Task IV. Add negative prefixes where possible:

	dis-	un-	ir-	-less	im-	in-	il-
Elected		unelected
agreement
Regular
Formal
Legal
Likely
Power
Mature
published

TASK V. a) Insert the missing prepositions: by, from, up, on, by, to, on, about and translate the texts paying special attention to the meanings of the words power/powers

The Sources of Crown Power

Powers exercised … the Crown derive from three sources: statute, private law and the royal prerogative. Powers exercisable by other government bodies derive only … statute, except in the case of the police who have common law powers. Statutory powers make … the bulk of Crown powers and are usually conferred directly … individual ministers. The Crown also has inherent prerogative powers which are peculiar … itself. In practice these are also exercised by ministers. In addition the Crown is recognised as a person … the common law and so has the same capacity to make contracts, own property, etc. as a private individual. This has been described as the 'third source' of powers exercised by the Crown (see Harris, 1992). By contrast, public bodies such as local authorities that are creatures of statute can only do what statute authorises and cannot rely … the ordinary law.

B) Supply the correct derivatives of the words in the right column

There is a … controversy about which powers are properly regarded as prerogative powers. Despite the … of prerogative powers, many questions about them are … . Does the prerogative comprise a single over-arching power to act for the public good of which particular powers are but facets, or is there a finite number of prerogatives the existence and scope of which are not … settled? This is a profound question because a general power is inevitably more … than a group of more … defined powers. That such questions are possible in the late twentieth century shows how such ill-defined powers, many of which are medieval in origin, exist … alongside the more modern constitutional fundamental of the rule of law.

linger antique resolve (negative) final permit, strict uneasy

TASK VI Arrange the paragraphs of the following text in some logical order:

Private law powers

1. In this connection Daintith has distinguished between imperium powers and dominum powers. Imperium powers are usually backed by force, for example police powers of arrest. Dominum powers exist by virtue of property and wealth and usually depend upon rewards and incentives.

2. For example, to all intents and purposes a government contract has the force of law to a body such as a road-building firm or a defence contractor whose livelihood depends upon pleasing the government. Through contracts and the dispersal of money the government can impose its will, for example about wage levels or 'privatisation', without the need to obtain powers from statute.

3. Before looking at the Royal Prerogatives which are peculiar to the Crown we should discuss the Crown's 'private law' powers. Because the Crown is a very wealthy person and a prolific consumer of labour and materials, its private law powers are an important aspect of its political power.

4. Parliament can in principle supervise Crown contracts. However, some matters, notably defence contracts, are by convention excluded from Parliamentary questions. Receipts from Crown enterprises are treated as monies provided by Parliament and payments made by the Crown must be authorised in the Annual Appropriation Act, though this is usually in general terms not related to specific contracts. It is sometimes said that a Crown contract cannot be enforced at all unless the money is authorised by Parliament. This does not affect legal liability as such. It means that money due cannot lawfully be paid out.

5. It could be argued that the distinction between dominium and imperium power is artificial since the wealth on which the dominium powers depend ultimately comes from forcible confiscation of property through taxation. On the other hand, in terms of the law itself the distinction is very important because it affects the scope of parliamentary accountability and judicial review.

NOTES

Imperium - The right to command, which includes the right to employ the force of the state to enforce laws. This is one of the principal attributes of the power of the executive.

Dominium - In the civil and old English law, ownership; property in the largest sense, including both the right of property and the right of possession or use. The right which a lord had in the fee of his tenant.

Appropriations act - An act that authorizes governmental expenditures.

TASK VII. Complete the following sentences using each adverb once only:

usually, lawfully, ultimately, notably, directly, properly, finaly

1. Imperium powers are … backed by force.

2. Statutory powers make up the bulk of Crown powers and are usually conferred … on individual ministers.

3. It means that money due cannot … be paid out.

4. There is a lingering controversy about which powers are … regarded as prerogative powers.

5. It could be argued that the distinction between dominium and imperium power is artificial since the wealth on which the dominium powers depend … comes from forcible confiscation of property through taxation.

6. Is there a finite number of prerogatives the existence and scope of which are not … settled?

7. However, some matters, … defence contracts, are by convention excluded from Parliamentary questions.

TASK VIII a) Use the following verbs in the text about the Monarch’s personal powers:

advise, appoint, refuse, prorogue, dismiss, warn, encourage, dissolve

There are a small number of powers which are ‘personal’ to the Monarch: these are powers which, because of their nature or because of circumstances, cannot be exercised by anyone other than the Monarch alone. However, most scholars argue that even though these powers are personal to the Monarch, she has very little room for discretion, and these ‘personal’ powers are exercised at the request and in accordance with the wishes of the incumbent Prime Minister.

