www.inglesparaconcursos.blog.br
❑ 
PROVA DE LÍNGUA INGLESA:
PROVA DE LÍNGUA INGLESA:
PROVA, TRADUÇÃO, GABARITO & MUITO VOCABULÁRIO
❑ TEXTO:
THERESA MAY AND THE REVENGE OF THE REMAINERS
[defensores da permanência da UE]
[defensores da permanência da UE]
By Anne Applebaum
Never mind that the moderate centrism of her predecessor, David Cameron, won a Conservative Party majority only two years ago. Never mind
that she herself has offered few details about Brexit and what it will mean: May called this a “Brexit election,” declared herself the “strong and stable”
candidate, promised tough negotiations with Europe and clearly expected to win a larger majority.
Yes, May had a plan — but it was a plan designed for her base. She ignored the 48 percent of the country that did not vote for Brexit, calling them
“citizens of nowhere.” She ignored the anxiety that Brexit has created and the economic consequences that are now just beginning to bite. She ignored
younger people, who preferred to stay in the E.U. last year and now prefer the Labour Party to the Tories by a huge margin, 63 percent to 27 percent.
May also assumed that the centrists and moderates who had voted Conservative in 2015 and to “Remain” in Europe in 2016 would have to vote
for her because they would have nowhere else to go. They couldn’t possibly vote for Jeremy Corbyn, the quasi-Marxist, left-wing Labour Party leader
who campaigned on high taxes for the rich, heavy spending, and deep skepticism toward Britain’s traditional defense and foreign policies. They couldn’t
possibly prefer a Labour Party that is itself divided over Brexit. But as the campaign went on, as May grew stiffer and more prone to error, as her “strong
and stable” tagline [mote, slogan] wore thin, a lot of people in the floating center looked at Corbyn and thought, “Is he really that much worse?”
And the result? Remainers’ revenge. In Canterbury, a long-standing Brexiteer member of Parliament lost to a Labour candidate, apparently thanks
to a surge in student voting. In Kensington, an overwhelmingly Conservative seat — but also overwhelmingly anti-Brexit — the vote was so close that
recounting was suspended at 8 a.m. on Friday so that election officials could go home and rest. Across the country, people voted Labour despite not liking
Corbyn. People told pollsters that they were worried about the future of the National Health Service, that they didn’t like May’s flip-flops on elderly care,
that they were unnerved by instability unleashed by the Tories.
Play to your base, insult your opponents: It’s a tactic beloved of many, including President Trump. But here’s a lesson for the opponents of populists
all over the West: “Play to your base” doesn’t work when you have high turnout — and in this election it was higher than predicted. It doesn’t work when
you face angry, alienated voters. And it didn’t work in Britain at all.
The outcome is a disaster, but it’s hard not to enjoy the many ironies. The Tories campaigned against a “coalition of chaos” — but now it is they
who lead exactly that. May campaigned to get a larger majority, but now Britain has a hung Parliament, meaning that no party has enough seats to
form a government. May tried to portray herself as a singular leader, but now she can stay in power only with the help of one of the small Northern Irish
parties. If she remains prime minister — if her famously regicidal party doesn’t defenestrate her immediately — her majority will be neither strong nor
stable, particularly because her party is torn by divisions over Brexit, too.
It’s funny — but it’s also tragic, for May could have played all of this differently. When she took over last year, she could have recognized Brexit for
the constitutional and political crisis that it has turned out to be. She could have called for national unity to deal with this divisive issue. She could have
appealed across party lines, or asked people what outcome they preferred, or sought compromise. Instead she stuck to her formula — “Hard Brexit,”
tough-sounding language, “it’s all about immigration.” She kept her base — and lost everyone else.
Adapted from The Washington Post, June 9, 2017
*UKIP: United Kingdom Independence Party, a Euroskeptic and right-wing populist political party that is a strong supporter of Brexit.
