That done, Robbins got down to listing the Soviet achievements. Here his judgments are less armored against criticism. Let’s go down an abbreviated list:
“The experiment which failed is what liberal Russians call the Soviet era — and yet no one seems to have noticed that the experiment was hardly conducted in fair conditions.”
No one seems to have noticed . . . ! This was the standard argument of fellow-travelers once it was clear that the Soviet economy was an economic basket case and that the regime was a totalitarian monstrosity that murdered its opponents (and quite often its supporters too).
Senior DUP sourceshad warned that their 10 MPs would vote against the budget at the end of this month, potentially leaving May without a majority, if she gave away too much at next week’s crunch summit in Brussels, abruptly ending the confidence and supply agreement that has kept May in Downing Street.
A few hours later, DUP leader Arlene Foster, in Brussels for talks with EU officials, said that she had “been telling people about our red line” and added: “We can’t have a customs or regulatory barrier in the Irish Sea because that would cause us to be a rule-taker from Europe.”
The DUP threat comes days after the hard-Brexit ERG indicated that its MPs – thought realistically to amount to around 40 – would also be prepared to vote against the budget a few days after it is delivered by Philip Hammond on October 29.
Downing Street insisted that a defeat on the budget would not amount itself to a vote of no confidence under the terms of the fixed term parliament act, but in reality failing to pass a finance bill would amount to a humiliation for Theresa May, and put her position as prime minister in jeopardy.
That spells big trouble for May. It would give her a massive bloody nose without bringing down the government. And would effectively put paid to Chequers because it would be obvious to even May that she'd never get the legislation through parliament.
And a defeat of that nature on Brexit would be the end of May.
(The ERG don't love Hammond as the best of times - he's seen as being obstructive towards Brexit. They'd shed no tears if he was humiliated along with May with a budget defeat).
well again that's down to interpretation isn't it? Should the supreme court disagree with the ECJ, what then? The reality is that that ECJ already covers areas of pan European policy with are of of a contractual nature and would be covered under contract law nationaly. In other words most of these disagreements never see the ECJ as they are handled by national bodies and by definition if we want to continue working in the accepted way, the the current systems work adequately. But AIUI decisions by the ECJ are not always binding. So it's all a bit nuanced. The essential thing is that the Supreme court cannot be overridden as a generality. Since the EU is not a sovereign nation and we are not a client state in the accepted form all the ECJ is really is an arbiter. So it's one thing to comply with generally accepted norms on accepted legal basis and quite another to be subservient to the ECJ.
Either way since the EU has failed to comply with it's own rules in protecting consumers and no Government here will either because of the limitations of legal aid it's more a matter of semantics. So it's more a mind set.