Basically a success? By what qualifiers? What do you measure it against? If some EU countries are doing poorly, and others are doing well, would that be considered a success or a failure?
Let’s weigh in with some thought and analysis shall we?
Of course I wasn’t the one who made the comment, but the qualifier would be how well or poorly the EU does what it was supposed to do. What is the EU supposed to do? Whatever it is, if the EU does it then the EU is basically a success. Which might not necessarily be a good thing.
The question without definition is fundamentally silly isn’t it? The most natural assumption is that the purpose of the EU is to further prosperity of its member nations. But then, what are you comparing the results against? How they would have done if operating separately? How do you know how they would have done separately? You’re talking about entire nations over the span of decades. How can you presume to accurately project their success or failure? There’s a downright comical number of variables in play.
According to the EU the goals of the EU are: https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/eu-in-brief_en Now assuming all those goals are met, technically the EU is a success. However, I’d also observe that if cigarette companies set out to make their product addictive and their business lucrative, and they have accomplished that, then cigarette companies are successful, even if they have damaged human well-being. As it happens, off-hand I’d say the EU is a mixed success at accomplishing what it set out to do. Achieved or not, some of it’s stated goals sound reasonable and generally good, whether met or not. Some sound hubristic… Read more »
I guess Mr Barnabas meant ”syrians”, not “Syria”. That piece of land to the north of Israel is still anchored in the Middle East, and France, Germany and the rest are still in place.
Most basically, the goal of the EU was to avoid war between Germany and its neighbors (especially France). The fact that nobody worry about war between Germany and France is certainly a success.
Now that was refreshing. So far, most of the comments are positive, too. It makes me wonder if stepped into a time machine–except there was no World magazine website back in 1980…
I have been quietly dropping things like this into my conversations with folk at my church. Partly, I want to gauge reaction, but also to start a conversation. When I get the impression I have unsettled them, I gently follow it up with a reminder that all of those men who have done all these things were birthed, fed, and nurtured by women. To be upset by the first should mean that you are upset by the other. If not, there is hypocrisy. Or, as I usually say in closing, God just made men and women to be different and… Read more »
Good point. When the hurricane hit Houston, I kept waiting for the Amazon-Lesbian-#metoo Task Force to save the day. I mean, they’re remaking famous action movies with all female protagonists, so surely it can happen in real life? But wouldn’t you know it, it was a bunch of men (mostly truck-driving, bass-boat riding Trump supporters) who volunteered their time and got the job done.
To that article I say, “Amen, sister!” I have long marveled at the profound stupidness of women who demand the “right” to be without men. They have no love for good, right, law or justice. Thanks for sharing.
Mark H.
5 years ago
Just noticing – if you’re going to get through all the topics on the “pirate list”, you’re going to need to do more than two articles a week…
“Explains much about the EU…”
What, that it’s basically a success, and that Brexit has turned out to be a colossal blunder?
Blunder? Has it even happened yet?
You can’t call it a blunder until it has actually been tried.
Basically a success? By what qualifiers? What do you measure it against? If some EU countries are doing poorly, and others are doing well, would that be considered a success or a failure?
Let’s weigh in with some thought and analysis shall we?
Of course I wasn’t the one who made the comment, but the qualifier would be how well or poorly the EU does what it was supposed to do. What is the EU supposed to do? Whatever it is, if the EU does it then the EU is basically a success. Which might not necessarily be a good thing.
The question without definition is fundamentally silly isn’t it? The most natural assumption is that the purpose of the EU is to further prosperity of its member nations. But then, what are you comparing the results against? How they would have done if operating separately? How do you know how they would have done separately? You’re talking about entire nations over the span of decades. How can you presume to accurately project their success or failure? There’s a downright comical number of variables in play.
According to the EU the goals of the EU are: https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/eu-in-brief_en Now assuming all those goals are met, technically the EU is a success. However, I’d also observe that if cigarette companies set out to make their product addictive and their business lucrative, and they have accomplished that, then cigarette companies are successful, even if they have damaged human well-being. As it happens, off-hand I’d say the EU is a mixed success at accomplishing what it set out to do. Achieved or not, some of it’s stated goals sound reasonable and generally good, whether met or not. Some sound hubristic… Read more »
The purpose of the EU is to replace their member nations with Syria.
Then I suppose Barnabas, it has indeed been a remarkable success.
I guess Mr Barnabas meant ”syrians”, not “Syria”. That piece of land to the north of Israel is still anchored in the Middle East, and France, Germany and the rest are still in place.
Most basically, the goal of the EU was to avoid war between Germany and its neighbors (especially France). The fact that nobody worry about war between Germany and France is certainly a success.
Interesting Read:
https://world.wng.org/2018/11/thank_god_for_men
Now that was refreshing. So far, most of the comments are positive, too. It makes me wonder if stepped into a time machine–except there was no World magazine website back in 1980…
I have been quietly dropping things like this into my conversations with folk at my church. Partly, I want to gauge reaction, but also to start a conversation. When I get the impression I have unsettled them, I gently follow it up with a reminder that all of those men who have done all these things were birthed, fed, and nurtured by women. To be upset by the first should mean that you are upset by the other. If not, there is hypocrisy. Or, as I usually say in closing, God just made men and women to be different and… Read more »
Good point. When the hurricane hit Houston, I kept waiting for the Amazon-Lesbian-#metoo Task Force to save the day. I mean, they’re remaking famous action movies with all female protagonists, so surely it can happen in real life? But wouldn’t you know it, it was a bunch of men (mostly truck-driving, bass-boat riding Trump supporters) who volunteered their time and got the job done.
World comments are open to World subscribers only. That would account for that.
To that article I say, “Amen, sister!” I have long marveled at the profound stupidness of women who demand the “right” to be without men. They have no love for good, right, law or justice. Thanks for sharing.
Just noticing – if you’re going to get through all the topics on the “pirate list”, you’re going to need to do more than two articles a week…