NationStates Jolt Archive

I think that Britain is lacking any kind of serious debate on the EU, mainly because for the majority, the EU means lots of silly men in Brussles who are unelected and pushing through lots of silly legilsation controling the curviture of our bannanas and banning us from eating chips out of newspapers. This image ironically comes from the very newspapers which later get eaten chips out of. The Daily mail, the Express, the Sun etc are where most people get their understanding of the EU from and it is monstorusly negative which is very unfair considering the many great acomplishments of the EU, having made Europe as a whole more prosperous, created the worlds largest single commuter market (470 million people), created a region of amazing peace which for almost 2000 years had been bashing itself to bits and even exported its democratic ideals in a non vilonet fashion sucessfully in Turkey (although that still is a work in progress). I would suggest that if we encouraged the teaching of EU history in a NEUTRAL fashion, stressing both the crisises and the triumphs and the positives and negatives of it today, we would have a far more healthy debate in the UK. I'm not suggesting brainwashing, I'm supportive of Euro-Skepticism as long as it is constructive skepticisim, IE based on logical grounds, not the Daily Mirrors latest story about banning cheese rolling. I'm suggesting a genuine education of people to understand that the EU is not just a stupid set of institutions pumping out garbage, but in fact a major political force with a great deal of power and indeed importance in their lives and thus they should know something about it.

I feel we should put more emphasis on getting kids actually interested in British politics, for a start, before the EU.

Maybe they should start with teaching you how to spell "integrative"?

I think that Britain is lacking any kind of serious debate on the EU, mainly because for the majority, the EU means lots of silly men in Brussles who are unelected and pushing through lots of silly legilsation controling the curviture of our bannanas and banning us from eating chips out of newspapers. This image ironically comes from the very newspapers which later get eaten chips out of. The Daily mail, the Express, the Sun etc are where most people get their understanding of the EU from and it is monstorusly negative which is very unfair considering the many great acomplishments of the EU, having made Europe as a whole more prosperous, created the worlds largest single commuter market (470 million people), created a region of amazing peace which for almost 2000 years had been bashing itself to bits and even exported its democratic ideals in a non vilonet fashion sucessfully in Turkey (although that still is a work in progress). I would suggest that if we encouraged the teaching of EU history in a NEUTRAL fashion, stressing both the crisises and the triumphs and the positives and negatives of it today, we would have a far more healthy debate in the UK. I'm not suggesting brainwashing, I'm supportive of Euro-Skepticism as long as it is constructive skepticisim, IE based on logical grounds, not the Daily Mirrors latest story about banning cheese rolling. I'm suggesting a genuine education of people to understand that the EU is not just a stupid set of institutions pumping out garbage, but in fact a major political force with a great deal of power and indeed importance in their lives and thus they should know something about it.

i agree totally.
a sound understanding of other countries' political systems also couldn't hurt respect and cross-cultural understanding.

Maybe they should start with teaching you how to spell "integrative"?

So you have no capacity to comment on the meaning and intent of the post so you make a jab at the author. Well arnt you clever!

Maybe they should start with teaching you how to spell "integrative"?

ZING!

So you have no capacity to comment on the meaning and intent of the post so you make a jab at the author. Well arnt you clever!

That's his job. Dont mock him.

I think it should be taught as compulsory in those crappy tutor periods (especially since crime and punishment needs to be taught even more so we actually get some civilized people)

Perhaps there could be a GCSE in politics, rather like the GCSE in RS or SRC, teach people about politics rather than teaching them poltics

I think that Britain is lacking any kind of serious debate on the EU, mainly because for the majority, the EU means lots of silly men in Brussles who are unelected and pushing through lots of silly legilsation controling the curviture of our bannanas and banning us from eating chips out of newspapers. This image ironically comes from the very newspapers which later get eaten chips out of. The Daily mail, the Express, the Sun etc are where most people get their understanding of the EU from and it is monstorusly negative which is very unfair considering the many great acomplishments of the EU, having made Europe as a whole more prosperous, created the worlds largest single commuter market (470 million people), created a region of amazing peace which for almost 2000 years had been bashing itself to bits and even exported its democratic ideals in a non vilonet fashion sucessfully in Turkey (although that still is a work in progress). I would suggest that if we encouraged the teaching of EU history in a NEUTRAL fashion, stressing both the crisises and the triumphs and the positives and negatives of it today, we would have a far more healthy debate in the UK. I'm not suggesting brainwashing, I'm supportive of Euro-Skepticism as long as it is constructive skepticisim, IE based on logical grounds, not the Daily Mirrors latest story about banning cheese rolling. I'm suggesting a genuine education of people to understand that the EU is not just a stupid set of institutions pumping out garbage, but in fact a major political force with a great deal of power and indeed importance in their lives and thus they should know something about it.

I agree with your message, the E.U. should be taught in schools but not in the GCSE History curriculum...many school have several topics to choose from and would turn down E.U. hsitory in favour of more "interesting topics" such as the World Wars and the Soviet Union.
The E.U. and British politics should be compulsory in a separate subject, it is highly important that people undersdtand the British and European political and legal systems.

Who really cares what gets taught at GCSE? Most people remember squat of what they learned anyway.

That said, I think it's a good idea.

The E.U. and British politics should be compulsory in a separate subject, it is highly important that people undersdtand the British and European political and legal systems.

Why?

Why?

Because it is important to understand how your country runs and what rights are available to everybody in society. How can you expect people to vote in elections and referendums if they know nothing about how the country and the E.U. is run?

Why?

Perhaps because their lives will undoubtedly be affected by them.

snip OP.

hear hear!

I think we had a bit of an eccentric teacher in school because we actually studied the EU and its origins for a whole week! Before anyone comments this is more than most teachers/schools do in england.

But just one point, do you really think it will change anything?
I mean look at all the trouble/debate that went on in some of the papers you meantioned when Jif (cleaning product) was going to change its name to Cif because thats how its known on the mainland. Or snickers changing from Marathon to snickers.
When it comes to pointless traditions i think the brits have most people beat. They just moan and start sayings its british, blah, blah, blah... screw you johnny foreigner!

I remain unsure. As a historian myself (Oxford interview on the 7th and 8th:(), I would suggest that topics akin to that of the EU are more the domain of mature, professional historians. Admittedly, the current GCSE syllabus is excessively restrictive, cliched, and uninspiring, however the focus for reform ought to be directed towards the generation of the "nation-states", the Renaissance, and the Stuart/Hanoverian/Georgian periods, which require more historical skill.

Because it is important to understand how your country runs and what rights are available to everybody in society. How can you expect people to vote in elections and referendums if they know nothing about how the country and the E.U. is run?

Again, I question why? Most people go through their lives never having to know these things and the ones who do generally make a point of finding out about them later in life.

Knowing how the country is run makes for interesting debates if you're into that sort of thing but for the average Joe it's enough to know that you vote for parties at election time based on their manifesto and then if they win they're supposed to do what they said to get you to vote for them. Knowing the exact process a piece of legislation has to go through before it is passed into law is more than most people need to know and I honestly think that time could be better spent in high schools making sure all their graduates can actually read well enough when they leave to fill out a ballot.

The E.U. and British politics should be compulsory in a separate subject, it is highly important that people undersdtand the British and European political and legal systems.

Something like this is emerging with the "citizenship" element of some RS lessons, but in my view it isnt enough

More needs to be made of the nessecity to understand politics as it affects your life a great deal.

Something like this is emerging with the "citizenship" element of some RS lessons, but in my view it isnt enough

More needs to be made of the nessecity to understand politics as it affects your life a great deal.

A question(s); how old are you? are you English? what sort of school do you attend?

and finally, what sort of accident impelled you to the defence of "citizenship"? It is subjective, biased centrist drivel that omits any discussion of politics beyond that of the populist drivel extolled by New Labour.

A question(s); how old are you? are you English? what sort of school do you attend?


I'm 19 and currnetly at the University of Kent at Canterbury and I went to a state school in South London


and finally, what sort of accident impelled you to the defence of "citizenship"? It is subjective, biased centrist drivel that omits any discussion of politics beyond that of the populist drivel extolled by New Labour

Citzenship can be free of bias. It is basicly encoraging political participation, whatever your ideology.

I'm 19 and currnetly at the University of Kent at Canterbury and I went to a state school in South London



Citzenship can be free of bias. It is basicly encoraging political participation, whatever your ideology.

One of the oppressed geeks I surmise....

Citizenship does not encourage political participation, since, and I have better knowledge of this than you, and, I assume, attend a better state school, it teaches you sod all. It provides one with arguments why one should vote, but omits any instruction in political ideology, or political parties beyond "what New Labour did this week".

