Edexcel A2 Government and Politics May/June 2012

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

The new asbo thing.

Not related to youth but relevant to pretty much any crime question in general is the cuts in police funding.

One good book to read is Andrew Heywoods Political Ideologies..
Other than that, youd hace to look at previous exams, work oit question pattern and just plqn as many essays as you can from them.

Quick question: how many papers are there for A2 politics? And what are their structures, as in marks etc...
Im self taught, so Im not familiar with these exams at all :L

Any replies would be much appreciated.

This was posted from The Student Room's Android App on my ST18i

for unit 4d... my teacher is pretty sure one of the following questions will come up as 45 mark q's:
- To what extent does counter terrorism justify the infringement of human rights?
- is war obsolete?
- does huntingtons 'clash of civilisations' thesis describe global politics?
- Is Obamas vision of a 'nuclear free world' possible/desirable?
- Are radical approaches the answer to combating environmental issues?
- Is international aid effective?

these are just guesses though..

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).

Can someone please help me with this question: "

"To what extent is further EU integration necessary and desirable?"

I'm clueless :/ A plan would be helpful.

What should the ideal structure be for a 15 mark and 45 mark question? Would it be best to make a point for then follow it up with a criticism or list all the for points in the first half and the against points in the other half?

well aid in general has not come up since the first paper in jan 2010 and the other question on terrosim and human rights is a good cross over question between the two topics and also hasn't come up

He just gets really keen on making graphs of which topics have/haven't come up and so therefore whats likely and weirdly in unit 3d, he predicted a good 5/8 questions so fingers crossed the same thing happens again!

Okay ... Further eu integration could be 'widening' which would be enlargement or 'deepening our integration' which is giving up more sovereignty , signing more treaties etc .. So you would first argue in favour of. Widening and deepening integration such as globalisation , stretching our position world wide in terms of politics , opening doors for eastern eu countries to support them financially .. Help reform their countries because they'll benefit from funds such as regional funds and also quicker democratic process because they have to meet the Copenhagen agreement etc .. And then you argue on the other hand , against enlargement , e.g opening doors mean more emigration into the country to benefit from the welfare state, also taking over jobs from British people = higher unemployment amongst those who may charge higher prices .. Etc or giving up our sovereignty which undermines our power in terms of our global position .. And you can also mention the membership of the 10 new member states , and also turkey who's applied to join for years .. ( even more migration , unemployment )

Hope that helps :/

Either structure is fine. Do which ever youre more comfortable with. I prefer to bounce arguments off eachother because that's the technique I've used for my last 9 exams, and it's seemed to have worked. Also I feel it allows for more evaluation. However structure is also important for this exam, so in that sense if you haven't got equal amounts of arguments, it may be better to pursue a for/against model

Thank you, that helps! I was really confused with the "necessary and desirable", totally threw me off. I guess it's necessary for a stable monetary union and single market. But mostly undesirable to eurosceptic member states as they fear losing sovereignty.
Does anyone happen to know how the Franco-Berlin axis ties into the democratic deficit? I know France and Germany usually meet on the eve of important European meetings to decide things beforehand, so does this mean it undermines what say the other member states have? Is it even important?