Part II. The absence of the written constitution is regarded by many people as an advantage

The absence of the written constitution is regarded by many people as an advantage. They think that because the constitution is not contained in any written document it can be easily altered by the passing of an Act of Parliament or by general agreement to vary, amend, abolish or create a convention. So they think it can more readily be adapted to changing political conditions and ideas, its flexibility saves serious disturbance to existing organs and forms of government.

There is, on the other hand, a strong counter-argument and criticism of the existing political system. The opponents think that Britain's unwritten constitution is no longer a sufficient safeguard of democratic and individual rights, as there is no constitutional protection either for the nation as a whole or for individuals, as neither the Queen nor the Lords can effectively oppose a government which commands the majority in the Commons. An elected government unlimited by constitution is a menace to people's liberties whether it be a dictatorship of Right or Left, of a majority or a minority.

In 1988 a group of distinguished politicians, lawyers, academics, writers and journalists began to campaign under the title "Charter 88" (the Charter of 1688) for wide-ranging reforms. They called for a Bill of Rights, protecting individual liberties, for a written constitution which would define and limit the powers of Parliament, because a Bill of Rights without a written constitution limiting Parliament's sovereignty might be worthless. These demands are not groundless. It is undeniable that during the 1980-90s the British Government was found guilty of infringing the European Convention of Human Rights more than any other member of the European Community.

These points are seen quite the other way by the opponents. They regard the present system as virtue rather than a defect as it ensures strong government. So the debate should be about how to find the balance between strong government and strong democracy. The calls for constitutional reforms are unlikely to disappear; they may become even more insistent. The problem is that no government once elected will wish to restrict its powers. So the British people come to the conclusion that only a constitutional crisis will persuade them whether or not a written constitution is necessary.

Notes to the text:

to alter – изменять, переделывать, вносить изменения

to abolish – отменять, упразднять

to save – избавлять от

it is undeniable – несомненно, явно

to infringe – нарушать

virtue – достоинство, хорошее качество

Task 6. Find in the text the English equivalents for the following words and word combinations: преимущество, принятие парламентского закона, всеобщее соглашение, вносить поправки, достаточная гарантия, диктатура, большинство или меньшинство, выдающиеся политики, проводить кампанию, требовать чего-либо, суверенитет, необоснованные требования, признать виновным, Европейское Сообщество, гарантировать (обеспечивать), более настоятельные требования конституционных реформ, ограничивать власть (полномочия), прийти к заключению, убеждать.

Task 7. Make verbs from these words with the help of the prefix en- and translate them: sure, act, title, able, force, large, trust.

Task 8. Make these words negative with the help of the prefixes un-, im-, dis-, ir-, il- and translate them: likely, rational, advantage, regular, appear, stable, possible, deniable, personal, limited, legal, written, responsible.

Task 9. Answer the questions:

1. What are the advantages of the absence of the written constitution?

2. What are the disadvantages of the absence of the written constitution?

3. What is meant by Charter 88"?

4. What do the British people think of their constitution?

UNIT 8

Дата добавления: 2015-07-20