Westminstenders: From Russia with Love

[RedToothBrush]

Things just got scary.

The colony of US puppet state or a vassel state of the EU?

Why not just let market forces take their course and let Russia buy the UK?

How did we get to stories of spies and mafia who buy politicians?

Just who are our enemies and allies?

Won't someone think of the effect on house prices in Salisbury?

Try not to don your foil hat, brace yourself and resist shouting 'money laundering too loud'.

More turbulence ahead.

Brexit still seems like such a cracking idea doesn't it?

What is relevant about Katyn is how the USSR and its apologists for several decades twisted the facts, to deny
that the USSR was guilty of this premeditated genocidal war crime

Decades of conspiracy and organised denial
Fake news: claims the Nazis did it.
It should have been clear from the USSR blocking every enquiry what really happened.
If innocent, even a dictatorship would be eager for an enquiry led by neutral bodies or countries, like Switzerland & Sweden.

It shows the danger too, of deciding "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" - without being aware of future consequences:

The Uk decided during WW2 to cover up this Soviet crime - and then was stuck with it after the war, rather than admit they covered up genocide and worked with those who ordered it.

Maybe why the Katyn massacre faded out of Uk general knowledge:
too embarrassing and shameful
Rather like Churchill and the Coventry blitz

We may need to make work together over Brexit with people whose views we despise
BUT
imo, never go as far as excusing their crime, or regarding them as genuine allies

So, I think it's ok to welcome help from Osbourne, from Blair in fighting against a hard Brexit
but not to justify this by whitewashing austerity or the Iraq war.

Also, if some allies might be in a position to commit future crimes, I would review whether they might be worse than Brexit.

We really may be choosing the lesser of 2 evils at the next GE
and I do mean evil.
Surely we don't deserve our politicians ?

Stalin's atrocities 'aren't as bad' as Hitler's somehow. We didn't learn about it at school in the same way.

I spent four years studying Russia - there was a time when there wasn't much I didn't know about Stalin...we had to do a piece of coursework that was like a mini dissertation - we chose the topic ourselves. Mine was on whether Stalin was as evil as all that or if there were excuses for what he did.
There has been a revisionist version of history around Stalin since the 1970s - western historians claiming he wasn't that bad. My teacher was really surprised that I came down on the traditionalist view that he was an evil bastard... because my line of thinking was already 30 years out of date 15 years ago. Unfortunately the whitewashing of Stalin that Seamus Milne has done has been fairly mainstream in academia for decades.
I remember reading through the books when I did my A levels and thinking 'but you wouldn't do this for Hitler - why are you doing it for Stalin?'

It should be difficult to whitewash the premeditated murder of millions, `pretzels
I'm glad you saw through it, even as a kid

Did the hard left somehow manage to get control of history in academia ?
Or were they aided by a scared establishment in a Cold War era, that would rather ignore Soviet crimes, to keep from stumbling closer to war ?

There is a well known Wajda film about Katyn - about ten years ago? I think there have also been TV documentaries. Pretty common knowledge for anyone interested in WW2 history I would have thought.
My GD also learning about communism etc in relation to Animal Farm.

I don't remember the name Katyn, but I do remember being taught of Stalinist attrocities at A level and reading up on it, it does seem familiar if not by name. Soviet early 20th century history wasn't covered in anywhere near the depth of German history though.

My history teachers comments on Soviet and Nazi atrocities was that the only difference was the Nazis kept records.

I have read the Sebag Montefiore biography and wouldn’t describe it as a whitewash.

I knew nothing of katyn until I read enigma by Robert Harris

Is it true that EU rules won't allow us to re-nationalise our railways? DH insists it it so, I think not. Does anyone know the answer, or will I have to trawl through pages of EU legislation?

Isn't there something about fair competition laws? It would be easier to re-nationalise out of the EU (which is why Jezza is pro Brexit) however it wouldn't be impossible... East coast train lines were re-nationalised when they were run into the ground. Once they were back on their feet again they got privatised again - and are doing badly again - and so the circle continues.

I think every time the contract went out to tender other companies would have to be allowed to bid if they wanted to... but the government could still win the tender. It just wouldn't be a permanent thing.

This may help?

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/theconversation.com/amp/fact-check-do-new-eu-rules-make-it-impossible-to-renationalise-railways-61180

The progress of the UK’s negotiations on EU withdrawal: December 2017 to March 2018

^Exiting the European Union Committee%

16.If substantial aspects of the Future Partnership remain to be agreed in October, the Government should seek a limited extension to the Article 50 time to ensure that a Political Declaration on the Future Partnership that is sufficiently detailed and comprehensive can be concluded. It would meet the Government’s objective that negotiations on substantive aspects of the Future Partnership should not take place in the transition/implementation period. That time should be used to finalise details and implement administrative measures and infrastructure that is necessary for the Future Partnership

17.If a 21-month transition/implementation period is insufficient time to conclude and ratify the treaties/agreements that will establish the Future Partnership or to implement the necessary technical and administrative measures along with any necessary infrastructure at the UK border, the only prudent action would be for the Government to seek a limited prolongation to avoid unnecessary disruption. It would, for example, be unacceptable for business to have to adapt their import and export processes twice. We therefore recommend that the Withdrawal Agreement include a provision to allow for the extension of the transition/implementation period, if necessary, and with the approval of Parliament

However, we note that there is a risk that a transition/implementation period that lasts much more than two years might exceed the vires of Article 50 and be subject to a legal challenge in the CJEU&.

publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmexeu/884/88403.htm

labourlist.org/2017/07/from-trains-to-energy-labour-can-deliver-nationalisation-within-the-single-market/ This too, Peregrina

That's interesting lonelyplanetmum

Although it does beg the question: once the UK is out of the EU, would the EU look more favourably on nationalised rail industries Is it the UK itself that is creating the apparent "pro-privatisation" agenda?

...a bit like the current barrier to a FTA agreement with India is that they want more visas for Indians, which the UK opposes - so it should be ready to be signed shortly after the UK leaves

I always think that trade magazines reveal the expert stuff without a political agenda . There are lots of articles in here....

www.railwaygazette.com/news/policy/single-view/view/the-fourth-railway-package-explained.html

...and more here.

https://railway-news.com/what-will-brexit-mean-for-europes-railways/

Interesting that 40,000 rail industry workers in the UK from the EU-27 may need replacing.

everyone in this situation is problematic and that we shouldn't give Russia a free pass just because it is May who is pointing out there might be issues, as you seem to be suggesting. And if we are looking at who is for/against, then why isn't it relevant that RT/breitbart are pushing the same narratives that you are aligning with?

I am not aligning with any narrative that I am aware of. I am not on Twitter. I subscribe to the Irish Times and the Washington Post, the Economist, and some other quality US sites (Atlantic, NY Times) and I look at a few specialty items like shipping news, Foreign Affairs, also the Belfast Telegraph and several more (Guardian, Spiegel). I don't pay any attention to Breitbart or RT or Drudge.

I agree everyone in this situation is problematic. What I am proposing is that Theresa May does not get a free pass on this matter just because she whistled 'Russia'.

I am surprised at the fact that some have not heard of Katyn. I grew up in a country where prayers for the conversion of Russia (from Communism) were offered at Mass, and where empathy for the suffering Catholic Poles was very strong. The suffering people of Central America being used as pawns by both sides in the Cold War got equal sympathy. Many Irish missionaries worked with the poor in that region and their religious orders published magazines detailing their work and the circumstances the people faced there. I learned of Katyn long before I encountered WW2 in a history course, and also heard a completely uncritical account of the life of Archbishop Stepinac, who may or may not have collaborated with the Croatian Ustaše regime (the existence of which I only learned about in my teen years from independent reading).

Both Britain and the US participated with the USSR during WW2 in hiding the Katyn massacre and then in clouding the facts about it until the Cold War got under way, when it became politically expedient to use it as a means of casting the former ally in a poor light.

Russia admitted that the USSR perpetrated the Katyn massacre in 1990, and has not disputed it since then. In 2010 the Polish government and president were on their way to a historic joint ceremony at the Katyn site with the Russian government in which the ghosts of Katyn were to be put to rest. Many top officials in government and in the armed forces were in the same plane, which went down in dense fog near Smolensk while attempting a landing. There have been various conspiracy theories about this crash since then despite a joint Russian Polish investigation that concluded that pilot error was to blame.

Irish history syllabi tend to focus on themes and processes and not individual events. Incidents are not used for DBQs either. Just as a matter of interest, are incidents like Katyn or the Oradour massacre the subjects of individual focus in A level history, or briefly mentioned in a wider context?

I am baffled by the 'bit of this, bit of that' approach in history teaching in the UK. Chronology and the wider context are really important in history.

I am baffled by the 'bit of this, bit of that' approach in history teaching in the UK. Chronology and the wider context are really important in history.

Completely agree with you there @math. Iirc from year 9 history I remember doing the Russian Revolution and the foundation of British parliament concurrently. That threw me.

The GCSEs entailed a history of medicine, the rise of nazi Germany (1918-1939), the Troubles and I'm certain there must've been something else but fucked if I know.

I went on to do Classics at a top uni and my knowledge of history is potted at best. But then, we put politicians in charge of education, and not educators. Because we are not a meritocracy.