These ‘reserve powers’, or ‘personal prerogatives’, are:

• The right to …, … and …

• The power to … and … the Prime Minister

• The power to … and … Parliament (in certain circumstances)

• The power to … assent to legislation

The Right to … , … and …

There is a weekly meeting between Monarch and Prime Minister, in which the Prime Minister will discuss his or her plans. The Monarch in turn has the right to ‘… , … and …’. The extent of the Monarch’s influence over Prime Ministers is unknown, but a number of former Prime Ministers have pointed to the present Queen’s influence, as she has been Monarch for over 60 years, and can draw on a deep well of political experience.

The Power to … and … the Prime Minister

By convention, the Monarch is expected to … the leader of the party which gains a majority of the seats in the House of Commons: this leader will become ‘the Queen’s chief adviser’—the Prime Minister. This is considered a personal prerogative because there is no advisor to advise the Queen, but there is no real ‘choice’ here: the Queen simply … the leader of the successful political party.

This has been emphasised by the Cabinet Office in the ‘Cabinet Manual’, (Chapter 6 on ‘Elections and Government Formation’) which makes it clear that the monarch no longer has discretion over who is to be … as Prime Minister, but merely validates the decision already made by the political parties.

The first-past-the-post electoral system usually produces clear winners in a general election, so that the Monarch’s decision is entirely uncontroversial. However, it is possible that no party will gain an overall majority in the Commons: this is known as a ‘hung parliament’. In this situation, the role of the Monarch may become more important. Generally speaking, it is up to the political parties themselves to work out a solution, but if the parties cannot decide between themselves, there may be pressure for the Monarch to act to resolve the situation. The key point is that such a situation throws the Monarchy into the public spotlight: any decision the Monarch makes will be seen as political.

One example of this was the 1974 election, which produced the following results:

• Labour: 301 seats

• Conservatives: 296 seats

• Liberals: 14 seats

• United Ulster Unionists: 11 seats

This was made more complicated by the fact that the Conservatives won more votes, but Labour more seats. The incumbent Prime Minister, the Tory Party leader Edward Heath, was unable to form a coalition government, and so resigned. Harold Wilson’s Labour Party then became a minority government, ultimately calling another election at the end of the same year. At all times the Queen was kept informed, but remained silent.

It is worth noting that there have been only 4 hung parliaments in the last hundred years: in 1923, 1927, 1974 and 2010.

The Power to … or to … Parliament

The power to … Parliament is said to be the key power of the Prime Minister: this gives the Prime Minister and the ruling political party an advantage over the other parties, who must make do with the date the Prime Minister sets. However, this assumes that the Prime Minister has the ‘confidence of the House’. A dilemma may arise for the Monarch where the Prime Minister has publicly lost the confidence of the House—in such a case, the prerogative is ‘personal’ to the Monarch: it is no longer clear that the Monarch ought to listen or follow such a Prime Minister’s advice.

In the 2007 Governance of Britain Green Paper, it was suggested that a Prime Minister seeking a dissolution ought to seek the approval of the House of Commons first, but nothing yet has happened to take this further.

The power to … Parliament is likely to be altered by the Fixed-Term Parliaments Bill, should it pass into law. In this case all general elections will be subject to fixed dates, whilst the dissolution of Parliament before then would only occur when there was a vote of no confidence or a vote for immediate dissolution by 2/3 of MPs.

The Power to … Assent to Legislation

Statutory law in Britain can only be made by the ‘Crown-in-Parliament’, meaning the House of Commons, the House of Lords and the Monarch must all assent to a proposed bill before it can become law. By convention, the Monarch always assents to all bills passed by the Houses of Parliament. But commentators wonder: if the Monarch were to be given legislation which violated some fundamental tenet of the British constitution could she … assent? This has never been tested. In the crisis over the Home Rule bill in 1912-1914, King George V did threaten to use his veto to encourage a settlement, but this is now almost a century-old precedent. The last recorded example of a Monarch refusing assent was in 1707.

In the 20th century Monarchs very rarely had to make a public exercise of their personal ‘reserve’ powers. The most obvious recent example of this was in 1957 and again in 1963, when Queen Elizabeth II was required to exercise her royal prerogative and choose a leader for the Conservative party at the time. This was because the Conservatives had no formal means of electing a new party leader. But the effect was that Queen Elizabeth was in fact choosing a Prime Minister for Britain.

b) Answer the following questions:

• Which personal powers are exercised more/less often?

