hate these ads?, log in or register to hide them
Page 1296 of 1298 FirstFirst ... 296796119612461286129312941295129612971298 LastLast
Results 25,901 to 25,920 of 25960

Thread: (UK EURO WAFFLE) Limey Civil War

  1. #25901
    thebomby's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Switzerland
    Posts
    6,536
    So while all this drivel of the rights or wrongs of the EU and Brexit are waffling on, how do people think Brexit will actually end up? Given the EU's losing patience with Teresa May's vague approach and the fact that it looks like if any trade talks succeed at all it will be a last moment type of thing and right now it looks as if it will really be a hard Brexit without any major agreement. The EU, unlike the contemporary poster (it is really smuggo??) thinks, is not a monolithic bloc and many participants are sick and tired of the UK's preferential treatment over the decades and won't budge an inch on the final payments' issue.

    While I don't think the UK will collapse without trade agreements with the EU, it will make life very difficult for many areas of the UK economy for a while, at least until the UK starts orienting its exports elsewhere and starts getting in low paid workers from elsewhere for the various sectors that rely on EU workers right now.
    Будь смиренным, будь кротким, не заботься о тленном
    Власти, данной Богом, сынок, будь навеки верным...
    Я люблю Росcию, я - патриот

  2. #25902
    Keckers's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 31, 2012
    Posts
    14,206
    We'll have trade agreements, they won't be particularly great and the 5 years after brexit will have the odd headline about how various industries are getting screwed over by some clause or another in them.

    Food prices will climb, there'll be occasional agricultural labour shortages and the financial industry will shrink a bit.
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Mason
    It is absurd that we are capable of witnessing a 40,000 year old system of gender oppression begin to dissolve before our eyes yet still see the abolition of a 200 year old economic system as an unrealistic utopia.

  3. #25903
    Banned
    Join Date
    October 30, 2017
    Posts
    500
    Quote Originally Posted by Isyel View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by The Contemporary Poster View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Isyel View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by The Contemporary Poster View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Zeekar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by The Contemporary Poster View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Zeekar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Appleby View Post
    No alliance in history has ever been cool with members leaving. It's just the first time in history (iirc) that it happens to a not primarily military alliance but a economical-political one.

    Tapapapatalk
    Especially when its a privileged member leaving and bitching because it doesnt have enough privilege.
    Nothing about privelege. People weren't voting for more privelege in the EU they were voting to not be in it. Also what's wrong with having secured opt out exactly? Or are you just jealous Slovenia doesn't have any?
    Youre becoming as bad as xeno m8.
    What's your answer? You constantly complain about it but it seems utterly irrelevant to the discussion at hand and if you're not happy with Slovenia's lot in the EU then why not complain to change it instead of complaining the UK decided to leave the undemocratic German empire?
    I love how when your arguments make no sense and have no impact you just double down and start changing the language to a derisive "German empire" to make it more emotional.

    Have you been on a strict right wing tabloid diet lately? Because your shit is not "rational thinking on your own" but devolved into "I blindly regurgitate everything served to me by the right wing press" by now and it's hilarious.

    Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk
    Eh? I don't have an argument because Zeekar hasn't answered the question of why he's so obsessed with opt outs or why opt outs are relevant to this issue at all. So far as I can see they aren't.

    Sure I used emotional language just as you and others do constantly but you also emotionally attack me for not agreeing with you. I've been reading many books actually not tabloid newspapers and I've come to the conclusion the EU is a dangerous thing that would have eventually destroyed the British tradition of democracy and fully consume it within the EU model. I have to come to realise my heritage and culture are important and should be preserved.
    "those privileges we had are not relevant, we want other privileges!"

    And all your books don't mean shit when the premise and conclusion came first.

    Also in that case I'll ask you, what is so precious about your history and tradition that makes it so important? You're fond of saying you need to analyze the thinking and premises. Tell me, what's so inherently important about the English tradition and it shouldn't change.

    Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk
    As promised, my answer.

    So, I'm a history student so I knew lots about our history but I'd never quite thought about how it actually links together as a whole. In history education, you study various eras but not in order, you'll do anglo saxons maybe, then ww2, then some Henry VIII, it's all jumbled and hard to tell a consistent narrative. And then thrown in you have some foreign but relevant history, like the Romans, or maybe the USA, and a bit of more generalist stuff on topics like health etc...

    So I just started to look at it all in order, from Roman settlement right through to 1945 and there's a very distinctive and evolving theme around the concept of rule by consent. It starts off very basically in little Anglo Saxon settlements and then builds in wave after wave, in a way other countries didn't experience in such a relatively consistent manner. The big countries of Europe formed well after England was considered a single kingdom and it has been by far the most stable kingdom in all of Europe with the last successful invasion almost 1,000 years ago and a tendency to force its traditions upon those who come to rule.

    Now of course there is a lot of back and forth and inevitably some kings get out of hand and become outright tyrants, but there were increasing ways for landed men to keep kings under control. Magna Carta is part of that and there are legal documents with similar text in them that predate magna carta. Anyway, the combined forces of the Renaissance - which revived interest in ancient British laws and was used to make a case for ancient and intrinsic English laws, which bound even kings -Then the reformation comes along and Henry converts and the ideals of protestantism take their own flavour mixed in with this sense of English common law. Protestants believe god, not earthly men like the pope, was the highest source of authority, and they believe that good works are a consequence of belief not a cause in themselves. The culture produced, here and in other protestant countries, was extremely advanced in many fields. On this island, this ultimately led to significant limits on the rights of kings, to the situation today where the monarch is merely a figurehead. It's a consistent story of a distinctive culture that is different to those on the continent, which have their unique, and valuable, cultures. Yes people came and went to different places, but for the most part the UK saw immigration in pretty low numbers until after WW2.

    So post WW2 we're badly damaged by the cost of the war, but not as much as France was, but we get some reparations from Germany and the empire holds up mostly. But when WW2 rolls around we are hideously unprepared and I can now understand why France was conquered so quickly, having the horrors of WW1, which took place mostly on their soil, did not have much desire to fight on and die. But this war completely bankrupts us and we would have lost if it weren't for the USA and the Soviets, in effect we did lose because we were a broken country, a grand empire spanning the whole world and reduced to nothing.

    Despite all this we have, mostly been a pretty united country. Wales has little independence desire, and Scotland doesn't seem to have enough either, we'll probably lose NI eventually due to the bizarre referendum clause in the GFA. But I just feel like all that history of organised, lawful government, that is quite different from the revolutionary and rapid changes that happened in much of Europe, and which produced their own versions of democracy that work for them. As I thought about all this, I realised that actually all those core ideals, of free speech, of democracy with two powerful parties tempering each other's worst impulses rather than coalitions that can move and shift and see some people never out of government for long before the arithmetic brings them in to pursue the similar centrist agenda, of liberty, rule of law to protect us from tyranny and of tolerance.

    I basically realised why I'd not really understood the concept of patriotism before.

  4. #25904
    Joe Appleby's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    in front of the class
    Posts
    12,654
    I got lost half way through your basic history lesson, what was your point again?

    (I'm on the phone on the train and had a drink or three, so bear with me.)

    Anyway, some pointers:
    - How bad were your history classes at school that they weren't chronological?
    Or did they go major topic (rule for example) and then within that topic chronologically? Really curious and seriously not baiting (you know, teaching history is my job and there are myriad ways of doing that.)
    - the UK became a unified nation quite early within the scope of Europe: Sweden, Denmark and Norway have split quite late, Poland stopped existing at times, the Netherlands only became a thing in the 16th century, Belgium only after Napoleon's defeat, Italy and Germany didn't exist as unified nations until the 19th century, basically only Spain, Portugal and France were united quite early on.
    - still don't get how you weren't taught history chronologically.
    - all kings/rulers rule with some form of consent by the Powerful in their nation, be that the commons, rich traders, old families or mighty warlords.

    Tapapapatalk
    nevar forget

  5. #25905
    Liare's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    11,047
    oi!

    Denmark as a unified nation (ie, Jylland,Fyen and Sjælland) has been around since at least 700 AD, Norway and Sweden are the errant colonies here that split from the realm, there was never a unified scandinavian crown either, even during the Kalmar union each nation was considered seperate, likewise the norwegian throne remained seperate up until 1814, but held by the danish king/queen.
    Viking, n.:
    1. Daring Scandinavian seafarers, explorers, adventurers, entrepreneurs world-famous for their aggressive, nautical import business, highly leveraged takeovers and blue eyes.
    2. Bloodthirsty sea pirates who ravaged northern Europe beginning in the 9th century.

    Hagar's note: The first definition is much preferred; the second is used only by malcontents, the envious, and disgruntled owners of waterfront property.

  6. #25906
    Banned
    Join Date
    October 30, 2017
    Posts
    500
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Appleby View Post
    I got lost half way through your basic history lesson, what was your point again?

    (I'm on the phone on the train and had a drink or three, so bear with me.)

    Anyway, some pointers:
    - How bad were your history classes at school that they weren't chronological?
    Or did they go major topic (rule for example) and then within that topic chronologically? Really curious and seriously not baiting (you know, teaching history is my job and there are myriad ways of doing that.)
    - the UK became a unified nation quite early within the scope of Europe: Sweden, Denmark and Norway have split quite late, Poland stopped existing at times, the Netherlands only became a thing in the 16th century, Belgium only after Napoleon's defeat, Italy and Germany didn't exist as unified nations until the 19th century, basically only Spain, Portugal and France were united quite early on.
    - still don't get how you weren't taught history chronologically.
    - all kings/rulers rule with some form of consent by the Powerful in their nation, be that the commons, rich traders, old families or mighty warlords.

    Tapapapatalk
    Yeah I don't get it either but that is the UK National Curriculum for you, almost like it was designed to confuse you.

    Also England is much older than the UK, which is a relatively new entity, but three very close cultures.

    And yes, there is some degree of consent everywhere, but in the UK it was far more limiting and resulted in our particular constitutional arrangement, which is quite different to other countries.
    Last edited by The Contemporary Poster; November 14 2017 at 09:28:39 PM.

  7. #25907
    Movember 2012 Zekk Pacus's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 11, 2011
    Posts
    6,821
    Nah history (at least at the time Smuggo and I went to school, it might be different now) is taught in terms of important eras: for example I remember at primary school "the romans" was a topic, then it was the war of the roses, and some other shit. At secondary school we bounced around a LOT, I know we didn't really get into early 20th century history until my later years and each element was taught in isolation - awful way of teaching and probably why I hated history as a kid.

    Our history as taught in schools is also very, very sanitised - the magna carta is seen as some great will of the people document whereas in my later reading I've sort of understood it as a case of the haves rebelling against the have even mores; likewise the 'Glorious Revolution'. Nobody mentions Oliver Cromwell, either.
    'I'm pro life. I'm a non-smoker. I'm a pro-life non-smoker. WOO, Let the party begin!'

  8. #25908
    Caldrion Dosto's Avatar
    Join Date
    November 19, 2011
    Posts
    1,732
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Appleby View Post
    I got lost half way through your basic history lesson, what was your point again?

    (I'm on the phone on the train and had a drink or three, so bear with me.)

    Anyway, some pointers:
    - How bad were your history classes at school that they weren't chronological?
    Or did they go major topic (rule for example) and then within that topic chronologically? Really curious and seriously not baiting (you know, teaching history is my job and there are myriad ways of doing that.)
    - the UK became a unified nation quite early within the scope of Europe: Sweden, Denmark and Norway have split quite late, Poland stopped existing at times, the Netherlands only became a thing in the 16th century, Belgium only after Napoleon's defeat, Italy and Germany didn't exist as unified nations until the 19th century, basically only Spain, Portugal and France were united quite early on.
    - still don't get how you weren't taught history chronologically.
    - all kings/rulers rule with some form of consent by the Powerful in their nation, be that the commons, rich traders, old families or mighty warlords.

    Tapapapatalk
    Not to nitpick to much but " Sweden, Denmark and Norway have split quite late" is pretty wrong.

    Sweden is one of the worlds oldest kingdoms formed during the 12th century. Denmark and Norway are close as well in time. Of the three Norway where subjugated by either Denmark or Sweden until 1905 but have always been a "kingdom" within those realms. Sweden left Kalmar union in 1520 so wouldn't say that was late.

    UK was formed in 1707.

  9. #25909

    Join Date
    April 14, 2011
    Posts
    5,498
    Quote Originally Posted by Zekk Pacus View Post
    Our history as taught in schools is also very, very sanitised
    Open question - is there an alternative? Almost every major event in our history has some form of bigger-than-the-last-one mass murder beneath the surface. How do we go about teaching 11 and 12 year olds to properly analyse events of such magnitude?

  10. #25910
    Banned
    Join Date
    October 30, 2017
    Posts
    500
    Quote Originally Posted by elmicker View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Zekk Pacus View Post
    Our history as taught in schools is also very, very sanitised
    Open question - is there an alternative? Almost every major event in our history has some form of bigger-than-the-last-one mass murder beneath the surface. How do we go about teaching 11 and 12 year olds to properly analyse events of such magnitude?
    We used to teach kids like that. Our parents would likely have been taught in that way if they went to a grammar or public school.

  11. #25911

    Join Date
    April 14, 2011
    Posts
    5,498
    Quote Originally Posted by The Contemporary Poster View Post
    We used to teach kids like that. Our parents would likely have been taught in that way if they went to a grammar or public school.
    Like what? Could you expand, or provide some examples?

  12. #25912

    Join Date
    November 5, 2011
    Posts
    9,025
    Quote Originally Posted by The Contemporary Poster View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by elmicker View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Zekk Pacus View Post
    Our history as taught in schools is also very, very sanitised
    Open question - is there an alternative? Almost every major event in our history has some form of bigger-than-the-last-one mass murder beneath the surface. How do we go about teaching 11 and 12 year olds to properly analyse events of such magnitude?
    We used to teach kids like that. Our parents would likely have been taught in that way if they went to a grammar or public school.
    He didn't give any examples. Just what do you mean by "like that"?

    Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

  13. #25913
    Banned
    Join Date
    October 30, 2017
    Posts
    500
    Quote Originally Posted by elmicker View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by The Contemporary Poster View Post
    We used to teach kids like that. Our parents would likely have been taught in that way if they went to a grammar or public school.
    Like what? Could you expand, or provide some examples?
    They would be taught our history in order, by rote and they would know it well.

  14. #25914

    Join Date
    April 14, 2011
    Posts
    5,498
    Quote Originally Posted by The Contemporary Poster View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by elmicker View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by The Contemporary Poster View Post
    We used to teach kids like that. Our parents would likely have been taught in that way if they went to a grammar or public school.
    Like what? Could you expand, or provide some examples?
    They would be taught our history in order, by rote and they would know it well.
    Ah, you're confusing "how i think things worked in the 1950s" with "how things are supposed to work" again. How droll.

  15. #25915
    Malcanis's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 12, 2011
    Posts
    13,338
    Quick question: why are you guys responding to his endless sealioning? Is this some FHC insider in-joke I'm not getting?
    Quote Originally Posted by Keieueue View Post
    I love Malcanis!

  16. #25916

    Join Date
    November 5, 2011
    Posts
    9,025
    Quote Originally Posted by Malcanis View Post
    Quick question: why are you guys responding to his endless sealioning? Is this some FHC insider in-joke I'm not getting?
    It's fun and we have nothing better to do.

    Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

  17. #25917
    Banned
    Join Date
    October 30, 2017
    Posts
    500
    Quote Originally Posted by elmicker View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by The Contemporary Poster View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by elmicker View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by The Contemporary Poster View Post
    We used to teach kids like that. Our parents would likely have been taught in that way if they went to a grammar or public school.
    Like what? Could you expand, or provide some examples?
    They would be taught our history in order, by rote and they would know it well.
    Ah, you're confusing "how i think things worked in the 1950s" with "how things are supposed to work" again. How droll.
    Well it seemed to work to some extent. I'm not warranting the return of strict rote and a ruler round the knuckles for bad behaviour. But in the 50s and 60s our schools were among the best in the world and the grammar system gave poor people a lot of social mobility. Note Germany has the similar gymnasium system and it is a great success and can teach kids history in chronological order. Today they are falling badly behind other parts of the world and poor people are less likely to get into Oxbridge than they were under the grammar system.

  18. #25918

    Join Date
    November 5, 2011
    Posts
    9,025
    Quote Originally Posted by The Contemporary Poster View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by elmicker View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by The Contemporary Poster View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by elmicker View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by The Contemporary Poster View Post
    We used to teach kids like that. Our parents would likely have been taught in that way if they went to a grammar or public school.
    Like what? Could you expand, or provide some examples?
    They would be taught our history in order, by rote and they would know it well.
    Ah, you're confusing "how i think things worked in the 1950s" with "how things are supposed to work" again. How droll.
    Well it seemed to work to some extent. I'm not warranting the return of strict rote and a ruler round the knuckles for bad behaviour. But in the 50s and 60s our schools were among the best in the world and the grammar system gave poor people a lot of social mobility. Note Germany has the similar gymnasium system and it is a great success and can teach kids history in chronological order. Today they are falling badly behind other parts of the world and poor people are less likely to get into Oxbridge than they were under the grammar system.
    Oh, I wonder what was also different among other things back then in the UK and is still different now in Germany.

    Oh right fancy schools being a lot fucking cheaper.

    Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

  19. #25919
    Donor erichkknaar's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    8,939
    Quote Originally Posted by Liare View Post
    oi!

    Denmark as a unified nation (ie, Jylland,Fyen and Sjælland) has been around since at least 700 AD, Norway and Sweden are the errant colonies here that split from the realm, there was never a unified scandinavian crown either, even during the Kalmar union each nation was considered seperate, likewise the norwegian throne remained seperate up until 1814, but held by the danish king/queen.
    Get out of here with your inconvenient facts buddy.

  20. #25920
    Banned
    Join Date
    October 30, 2017
    Posts
    500
    Quote Originally Posted by Isyel View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by The Contemporary Poster View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by elmicker View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by The Contemporary Poster View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by elmicker View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by The Contemporary Poster View Post
    We used to teach kids like that. Our parents would likely have been taught in that way if they went to a grammar or public school.
    Like what? Could you expand, or provide some examples?
    They would be taught our history in order, by rote and they would know it well.
    Ah, you're confusing "how i think things worked in the 1950s" with "how things are supposed to work" again. How droll.
    Well it seemed to work to some extent. I'm not warranting the return of strict rote and a ruler round the knuckles for bad behaviour. But in the 50s and 60s our schools were among the best in the world and the grammar system gave poor people a lot of social mobility. Note Germany has the similar gymnasium system and it is a great success and can teach kids history in chronological order. Today they are falling badly behind other parts of the world and poor people are less likely to get into Oxbridge than they were under the grammar system.
    Oh, I wonder what was also different among other things back then in the UK and is still different now in Germany.

    Oh right fancy schools being a lot fucking cheaper.

    Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk
    eh? Do you even know anything at all about education in the UK?

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •