Will You Be Shopping At Boots This...
News1 min ago
David Davis Contempt Of Parliament
The Government commissioned research into the impact of Brexit on 58 sectors of British Industry. Parliament voted to see the reports in a binding vote. Instead of delivering the 58 reports, Davis gave them one report which apparently was highly redacted. MPs (of all parties) are not happy and believe Davis has not fulfilled the wishes of Parliament.
Presumably the 58 reports are not good or Davis would not be so eager to suppress them.
Two questions:
1. Should Parliament (and we the public) have a right to know how British Industry will be affected ?
2. If Davis is found to be in Contempt of Parliament, is his position as chief negotiator on behalf of the British Government still tenable ?
Presumably the 58 reports are not good or Davis would not be so eager to suppress them.
Two questions:
1. Should Parliament (and we the public) have a right to know how British Industry will be affected ?
2. If Davis is found to be in Contempt of Parliament, is his position as chief negotiator on behalf of the British Government still tenable ?
Answers
"...he is implementing the democratic will of the majority, that is a higher authority in my opinion." It may be your opinion but it's still wrong. Parliament is the supreme authority in the UK, and has been since essentially the 17th Century. While it was correct for Parliament to vote through Article 50 legislation that doesn't mean that they were obliged...
10:51 Tue 28th Nov 2017
// They should get on with implementing the result of the referendum instead of continually talking the country down and trying to sabotage the process. //
The Select Committee was set up by the Prime Minister. Its function is not to sabotage anything, it is there to make sure brexit is done right.
So much for the sovereignty of Parliament and bring back democracy to the UK. Davis et al are behaving far worse than the EU ever did. Not good.
The Select Committee was set up by the Prime Minister. Its function is not to sabotage anything, it is there to make sure brexit is done right.
So much for the sovereignty of Parliament and bring back democracy to the UK. Davis et al are behaving far worse than the EU ever did. Not good.
Gromit in his OP says: //Parliament voted to see the reports in a binding vote.// but I’ve just been watching The Daily Politics and apparently Parliament agreed some time ago that sensitive material should be withheld. Additionally, David Davis’ letter was leaked to the press presumably by one of the ‘trusted’ members of the committee. Therefore, since publication of the missing information could result in further attempts to wreck the Brexit process (which is what this is really all about) perhaps the government – and parliament as a whole - are wiser than they’re given credit for.
//further attempts to wreck the Brexit process (which is what this is really all about) perhaps the government //
Why would the government's own forecasts about the economic impact of Brexit prove so ruinous, do you think?
//Parliament agreed some time ago that sensitive material should be withheld.//
According to whom on the Daily Politics?
Why would the government's own forecasts about the economic impact of Brexit prove so ruinous, do you think?
//Parliament agreed some time ago that sensitive material should be withheld.//
According to whom on the Daily Politics?
Krom, I don’t know that the government’s own forecasts would prove so ruinous and neither do you, but experience of the Remainers’ constant penchant for fear mongering tells me that they’ll try anything they think might produce a bit of mileage in scuppering Brexit.
//According to whom on the Daily Politics?//
If memory serves, according to the presenter, Jo Coburn.
//According to whom on the Daily Politics?//
If memory serves, according to the presenter, Jo Coburn.
"I’ve just been watching The Daily Politics and apparently Parliament agreed some time ago that sensitive material should be withheld."
Depends a little on the timing, and specific details, of this vote, but if it were earlier than the one pertaining to the specific documents the Select Committee wants to see then it's quite likely to be irrelevant. Parliamentary votes aren't binding on the future Parliament, which is free at any time to override what its predecessor did. Hence if it voted that sensitive information should be withheld, then later voted that it should be released, then the most recent vote takes precedence.
Also, look: there are clearly people who voted to Remain who are (a) bitter and (b) clouded by that. But that's no excuse to withhold documents from genuine scrutiny. Parliament -- who, again, I remind you, is the institution to which you voted to give control back -- has a right, which it accorded to itself, to scrutinise these documents. Government can't override or ignore that. I agree that analysis that enters the public domain might risk undermining our negotiating position, although if it's so vulnerable to start with it hardly bodes well, but it's an attitude not unlike that of Kings of old to deny Parliament -- to deny our elected representatives -- the right to scrutinise what the Government is doing. It can be done in a way that allows the necessary and democratic scrutiny to be applied without jeopardising anything.
The alternative is to continue to put absolute and unconditional trust in May, Davis, Fox and Johnson, none of whom have exactly done much to inspire confidence in their ability to put our best interests forward.
It's undemocratic, too. And, yet again, I refer you to the comments of Jacob Rees-Mogg, to which I linked earlier, who can hardly be accused of being a treacherous Remainer trying to ruin our country.
Depends a little on the timing, and specific details, of this vote, but if it were earlier than the one pertaining to the specific documents the Select Committee wants to see then it's quite likely to be irrelevant. Parliamentary votes aren't binding on the future Parliament, which is free at any time to override what its predecessor did. Hence if it voted that sensitive information should be withheld, then later voted that it should be released, then the most recent vote takes precedence.
Also, look: there are clearly people who voted to Remain who are (a) bitter and (b) clouded by that. But that's no excuse to withhold documents from genuine scrutiny. Parliament -- who, again, I remind you, is the institution to which you voted to give control back -- has a right, which it accorded to itself, to scrutinise these documents. Government can't override or ignore that. I agree that analysis that enters the public domain might risk undermining our negotiating position, although if it's so vulnerable to start with it hardly bodes well, but it's an attitude not unlike that of Kings of old to deny Parliament -- to deny our elected representatives -- the right to scrutinise what the Government is doing. It can be done in a way that allows the necessary and democratic scrutiny to be applied without jeopardising anything.
The alternative is to continue to put absolute and unconditional trust in May, Davis, Fox and Johnson, none of whom have exactly done much to inspire confidence in their ability to put our best interests forward.
It's undemocratic, too. And, yet again, I refer you to the comments of Jacob Rees-Mogg, to which I linked earlier, who can hardly be accused of being a treacherous Remainer trying to ruin our country.
Actually since about 2010, but let's not split hairs shall we?
Also, I just found this lovely quote:
"Today at PMQs, I asked the Prime Minster to publish the data [related to NI numbers linked to EU migrants]. If the Government fails to do so, people will draw the conclusion that it has something to hide or fears it has something to hide. It is much better to found the debate on the real facts. The Government should publish this data immediately."
-- David Davis, March 2016
Also, I just found this lovely quote:
"Today at PMQs, I asked the Prime Minster to publish the data [related to NI numbers linked to EU migrants]. If the Government fails to do so, people will draw the conclusion that it has something to hide or fears it has something to hide. It is much better to found the debate on the real facts. The Government should publish this data immediately."
-- David Davis, March 2016
Let the courts decide. I can see parliament should be informed whenever it is possible, but that if doing so ruins the ability of the government to negotiate or will spoil commercial concerns getting a good deal, then there should be exceptions to disclosure. And it would be a major drop off if this wasn't already part of law. Trouble is no one can judge the situation without being given access to the data. So, let the judge at it.
"Jim, would you agree that if information is deemed sensitive the government is right to withhold it?"
There's a certain amount of "who watches the watchers?" going on here. To be clear: I have no problem with the principle that as an average citizen then there is no reason for me to see most secrets the Government is holding. But I already said so on page one of this thread. That's not what my gripe is about. A Select Committee of Parliament is not the General Public. For example, the Intelligence and Security Committee is entitled to see all sorts of documents that are otherwise withheld from the public. It's right and proper that most of the work that Security Services do is carried out in the dark from most of us. It's not right, however, that there is no scrutiny at all. That is what the Select Committee is capable of achieving, a balance between these two positions.
So it is, too, here. I don't like this idea of viewing the negotiations with the EU as combative, but if that is how it is then, for sure, placing some information in the public domain may do us no favours. Still, Parliament has a right and a duty to scrutinise the documents, and an ability to do so without compromising the secrecy the government feels is necessary.
If that's too long an answer for you, then the short version is: yes, I don't mind not seeing this myself, but that's not the same as keeping it from everyone. In particular, keeping this analysis from Parliament is troubling and you do not have to be a Remain supporter to think so.
There's a certain amount of "who watches the watchers?" going on here. To be clear: I have no problem with the principle that as an average citizen then there is no reason for me to see most secrets the Government is holding. But I already said so on page one of this thread. That's not what my gripe is about. A Select Committee of Parliament is not the General Public. For example, the Intelligence and Security Committee is entitled to see all sorts of documents that are otherwise withheld from the public. It's right and proper that most of the work that Security Services do is carried out in the dark from most of us. It's not right, however, that there is no scrutiny at all. That is what the Select Committee is capable of achieving, a balance between these two positions.
So it is, too, here. I don't like this idea of viewing the negotiations with the EU as combative, but if that is how it is then, for sure, placing some information in the public domain may do us no favours. Still, Parliament has a right and a duty to scrutinise the documents, and an ability to do so without compromising the secrecy the government feels is necessary.
If that's too long an answer for you, then the short version is: yes, I don't mind not seeing this myself, but that's not the same as keeping it from everyone. In particular, keeping this analysis from Parliament is troubling and you do not have to be a Remain supporter to think so.
It's not quite the same thing, though, leaking a letter as opposed to actually confidential documents. As I pointed out, the Intelligence and Security Committee (a) exists, (b) sees a lot of secret documents, and (c) respects that secrecy. The same would be true here.
Regardless, though, Government is accountable to Parliament, not the other way round, so if Parliament passes on instructions then it is incumbent on Government to carry them out. They were asked to release documents, and that is, therefore, what they should have done.
As Jacob Rees-Mogg says -- as another Leave-supporting MP, Philip Hollobone, also said -- not to do so is constitutionally dangerous.
Regardless, though, Government is accountable to Parliament, not the other way round, so if Parliament passes on instructions then it is incumbent on Government to carry them out. They were asked to release documents, and that is, therefore, what they should have done.
As Jacob Rees-Mogg says -- as another Leave-supporting MP, Philip Hollobone, also said -- not to do so is constitutionally dangerous.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.