• Are all personal powers likely to survive the current constitutional reforms?

• Which personal powers are going to be abolished first?

TEXT 4 The Royal Prerogative

The Royal Prerogative is a collection of special powers, rights and immunities vested in the Crown which are not conferred by Parliament. The constitutional problem is therefore lack of democratic control over officials claiming to act under the prerogative. The royal prerogative originated in the special rights and powers available to the monarch under the common law. Medieval legal theory did not regard the Crown as the source of law or as above the law, but did confer special rights on the monarch. Some of these were based upon the position of the monarch as chief landowner within the feudal system. Others derived from the responsibility of the monarch to keep the peace and defend the realm. This may have corresponded to the distinction drawn in seventeenth-century cases between the 'ordinary' and the 'absolute' prerogatives, the latter being discretionary powers vested in the king and arguably beyond the reach of the courts.

Influenced by Locke's True End of Civil Government (1764 edition) and Blackstone's Commentaries, Lord Denning in Laker Airways Ltd v. Department of Trade (1977) considered that the Crown had a general discretionary power to act for the public good in certain spheres of governmental activity for which the law had otherwise made no provision. This suggests that the state may benefit from a single, overarching power to interfere in private rights where it perceives an important public benefit may result, especially in times of emergency. This interpretation is, however inconsistent with Entick v. Carrington (1765) where the court emphatically rejected the claim of 'executive necessity' that officers of the state had a general power to enter and search private property in the absence of express statutory or common law powers, Lord Denning's views were not supported by the other members of the Court of Appeal. They are also fundamentally inconsistent with ideas of limited government. The better view is that although the Crown has certain discretionary powers in relation to emergencies, such as the requisitioning of ships, the prerogative comprises a finite number of powers rather than one general power to act for the public good.

Many prerogative powers are of central importance in the British modern constitution. Certain inherent powers are essential to any government. These include the making of treaties, the waging of war, and indeed most matters concerned with foreign affairs, defence, national security and public order. Control over the civil service and armed forces are also based on prerogative powers, although, particularly in respect of the army, intermingled with statute. Some matters, for example emergency powers and immigration control, were once prerogative but are now governed mainly by statute. The security services also operate within a broad statutory framework. There is an uncertain and potentially threatening area of prerogative power concerned with 'keeping the peace' and defending the realm. It has been used to justify arming the police and may justify entry by the security services to private property.

The ancient writ of ne exeat regno prevents persons from leaving the country. Although ne exeat regno is sometimes regarded as obsolete there is no doctrine of obsolescence in English law.

The administration of justice is part of the prerogative although it was established by 1607 that the monarch can act only through professional judges (Prohibitions Del Roy (1607)). The prerogative power to pardon offenders resides with the Home Secretary, and the Attorney General has a prerogative power to institute legal proceedings in the public interest. There is also a prerogative power to stop criminal proceedings by issuing a nolle prosequi.

Other important prerogatives include:

• the monarch's powers in relation to the appointment of ministers and the summoning and dissolving of Parliament; as we have seen, the circumstances in which these powers are exercisable are not clear. They are essentially a long-step to preserve democracy; the various Crown immunities which we have already discussed;

powers relating to the Church of England;

the care of children; the administration of trusts; the award of peerages and other titles, medals, etc., the Crown being the 'fount of honour';

• the granting of Royal Charters to bodies such as universities, learned societies, charities or professional associations which gives the body the status of a legal person and signifies state approval of its activities;

• the conduct of foreign affairs, the appointing and receiving of ambassadors, the issue of passports, etc.

The exercise of prerogative powers can be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. However, in practice, this is limited. This is partly because prerogative powers such as deploying the armed forces do not need formal parliamentary approval so that opportunity for debate is limited. Some prerogative powers, for example dissolving Parliament and granting honours and titles, fall into categories that have traditionally been exempt from parliamentary scrutiny on the ground that they involve the personal discretion of the monarch, even though the monarch must usually act on the advice of the prime minister. Other prerogative powers relate to foreign relationships, national security matters and the prerogative of mercy on which ministers sometimes refuse to be questioned but which Parliament, if it wished, could insist on investigating.

Notes to the Text:

Royal prerogative the special rights, powers and immunities to which the Crown alone is entitled under the common law. Most prerogative acts are now performed by the government on behalf of the Crown. Some, however, are performed by the sovereign in person on the advice of the government or as required by constitutional convention. A few prerogative acts are performed in accordance with the sovereign’s personal wishes.

nolle prosequi - (lat.) “not wish to prosecute”; the legal notice that a lawsuit has been abandoned.