I am baffled by the 'bit of this, bit of that' approach in history teaching in the UK.
This!
Finding it very apparent now I compare what ds studies in the Italian system and how everything is done in a chronological order compared to the dip in and out approach I went through in the UK system.

prettybird Sun 18-Mar-18 11:56:49
I most definitely do not want to derail or divert from the point of the Brexit opposition or hand TM what she wants (whatever that may be). I know people here are not put off Corbyn by the communist smear alone, but the suggestion of being pro-Russian seems to have hit its mark all the same, and it is a very effective ploy with the general public.

While Theresa May's election decision was in many ways a disaster, and while Labour did far, far better than even Labour may have hoped, the fact remains that despite the Tory Party conference speeches, despite the unprofessional disarray in Brexit negotiations, despite the problems Brexit poses for the GFA, many cast a vote for the Tories. Smears against Corbyn such as the IRA card and the red scare have predictable effects and will be used again.

Imo spoiling a vote is actually a vote for the Tories. Voting Tory is the default position in England. It doesn't take much to put voters off the opposition, and I feel very strongly that a vote that is not against them is for them. There will always be an English bedrock of blue that has to be attacked.

Voters are between a rock and a hard place. There is no effective opposition to Brexit and no effective opposition to the railroading of women's rights (I do not think the Tories are opposed to self ID either). Both parties are now engaged in hardening their positions, and no credible centre has emerged. In moments of despondency I see the legal challenges being cast aside - no matter what the merits of the cases against A50, UK judges do not enjoy the position of the US Supreme Court and I suspect they are wary of setting themselves up in opposition to Parliament. I think they are not activist, in other words.

As an Irish person from a political culture that despite different parties is overwhelmingly a bit right of centre and since the 90s anyway very consensus driven, I don't envy the UK the choice it faces.

The Salisbury poisoning may affect the Brexit negotiations:

Before this, going on statements by Tusk, Barnier & various E27 heads of govt,
it is almost certain that the European Council meeting on 22-23 March would have decided that trade talks cannot commence,
because the UK gov reneged on what they agreed in December for the NI border.

This would have caused a furious row, maybe a UK walkout, as Brexiters have long demanded if there are no trade talks scheduled by end of March.

Now however, the EU is in a very awkward position:
They feel obliged to show solidarity with the UK, a Nato ally, so will not want to appear to be kicking the UK when it is in trouble.

So, there may now be a fudge, e.g. agreeing to allow talks to proceed for say 3 months in parallel with the NI border discussions and then review progress before continuing.
The EU will probably want to postpone getting publicly tough with the UK until this poisoning is long gone from the news cycle and the short attention span of the UK public.

In this respect, I agree that May has been ramping up the genuine situation caused by Russia,
to dig herself out from a very big hole that was about to swallow her up.

Thanks for the railway links people. DH was a reluctant Remainer, with too much 'what about Greece' etc. and doesn't like Juncker. I pointed out to him that the latter will be gone in a couple of years and that someone else will be elected. Too much pretending that I think the EU is perfect, which I have never said. I do think that our Governments have never wholly committed to the EU and have been too interested in getting opt outs for this that and the other, or now deciding that there are bits of the EU that they liked after all. And even now, with this poisoning business, are having to depend on EU allies. Which would be a joke if it wasn't potentially serious.

As for Russia, I do think there is a question as to who benefits? Mighty convenient, for May at the moment...... I am cynical.

BTW history as far as I recall has always been delivered as a mish-mash. One moment we were doing the Vikings, the next term it was Ancient Greece, or Egypt. There was absolutely no sense of timing involved. Although I think Gove wanted infants to start with the early stuff and move forward. He's as big a chump as he looks IMO.

I'm fortunate in that we do have a viable pro-EU party to vote for in Scotland - and even better, one I was voting for already So no dilemma for me!

Of course, DD or Boris may open their mouths again and cause the E27 to stick to their original plan
of refusing to agree to start trade talks until the UK reneges on its reneging and signs what it agreed in December

In this respect, I agree that May has been ramping up the genuine situation caused by Russia, to dig herself out from a very big hole that was about to swallow her up.

I still think she will overplay her hand.

I have always thought history teaching was disjointed and chaotic

• I did history in Grammar school from age 11-16, i.e. O Level.

It jumped about all over the place from the ancient civilisations to the minutiae of Victorian Britain, without a coherent theme.

e.g. iirc Cardwell's Army reforms in the 1860s (he was Sec of State for War) which included:
abolishing of buying officers' commissions, the introduction of breach-loading rifles, the abolition of flogging

Probably more useful things I could have been taught in history class, like understanding the flow of history and anything that happened outside Britain in the last 2000 years.
Ah, wrong: the causes of WW1 were briefly mentioned, but nothing further about WW1 or WW2.