I remain unsure. As a historian myself (Oxford interview on the 7th and 8th:(), I would suggest that topics akin to that of the EU are more the domain of mature, professional historians. Admittedly, the current GCSE syllabus is excessively restrictive, cliched, and uninspiring, however the focus for reform ought to be directed towards the generation of the "nation-states", the Renaissance, and the Stuart/Hanoverian/Georgian periods, which require more historical skill.


As a fellow historian (Cambridge interview on the 5th:D ) I do agree that the GCSE program is restrictive which is why the workings of the British legal system and the E.U. should be taught separate from history in a different subject area.....maybe add it to the PHSE/Citizenship curriculum.

I'm 19 and currnetly at the University of Kent at Canterbury and I went to a state school in South London

If you're nineteen, at University, and this thread accurately represents your ability to write English, I don't think "History of the European Union" is the most pressing topic for schools to cover.

*Insert old-person's "youth of today" and "when I were a lad" rants here.*

One of the oppressed geeks I surmise....

Citizenship does not encourage political participation, since, and I have better knowledge of this than you, and, I assume, attend a better state school, it teaches you sod all. It provides one with arguments why one should vote, but omits any instruction in political ideology, or political parties beyond "what New Labour did this week".

Wow...

*gives blessed Chris the Nobel Prize for Snobbery* ... You earnt it, man.

EDIT: Oh yeah, teaching about the history of the European Union, great idea. I seem to recall going through the basic timeline in pre-GCSE Geography, but that may just have been me, and I agree that it belongs in a more citizenship-based subject.

To the extent that anyone needs to learn anything, people need to learn about what the EU is, how it works and what its aims are.

If you're nineteen, at University, and this thread accurately represents your ability to write English, I don't think "History of the European Union" is the most pressing topic for schools to cover.

*Insert old-person's "youth of today" and "when I were a lad" rants here.*

My spelling is irrelevent to the issue and hand, and I would thank you to stop commenting on it.

My spelling is irrelevent to the issue and hand, and I would thank you to stop commenting on it.

When your use of English makes it hard to understand your point (and it's not just spelling; the OP was very hard to read because it was a single, poorly written block of text) then you make it relevant. If you can't be bothered to write in a manner that's easily legible, why should anybody bother to read your posts?

Your criticising the lack of education in a certain area whilst demonstrating a lack of education was too good an irony to ignore, anyway.

One of the oppressed geeks I surmise....

Citizenship does not encourage political participation, since, and I have better knowledge of this than you, and, I assume, attend a better state school, it teaches you sod all. It provides one with arguments why one should vote, but omits any instruction in political ideology, or political parties beyond "what New Labour did this week".

Hmmm. Elitist. Snobbish. Automatic disregard for those debating with you, and a belief in your own superiority. Add to that an irritating hatred of anything even vaguely 'socialistic' and I do believe you'll fit in wonderfully in Oxbridge circles...

As a fellow historian (Cambridge interview on the 5th:D ) I do agree that the GCSE program is restrictive which is why the workings of the British legal system and the E.U. should be taught separate from history in a different subject area.....maybe add it to the PHSE/Citizenship curriculum.


Best of luck then. Where else have you applied to?

Your criticising the lack of education in a certain area whilst demonstrating a lack of education was too good an irony to ignore, anyway.

I am not uneducated in this regard. I simply do not see an informal online discussion forum as somewhere where my spelling needs to be immaculate.

Hmmm. Elitist. Snobbish. Automatic disregard for those debating with you, and a belief in your own superiority. Add to that an irritating hatred of anything even vaguely 'socialistic' and I do believe you'll fit in wonderfully in Oxbridge circles...

Not really.... well, maybe the superiority, but I've tried to live without it...;)

No. My point was, misphrased though it was, that I've experianced contemporary citizenship, and at the best school the state system has to offer, and its still subjective, tedious twaddle.

It's actually a waste of time. You'd never get the truth about the EU taught in history classes for the simple reason that many of the criminals who orchestrated this for their own ends are still alive.

You can't do proper history until all the participants are dead. Hell, people still haven't decided why we fought WWI, nevermind the causes of european integration. (Though I heard it was something to do with Charles de Gaulle's favorite sausages.)

Best of luck then. Where else have you applied to?

Durham, York, Warwick, Lancaster and Edinburgh.

Good luck with your interview as well.:D