LANGUAGE PRACTICE AND COMPREHENSION CHECK

TASK I. Define the following notions and say who exercises these powers and when:

General power, discretionary powers, inherent powers, prerogative powers, emergency powers

TASK II. Combine the following sentences, use the words: for example, on the ground that, even though and make any necessary changes. Then check against the text.

1. Some prerogative powers fall into categories that have traditionally been exempt from parliamentary scrutiny. 2. Dissolving Parliament and granting honours and titles are examples of such powers. These powers involve personal discretion of the monarch. 3. The monarch must usually act on the advice of the prime minister.

TASK III. Insert the missing prepositions. Then check against the text.

1. The Royal Prerogative is a collection of special powers, rights and immunities vested … the Crown which are not conferred … Parliament.

2. Medieval legal theory did not regard the Crown as the source of law or as above the law, but did confer special rights … the monarch.

3. Some of these were based … the position of the monarch as chief landowner within the feudal system.

4. They are also fundamentally inconsistent … ideas of limited government.

5. Control … the civil service and armed forces are also based … prerogative powers, although, particularly … respect of the army, intermingled with statute.

TASK IV. Add suffixes where possible:

	-able	- ence	-er	-ly	-tion
potential	_	_	_	potentially	_
obsolete
particular
exercise
offend
collect

TASK V. Read the text and work out the definition of "prerogative powers":

PREROGATIVE POWERS

Originally the prerogative would have been exercised by the reigning Monarch. However, over time a distinction was drawn between the Monarch acting in his or her individual capacity and the powers possessed by the Monarch as an embodiment of the State. As the governance of the realm became more complex, power was devolved from the Monarch and exercised by his or her advisers. In modern times Government Ministers exercise the bulk of the prerogative powers, either in their own right or through the advice they provide to the Queen which she is constitutionally bound to follow.

A V Dicey defines the Royal prerogative as ‘The residue of discretionary or arbitrary authority, which at any given time is legally left in the hands of the Crown’. William Blackstone however describes the prerogative more tightly, as those powers that ‘the King enjoys alone, in contradistinction to others, and not to those he enjoys in common with any of his subjects’. Blackstone’s notion of the prerogative being those powers of an exclusive nature was favoured by Lord Parmoor in the De Keyser’s Royal Hotel case of 1920, but Lord Reid in the Burmah Oil case of 1965 expressed some difficulty with this idea. Case law exists to support both views, and a clear distinction has not been necessary in any relevant cases. The question may never need to be settled by the courts as there are few cases that deal directly with the prerogative itself.

The scope of the Royal prerogative power is notoriously difficult to determine. It is clear that the existence and extent of the power is a matter of common law, making the courts the final arbiter of whether or not a particular type of prerogative power exists. The difficulty is that there are many prerogative powers for which there is no recent judicial authority and sometimes no judicial authority at all. In such circumstances, the Government, Parliament and the wider public are left relying on statements of previous Government practice and legal textbooks, the most comprehensive of which is now nearly 200 years old.

This uncertainty has been criticised. Professor Rodney Brazier has written, ‘….the demand for a statement of what may be done by virtue of the Royal prerogative is of practical importance. Yet it has been said judicially that such a statement cannot be arrived at, because only through a process of piecemeal judicial decisions over the centuries have particular powers been seen to exist, or not to exist, as the case may be.’

TEXT 5. DWINDLING POWER OF THE CROWN.*

Monarchs have been at the heart of Britain's system of government for over 1,000 years but their power has been eroded.

The monarchy is the oldest British institution of government, going back more than 1,000 years. Queen Elizabeth II is a descendant of King Egbert, who ruled England in the 9-th century. She came to the throne on February 6 1952, after the death of her father, King George VI.

The concept of monarchy is ancient, originally implying that one person had been given supreme authority over everyone else by a god. For centuries there was no separation between the power of the monarch and the power of the state. These "absolute" monarchs used their powers to levy taxes, raise armies and declare wars without consultation. Over time these unrestricted powers of absolute monarchs were removed. They have mostly been replaced by "constitutional" monarchies - those authorized or limited by a political constitution - in which power has been transferred to politicians.

In the English Civil War of 1642-9 a growing merchant class joined forces with a section of the aristocracy to limit the powers of Charles I, particularly in the area of taxation. Charles repeatedly dissolved Parliament to prevent criticism of his actions and for 11 years ruled the country without a Parliament. The struggle culminated in civil war, the king's execution and the establishment of a republic. In the republic, which lasted for 11 years under Oliver Cromwell, sovereign power was vested in Parliament.

But the propertied classes eventually restored the monarchy. However, the executed king's son, Charles II (who reigned from 1660-85), and his successor, James II (who reigned from 1685-88), proved unwilling to give up what they claimed was their right to absolute power. So William of Orange, who was married to James's daughter Mary and was a Protestant, was invited over from Holland and offered the throne in 1689. a Declaration of Rights at the same time, gave Parliament greater powers including the right to approve taxation. This completed "Glorious Revolution".

Although the monarchy had survived, its role had been severely restricted. Parliament wrested more financial and political control away from the Crown. By the end of the 19-th century, with the establishment of modern party politics, the monarch's role had become largely symbolic.

Today's monarchy seems far removed from that of much earlier times. If anything, the British royal family likes to emphasise its ordinariness. For years, Prince Philip let it be known that he did the football pools. Prince Charles frequently says that he sympathises with the problems of the unemployed and homeless.

This is not to say that the powers traditionally exercised by the Crown - the "Royal Prerogative" - are merely an irrelevant leftover from a bygone age. The Queen still opens and dissolves Parliament and in theory appoints prime ministers and peers, heads the Church of England, the armed forces and the judiciary. In practice, the Queen exercises these powers in name only.

But at times of political or economic crisis, for example, during the debates over Irish Home Rule in 1913-14, and over the formation of a National Government in 1931 - the monarch's remaining constitutional powers can and have come into play. Critics argue that such rare examples highlight the danger of allowing a non-elected, hereditary institution to retain even token political power.

At a more basic level, successive opinion polls have shown a certain amount of resentment at the extent of royal wealth and privilege in what the Prime Minister and others argue is a "classless society". So why has the monarchy survived? Social historians have claimed that when Queen Victoria came to the throne in 1837 she faced widespread public criticism. Revolutions and social upheavals in Europe and the rise in Britain of a radical Chartist movement that campaigned for democratic reforms added to the Queen's difficulties.

There were seven attempts to kill Queen Victoria between 1841 and 1882. By 1864 she had become such a recluse that posters began to appear outside Buckingham Palace announcing that it was to be sold or let "in consequence of the late occupant's declining business". Yet by the time of her funeral in 1901 the streets of London were thronged with affectionate crowds.

The growth of the British Empire and an upsurge of nationalism in the late 19-th century change the monarchy's public standing. In 1877, the Prime minister, Benjamin Disraeli, made the queen Empress of India. Her golden and diamond jubilee (in 1887 and 1897) were turned into fervent patriotic displays.

Walter Bagehot the famous political commentator, remarked at the time that the monarchy was "the most national thing in the nation ... the standard to which the eye; of the people perpetually turn to keep then all together."

A century later, Britain's role in world affairs is much diminished. But the monarch remains head of the Commonwealth as well as of Britain.

Windsor wealth

Estimates of the Queen's wealth range from under £50m to over £7bn, depending on which way her income and assets are calculated. The Queen's personal possessions include her racing stables, her Balmoral and Sandringham homes and her investments. Windsor Castle, Buckingham Palace and the Crown jewels are "inalienable" property, that is, they can not be sold but must be passed on to her successor. The Economist reckons that the extent of the Queen's wealth has been exaggerated, because a lot of her money is ploughed back into helping other members of the royal family. But Phillip Hall, who has written a study of royal fortunes which calls for the Queen to be taxed, estimates that the Queen's investments are worth at least £341m, and that she is "without doubt the wealthiest person in Britain".

LANGUAGE PRACTICE AND COMPREHENSION CHECK:

TASK I Explain the meaning of the verb to raise in the following word combinations:

To raise armies, to raise money/funds, to raise a question/ an issue, to raise a chair, to raise one's hat, to raise prices/taxes, to raise a monument, to raise one's voice, to raise children, to raise a siege/blockade, to raise an embargo, to raise awareness/fears.

TASK II Match the verbs with the nouns:

1. to levy 1) Parliament

2. to declare 2) prime ministers

3. to dissolve 3) the monarchy

4. to prevent 4) the right

5. to restore 5) the powers

6. to give up 6) taxes

7. to exercise 7) wars

8. to appoint 8) criticism

TASK III Use the following expressions to describe changes in Britain’s system of government:

• The power has been eroded;

• Separation between the power of the monarch and the power of the state;

• To use one's power;

• The unrestricted powers;

• Power is transferred;

• To limit the powers;

• Sovereign power is vested in;

• The right to absolute power;

• To give greater powers;

• The powers traditionally exercised by the Crown;

• The monarch's remaining constitutional powers;

• Token political power;

• Dwindling power.