❑ TRADUÇÃO-TEXTO:
Theresa May and the revenge of the remainers
Theresa May e a vingança dos remanescentes
[defensores da permanência da UE]
[defensores da permanência da UE]
By Anne Applebaum
[1º PARÁGRAFO]
Theresa May had a plan: Steal the policies of Britain’s “far right” — the U.K. Independence Party — and then steal their voters, too.Theresa May tinha um plano: roubar as políticas da “extrema direita” britânica – o Partido da Independência do Reino Unido – e depois roubar também os seus eleitores.
Since she took office about a year ago, the formerly moderate British prime minister attacked foreigners, jeered [zombou] at the European Union and held Donald Trump’s hand.
Desde que assumiu o cargo, há cerca de um ano, a ex-primeira-ministra britânica moderada atacou estrangeiros, zombou da União Europeia e segurou a mão de Donald Trump.
In April, she called an early general election, confident that UKIP* voters would now endorse her “Hard Brexit” and her watered-down English Tory populism.
Em Abril, ela convocou eleições gerais antecipadas, confiante de que os eleitores do UKIP* apoiariam agora o seu “Brexit Duro” e o seu diluído populismo conservador inglês.
- "early general election" – eleições gerais antecipadas.
[2º PARÁGRAFO]
Never mind that the moderate centrism of her predecessor, David Cameron, won a Conservative Party majority only two years ago.
Não importa que o centrismo moderado do seu antecessor, David Cameron, tenha conquistado a maioria do Partido Conservador apenas há dois anos.
- "Never mind that" – Não importa que.
Never mind that she herself has offered few details about Brexit and what it will mean: May called this a “Brexit election,” declared herself the “strong and stable” candidate, promised tough negotiations with Europe and clearly expected to win a larger majority.
Não importa que ela própria tenha oferecido poucos detalhes sobre o Brexit e o que isso significará: May chamou isto de “eleições do Brexit”, declarou-se a candidata “forte e estável”, prometeu negociações duras com a Europa e esperava claramente ganhar uma maioria maior.
[3º PARÁGRAFO]
Yes, May had a plan — but it was a plan designed for her base.
Sim, May tinha um plano – mas era um plano elaborado para sua base.
She ignored the 48 percent of the country that did not vote for Brexit, calling them “citizens of nowhere.”
Ela ignorou os 48% do país que não votaram a favor do Brexit, chamando-os de “cidadãos de lugar nenhum”.
She ignored the anxiety that Brexit has created and the economic consequences that are now just beginning to bite.
Ela ignorou a ansiedade que o Brexit criou e as consequências econômicas que agora começam a fazer efeito.
She ignored younger people, who preferred to stay in the E.U. last year and now prefer the Labour Party to the Tories by a huge margin, 63 percent to 27 percent.
Ela ignorou os mais jovens, que preferiram ficar na UE. no ano passado e agora preferem o Partido Trabalhista aos Conservadores por uma margem enorme, 63% contra 27%.
- "the Labour Party" – o Partido Trabalhista.
- "the Tories" – os Conservadores.
[4º PARÁGRAFO]
May also assumed that the centrists and moderates who had voted Conservative in 2015 and to “Remain” in Europe in 2016 would have to vote for her because they would have nowhere else to go.
May também assumiu que os centristas e moderados que votaram nos Conservadores em 2015 e que “permaneceram” na Europa em 2016 teriam de votar nela porque não teriam mais para onde ir.
They couldn’t possibly vote for Jeremy Corbyn, the quasi-Marxist, left-wing Labour Party leader who campaigned on high taxes for the rich, heavy spending, and deep skepticism toward Britain’s traditional defense and foreign policies.
Não poderiam votar em Jeremy Corbyn, o líder quase marxista e de esquerda do Partido Trabalhista que fez campanha a favor dos elevados impostos para os ricos, dos gastos pesados e do profundo cepticismo em relação à defesa tradicional e às políticas externas da Grã-Bretanha.
They couldn’t possibly prefer a Labour Party that is itself divided over Brexit.
Eles não poderiam preferir um Partido Trabalhista que está dividido em relação ao Brexit.
But as the campaign went on, as May grew stiffer and more prone to error, as her “strong and stable” tagline [mote, slogan] wore thin, a lot of people in the floating center looked at Corbyn and thought, “Is he really that much worse?”
