United Kingdom and Commonwealth Peter Osborne Essay
United Kingdom and Commonwealth Peter Osborne
Peter Osborne is the author of the text which is written in 2011. The duke and duchess of Cambridge were visiting Canada, and Peter Osborne wrote the article “A royal salute to the Commonwealth”. In the article he expresses his opinion about the Commonwealth. Today there are about 54 member countries, and the article is a debate about the Commonwealth, and whether it should abolish or not. In addition Peter Osborne is questioning what is going too happened when the Queen dies, and he is not rapturous for Tony Blair and New Labour. The article is starting and debate, and it is very objective. Peter Osborne is writing his opinion, and why he thinks the Commonwealth is a good thing.
Peter Osborne starts his article telling about the royal visit to Canada. Already here we know about his view on the commonwealth, because he says: When the second in line to the throne travels to Canada, it is like visiting family rather than some foreign country. This shows that Peter Osborne sees Canada as a family member, and that every country in the Commonwealth are like family. He also uses positive connotations when he describes the Commonwealth. “…Such is the invisible strength of the Commonwealth, the association of independent countries”. “Strength” and “independent countries” are positive connotations in the sentence. These positive words show the reader which view Peter Osborne’s has on the commonwealth.
On the other hand, Peter Osborne also uses negative words in the article to describe what he disagrees. He talks about the politicians, and how they look at the Commonwealth. “For many years it has been automatic in progressive circles to sneer at the Commonwealth as a meaningless relic of our imperial past.” His view on Tony Blair and New Labour is also clearly expressed when he says: “Blair regarded traditional British values and identities as xenophobic, if not racist…” He also uses negative connotations like “poodle-like” and “slavish” when he says: But I would argue that it is Tony Blair and Gordon Brown’s poodle-like relationship with the United States, and the former’s slavish worship of the European Union…”
In line 31 Peter Osborne writes some facts about the Commonwealth, and membership. He wants to influence the reader, and this is the directive language function he uses. He wants the reader to have an opinion about it and start a debate. The directive language function is often seen in commercials, and you might say that Peter Osborne promote for the Commonwealth. “The Commonwealth is cheap: the cost to Britain of our membership is barely 20p per head, and a fraction of the £50 per head swallowed by the European Union…” Peter Osborne does not use the personal pronoun directly as the directive language function often uses. But he uses the fellow-felling when he writes that every country in the Commonwealth is family, and that connects the people and talks to the people in the member countries directly.
The text also uses the expressive language function. Peter Osborne expresses his opinion about the Commonwealth, and as mentioned earlier his view on Tony Blair is clearly, just like his view on the Commonwealth and how important it is. The article is very objective, and Peter Osborne wants to prove the reader the good about Commonwealth, and why it is a good thing to have. He says: “She was absolutely right”, “But I would argue”, “It is true” and “Certain things will have to change”. Almost every time Peter Osborne starts a new sentence, it is his view and opinion that shows. The author’s opinion is very often for expressive texts, and that is existing in this article.
Peter Osborne, who is the sender of the text, has a lot of grounds in his article. He has a message about the Commonwealth which he gets well out in the text. He also has a lot of claims which have an effect on us, the receivers. With the negative and the positive connotations, he gets his opinion out to the reader, and affects the reader. Peter Osborne also sounds reliable even though he has negative things to say. He does not just write negative things about Tony Blair and New Labour, but he has some good grounds and claims, which make the article interesting to read. In addition to that Peter Osborne is a known man. He is a British journalist and professor of modern European Philosophy. He has also written books about politics, and therefor is an well-respected man by many people, and I think that even people who do not agree with him, will read his articles because he has good points.