TASK IV Find the following expressions in the text and use them to begin your own sentences:

1. Britain's system of government...

2. The oldest British institution of government...

3. King Egbert...

4. King George VI...

5. "Constitutional" monarchies...

6. The English Civil War...

7. Oliver Cromwell...

8. The "Glorious Revolution"...

9. The football pools...

10. The problems of the unemployed and homeless...

11. Prime ministers and peers...

12. The extent of the royal wealth and privilege...

TASK V Use the text to add events to the following dates:

• 1952

• 1642-1649

• 1660-1685

• 1685-1688

• 1689

• 1913-1914

• 1931

• 1837

• 1877

• 1001

TEXT 6 A right royal argument*

Both monarchists and republicans have strong arguments to back up their case for tradition or change in Britain.

ALTHOUGH other countries in Europe — Denmark, Holland and Spain, for example — have monarchies, the lifestyle of continental kings and queens has less pomp and ceremony than their British counter­parts. The Swedish royal family, for example, sends its children to state schools.

However, most of the world's nations exist without a monarchy at all — the majority are republics. These are states in which there is no monarch and the role of a national figurehead is filled by an elected or nominated representative. In the Republic of Ireland, the president is elected by the people for a period of seven years. In Italy, the president is elected by an electoral college made up of two houses of parliament and dele­gates from the different regions.

Some supporters of this form of government, known as "republicans", argue that, apart from being more democratic, it is also cheaper to run. One writer on the finances of British royalty, Phillip Hall, has estimated that the cost to the public of running the royal family is more than five times that of the German presidency.

Modern republicanism dates back to the American (1775-83) and French (1789) revolutions. The idea is strongly associated with the democratic ideals of Thomas Paine (1737-1809), author of The Rights of Man. Although there has been a long republican tradition in this country, it had largely died out by the end of the last century.

Critics of the monarchy say it is out of keeping with modern democratic principles. But in general, the institu­tion of the royal family is accepted in Britain today with only limited criti­cism and has rarely faced serious challenges.

Supporters of the monarchy, known as "monarchists", argue that it has been an important source of stabil­ity and political continuity in Britain. They say that the pageantry associated with the royal family brightens people's lives and — at worst — causes no harm. Its defenders also emphasise that the royal family indirectly gener­ate tourism and trade, so giving the nation "value for money".

The main objection made by repub­licans to the monarchy is not so much financial as political. According to Tony Benn. the Labour MP and former cabinet minister, the monarchy "is actually an elaborate cover for a struc­ture of unaccountable executive power which is absolutely contrary to all the principles of democracy." The Royal Prerogative, he argues, enables prime ministers to go to war, make treaties, appoint peers, bishops and judges "without even pretending to consult Parliament". In 1991, Mr Benn present­ed a Bill to Parliament that advocated the abolition of the monarchy, the first such attempt in Parliament since Cromwell's time.

Supporters of the monarchy argue that a ceremonial head of state is preferable to an elected, and potential­ly dictatorial, politician. However, republicans argue that the hereditary system (by which the monarchy passes down through the royal family) does not guarantee individual merit.

Alternatives to the monarchy include different forms of elected presi­dency. Proposals have also been put forward in Britain (by the Labour party, for example), for an elected sec­ond chamber to replace the House of Lords. Yet few politicians voice anti-monarchist views today, and the main parties broadly support the institution.

Given the strength of royal tradi­tion in Britain it is unlikely that such ideas will be included in any party manifesto in the immediate future.

LANGUAGE PRACTICE AND COMPREHENSION CHECK.

TASK I. Give arguments for and against monarchy, use the following phrases:

• Some supporters of this form of government, known as "republicans", argue that….

• One writer on the finances of British royalty has estimated that….

• Critics of the monarchy say……

• Supporters of the monarchy, known as "monarchists", argue that…..

• Its defenders also emphasise that…..

• The main objection made by repub­licans to the monarchy is…….

• According to Tony Benn….

• Supporters of the monarchy argue that……

• Alternatives to the monarchy include……

TASK II. a) Match the verbs with their definitions, then paraphrase the sentences:

make up to support something or someone

put forward to give or leave to people who are younger or come later

back up to form (something) as a whole

die out to have existed since

date back to/from to cease to exist, disappear

pass down to offer, suggest (something as an idea) for consideration

b)Use the above verbs in the following sentences:

1) We need further facts ... our statement.

2) A suitable answer has already been ... by the chairman.

3) This style of music … ten years ago.

4) The custom has been … since the 18th century.

5) The custom … the time when men wore swords.

6) Different qualities … a person’s character

7) Contained in 12 books, the Code is one of four works that … what is now called the Corpus Juris Civilis.

8) If you are moved to anger by insults, you spread them abroad; if despised, they … .

9) Although the most Significant environmental crime statutes were passed in the 1970-1975, they … the late 19th century.

10) It is the Constitution’s “rootage in popular will” and the doctrine of judicial review to … this will that preserved the status of the Constitution as higher law.

11) A national government is keen to … responsibilities during hard times and Government passes powers and responsibilities to the sub-national level on the belated assumption that devolution means giving power, as well as responsibility, away.

12) Michael Detmold has … further arguments to show that judges necessarily have authority to invalidate statutes.

TASK III. Express the same in other words:

1) Given the strength of royal tradition in Britain it is unlikely that such ideas will be included in any party manifesto in the immediate future.

2) Some supporters of this form of government, known as "republicans", argue that, apart from being more democratic, it is also cheaper to run.

3) Critics of the monarchy say it is out of keeping with modern democratic principles.

TEXT 7. Referendum set to back the Queen of Australia*

Final poll suggests 47% will vote to retain the Queen as head of state, with 41 % supporting the proposed republic and 12% still undecided.

Christopher Zinn and Duncan Campbell in Sydney

There was almost the taste of victory in the sausage, bacon and eggs served up for the Australian supporters of a constitutional monarchy at the exclusive American Club in Sydney yesterday morning. In their final gathering before their compatriots file to the polling booths today, they clearly believed that they will not wake up tomorrow morning to a new republic.

The bright young hope of the monarchists, Julian Lesser, 23, told the breakfast that the republicans had only succeeded in dividing Australians: "It's time we told them we have one of the best constitutions in the world. It's time we told them you can buy the media, you can buy the celebrities, you can buy the politicians but you can't buy the Australian people."

This is the moment that Australian republicans had hoped would finally signal the Last Night of the Poms, the farewell of the "cultural cringe".

A few weeks ago it seemed that they had pulled it off and there was already speculation as to who might become the first president of Australia. Now the dream seems to have slipped through their fingers like the sand on Bondi beach.

The final opinion polls indicate that the Yes vote for a re­public is trailing with 41% for and 47% against, with 12% undecided. It is these floaters amongst the 12.3m electorate on whom both sides are concentrating their final firepower.

The republicans' latest weapon is the US president, Bill Clinton. Footage of him toasting "the Queen of Australia" at a banquet in Canberra is being used in the Yes campaign's final television advert.

The republicans hope that this will reinforce their argument that there is international confusion about who is really their head of state. Tony Blair and Robin Cook have been quoted by Australia's former UN ambassador Richard Woolcott as saying that they think it "strange" that Australia is not a republic. The Guardian poll indicating that Britons now feel Australia should be a republic has also been much reported.

In final exhortations in the press, which is solidly in favour of a Yes vote, voters are being urged to take what is presented as possibly the last chance for a generation to bring in a republic. "Let us be forthright and confident in our choice," yesterday's Sydney Daily Telegraph said. The Australian, which like the Telegraph is owned by Rupert Murdoch, said: "To join the international legion of proudly independent states, let us vote Yes." It went on: "The key issue should be whether we want to express our independence by letting slip the final symbol of our historical development and appointing our own head of state, not one appointed... by bloodline."

Senior politicians have also weighed in with final rallying cries. The prime minister, John Howard, a supporter of the No campaign, said: "To suggest that we have got to vote Yes to be Australian is absurd."

One of his ministers, Tony Abbott, spoke of "the Crown which was with us at Gallipoli, the Crown which was with us at Kokoda [where Australian troops fought the Japanese in New Guinea in the second world war], the Crown which is with our soldiers in East Timor. Voting Yes means ripping the royal out of the Royal Australian Regiment, which is currently in East Timor."

For the Yes campaign, the leader of the opposition Labour party, Kirn Beazley, said: "The one consequence of a No vote on Saturday is that for the foreseeable future, and we mean by that a substantial period of time, [the Queen] will continue as our head of state." The federal treasurer, Peter Costello, the leading republican in the conservative coalition government, said: "My main fear is if on Saturday Australia votes No, the country which is overwhelmingly republican in settlement will be constitutionally a monarchy.”

He said he believed that Australians feel republican in their hearts and heads"

The secondary vote on a new preamble to the Constitution has all but been forgotten in the argument over the republic. The preamble which was partly composed by the only Aboriginal parliamentarian the Democrat senator Aden Ridgeway, recognises for the first time the role of Aborigines in the country. A poll yesterday showed that 40 per cent of the electorate has not read it and it is likely it could fail to pass out of confusion, although most voters, when told what it means, back it.

It is this confusion, coupled with a lack of apparent excitement about the issues, that has caused the republicans’ problems.

A visitor from outer space would barely be able to tell that a historic landmark in a country's future was on the eve of being decided.

Yesterday on Elizabeth Street in central Sydney, the only sign of the referendum was a bearded man carrying a placard that read "God vote No” to the general indifference of passers-by.

More than 200 years ago a ballad, about the convicts being transported from Britain to Botany Bay, cheerily recorded that “They go to an island to take special charge/ Much warmer than Britain and 10 times as large".

The temperature and the acreage remain the same. What strikes many as remarkable is that so many years later a British Queen is still, if only in name, in charge.

The republic at a glance

What are Australians Voting for?

Whether to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic headed by a president

How would a president be chosen?

Any Australian citizen would be eligible, except members of parliament or political parties. The prime minister would select a candidate, who would have to be endorsed by the opposition leader and two thirds of parliament.

Who supports a republic?

The opposition Labour party's hierarchy and some ministers from the governing liberals; many artists and intellectuals; the media and Rupert Murdoch; the urban middle class; men; the middle-aged; new Asian and European migrants.

Who backs the monarchy?

The prime minister and most of his ministers; people aged 18-24; over-60s; women; the bush; blue collar Labour voters; British-born migrants; the Australian army in East Timor.

Notes to the text:

Pom – (austr. slang) about the British, esp recent immigrants.

TASK I a) Put the verbs in brackets in the proper tense- and voice forms, explain your choice in each case:

1. The bright young hope of the monarchists, Julian Lesser, 23, (to tell) … the breakfast that the republicans (to succeed) … only… In dividing Australians.

2. It’s time we (to tell) … them we have one of the best constitutions in the world.

3. Footage of him toasting “the Queen of Australia” at a banquet in Canberra (to use) … in the Yes campaign’s final television advert.

4. Tony Blair and Robin Cook (to quote) … by Australia’s former UN ambassador Richard Woolcott as saying that they think it “strange” that Australia is not a republic.

5. The Guardian poll indicating that Britons now feel Australia should be a republic (to report)… Also … much ….

6. In final exhortations in the press, which is solidly in favour of a Yes vote, voters (to urge)… . To take what (to present) … as possibly the last chance for a generation to bring in a republic.

7. The Telegraph (to own) … By Rupert Murdoch.

b) Explain the difference between the two sentences:

• Now the dream has slipped through their fingers like the sand on Bondi beach.

• Now the dream seems to have slipped through their fingers like the sand on Bondi beach.

TASK II Rewrite the sentences, use seem with proper infinitive forms:

1. The republicans' latest weapon was the US president, Bill Clinton.

2. The press is solidly in favour of a Yes vote.

3. The secondary vote on a new preamble to the Constitution has been forgotten in the argument over the republic.

4. A few weeks ago they were speculating as to who might become the first president of Australia.

TASK III Rewrite the sentences making any necessary changes, then check against the text.

1. It is absurd to suggest that we have got to vote Yes to be Australian.

To suggest that…

2. Both sides are concentrating their final fire-power on these floaters amongst the 12.3m electorate.

It is these floaters…

3. The republicans’ problems have been caused by this confusion, coupled with a lack of apparent excitement about the issues.

It is this confusion…

4. The fact that so many years later a British Queen is still, if only in name, in charge strikes many as remarkable

What strikes many as remarkable…

TASK IV Combine the sentences, use the suggestions in brackets, make any necessary changes. Then check against the text.

A poll yesterday showed that 40 per cent of the electorate has not read it.

It is likely it could fail to pass out of confusion.

Most voters back it.

They are told what it means. (and, although, when)

The following issues will help you to answer the exam question BRITISH MONARCHY and to write your essay:

1. The Queen reigns but does not rule.

2. Arguments for and against monarchy ( a)in Britain; b) in your country)

3. The functions and powers of the British Monarch today.