Mostrando postagens com marcador FGV 2019. Mostrar todas as postagens
Mostrando postagens com marcador FGV 2019. Mostrar todas as postagens

quarta-feira, 4 de junho de 2025

FGV 2019 – INGLÊS DISCURSIVO – RELAÇÕES INTERNACIONAIS – 1º SEMESTRE

  

https://vestibular.fgv.br

 TEXTO:

ISRAEL  AND PALESTINE
ISRAEL E PALESTINA
Background
Contexto

Zionism is the name of the movement that sought to recover for the Jewish people its historic Palestinian homeland (the Eretz Israel) after centuries of dispersion, or Diaspora – the term used to describe the scattering of Jews in the world outside the land of Israel in ancient times.
Sionismo é o nome do movimento que procurou recuperar para o povo judeu a sua histórica pátria palestiniana (Eretz Israel) após séculos de dispersão, ou Diáspora — o termo utilizado para descrever a dispersão dos judeus no mundo fora da terra de Israel nos tempos antigos.

The modern Zionist movement arose in the late 19th century with plans for Jewish colonization of Palestine, and under Theodor Herzl also developed a political program to obtain sovereign state rights over the territory.
O movimento sionista moderno surgiu no final do século XIX com planos para a colonização judaica da Palestina e, sob a liderança de Theodor Herzl, desenvolveu também um programa político para obter direitos de soberania sobre o território.

In 1917, the British Balfour Declaration endorsed Zionism's objectives, as long as rights for non-Jews in Palestine were not impaired.
Em 1917, a Declaração Balfour britânica endossou os objetivos do sionismo, desde que os direitos dos não-judeus na Palestina não fossem prejudicados.

From 1920 to 1948, the United Kingdom administered Palestine, which was viewed by the Jews as the “Promised Land,” but which also contained an Arab Muslim majority as well as many Islamic holy sites associated with Mohammed.
De 1920 a 1948, o Reino Unido administrou a Palestina, que era vista pelos judeus como a "Terra Prometida", mas que também continha uma maioria árabe-muçulmana, bem como muitos locais sagrados islâmicos associados a Maomé.

After World War II, Jewish immigrants (strongly supported by the United States) flooded into Palestine.
Após a Segunda Guerra Mundial, os imigrantes judeus (fortemente apoiados pelos Estados Unidos) fugiram para a Palestina.

Tension between Jews and Arabs (i.e., native Palestinians) led the UN in 1947 to propose the formation of two states in Palestine, one Jewish and the other Arab.
A tensão entre judeus e árabes (i.e., palestinianos nativos) levou a ONU, em 1947, a propor a formação de dois Estados na Palestina, um judeu e outro árabe.

When the Arab side rejected this, David Ben-Gurion (Israel’s first prime minister) announced the creation of the independent State of Israel on 14 May 1948.
Quando o lado árabe rejeitou a proposta, David Ben-Gurion (primeiro-ministro de Israel) anunciou a criação do Estado independente de Israel a 14 de Maio de 1948.

Embora os seus vizinhos árabes tenham invadido imediatamente, Israel saiu vitorioso e conquistou mais terras do que as que tinham sido concedidas pela ONU.

Over 700,000 Arab refugees left the Israeli-occupied areas.
Mais de 700.000 refugiados árabes abandonaram as zonas ocupadas por Israel.

Since then, several wars and armed conflicts have taken place between Israel and neighboring Arab countries.
Desde então, têm ocorrido várias guerras e conflitos armados entre Israel e os países árabes vizinhos.

And the relationship between Israelis and Palestinians, especially those Palestinians living in Gaza and the West Bank, which are under Israeli control (although the Palestinians living there do enjoy some measure of self rule), remains marked by animosity, bitterness, and violence, all of which have been exacerbated by, among other things, Palestinian accusations of Israeli oppression (and encroaching occupation and colonization) and Israeli accusations of Palestinian terrorism and anti-Semitism.
E a relação entre israelitas e palestinianos, especialmente os palestinianos que vivem em Gaza e na Cisjordânia, que estão sob controlo israelita (embora os palestinianos que aí vivem gozem de algum grau de autonomia), continua a ser marcada pela animosidade, amargura e violência, tudo isto exacerbado, entre outras coisas, pelas acusações palestinianas de opressão israelita (e de ocupação e colonização invasivas) e pelas acusações israelitas de terrorismo e anti-semitismo palestinianos.

As for Zionism itself, it is still active as a movement encouraging Jews worldwide to immigrate to and take an interest in the Jewish state.
Quanto ao sionismo em si, ainda está ativo como um movimento que incentiva os judeus de todo o mundo a imigrar e a interessar-se pelo estado judaico.
********************************
TWO TERRORISMS
DOIS TERRORISMOS
By Henry Siegman

To a great extent, Jewish terrorism and war crimes marked the creation of Israel.
Em grande medida, o terrorismo e os crimes de guerra judaicos marcaram a criação de Israel.

Those who are told about this history dismiss it as a fabrication.
Aqueles que são informados sobre esta história descartam-na como uma invenção.

What they deny or ignore is that these charges have been fully documented not only by historians, including Israeli ones, but also by Israel’s own military.
O que negam ou ignoram é que estas acusações foram plenamente documentadas não só pelos historiadores, incluindo israelitas, mas também pelas próprias forças armadas de Israel.

The point of recognizing this history is not to justify terrorism by either Israelis or Palestinians, but to acknowledge the outrageous double standard that has been applied to the two parties and has undermined the possibility of a peace accord.
O objetivo de reconhecer esta história não é justificar o terrorismo por parte de israelitas ou palestinianos, mas reconhecer o escandaloso duplo critério que foi aplicado às duas partes e minou a possibilidade de um acordo de paz.

Without knowing that history, it is difficult, if not impossible, to understand the extent to which Israeli propaganda has succeeded in shaping a narrative about the creation of Israel that presents the Palestinians who were brutally expelled from their homes as the aggressors and the Jews as their victims.
Sem conhecer esta história, é difícil, senão impossível, compreender até que ponto a propaganda israelita conseguiu moldar uma narrativa sobre a criação de Israel que apresenta os palestinianos que foram brutalmente expulsos das suas casas como os agressores e os judeus como suas vítimas.

Without that history, it is impossible to understand the outrage Palestinians feel over having been portrayed as the bad guys for so long.
Sem esta história, é impossível compreender a indignação que os palestinianos sentem por terem sido retratados como os vilões durante tanto tempo.

Palestinians opposed the UN partition plan and started the 1948 war, but they did so not because of their hatred of Jews or their unhappiness with the partition plans, but because they didn’t want to accept exile, homelessness and disenfranchisement.
Os palestinianos opuseram-se ao plano de partilha da ONU e iniciaram a guerra de 1948, mas não o fizeram por ódio aos judeus ou por insatisfação com os planos de partilha, mas porque não queriam aceitar o exílio, a falta de habitação e a privação de direitos.

What other people would have reacted differently?
Que outras pessoas teriam reagido de forma diferente?

What other people would have agreed to go into exile to accommodate a group that came from outside its borders, claiming a homeland lost two thousand years ago, a principle of ownership that has no parallel in international law?
Que outras pessoas teriam concordado em exilar-se para acomodar um grupo que vinha de fora das suas fronteiras, reivindicando uma pátria perdida há dois mil anos, um princípio de propriedade sem paralelo no direito internacional?

Acceptance of Zionist claims necessarily meant exile for the Palestinians: the Jews of Palestine in 1948 were a minority and if the Jewish state was to be a democracy, it would need a Jewish majority, meaning that the 750,000 Palestinians who lived there would have been expelled even if they hadn’t rejected the partition plan or declared war on the new Jewish state.
A aceitação das reivindicações sionistas significava necessariamente o exílio para os palestinianos: os judeus da Palestina em 1948 eram uma minoria e, se o Estado judaico fosse uma democracia, necessitaria de uma maioria judaica, o que significa que os 750.000 palestinianos que aí viviam teriam sido expulsos mesmo que não tivessem rejeitado o plano de partilha ou declarado guerra ao novo Estado judaico.

As Benny Morris and other historians have written, the war crimes ordered by David BenGurion and executed by his generals were not intended for any purpose other than ensuring the departure of a panicked Arab population.
Como Benny Morris e outros historiadores escreveram, os crimes de guerra ordenados por David BenGurion e executados pelos seus generais não tinham qualquer outra finalidade que não fosse garantir a partida de uma população árabe em pânico.

The point is not that Israelis have no right to defend themselves against Palestinian terrorism, but that the Israeli argument that there is no moral equivalent between Palestinian terrorism and Israeli preventive and retaliatory violence is deeply flawed.
A questão não é que os israelitas não tenham o direito de se defenderem do terrorismo palestiniano, mas sim que o argumento israelita de que não existe um equivalente moral entre o terrorismo palestiniano e a violência preventiva e retaliativa israelita é profundamente falho.

The relevant comparison is between the way Jews acted during their struggle for statehood – not after they achieved it – and the way Palestinians, still very much in the midst of their hopeless struggle for statehood, are acting now.
A comparação relevante é entre a forma como os judeus agiram durante a sua luta pela criação de um Estado – não depois de o terem conquistado – e a forma como os palestinianos, ainda imersos na sua luta desesperada pela criação de um Estado, estão a agir agora.

It is also flawed because you cannot condemn terrorism if you do not offer people under occupation a credible route towards achieving viable statehood through non-violent means.
É também falho porque não se pode condenar o terrorismo se não se oferecer às pessoas sob ocupação um caminho confiável para alcançar uma criação de um Estado viável através de meios não violentos.

That is something Israel has never offered the Palestinians.
Isto é algo que Israel nunca ofereceu aos palestinianos.
Introduction

In the above passage, taken from the article “Two Terrorisms,” author Henry Siegman (himself a Jew and a refugee from The Holocaust, as well as president emeritus of the US/Middle East Project and a former senior fellow at the Council of Foreign Relations) discusses polemical aspects (both current and historical) of the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians.
No excerto acima, extraído do artigo “Dois Terrorismos”, o autor Henry Siegman (ele próprio judeu e refugiado do Holocausto, bem como presidente emérito do Projecto EUA/Médio Oriente e antigo membro sénior do Conselho de Relações Exteriores) discute aspectos polémicos (actuais e históricos) do conflito entre israelitas e palestinianos.

After reading the separate Background section and then Siegman’s text, 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.
Depois de ler a seção "Contexto" e, em seguida, o texto de Siegman, responda às questões abaixo. Recomendamos que leia as perguntas com atenção e dê respostas que sejam diretamente relevantes. Lembre-se: a sua resposta à Questão 1 deve ser escrita em português, mas as suas respostas às Questões 2 e 3 devem ser escritas em inglês. Com estas duas últimas perguntas, pode usar o inglês americano ou britânico, mas deve ser consistente em todas as suas partes.

(This question tests your understanding of the text, as well 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.)
(Esta questão testa a sua compreensão do texto, bem como a sua capacidade de identificar e parafrasear a informação relevante. A sua resposta deve preencher aproximadamente 15 a 20 linhas no espaço indicado.)

As outlined in both the Background and the passage, the year 1948 witnessed the founding of the State of Israel. In the opinion of the author of the passage, what circumstances characterized that founding? What measures did the Jews take to guarantee the creation and survival of Israel? How did the Palestinians react? Why, for example, do you think the author has entitled his article “Two Terrorisms”?
Tal como descrito tanto no Contexto como na passagem, o ano de 1948 testemunhou a fundação do Estado de Israel. Na opinião do autor da passagem, que circunstâncias caracterizaram esta fundação? Que medidas tomaram os judeus para garantir a criação e a sobrevivência de Israel? Como reagiram os palestinianos? Por que razão, por exemplo, acha que o autor intitulou o seu artigo "Dois Terrorismos"?

Last, does the author think the Palestinians have been treated fairly or unfairly during this conflict? What reasons does he give to support his opinion?
Por fim, o autor considera que os palestinianos foram tratados de forma justa ou injusta durante este conflito? Que razões apresenta para fundamentar a sua opinião?

In supporting your points of view, you may take into account legal, ethical, practical, historical, and even religious considerations, but please try to be as objective as possible.
Ao apoiar os seus pontos de vista, pode ter em conta considerações legais, éticas, práticas, históricas e até religiosas, mas tente ser o mais objetivo possível.

      RESPOSTAS EM PORTUGUÊS      :
  • Na opinião do autor, o terrorismo e os crimes de guerra por parte dos judeus marcaram a criação do Estado de Israel. Os palestinos foram brutalmente expulsos de suas casas, tratados como agressores, e os judeus, como suas vítimas.
  • Os judeus da Palestina, em 1948, eram uma minoria e, se o estado judeu tivesse que ser uma democracia, ele precisaria de uma maioria judaica, o que significa que 750.000 palestinos que lá viviam teriam que ser expurgados, ainda que não tivessem rejeitado o plano de divisão do Estado ou declarado guerra ao novo Estado Judeu.
  • Os palestinos se opuseram ao plano de divisão das Nações Unidas e começaram a Guerra de 1948, porém, eles assim fi zeram não por conta de seu ódio em relação aos judeus, mas porque eles não quiseram aceitar o exílio, a falta de moradia e a privação de seus direitos.
  • O autor intitulou o texto de “Dois Terrorismos” visto que, por um lado, os israelenses invadiram a Palestina a fim de transformar o país em um Estado Judeu, atacando e expulsando seus moradores com métodos terroristas e crimes de guerra; por outro lado, os palestinos se defenderam, desencadeando a Guerra de 1948. Assim, ambos os lados, Israelenses e Palestinos, podem ser considerados terroristas.
  • Segundo o autor, os palestinos foram tratados injustamente, visto que crimes de guerra foram ordenados por David Ben-Gurion e executados por seus generais, sem nenhum propósito, a não ser garantir a retirada da população árabe tomada pelo pânico.
(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.)

In its 4 January 2018 issue, the London Review of Books presented an article (“The ‘New Anti-Semitism’”) in which the author, Neve Gordon, a Jew as well as a professor at Israel’s Negev University, points out that because of her active (but non-violent) support of Palestinian self-determination and her protests against what she considers Israel’s violations of Palestinian human rights, she has been accused of a new kind of anti-Semitism.

In distinguishing between this “new anti-Semitism” and traditional anti-Semitism, Gordon writes the following: “The ‘new anti-Semitism,’ we are told, takes the form of criticism of Zionism and of the actions and policies of Israel, and is often manifested in campaigns holding the Israeli government accountable to international law… In this it is different from ‘traditional’ anti-Semitism, understood as hatred of Jews per se, the idea that Jews are naturally inferior, belief in a worldwide Jewish conspiracy or in the Jewish control of capital etc.”

Gordon goes on to affirm that “The logic of the ‘new anti-Semitism’ can be formulated as a syllogism: (i) anti-Semitism is hatred of Jews; (ii) to be Jewish is to be a Zionist; (iii) therefore anti-Zionism is anti-Semitic.”

What is your opinion of the above syllogism? For example, do you think it is reasonable to insist that a sincere, conscientious Jew must also be a Zionist? Can one be a sincere, conscientious Jew, but have no interest in or even oppose the Zionist policies of the Israeli government? Moreover, considering the Israeli government’s often-harsh treatment of Palestinians, does concern for the Palestinian people – some of whom have certainly practiced acts of terrorism against Israelis – make anyone, even a Jew, automatically an anti-Semite, at least in the traditional sense? In your opinion, what would be some of the consequences for Jews around the world if Israel no longer existed?

In answering the above questions, you should support your points of view with clear, well-balanced, and specific reasons. And while you may take into account legal, ethical, practical, historical, and even religious considerations, please try to be as objective as possible.

      RESPOSTAS EM INGLÊS      :
  • My opinion of the syllogism presented is that being a Jewish is not necessarily being a Zionist, since being a Jew means to follow a religion while to be a Zionist means to support the actions imposed by Israel´s government, its internal issues and foreign relations. One can be a devoted Jew but does not agree with the policies adopted by the Israeli government because it is possible that one may be in favour of two separate states in the region and that Jerusalem, which is disputed by the two sides, should be transformed into humanity heritage.
  • I believe that Palestinians receive the treatment from the government of Israel as they deserve it, because since Israel only retaliate the terrorist attacks and missiles sent from Gaza to the South of Israel. Even so, I am still in favour of two separate states, considering that every human being has the right to call a place his homeland, which does not make me an anti-semite.
  • Israel is considered the land for all the Jews around the world. If Israel no longer existed, the Jews would also be considered a people without a territory, which would mean that the Jews would be feeling the way the Palestinians do, which is diffi cult to grasp. Israel promotes several exchange programs for Jewish youngsters from around the world in order to show them every aspect of the country, cultural, political, social, in order to widen the knowledge of their off springs. If Israel no longer existed, Jewish culture would stop being thought to the next generations.
(This question tests your ability to construct a balanced, considered, and fluent argument in the form of a short composition. The quotations below underscore a crucial aspect of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Read the quotations and answer the question. Your answer should fill up approximately 15 to 20 lines in the space provided.)

Note: Given the Israeli-Palestinian conflict’s great complexity, many experts favor the so-called two-state solution, which would enable an independent Palestinian state to co-exist alongside Israel. Unquestionably, a significant number of Israelis and Palestinians support this option. Nevertheless, not only do certain radical Palestinians refuse to recognize the Jewish state, but also many Israelis oppose the creation of a Palestinian state, as Henry Siegman makes clear in the following quotations taken from his article.
• “To this day, the official position of Likud, Israel’s ruling party for much of the past half-century, is that it will never allow the establishment of a Palestinian state anywhere in Palestine.”
• “The two-state solution died because [Israeli prime minister Binyamin] Netanyahu and successive Israeli governments were determined to kill it, and those who could have prevented its demise lacked the resolve and moral courage to do so. America failed in the mission it thought itself uniquely qualified to accomplish because it failed to understand that the diplomatic objective of a great power, and particularly the world’s greatest power, should not be peace, a goal that Netanyahu dishonestly embraced, but justice – or at least the avoidance of injustice so egregious as to discredit the values and institutions on which the future of humanity depends.” 

Considering the above ideas and information (as well as the ideas and information presented in Question 1 and Question 2), why do you think the two-state solution is or is not the best option for a lasting and just peace between Israelis and Palestinians?

If you advocate the two-state solution, how do you think it could be implemented? Should the Palestinians and Israelis work out such an accord by themselves, or should the international community, led by the U.S. or by the UN (or both), exert diplomatic pressure and/or impose economic sanctions to force the Israelis and Palestinians to reach an agreement? If and when the two states become a fact, should an outside entity, such as the U.S., NATO, or the UN, guarantee the security of both countries or should they be left alone to defend their own borders?

If you are against the two-state solution – and assuming that you do not want the present situation, with all its attendant violence, injustice, and suffering, to continue – what solution would you propose and why?

In any event, whether you are for or against the two-state solution, considering the following questions may help you to formulate your answer:
• Can Palestinians and Israelis ever live together peacefully, or must they live separately in their own communities or countries?
• Considering that unfriendly and even hostile Arab countries already surround Israel, won’t the creation of an independent Palestine compromise Israel’s national security? Couldn’t a Palestinian state serve as a base for terrorists or to launch a military invasion?
• Should Israel be allowed to incorporate all of the Palestinian lands (including Gaza and the West Bank) into one Greater Israel, in which Palestinians residents are deprived of their civil rights?
• Since the majority rules in a democracy, if Palestinians living in Israel enjoy full civil rights, and if one day they outnumber Jews, can that country survive as a Jewish homeland?
• Do the Jews have an exclusive right to Palestinian territory merely because their ancestors occupied that land 2,000 years ago?
• Should the Palestinians get all of their original territory back and send the Jews on their way? (In pondering this question, you might ask yourself whether the descendants of European colonizers should hand Brazil over to the Indigenous peoples whose ancestors originally inhabited this land.)

In answering Question 3, you may take into account legal, ethical, practical, historical, and even religious considerations, but please strive to be as clear-sighted and logical as possible, supporting your point of view with specific arguments and examples.

      RESPOSTAS EM INGLÊS      :
  • The two-state solution is a plausible option for peace between Israelis and Palestinians, “two states for two groups of people”, an independente Israel and Palestine, it can be considered the mainstream approach to resolving the confl ict.
  • Israelis and Palestinians want to run their countries diff erently. Israelis want a Jewish state and Palestinians want a Palestinian one.
  • The implementation of this solution could be achieved with the help from the international community, especially the United States and the UNO.
  • The autonomy and the sovereignty of both nations should be guaranteed after the deal, so that both countries could implement its own rules to be followed by the people.
  • It is risky for the security of Israel in a strategic basis to have an Arab country so close, which could enable other Arab countries
  • to reach Israel with their war powers in an attempt to exterminate Israel, as Iran always states it will do. Anyway, it is even more hazardous to keep the situation as it is nowadays with innocent civilians dying in an endless confl ict that already lasts for decades. Let us try to leave in peace.

domingo, 10 de novembro de 2019

FGV/VESTIBULAR–DIREITO–2019.1–1º SEMESTRE–LÍNGUA INGLESA.

www.inglesparaconcursos.blog.br

❑  PROVA DE LÍNGUA INGLESA:
•  VESTIBULAR FGV-2019-DIREITO.
❑ ESTRUTURA-PROVA:
 3 Questions.

PROVA, TRADUÇÃO, GABARITO & MUITO VOCABULÁRIO

 TEXTO:
THERESA MAY AND THE REVENGE OF THE REMAINERS
[defensores da permanência da UE]
By Anne Applebaum

Theresa May had a plan: Steal the policies of Britain’s “far right” — the U.K. Independence Party — and then steal their voters, too. 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. 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.

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]
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.
(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?
      RESPOSTA      
 1ª PARTE 
:
>>(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.)
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 TrumpMay 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.)

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.

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.”
– 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.”
– 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.