smith fear?
15. Are the arguments for or against Brexit clear?
16. What is "the central question"?
17. What "club" does the "in" camp want to stay in?
18. Why should the UK not retreat into nationalism according to the "in" camp?
19. How will the UK thrive?
20. Why can the UK "make it alone"?

Click on the following links to watch useful videos:

• Confused? BBC News offers a simple guide to how the EU works in under two minutes. (1:54)
• ‘The choice is in your hands.’ David Cameron makes his case for remaining in Europe. BBC News.(4:32)

For a METHOD on how to describe and analyse a political cartoon, see below: