What now for the EU ?

Martin Schulz, the current patron of the LRE is the ex president of the EU Parliament. He made an empassioned speach defending liberal dmocratic values against populism and linked irrational populism mot the rise of intolerance in the 1920s.
So he did, did he? And his irregularities, such as the fraudulent use of meeting funds without being present, his nepotism, the withholding of audit reports from the already tame OLAF? Did they impress you too? And he himself is an intolerant barsteward.
I was impressed with the engagement by senior EU politicians in connecting the story of WW2 to the EU and promoting inbound tourism.
But of course they have, somehow one has to "prove" that the EU is responsible for 70 years of peace.

Todger.png

Oh a todger, that truly has something to do with St Martin the not so holy and the EU
 

Pteranadon

LE
Book Reviewer
Now could you please explain what means. We haven’t had time for an outcome to have a narrative, so how could there be one? This is the problem
two biased views based on leave or remain. Those who have only ever known the EU, largely millennials, those that actually took part in the process of Joining the EEC and leaving the EU. Those who have benefitted directly from the EU and those who have not, throw into the mix those who worked in areas directly affected by the EU and those who haven’t.
Of course there is a BREXIT narrative. Its the whole British Myth. 1940 is our Greatest hour. How Britain saved Europe (again)

But however much the media and out politicians invoke the myth there is never any investment in telling the story or attracting tourists? Where exactly can you tell the story of the defeat of the V1 offensive?
 

Pteranadon

LE
Book Reviewer
But of course they have, somehow one has to "prove" that the EU is responsible for 70 years of peace.

Yes. The EU was set up with the laudable aim of avoiding future European wars.

Peace has reigned for longer in Europe since 1945 for longer than any period in history. No EU members have ever fought each other (unlike NATO members) It may be that this might have happened any way without the European movement, the EEC and the EU. But the concept of pooled sovereignty is in tensions with the very human tendency to tribalism and in direct opposition to the nationalism that stirred the continent.

The longer the continent has been at peace, the more people forget what is at stake. That seems a reasonable argument. .
 
Yes. The EU was set up with the laudable aim of avoiding future European wars.

Peace has reigned for longer in Europe since 1945 for longer than any period in history. No EU members have ever fought each other (unlike NATO members) It may be that this might have happened any way without the European movement, the EEC and the EU. But the concept of pooled sovereignty is in tensions with the very human tendency to tribalism and in direct opposition to the nationalism that stirred the continent.

The longer the continent has been at peace, the more people forget what is at stake. That seems a reasonable argument. .

The EU has only been in existence since 1991.

Yes, I know it evolved out of the EC/EEC, but they were smaller and very different beasts to the EU.
 

Dread

LE
Of course there is a BREXIT narrative. Its the whole British Myth. 1940 is our Greatest hour. How Britain saved Europe (again)

But however much the media and out politicians invoke the myth there is never any investment in telling the story or attracting tourists? Where exactly can you tell the story of the defeat of the V1 offensive?

Are you just impersonating David Lammy MP for shits and giggles, or are you really that thick?

If the UK had fallen in 1940 then when the war in Europe would have eventually ended (probably 1948/49) and the whole landmass would have been under the boot of Stalin. The Americans wouldn't have been able to establish any foothold in Europe, and so would never have been able to invade any part of Europe, and the loss of the British ports (and Royal Navy) would have given supremacy over the Atlantic to the Germans, thus rendering any attempt to establish bases in northern Africa impossible.

Your above comment about "peace in Europe" shows you conflate the EU with Europe: two extremely different geographical areas... or perhaps the 100,000 dead in Bosnia passed you by (something that the EU did nothing to prevent - the French worked to prolong the war for their Serb allies). You may also want to remember the dead in Hungary and Czechoslovakia in the risings against Russian communism: they are also in Europe.
 

Truxx

LE
There is much confusion in the world about education and intelligence. Education is knowledge acquired in formal learning environments, such as school. Intelligence is that actual ability to learn, to acquire, assimilate, and use new knowledge.


We are taught from the time we first enter school to judge someone's intelligence by their education and their performance in such formal environments, also known as "book smarts". This is taught by words, actions, and attitudes, from both teachers and, later on, other students. This concept that education equals intelligence is pushed on us so hard that few people ever get totally past it, even as they grow older.


You Can Be Highly Intelligent Without Being Highly Educated


Two of the most intelligent people I've ever met did very poorly in school. One graduated, but just barely, and the other never finished high school. When it comes to learning anything that they don't associate with school, they learn fast… much, much faster than normal.


People of well above average intelligence sometimes do poorly in school due to boredom. They sit there in classes designed for the lowest common denominator which don't provide enough stimulation for them, so they become bored and stop paying attention. They are distracted by the smallest things. People of less intelligence, on the other hand may have more of their mind occupied by the class, and thus be less prone to boredom. They are also more likely to be aware that they need to work hard and study in order to do well, where smart people may feel that it's easy and not study even when they DO need it.


You Can Be Highly Educated Without Being Highly Intelligent


On the other hand, I have met people with advanced degrees, including doctorates, who are of no more than average intelligence. This is not a bad thing… they have shown that they are willing to put in the time and effort to master something that does not come easy to them. It does also show, however, that higher education is not proof of higher intelligence.