Mas à medida que a campanha prosseguia, à medida que May se tornava mais rígida e mais propensa a erros, à medida que o seu slogan “forte e estável” [mote, slogan] se esgotava, muitas pessoas no centro flutuante olharam para Corbyn e pensaram: “Ele está realmente muito pior?”
[5º PARÁGRAFO]
And the result? Remainers’ revenge.
E o resultado? A vingança dos remanescentes.
In Canterbury, a long-standing Brexiteer member of Parliament lost to a Labour candidate, apparently thanks to a surge in student voting.
Em Canterbury, um membro do Parlamento de longa data, defensor do Brex, perdeu para um candidato trabalhista, aparentemente graças a um aumento na votação dos estudantes.
In Kensington, an overwhelmingly Conservative seat — but also overwhelmingly anti-Brexit — the vote was so close that recounting was suspended at 8 a.m. on Friday so that election officials could go home and rest.
Em Kensington, uma cadeira esmagadoramente conservadora – mas também esmagadoramente anti-Brexit – a votação foi tão apertada que a recontagem foi suspensa às 8h00 de sexta-feira para que os funcionários eleitorais pudessem ir para casa e descansar.
Across the country, people voted Labour despite not liking Corbyn.
Em todo o país, as pessoas votaram nos Trabalhistas apesar de não gostarem de Corbyn.
People told pollsters that they were worried about the future of the National Health Service, that they didn’t like May’s flip-flops on elderly care, that they were unnerved by instability unleashed by the Tories.
As pessoas disseram aos pesquisadores que estavam preocupadas com o futuro do Serviço Nacional de Saúde, que não gostaram das cambalhotas de May nos cuidados aos idosos, que estavam nervosas com a instabilidade desencadeada pelos Conservadores.
- "pollsters" – pesquisadores, entrevistadores, institutos de pesquisa.
- "unleashed" – desencadeada, liberada, solta.
[6º PARÁGRAFO]
Play to your base, insult your opponents: It’s a tactic beloved of many, including President Trump.
Jogue com base na sua base, insulte os seus oponentes: é uma tática apreciada por muitos, incluindo o presidente Trump.
But here’s a lesson for the opponents of populists all over the West: “Play to your base” doesn’t work when you have high turnout — and in this election it was higher than predicted.
Mas aqui vai uma lição para os oponentes dos populistas em todo o Ocidente: “Jogar para a sua base” não funciona quando há uma elevada participação – e nestas eleições foi superior ao previsto.
It doesn’t work when you face angry, alienated voters. And it didn’t work in Britain at all.
Não funciona quando você enfrenta eleitores irritados e alienados. E não funcionou na Grã-Bretanha.
[7º PARÁGRAFO]
The outcome is a disaster, but it’s hard not to enjoy the many ironies.
O resultado é um desastre, mas é difícil não gostar das muitas ironias.
The Tories campaigned against a “coalition of chaos” — but now it is they who lead exactly that.
Os Conservadores fizeram campanha contra uma “coligação do caos” – mas agora são eles que lideram exatamente isso.
May campaigned to get a larger majority, but now Britain has a hung Parliament, meaning that no party has enough seats to form a government.
May fez campanha para obter uma maioria maior, mas agora a Grã-Bretanha tem um Parlamento dividido, o que significa que nenhum partido tem assentos suficientes para formar um governo.
May tried to portray herself as a singular leader, but now she can stay in power only with the help of one of the small Northern Irish parties.
May tentou apresentar-se como uma líder singular, mas agora só consegue permanecer no poder com a ajuda de um dos pequenos partidos da Irlanda do Norte.
If she remains prime minister — if her famously regicidal party doesn’t defenestrate her immediately — her majority will be neither strong nor stable, particularly because her party is torn by divisions over Brexit, too.
Se ela continuar a ser primeira-ministra – se o seu famoso partido regicida não a defender imediatamente – a sua maioria não será nem forte nem estável, especialmente porque o seu partido também está dilacerado por divisões sobre o Brexit.
