Corrigé du sujet d’anglais concours commun IEP 2017

corrigé sujet anglais concours commun sciences po

Comme chaque année, nous essayons de vous fournir au plus vite le corrigé du sujet d’anglais du concours commun des IEP 2017. L’an dernier, la plupart des élèves hésitaient entre deux gros sujets, Trump et le Brexit. Trump était tombé. Cette année, ils hésitaient entre…Trump et le Brexit. Et le Brexit est tombé. Finalement, ce concours commun 2017 restera dans les annales comme l’un des plus abordables en terme de connaissances pour les élèves candidats en anglais, compte tenu des sujets proposés en questions contemporaines et en histoire.

Et si la plupart des candidats ont trouvé l’histoire et les questions contemporaines faciles, cela se jouera peut être pour nombre d’entre eux sur la langue. A ce titre, dans cette épreuve, aucune question n’était à négliger, comme le rappelle ceux qui ont eu une mauvaise expérience.



Mais bien évidemment, si tout le monde pouvait avoir des connaissances sur les Etats-Unis, le devoir de mémoire, ou encore le Brexit, la différence se fait d’autant plus sur la qualité de l’expression écrite, la méthodologie, et la réflexion. Devant le classicisme de l’essay demandé dans cette épreuve d’anglais, cela semble encore plus évident. Les synonymes et la compréhension du texte paraissaient tout aussi abordables. Les questions de compréhension en revanche étaient plus piégeuses, et pouvaient constituer une véritable difficulté pour la majeure partie des candidats.


Quoi qu’il en soit, il fallait éviter de faire du Raffarin:

Voici une proposition de corrigé pour cette épreuve du concours commun des IEP 2017 en anglais. L’article est en ligne sur le site du guardian.





– reasonable  = rational                                          – undermine  = subvert(ed)

– complaints  = resentments                                  – uncompromising  = hardline

– uncontroversial = uncontentious                          – persuade = convince

– result = outcome                                                 – authentic = genuine




1) Why was Tony Blair right according to the journalist?


Blair thinks voters chose Brexit for misleading reasons. A debate should be held even after the referendum but Theresa May’s government makes it impossible as opposition to the government on Brexit is treated as treason. Tony Blair suggests a less manichean view and the columnist backs his positive effort to launch a debate.

2) Why does the journalist suggest that the vote in favour of Brexit was not really a vote on the UK’s EU membership?


Only a few months before the referendum was held, British voters did not see the EU as one of their country’s vital issues. However, the Leave Campaign managed to create a more diffuse anti-immigration sentiment and transformed the vote on Brexit into something else altogether.
3) Why is the Labour Party so timid in its opposition to the government?
Labour has taken in the government’s vision of a hard Brexit as unchallengeable and, as a consequence, Labour MPs do not vote against the Prime Minister’s actions on Brexit. The party has chosen to support the result of the referendum and to avoid criticism or any reaction that could bother the negotiations.

4) How can a « rational debate » on Brexit be restarted at this stage?

In order to resume a « rational debate » on Brexit, it is necessary to make British people aware of the specific issues at stake with the UK’s EU membership. Next, Britons should be allowed to vote again once Brexit legislation has become final and say whether or not they still support leaving the EU then.




In what ways is Brexit the result of a troubled relationship between the UK and its European partners?


Since the membership of the United-Kingdom in 1973, the idea of leaving has always been debated within the country but also among other countries. The relationships between the E.U and Great Britain have never been easy ones.

The single currency is an obvious example of how Britain managed to be in the Union without necessarily following the path that other members followed. By keeping the Sterling Pound and rejecting the Euro without leaving the union, the UK paved the way for a different kind of membership.

Against a European debate, the British support to American intervention in Iraq in 2003 is another proof of the capacity for the country to lead an opportunistic policy, not taking into account some of the ideas or opinions of its allies. Ironically, Mr Blair who now advocates a democratic debate on Brexit, was the one who mocked Mr De Villepin’s speech in the United Nations when the latter opposed the US attack on S.Hussein’s regime.

So Brexit is obviously the result of this « troubled » relationship but not only.

The fear of immigration has been one of the main reasons for voters to decide to leave the EU. Europe and defenders of the « remain » side failed to reassure the British concerning the massive arrival of foreigners on their soil. Britain’s being an island and the country where Malthusianism (the theory according to which demography has to be controlled) was born, this should have been a point on which European partners and defenders of the Remain option proved reassuring. They failed.

The British blamed the Union for costing too much. Those in favor of Brexit managed to convince voters that it was the case. Even with clear-cut examples, the majority of the population believed it.

As a conclusion, Brexit is the consequence of various stakes. Some from within the country, others from the confused links between the EU and the UK. Lessons have to be learned. Whatever the future may bear, Brexit has changed the way Europe works. It has to be an example for the future reshaping of the union.