[Duncan123]

(Original post by FullMetalX)
Well there's no point discussing it now, I guess it was my fault for picking politics anyway. Most people, at least in my class have agreed she can't teach.
Have you revised for all the topics in both units, or just 3/4?

Weird, in my class most people think she's the best teacher.
I've gone through all of them a few times. I'm mainly doing environment/ education and economy for unit 3 and concepts and policies for unit 4. What about you?

[FullMetalX]

(Original post by Duncan123)
Weird, in my class most people think she's the best teacher.
I've gone through all of them a few times. I'm mainly doing environment/ education and economy for unit 3 and concepts and policies for unit 4. What about you?

I'm doing everything except the britain section in europe and economy in britain.

[Cesar Lecat]

(Original post by ilovecatsforlife)
Not sure really, I'm not particularly fussed, and just for a head's up, humanitarian intervention and nuclear weapons came up last time, so chances of those coming up in the 45 marker are slim unfortunately. I'm not particularly fussed about what comes up, as long as it's answerable, they've put in quite a few dodgy ones, just look at the June 2011 paper...that was AWFUL!

The January 2012 paper is probably the best paper I've ever seen, this could be a tough paper

Any chance you could post the questions for the 2012 papers, I can't seem to find them.

[Cesar Lecat]

(Original post by GeraldN95)
I found both unit 1 and 2 to be great.

In Unit 1 - I did Q1 and 2 the questions were really good and I actually enjoyed writing the paper

In Unit 2 - I did Q2 and 3 - The consitution questions were good but then it goes to backbencher one which where I had to think and plan how I was going to answer the question. Then it hit me, the topic was based on Parliament then I used the features of how parliament is effective; Representation, recruitment, scurtiny, debate and passing laws.

Sad to see a lot of people on here find the papers hard hopefully you all do well and the seven other people in my Politics class find it hard aswell.

I am hoping for two As from these exams.

Hahah, exactly . Absolutely **** myself when I initially saw the question.

[Spunky_Monkey]

(Original post by Duncan123)
Give me a question and I can write a plan for it?
Otherwise I'd go through the big treaties and enlargements, showing how Europe has closer integrated.
My conclusion would be something about federalism becoming a larger possibility as the euro crisis become bigger, as stronger union would be needed to fight it.

Yeah I agree with the Euro crisis but enlargement (widening) typically slows down integration (deepening) - hence why conservatives favour accession of new states.
The four main characteristics of a federation are: A single currency, Constitution, Common defence and Supreme court. If it was a question simply on the extent we have a federal Europe id have a paragraph for each point personally, just not sure if I could analyse the ECJ and Constitution fully.

[Duncan123]

(Original post by Spunky_Monkey)
Yeah I agree with the Euro crisis but enlargement (widening) typically slows down integration (deepening) - hence why conservatives favour accession of new states.
The four main characteristics of a federation are: A single currency, Constitution, Common defence and Supreme court. If it was a question simply on the extent we have a federal Europe id have a paragraph for each point personally, just not sure if I could analyse the ECJ and Constitution fully.

Funnily enough, for my mock the question was "does enlargement slow down integration?" or something like that. I wrote it increased integration, because each of the big treaties happened just before a new enlargement (Lisbon coming after 2004, as the constitution failed to come in before). Then i said the fiscal pact was due to the enlargement process becoming to big, hence double QMV in 2014, etc...

I got 38/45, must have said something right...

[Spunky_Monkey]

(Original post by Duncan123)
Funnily enough, for my mock the question was "does enlargement slow down integration?" or something like that. I wrote it increased integration, because each of the big treaties happened just before a new enlargement (Lisbon coming after 2004, as the constitution failed to come in before). Then i said the fiscal pact was due to the enlargement process becoming to big, hence double QMV in 2014, etc...

I got 38/45, must have said something right...

In theory the widening should lead to an increase in eurosclerosis as the process of passing laws and building consensus becomes a more drawn out process, in areas where Veto's still remain and there is no constructive abstention. But then yeah like you said when it gets larger they can just bring a new treaty out. The thing is though how long can that last for the constitutional treaty flopped, and Lisbon was basically undemocratically passed and then with the UK introducing the referendum lock any further integration of the entire union will be near impossible. Also, the widening in some aspects has caused integration to take a step back since countries like Romania don't have free movement of people and the 2004 accessions were not granted CAP. You can definitely argue it both ways though because at the end of the day nobody even knows whats gonna happen anymore.

[Duncan123]

(Original post by Spunky_Monkey)
In theory the widening should lead to an increase in eurosclerosis as the process of passing laws and building consensus becomes a more drawn out process, in areas where Veto's still remain and there is no constructive abstention. But then yeah like you said when it gets larger they can just bring a new treaty out. The thing is though how long can that last for the constitutional treaty flopped, and Lisbon was basically undemocratically passed and then with the UK introducing the referendum lock any further integration of the entire union will be near impossible. Also, the widening in some aspects has caused integration to take a step back since countries like Romania don't have free movement of people and the 2004 accessions were not granted CAP. You can definitely argue it both ways though because at the end of the day nobody even knows whats gonna happen anymore.

Well the Lisbon treaty wasn't much more than a cherrypicking of the constitution and a re-itterting of previous regulation. The referendum lock has already been put into most EU countries. Take Ireland's referendum today.
Romania and Bulgaria are still in Schengen, they just don't have access of it until 2014, which is binding in the Schengen agreement of 1985. A country has to wait 3 years, then another year can be imposed, and then another 3 if it is not in the other EU countries interest to give them freedom of movement. Technically that hasn't been broken. As for the CAP, that's a phasing in period that will end in 2013 because it was feared that E. Europe would see to high a jump in food commodity prices, Blair's retention of the CAP rebate and France's unacceptance to become a net contributor if Poland joins the CAP outright. Quite possibly this will be completely reformed in 2014, but noone knows yet (so thankfully it doesn't apply to our exam)

Treaties always come before an enlargement to prepare. In that more integration becomes a part of this:

1986-- Spain, Portugal -- SEA (QMV to allow incramentalism to work still, only now as neo-functionalism)
1992-- Maastricht- before Finland, Austria, Sweden- to create tighter regulations in CFSP and IHA. The currency part comes as an idea to prevent a unified Germany becoming to economically powerful as part of the EU
1997 Amsterdam and 1999 Nice support what Maastricht didn't deliver.
2007- Lisbon - because of Big Bang - to increase parliament and therefore integrate member states as there are too many. Double QMV from 2014 also to ensure they all move together faster.

You could also say that 'subsidarity' in Maastricht forever damns incramentalism as it created a twin-speed Europe.

Now the fiscal pact is being introduced to basically suppliment Maastricht again, because the union has gotten too big to have monetary union without fiscal union.

A little point to add... major treaties were mostly under Jacques Delors. Since him there has never been a 'European enough' Commissioner, and as their power is weak the Paris-Berlin axis has taken priority in making decisions. Being national leaders, they care more about national sovereignty. This can explain a slow down in incramentalism of the EU, as well as its now enlarged size.

Yet big treaties such as the fiscal pact are still getting through, and can be pushed through with QMV if need be. Therefore if anything the EU are radicalising and becoming more integrationist now in the time of crisis.

[Spunky_Monkey]

(Original post by Duncan123)
Well the Lisbon treaty wasn't much more than a cherrypicking of the constitution and a re-itterting of previous regulation. The referendum lock has already been put into most EU countries. Take Ireland's referendum today.
Romania and Bulgaria are still in Schengen, they just don't have access of it until 2014, which is binding in the Schengen agreement of 1985. A country has to wait 3 years, then another year can be imposed, and then another 3 if it is not in the other EU countries interest to give them freedom of movement. Technically that hasn't been broken. As for the CAP, that's a phasing in period that will end in 2013 because it was feared that E. Europe would see to high a jump in food commodity prices, Blair's retention of the CAP rebate and France's unacceptance to become a net contributor if Poland joins the CAP outright. Quite possibly this will be completely reformed in 2014, but noone knows yet (so thankfully it doesn't apply to our exam)

Treaties always come before an enlargement to prepare. In that more integration becomes a part of this:

1986-- Spain, Portugal -- SEA (QMV to allow incramentalism to work still, only now as neo-functionalism)
1992-- Maastricht- before Finland, Austria, Sweden- to create tighter regulations in CFSP and IHA. The currency part comes as an idea to prevent a unified Germany becoming to economically powerful as part of the EU
1997 Amsterdam and 1999 Nice support what Maastricht didn't deliver.
2007- Lisbon - because of Big Bang - to increase parliament and therefore integrate member states as there are too many. Double QMV from 2014 also to ensure they all move together faster.

You could also say that 'subsidarity' in Maastricht forever damns incramentalism as it created a twin-speed Europe.

Now the fiscal pact is being introduced to basically suppliment Maastricht again, because the union has gotten too big to have monetary union without fiscal union.

A little point to add... major treaties were mostly under Jacques Delors. Since him there has never been a 'European enough' Commissioner, and as their power is weak the Paris-Berlin axis has taken priority in making decisions. Being national leaders, they care more about national sovereignty. This can explain a slow down in incramentalism of the EU, as well as its now enlarged size.

Yet big treaties such as the fiscal pact are still getting through, and can be pushed through with QMV if need be. Therefore if anything the EU are radicalising and becoming more integrationist now in the time of crisis.

You seem to actually enjoy this unit, Care to sit it for me?

[Sean9001]

I sat unit 3 in January - only need 52 UMS in unit 4 to get an A overall!

[Duncan123]

(Original post by Spunky_Monkey)
You seem to actually enjoy this unit, Care to sit it for me?

LOL
I do actually like the Europe paper tbh. I prefer it to Unit 3. But federalism, enlargement, increamentalism, integration are all my topics. I'm screwed if an essay comes up on CAP.

Inbox me, maybe we could do essay plans and stuff?

[Spunky_Monkey]

(Original post by Duncan123)
LOL
I do actually like the Europe paper tbh. I prefer it to Unit 3. But federalism, enlargement, increamentalism, integration are all my topics. I'm screwed if an essay comes up on CAP.

Inbox me, maybe we could do essay plans and stuff?

I enjoyed unit 3 but no-one else in my class seemed to. At least with domestic policy the euro will come up which shouldn't be too difficult compared to the likes of social models and all that ****.
Ill message you tomorrow morning with a couple of plans for likely questions, you can do the integration ones since your good at all that... need sleep now though - caffein is wearing off!

[Duncan123]

(Original post by Spunky_Monkey)
I enjoyed unit 3 but no-one else in my class seemed to. At least with domestic policy the euro will come up which shouldn't be too difficult compared to the likes of social models and all that ****.
Ill message you tomorrow morning with a couple of plans for likely questions, you can do the integration ones since your good at all that... need sleep now though - caffein is wearing off!

Aha, I hate Euro stuff. Tbh I'm hoping an ECB question comes up to cover the Euro; I can usually spin it that way. Otherwise I'm mostly avoiding the Euro. My economics is terrible, although I'm still hoping to do the economy question for unit 3. Maybe something about Draghi's role? Or the Commission losing power in the face of the Euro crisis?

Yeah awesome, we can have a little nosy through. I need practice and someone to check up on what I'm doing.

[TWF]

Environment is a b**** on unit 3A. Anyone got a list of policies?
I know: solar energy, transport policy, airport expansion, Kyoto protocol...

[bosert5]

Anyone know what might come up?

[Baconsarnie]

Hi everyone I've been reading all your comments here on exam predictions and it's got me all worried now haha!

I'm currently reading up on Andrew Heywood's Global Politics book as it's a lot of help, our class has been taught to focus heavily on the theory aspect of our essays so always applying liberal and realist ideology within the spoken topic, as well as mentions of pioneer theorists like Morgenthau and Huntington etc.

Those are all the things I didn't do on my unit 3, my lack of theory really let me down so I have to resit. I got 2 As in both unit 1 and 2 so need roughly the same for U3 and U4.

Hoping China as a superpower comes up in Unit 3 or something on Globalisation or implications of bipolarity...
As for unit 4 I hope something on Humanitarian Intervention crops up as someone has said the Libya/Rwanda topic would be good to talk about for a 45marker. Really dreading any questions on the environmental politics though...

Can someone also please remind me the overview of topics in U3 and U4 just in case I have missed out any to revise. It would help me a lot just to tick off all the ones I've already covered in revision


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

[Spunky_Monkey]

(Original post by Duncan123)
Aha, I hate Euro stuff. Tbh I'm hoping an ECB question comes up to cover the Euro; I can usually spin it that way. Otherwise I'm mostly avoiding the Euro. My economics is terrible, although I'm still hoping to do the economy question for unit 3. Maybe something about Draghi's role? Or the Commission losing power in the face of the Euro crisis?

Yeah awesome, we can have a little nosy through. I need practice and someone to check up on what I'm doing.

Check your inbox mate

[Duncan123]

(Original post by TWF)
Environment is a b**** on unit 3A. Anyone got a list of policies?
I know: solar energy, transport policy, airport expansion, Kyoto protocol...

Focus on Coalition policy, Coalition's 'Vote Blue, go Green', transport and nuclear. They're the key areas for environment

[FullMetalX]

What can they ask for law and order? Last years paper they asked about policing for the 15 mark and prisons for the 45 mark. I'm thinking maybe civil liberties for the 15 mark, but have no idea about the 45 mark?

And what are the coalition's main policies on youth crime?

[Cesar Lecat]

(Original post by Baconsarnie)
Hi everyone I've been reading all your comments here on exam predictions and it's got me all worried now haha!

I'm currently reading up on Andrew Heywood's Global Politics book as it's a lot of help, our class has been taught to focus heavily on the theory aspect of our essays so always applying liberal and realist ideology within the spoken topic, as well as mentions of pioneer theorists like Morgenthau and Huntington etc.

Those are all the things I didn't do on my unit 3, my lack of theory really let me down so I have to resit. I got 2 As in both unit 1 and 2 so need roughly the same for U3 and U4.

Hoping China as a superpower comes up in Unit 3 or something on Globalisation or implications of bipolarity...
As for unit 4 I hope something on Humanitarian Intervention crops up as someone has said the Libya/Rwanda topic would be good to talk about for a 45marker. Really dreading any questions on the environmental politics though...

Can someone also please remind me the overview of topics in U3 and U4 just in case I have missed out any to revise. It would help me a lot just to tick off all the ones I've already covered in revision


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

What do you mean exactly by theory? Do you mean theories from the liberal/Realist/Marxist/Critical point of view? Because that's more of the other exam in which it's about Ideology, surely?

I did Unit 3 last year and got a B. But I missed out on A due to lack of evaluation I think, that's where most of the marks are. Every point you make, you evaluate it. Do you agree with it or not. Give reasons either way as to why you agree with it or not. Is there a counter argument for it? And then relate it back to the question.

I posted a link in the previous page which had the overview of the topics in Unit 3 and 4 and categorized all the past questions into it. It also had notes from the examiners who marked the previous papers as well as advice from Heywood himself.

Unit 3 = World Order, EU and Regionalism, Global Governance and UN

Unit 4 = War and Terrorism, Environment, Poverty, Human rights and Nuclear