[8º PARÁGRAFO]
It’s funny — but it’s also tragic, for May could have played all of this differently.
É engraçado – mas também é trágico, pois May poderia ter interpretado tudo isso de forma diferente.
When she took over last year, she could have recognized Brexit for the constitutional and political crisis that it has turned out to be.
Quando assumiu o cargo no ano passado, poderia ter reconhecido o Brexit pela crise constitucional e política que acabou por ser.
She could have called for national unity to deal with this divisive issue.
Ela poderia ter apelado à unidade nacional para lidar com esta questão divisiva.
She could have appealed across party lines, or asked people what outcome they preferred, or sought compromise.
Ela poderia ter apelado para além das linhas partidárias, ou perguntado às pessoas qual resultado elas preferiam, ou procurado um acordo.
Instead she stuck to her formula — “Hard Brexit,” tough-sounding language, “it’s all about immigration.” She kept her base — and lost everyone else.
Em vez disso, ela manteve a sua fórmula: “Brexit duro”, linguagem que soa dura, “é tudo uma questão de imigração”. Ela manteve sua base – e perdeu todos os outros.
Adapted from The Washington Post, June 9, 2017
- UKIP: United Kingdom Independence Party, a Euroskeptic and right-wing populist political party that is a strong supporter of Brexit.
- UKIP: Partido da Independência do Reino Unido, um partido político eurocético e populista de direita que é um forte defensor do Brexit.
❑ INTRODUÇÃO:
In this article from The Washington Post, Anne Applebaum analyzes the United Kingdom’s recent general election, in which Prime Minister Theresa May’s Conservative (Tory) Party suffered a great disappointment.
(Neste artigo do The Washington Post, Anne Applebaum analisa as recentes eleições gerais no Reino Unido, nas quais o Partido Conservador (Conservador) da Primeira-Ministra Theresa May sofreu uma grande desilusão.)
Presenting her thoughts against the backdrop of the Brexit controversy, the author looks at Britain’s parties and politicians, the behavior of Britain’s voters, and the election results. Read the text and answer the questions below. You are advised to read the questions carefully and give answers that are of direct relevance. Remember: Your answer to Question 1 must be written in Portuguese, but your answers to Questions 2 and 3 must be written in English. With these last two questions, you may use American English or British English, but you must be consistent throughout.
In this article from The Washington Post, Anne Applebaum analyzes the United Kingdom’s recent general election, in which Prime Minister Theresa May’s Conservative (Tory) Party suffered a great disappointment.
(Neste artigo do The Washington Post, Anne Applebaum analisa as recentes eleições gerais no Reino Unido, nas quais o Partido Conservador (Conservador) da Primeira-Ministra Theresa May sofreu uma grande desilusão.)
Presenting her thoughts against the backdrop of the Brexit controversy, the author looks at Britain’s parties and politicians, the behavior of Britain’s voters, and the election results. Read the text and answer the questions below. You are advised to read the questions carefully and give answers that are of direct relevance. Remember: Your answer to Question 1 must be written in Portuguese, but your answers to Questions 2 and 3 must be written in English. With these last two questions, you may use American English or British English, but you must be consistent throughout.
(Apresentando os seus pensamentos tendo como pano de fundo a controvérsia do Brexit, a autora analisa os partidos e os políticos britânicos, o comportamento dos eleitores britânicos e os resultados eleitorais. Leia o texto e responda às questões abaixo. Aconselhamos que você leia as perguntas com atenção e dê respostas que sejam de relevância direta. Lembre-se: Sua resposta à Pergunta 1 deve ser escrita em português, mas suas respostas às Perguntas 2 e 3 devem ser escritas em inglês. Com estas duas últimas perguntas, você pode usar o inglês americano ou o inglês britânico, mas deve ser consistente o tempo todo.)
01 – (FGV/VESTIBULAR-DIREITO-2019.1-1º SEMESTRE)
- In April 2017, citizens of the United Kingdom voted in an early general election that had been called by Prime Minister Theresa May. According to the information in the article, what did May hope to achieve by holding an election so soon after she had become Prime Minister? What logic did she use in her campaign? What mistakes did she make, and what could she have done to encourage a more favorable outcome [resultado]? What lesson can be drawn from this election?
- In your opinion, is Theresa May a good leader or a mediocre one? How would you describe her character and ability as well as her approach to Brexit? Does being a woman put her at a disadvantage in British politics?
>>(to be answered in Portuguese).
>>(This question tests your understanding of the text, as well as your ability to identify and paraphrase the relevant pieces of information. Your answer should fill up approximately 15 to 20 lines in the space provided.)
>>(This question tests your understanding of the text, as well as your ability to identify and paraphrase the relevant pieces of information. Your answer should fill up approximately 15 to 20 lines in the space provided.)
Em abril, Theresa May convocou uma eleição geral antecipada, confiante de que os eleitores do Partido de extrema direita UKIP agora endossariam seu “Hard Brexit” e seu populismo conservador inglês diluído.
A lógica que ela usou na campanha foi atacar estrangeiros, zombar da União Europeia e segurar a mão de Donald Trump. May se declarou a candidata “forte e estável”, prometeu negociações difíceis com a Europa e claramente esperava obter uma maioria maior.
Os erros cometidos pela primeira-ministra May foram: ignorar os 48% do país que não votaram no Brexit, chamando-os de “cidadãos de lugar nenhum”; Ela ignorou a ansiedade que o Brexit criou e as consequências econômicas que agora estão apenas começando a aparecer. Ela ignorou os jovens, que preferiram permanecer na E.U. no ano passado e agora preferem o Partido Trabalhista aos Conservadores por uma margem enorme, 63% a 27%.
A fim de atingir um resultado mais favorável, May poderia ter jogado tudo isso de maneira diferente. Quando ela assumiu no ano passado, ela poderia ter reconhecido o Brexit pela crise constitucional e política que acabou sendo. Ela poderia ter clamado por unidade nacional para lidar com esta questão divisionista. Ela poderia ter apelado através das linhas partidárias, ou perguntado às pessoas que resultado elas preferiam, ou buscado um acordo. Em vez disso, ela manteve sua fórmula - "Hard Brexit", linguagem que soa dura, "é tudo sobre imigração." Ela manteve sua base - e perdeu todos os outros.
Mas aqui vai uma lição para os oponentes dos populistas de todo o Ocidente: “Jogar com sua base” não funciona quando você tem uma alta participação - e nesta eleição foi maior do que o previsto. Não funciona quando você enfrenta eleitores irritados e alienados. E não funcionou na Grã-Bretanha de jeito nenhum.
RESPOSTA
2ª PARTE :
- In your opinion, is Theresa May a good leader or a mediocre one? How would you describe her character and ability as well as her approach to Brexit? Does being a woman put her at a disadvantage in British politics?
Ela não é uma boa líder, pois embora o resultado do referendum tenha sido favorável à saída do Reino Unido da União Europeia, faltou à primeira-ministra um pouco de flexibilidade para lidar com questões políticas e econômicas, dada a complexidade do Brexit.
O fato de ser homem ou mulher não influi na capacidade do ser humano de ser um bom líder e comandar qualquer Estado, portanto, de forma alguma o fato de ser mulher a colocou em desvantagem na política britânica.
01 – (FGV/VESTIBULAR-DIREITO-2019.1-1º SEMESTRE)
(to be answered in English)
(This question tests your ability to express yourself in a manner that is clear, precise, and relevant. Your answer should fill up approximately 15 to 20 lines in the space provided.)
(This question tests your ability to express yourself in a manner that is clear, precise, and relevant. Your answer should fill up approximately 15 to 20 lines in the space provided.)
Allowing a person or entity that has freely entered a partnership or association to leave that partnership or association can be controversial. For example, although it is often a simple matter to quit a job, “quitting” the Armed Forces in time of war, even if you are a volunteer, is a crime. And one need only remember that some decades ago divorce was illegal in Brazil.
The United States came into being when 13 separate English colonies decided to leave the British Empire and form a federal union. As Thomas Jefferson wrote in
the introduction to the Declaration of Independence, in 1776:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident:
that all men are created equal;
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights;
that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;
that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed;
that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.”
• By 1860, however, the Southern states, believing that what they considered the tyranny of the Northern states and the Federal Government was threatening their way of life, a way of life supported by the institution of legalized slavery (which the South wanted not only to preserve but also to extend into new territories in the West), decided they had the right to secede and to form their own country, the Confederate States of America. President Abraham Lincoln declared they did not have such a right, and a bloody civil war ensued, at first to preserve the union but eventually to abolish slavery forever in the United States. At the war’s end, the South was all but destroyed.
• You should keep in mind that the Southerners wanted to preserve their independence and the inviolability of their culture – to “take back control,” so to speak. Moreover, at the beginning of the war, owning slaves, while controversial, was certainly not illegal, at least not in the South. You should keep in mind as well that had the Confederate States of America succeeded, it would have been the first country in history founded upon the idea of eternal slave labor and that, even before the war, Lincoln had said publicly, “If the Negro is a man, why then my ancient faith teaches me that ‘all men are created equal’; and that there can be no moral right in connection with one man’s making a slave of another.”
• In your opinion, therefore, did the South, which had voluntarily become part of the United States, have the right to secede? What about the rights of those human beings the South kept in bondage [escravidão]? If the South had not permitted slavery, would it then have had the right to leave the United States – or would the existence or non-existence of slavery have been irrelevant in this question?
• Furthermore, is it possible that Brexit – which is also causing serious personal, economic, and diplomatic problems for Britain and Europe, but has not led to war – could be right, but the South’s attempted secession wrong? How are the two situations similar or different? In short, when may a geopolitical entity be justified in separating itself from a union with other geopolitical entities? What should be the guiding principle: law, morality, common sense?
• In answering, you should present clear, well-balanced, and specific reasons for your point of view.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident:
that all men are created equal;
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights;
that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;
that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed;
that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.”
• By 1860, however, the Southern states, believing that what they considered the tyranny of the Northern states and the Federal Government was threatening their way of life, a way of life supported by the institution of legalized slavery (which the South wanted not only to preserve but also to extend into new territories in the West), decided they had the right to secede and to form their own country, the Confederate States of America. President Abraham Lincoln declared they did not have such a right, and a bloody civil war ensued, at first to preserve the union but eventually to abolish slavery forever in the United States. At the war’s end, the South was all but destroyed.
• You should keep in mind that the Southerners wanted to preserve their independence and the inviolability of their culture – to “take back control,” so to speak. Moreover, at the beginning of the war, owning slaves, while controversial, was certainly not illegal, at least not in the South. You should keep in mind as well that had the Confederate States of America succeeded, it would have been the first country in history founded upon the idea of eternal slave labor and that, even before the war, Lincoln had said publicly, “If the Negro is a man, why then my ancient faith teaches me that ‘all men are created equal’; and that there can be no moral right in connection with one man’s making a slave of another.”
• In your opinion, therefore, did the South, which had voluntarily become part of the United States, have the right to secede? What about the rights of those human beings the South kept in bondage [escravidão]? If the South had not permitted slavery, would it then have had the right to leave the United States – or would the existence or non-existence of slavery have been irrelevant in this question?
• Furthermore, is it possible that Brexit – which is also causing serious personal, economic, and diplomatic problems for Britain and Europe, but has not led to war – could be right, but the South’s attempted secession wrong? How are the two situations similar or different? In short, when may a geopolitical entity be justified in separating itself from a union with other geopolitical entities? What should be the guiding principle: law, morality, common sense?
• In answering, you should present clear, well-balanced, and specific reasons for your point of view.
QUESTION 3 (to be answered in English)
(This question tests your ability to construct a balanced, considered, and fluent argument in the form of a short composition. Your answer should fill up approximately 15 to 20 lines in the space provided.)
• “I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be self-evident, that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living; that the dead have neither powers nor rights over it… Then, no man can, by natural right, oblige the lands he occupied, or the persons who succeed him in the occupation, to the payment of debts contracted by him. For if he could, he might during his own life, eat up the usufruct of the lands for several generations to come; and then the lands would belong to the dead, and not to the living, which is the reverse of our principle.” – Thomas Jefferson (1789)
• “Each generation…has a right to choose for itself the form of government it believes the most promotive of its own happiness.”
– Thomas Jefferson (1816)
• “From the earliest times the old have rubbed it into the young that they are wiser than they, and before the young had discovered what nonsense this was they were old too, and it profited them to carry on the imposture.”
• “From the earliest times the old have rubbed it into the young that they are wiser than they, and before the young had discovered what nonsense this was they were old too, and it profited them to carry on the imposture.”
– W. Somerset Maugham (1930)
•“I want my country back.” “I don’t recognize the U.K. anymore.” “We’re losing our identity.” “Immigrants come over here to take our jobs or to live the easy life on public assistance. Britain should be for the British, not for a bunch of lazy, irresponsible, and possibly dangerous foreigners.”
•“I want my country back.” “I don’t recognize the U.K. anymore.” “We’re losing our identity.” “Immigrants come over here to take our jobs or to live the easy life on public assistance. Britain should be for the British, not for a bunch of lazy, irresponsible, and possibly dangerous foreigners.”
– What many Brexit supporters said before the referendum.
• With the above ideas in mind, consider the following question: If the people of a country vote on an irrevocable decision, should all votes be equal? After all, British young people, who overwhelmingly wanted to remain in the E.U., are the ones who will have to spend the majority of their adult lives dealing with the after-effects of the decision to leave, a decision made in large part by their elders, who, while presumably wiser than they, will (statistically speaking) not need to suffer for so long if that decision turns out to have been a bad one.
• So, just as there is an age limit for voting, should some questions be restricted to a certain group? In a representative democracy, the principle of one person, one vote is sacrosanct. That being so, in your opinion, it is fair or is it the tyranny of a self-interested majority to implement decisions that will negatively affect one generation in perpetuity? Is there any way around this or must we accept that democracy is imperfect and that sometimes people, like it or not, will suffer because of political decisions?
• The following may help you formulate an answer:
According to The Economist, because of Brexit the U.K. can expect its economy to shrink by 2.4%, even more if immigration is restricted. Only 40% of British young people aged 18 to 24 bothered to vote in the referendum that, to the surprise of many, approved Brexit.
Last and perhaps most important, should the U.K. declare Brexit null and void, and petition to be reinstated in the E.U.?
• In answering, you may take into account legal, ethical, and practical considerations, but please strive to be as clear-sighted and logical as possible, supporting your point of view with specific arguments and examples.
• With the above ideas in mind, consider the following question: If the people of a country vote on an irrevocable decision, should all votes be equal? After all, British young people, who overwhelmingly wanted to remain in the E.U., are the ones who will have to spend the majority of their adult lives dealing with the after-effects of the decision to leave, a decision made in large part by their elders, who, while presumably wiser than they, will (statistically speaking) not need to suffer for so long if that decision turns out to have been a bad one.
• So, just as there is an age limit for voting, should some questions be restricted to a certain group? In a representative democracy, the principle of one person, one vote is sacrosanct. That being so, in your opinion, it is fair or is it the tyranny of a self-interested majority to implement decisions that will negatively affect one generation in perpetuity? Is there any way around this or must we accept that democracy is imperfect and that sometimes people, like it or not, will suffer because of political decisions?
• The following may help you formulate an answer:
According to The Economist, because of Brexit the U.K. can expect its economy to shrink by 2.4%, even more if immigration is restricted. Only 40% of British young people aged 18 to 24 bothered to vote in the referendum that, to the surprise of many, approved Brexit.
Last and perhaps most important, should the U.K. declare Brexit null and void, and petition to be reinstated in the E.U.?
• In answering, you may take into account legal, ethical, and practical considerations, but please strive to be as clear-sighted and logical as possible, supporting your point of view with specific arguments and examples.
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário