Brexit

[Ssnake]

Yes. I am quite proud of myself that I managed to avoid that trap at least once, without even being aware of that natural bias. Stroke of luck I guess, not genius.

[Panzermann]

Yes. I am quite proud of myself that I managed to avoid that trap at least once, without even being aware of that natural bias. Stroke of luck I guess, not genius.

Ghadaffi and his antics were daily on TV during the mid 1980ies so I guess you just imitated what you saw without much thinking.

 

Zen or the art of imitating a crazy colonel.

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

Yes. I am quite proud of myself that I managed to avoid that trap at least once, without even being aware of that natural bias. Stroke of luck I guess, not genius.

Ghadaffi and his antics were daily on TV during the mid 1980ies so I guess you just imitated what you saw without much thinking.

 

Zen or the art of imitating a crazy colonel.

 

Just remember everyone,

[DB]

If one were to think about improving understanding of the EU in schools, then it should simply be integrated into history and modern geography lessons, assuming they still exist. The first should as a matter of principle cover the 20th century with as unbiased a view as to what the fuck was going on, as very few seem to know the hows, whats and whys of it all), and the latter should include elements of the current position in much the same was as it should cover other international governance structures, including the US Federal system and China, etc.

 

Good luck with working out a 20th century historical curriculum that doesn't upset the parents of every country that it is used in.

[Stuart Galbraith]

If one were to think about improving understanding of the EU in schools, then it should simply be integrated into history and modern geography lessons, assuming they still exist. The first should as a matter of principle cover the 20th century with as unbiased a view as to what the fuck was going on, as very few seem to know the hows, whats and whys of it all), and the latter should include elements of the current position in much the same was as it should cover other international governance structures, including the US Federal system and China, etc.

 

Good luck with working out a 20th century historical curriculum that doesn't upset the parents of every country that it is used in.

Good luck with that. I remember watching a reality TV show (for occasionally I weaken) and one female member of the cast memorably said 'oh Hitler? Wasnt he Jewish or something?'

 

Mind you, I cant recall ever being taught about WW2 in the History curiculum in the 1980s either. We studied either the Incans, the history of medicine and colonising the wild west. All terribly interesting, but not really much of a grounding in our own nations history. We only learned about WW1 because the teacher was interested in it.

[Mike Steele]

 

I...We studied either the Incans, the history of medicine and colonising the wild west. All terribly interesting, but not really much of a grounding in our own nations history. We only learned about WW1 because the teacher was interested in it.

 

Is That where you get the impression that the US is all Dodge City (TV Version ) and all of the present US is all High Noon? (Well Chicago maybe)

Edited April 7, 2016 by Mike Steele

[DB]

I didn't say that, Mike. you've managed to invert the quote somehow.

 

Anyway, the Dodge City thing is all Howard Hawks' and John Ford's faults.

 

I learned UK social and economic history 1760 to the "present day", where the "present day" was up to 1914. "We won't do the 20th century because the girls don't like the wars."

[swerve]

 

If we do Brexit, I strongly hope we will start a new trade organisation on our terms. Scandinavian Economic Community?

 

Been tried - EFTA. Such a miserable failure it was embarrassing.

[Ssnake]

Yeah, history... three months paleolithicum and neolithicum, the rest of the year ancient cultures up to the Greeks. One year for the Romans, and early Christianity. One years of middle ages and catholic church internal shenanigans, then Luther and protestantism. One year for absolutism. Two years about why the Nazis came to power. End of school. WW1? Yeah, it kinda happened. WW2? Sorry, not enough time. Post-war era? "Not history yet".

Sigh.

And somehow they manage to make much of this utterly boring, when it could actually have been pretty exciting.

[bojan]

3 years* for "natural science"* part of gymnasium high school:

1st year - until 1054 church schism. Mostly Greece and Rome.

2nd year - until American revolution - local and foreign history was about 1:1. Byzantium, various church schisms, heresies and splits, crusades, 100 year war, Avignon papacy for some strange reason, Turkish invasion of Europe, renaissance, Magna Carta, a blurb about War of Roses and ECW.

3rd year - until end of WW2. American and French revolution. Local uprisings vs Turks. Balkan wars. A blurb about ACW. Russo-Turkish 1877-78 war. Balkan wars, WW1 and WW2, Russian revolution, unification of Germany and Italy. Nothing post WW2, for same reason as above (and to avoid touchy subjects). WW1 was IIRC separated to four 45 minute classes, one for each year. WW2 was 5 x 45min classes, 1st being things leading to it, 1939-40, then 4 classes for 1941-45. IIRC 1944-45 was one class.

Practically nothing outside Europe and America.

 

*Social studies" had it for 4 years. Cthulhu was merciful I was on NS part, since we had most boring history professor imaginable...

Edited April 8, 2016 by bojan

[FlyingCanOpener]

In Louisiana...

K-2: Generic standards about learning about the local area. It isn't required to be taught until fourth third grade (It's not required to be taught but they're tested on it in third grade and the scores count toward the school performance score)

3: Basics of Louisiana

4: Regions of the United States

5: United States from Columbus to 1763 (Emphasis on Native Americans)

6: World History from Beginnings to Renaissance***

7: US History from Columbus to Reconstruction

8: Louisiana History/Economics

9: World Geography

10: US Government/Economics

11: US History from Reconstruction to Today

12: World History from Renaissance to Today

 

***What I teach. Literally the only time they learn about the Greeks (1 month), Romans (1 month), Medieval Period (1 month), Ancient India/China/Mesopotamia (2 weeks each) in school. Amazing, eh?

[bojan]

Here is a list of what I had in gymnasium ( years for NS/SS version)

 

Home language (Serbian) - 4/4 years. If your home language is not Serbian you learn whatever it is, Serbian at same program as 1st foreign language (more classes than second and practically same as home language), and you can opt out (but you don't have to) from 2nd foreign language. If you have two home languages (happens) and your parents fill it in your application you learn both, no way out. If neither is a Serbian you are very, very fucked up, like a friend was (Hungarian and Slovakian as home languages + Serbian and English)... He had IIRC 5 more 45 min classes per week because of that... You don't do home language grammar in gymnasium (it is considered if you passed test for it that you know it already), you read books, learn history of writers, analyze books. I had two excelent (1-3rd) and one horrible teacher (4th year).

 

1st foreign language (English) - 4/4 years - 1, 2 - grammar, 2 - literature, basic history of England

 

2nd foreign language (Russian) - 4/4 years... same as above with addition of people who had only one foreign language in primary school have to learn everything...

 

Mathematics - 4/4 years.

 

Constitution and citizen rights - 1/1 year

 

Psychology - 1/1 year

 

History - 3/4 years - as described above.

 

Geography - 3/4 years - 1 - basic and world, 2 - Europe, 3 - Yugoslavia (now Serbia)...

 

Biology - 4/3 years - 1 - microorganisms, 2 - plants, 3 - animals, 4 - humans

 

Chemistry - 4/3 years - 1 - basic, 2 - non-organic, 3 - organic, 4 - biochemistry

 

Physics - 4/3 years

 

Computer science - 4/4 years - 1 - basics (was not that common back in 1994 that people actually know it), 2 - basic coding (Pascal) - 3, 4 - programs (word/excel/access/pp, PS, 3D)

 

Art - 2/4 years - for most part only art history for NS, actual painting/sculpting etc for SS

 

Music - 2/4 years - mostly history of music. High point - learning to play piano and playing Strangers in the night very drunk in a hotel loby at the final year school trip.

 

Philosophy and Logic - 2/2 years - one year is history of philosophy, other is application of it (both in history and current)

 

Sociology - 1/1 year

 

Latin - 1/2 year

 

Physical education - 4/4 years

 

Simce early 2000s you also have to choose between Religious education and Citizen ethics... I had neither (went back in 1994-98) so I can say I never had a faith or ethics...

 

I don't remember primary school that well, IIRC 1st 4 years (You start 1st at 7 y/o, but can also start at 6 y/o if you are judged fit by psychologist - most children are) had some silly programs, only own language, mathematics and 1st foreign language, art and music are "same" as in gymnasium/high school. 5th-8th year were pretty similar to gymnasium/high school, but at lower level, and w/o some more abstract classes (no philosophy, sociology, psychology or Latin). When I went (1986-94) we also had basic "technical education" - very basic woodworking/metalworking classes combined with also basic applied arts (4 years), First aid and health education (1 year in 8th grade) and basics of home-keeping. IDK what is there now, primary schools changed a lot since my time (1986-94)...

Edited April 8, 2016 by bojan

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

 

I...We studied either the Incans, the history of medicine and colonising the wild west. All terribly interesting, but not really much of a grounding in our own nations history. We only learned about WW1 because the teacher was interested in it.

 

Is That where you get the impression that the US is all Dodge City (TV Version ) and all of the present US is all High Noon? (Well Chicago maybe)

 

You mean its not like this any-more? Do I get my money back?

 

The funny thing was the teachers I had for it were really good. I cant really knock any of them for not trying and for not making it interesting, it was really competently done, far more so than many of the subjects in the school. Even the history of medicine, some of that sticks with me 30 years later, particularly the invention of Penicillin. OTOH, something that actually gave a history of the nation might also have been good. But thats what happens when history, or indeed any teaching, has an interaction with politics. Its never a happy result imho.

[Marek Tucan]

In CZ, we have focus on ancient times. Probably because they were the least politically bent over and over. Then on the Charles IV and the "golden age" (never you mind the pillage of Nurnberg ghetto or that his reign caused all sorta trouble for his kids... Kinda like Louis XIV vs. XVI ). Then we spent a year and a half on frencvh revolution as out professor was strong francophile. 20th century? Very quickly in the runt of time allocated on the first go, on he high school go we got aour professor changerd for the last year so we went a bit more in depth. He used to replace bits of WWI and WWII lectures by examining me and a friend who he knew were quite good in the period (and who did not really need any grades there as we were both taking our final exams in the natural sciences section ), so I dare say I managed to at least touch upon the importance of submarine blockade and logistics in the defeat of Japan

 

EDIT: Come to think of it, we had some wee mentions of the DE-FR coperation post WWII leading up to EU, but not much in depth.

Edited April 8, 2016 by Marek Tucan

[DB]

If anyone is still interested, the Financial Times has a poll tracker here. https://ig.ft.com/sites/brexit-polling/

 

As I'm bored, I'm going to exercise Excel and my statistics muscles to see if I can get more out of the data than that page yields. I may be some time.

[Ivanhoe]

http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/663665/Barack-Obama-Britain-back-queue-Brexit

 

The US President warned the UK would be “at the back of the queue” for a trade deal with America if it quit Brussels.

 

But his threat provoked outrage and scorn from pro-Brexit campaigners, who dismissed it as yet another scaremongering ploy from the pro-EU lobby.

 

Mr Obama, who will no longer be in office when decisions on a trade deal are made, delivered a lecture to the British people on why he thinks it is in the UK’s, America’s and the world’s best interests for Britain to vote to stay in the EU on June 23.

 

Nice little country you got there. Be a shame if something happened to it.

 

 

[DB]

I would imagine that the current administration (with the leader being for staying in the EU) would have been happy to have Obama highlight the inevitable difficulties involved in attempting to re-establish an independent trade agreement with the US. Whatever Obama said or did, one or other of the sides would have been spinning it at such a rate that the whining would be heard in DC, let alone Brussels.

[Stuart Galbraith]

By and large Obama (for once perhaps) barely put a foot wrong. He slapped down Boris, he highlighted strategic issues facing the UK, he offered an honest opinion. As others have pointed out, there are enough US servicemen invested in cemeteries in Cambridge to suggest he does have a right to offer an opinion, contrary and objectionable we might or might not find it.

 

What was perhaps unwise was saying 'Oh yeah the special relationship is alive and well' and follow it by 'well any trade agreements the Uk is going to have to wait in the queue'. Both cant be true.

[Marek Tucan]

Both can be easily true - any agreements will need time anyway and putting them ahead of agreements already in the pipeline would piss off other countries again.

So the UK would have to wait regardless of how sweet deal it might theoretically get... And frankly, seeing the US presidential candidates int he running, the UK should pray for Cruz as Hillary won't care, Bernie won't win and Donald would try to make them a deal his style

 

In any case, as much as I do not really like Obama, the Brexit camp is trying to put USA in a position, without consulting with US Gov. If they did not want such an open refusal, they should have been more careful in talking for other countries. I believe the Scotish independence folks were slapped down in a similar fashion when they presumed and publicly campaignerd about how the Scotchxit will mean automatic entry into EU and stuff.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Well as some have pointed out on Sky, nobody on the Conservative right complained about Obama commenting to the Scots it would be a mistake to become independent, so it seems a little absurd that they are whining about his offering an opinion now. As one of his allies, and creating pressure on an organisation he wants to trade with, he clearly has a right to offer opinions here.

 

After all, Cameron offered an opinion on Trump as well.

 

The Special relationship is, in most respects, dead. Sure there is intelligence handling, though presumably they must do the same with a lot of European nations. There is access to American missile and nuclear facilities, though again, the same must be true for the Israelis. There is American airbases here, though most are shutting, and most of them will then be on the European continent.

 

When you get down to it, Germany and Poland are far more important European allies to America these days. We keep cutting the armed forces, our economy keeps floundering, we seem reluctant to engage politically with any issues in Europe. We seem altogether too keen to glad hand the Chinese. Why would America regard us as important? There is a quaint lip service paid to it, but it doesn't mean anything. Hasn't really in a good 25 years actually, and even then, there were clear limits.

Edited April 23, 2016 by Stuart Galbraith

[JasonJ]

The UK might be changing from a European stronghold of Western Europe with that role shifting over to Germany and Poland. But the UK still has two new carriers on the way with plans for 138 F-35Bs. In terms of economic proportion, Western Europe + a US arm greatly out weighs Russia. Over here on the Asia-Pacific, economic weight is closer to even. Technically, Western Europe should be able to handle Russia even if the US slowly pulls its arm out. But in the Asia-Pacific, without America, Japan would have its work cut out. So any UK presence in the shape of a Queen's carrier in the Asia-Pacific would be a welcome sight. Also, with the US having an arm in Europe and an arm in the Asia-Pacific, a UK carrier making a presence in the ME would also be helpful to the US, although of course, the ME is tricky business, but business is there. I guess the point is, in short, the UK is developing some power projection capabilities that increases it's strategic value as a force that can be brought to bear around the world.

[swerve]

The EU/NATO Europe (not quite the same but a big overlap) could easily handle Russia if it was better organised to do so. Germany alone has about the same GDP at PPP (more at current exchange rates) as Russia, & the EU as a whole has fives times Russia's PPP GDP, & 3.5 times the population. Collectively, it even spends more on armed forces, adjusted for PPP*, despite spending much less as a share of GDP, & is probably ahead in technology.

 

 

*Whole-economy PPP isn't usually a good converter for military expenditure, but in this case if's probably not too far off, because most expenditure on both sides is domestic.

[Marek Tucan]

Well while UK is working on force projection capability, France already has it... So even there the UK loses

 

All in all, brexit pays for the "it will all be peachy" approach. They should have gone the proper "Blood, sweat, tears and toil" way, with "It won't be easy, but we'll make it" instead of "Everyone will just grovel and give us what we want". Then again, the fgritty approach might not work nowadays

[Stuart Galbraith]

Well while UK is working on force projection capability, France already has it... So even there the UK loses

 

All in all, brexit pays for the "it will all be peachy" approach. They should have gone the proper "Blood, sweat, tears and toil" way, with "It won't be easy, but we'll make it" instead of "Everyone will just grovel and give us what we want". Then again, the fgritty approach might not work nowadays

Its synonymous with much of the rights unrealistic expectations of what Britain can achieve on the world stage sans Europe. What they all forget (and frankly someone should remind them of) is that Britain (Mostly Tory Goverments at that) fought for over decade to enter the EEC to counter Britain's decline on the world stage by giving us easier access to European Markets. Quite why its going to be magically different 40 years later than it was in the late 1960s, has not been explained.

 

Im a gingoist with the best of them. I enjoy the annoyance of those whom would slight my country by pointing out its many, many, many achievements. Mass communications, world trade, defeat of imperialists, fascists and communist states among them. I just dont kid myself its the same country that made those achievements. Its now over 70 years since the second world war. Isnt it about time we looked at ourselves in a more realistic, less rose tinted mirror?

 

Really its a country of two realities. The one we all would wish it was, ie powerful, influential on the world stage, able to conduct an independent foreign policy. The kind popularised by the James Bond films if you will. And the other one, increasingly militarily enfeebled, unable to conceive or act on its own foreign policy, and increasingly (we pretend its not so, but compare any industrial town in England to those in Poland or Germany) industrially enfeebled. Ok, we have a powerful financial sector. But how influential is that? Judging by all the trade barriers China and America put up, not remotely. We cant even influence Russia, and their oligarchs all bank here.

 

People would say this is cynical. I just point to wherever I seem to visit are former industrial towns and no longer are. Are we really saying this is all going to magically reappear when our best export market, Europe, is more difficult to access? Id like to believe the Brexit campaign. I dont, because its a misconceived fantasy, just like the return to the gold standard was.

Edited April 23, 2016 by Stuart Galbraith

[toysoldier]

The whole of the UK is a frigging carrier, depot, bulwark, R&R and whatnot for the USA, as it once was and will always be, be it against Eurabia, the Zombie Horde or the Awaken Dragons. It will always be important by sheer geography, so please, don´t let the Muslims steal it from under your feet.