There are also certainly professions which require extensive training (education), but not extremely high intelligence. Your average family practictioner, for example, can operate just fine without needing to have a genius IQ. He is following established procedures, prescribing standard medications for conditions diagnosed by standardized methods. He needs the education to teach him those standards, but he is not creating the standards, just following them… so having average intelligence is not a big deal at all.


Conclusion


Education is not equal to intelligence, though it is often used as an external measure of it. Certain types of education can give you a pretty good idea that someone is at least of certain minimum intelligence (you can't actually be dumb and have an advanced degree in mathematics), but they don't provide a measure of how far beyond that minimum they are, and a lack of education says absolutely nothing about their intelligence.


And, by the way, neither education nor intelligence prevent you from doing stupid things. As far as I know, nothing in the world stops that.


Source: The Difference Between Intelligence And Education - A Miracle A Day
Rick Jolly, of Corporate fame, published a couple of books in aid of the S Atlantic Fund. One was a collection of hugely non PC quotes from confidential reports. The RN were particularly good (or bad) because they used to have a "closed" reporting system, where the recipient did not ne cessarily see the words written.

In the case of the ex cellent post quoted I recall one thus " This WEO is highly educated. He could calculate the area of the lid of a pickle jar to 10 decimal places, but sadly would not have a clue how to open it"
 
I used to work for a Lt Cdr (RN) who had a degree in computer science (he was an RN schoolie in an IT post). He was a brilliant guy, really nice, could even tell you how, at the atomic level, data moved around the computer. He was an absolute joy to work with.

However, he didn‘t have a clue how to install Windows or configure an Exchange Server account and relied on me (with my Geology ’A’ level) to actually keep the IT at 15 sites working.

Similarly, my niece is working towards her PHD (in microbiology). Again, absolutely brilliant, but useless at pub quizes.

Education does not automatically mean intelligence outside of their chosen field.

Knowledge does correlate directly to wisdom.

Wisdom is knowing how and when to apply knowledge.
 
Yes. The EU was set up with the laudable aim of avoiding future European wars.

ECSC, establish to prevent war between Germany and France. Proposed by the French in 1950 as they were due another kicking by the Germans around the mid 60s.
 
Yes. The EU was set up with the laudable aim of avoiding future European wars.

Peace has reigned for longer in Europe since 1945 for longer than any period in history. No EU members have ever fought each other (unlike NATO members) It may be that this might have happened any way without the European movement, the EEC and the EU. But the concept of pooled sovereignty is in tensions with the very human tendency to tribalism and in direct opposition to the nationalism that stirred the continent.

The longer the continent has been at peace, the more people forget what is at stake. That seems a reasonable argument. .
Seriously, is that so? I took the trouble to look in the Treaties of Rome, which were after all the founding treaties of the EEC, and there is nothing about peace, nowhere.
Even in the Maastricht Treaty, which was drawn up after the failure of a constitution, peace is only mentioned in passing.

"RESOLVED to implement a common foreign and security policy including the eventual framing of a common defence policy, which might in time lead to a common defence, thereby reinforcing the European identity and its independence in order to promote peace, security and progress in Europe and in the world".

Better still this claim, or assertion, or let's be honest lie emerged around 2016. Strangely enough.
And peace in "Europe" you don't want to reconsider this claim, knowing that Ukraine, the Baltic States or the Balkans also belong to Europe?

Why in the world I should transfer even more sovereignty to an organization that isn't constrained by any constitution or, good grief, subject to proper parliamentary control or even resembles something like a government that could be held responsible and accountable, could you explain why anyone should do that? I'm at a loss here, that smells a bit like Autocracy or the good old Dictatorship that we all learned to love. There are really better-looking autocrats out there than von der Lying.
 
I would like to see our pre C20th military history promoted in the same way. If we have an island story to tell. Here is the website I created www.britishbattlefields.com,

I suspect that part of the problem is that military history in the UK is often too “small”.

For example, in 1545 the French “invaded“ the Isle of Wight, with a pincer movement on Sandown from their initial landings at Bonchurch and Seaview. If you look at the map, you’ll see how insignificant that “invasion” was.

Similarly, the history of the Island in World War 2 was also “small”. I have an excellent book by a local author (“The Isle of Wight at War 1939-1945” by Adrian Searle - sadly out of print) built from local sources. But it’s all “small”; when air raids took place, which buildings got hit, which units were posted. Even the Blyskawica’s defence of Cowes, whilst locally significant, was relatively ”small” in the overall scheme of things.

 

Truxx

LE
I suspect that part of the problem is that military history in the UK is often too “small”.

For example, in 1545 the French “invaded“ the Isle of Wight, with a pincer movement on Sandown from their initial landings at Bonchurch and Seaview. If you look at the map, you’ll see how insignificant that “invasion” was.

Similarly, the history of the Island in World War 2 was also “small”. I have an excellent book by a local author (“The Isle of Wight at War 1939-1945” by Adrian Searle - sadly out of print) built from local sources. But it’s all “small”; when air raids took place, which buildings got hit, which units were posted. Even the Blyskawica’s defence of Cowes, whilst locally significant, was relatively ”small” in the overall scheme of things.

And the Spams invaded Whitehaven.

ETA poor sods.
 
Top