Grace Dent To Replace Gregg Wallace On...
Film, Media & TV1 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
//1. Should Parliament (and we the public) have a right to know how British Industry will be affected ?//
Yes. That is information which is directly in the public interest, and the idea that it is being concealed for such obviously political reasons is inexcusable. Anybody making excuses for this really needs to question how happy they are for the government to deliberately mislead and lie to them, and whether they are willing to take that.
//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 ?//
I can't see why it would affect his position.
--
I think the aspect of this that troubles me the most is just how little coverage it is getting. Of the major papers, the only UK one covering this seems to be the Guardian. Everyone else - Mail, Express, Sun etc. are fixated on the royal engagement. Call me paranoid, but I cannot help but wonder what the government has been doing for the past 3 weeks since they were compelled to publish - and it seems very likely that they've spent it making phonecalls and calling in favours with the press so as to keep all this very quiet. If so, that is a very disturbing precedent and speaks to an extremely sinister attitude on the part of the government.
Yes. That is information which is directly in the public interest, and the idea that it is being concealed for such obviously political reasons is inexcusable. Anybody making excuses for this really needs to question how happy they are for the government to deliberately mislead and lie to them, and whether they are willing to take that.
//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 ?//
I can't see why it would affect his position.
--
I think the aspect of this that troubles me the most is just how little coverage it is getting. Of the major papers, the only UK one covering this seems to be the Guardian. Everyone else - Mail, Express, Sun etc. are fixated on the royal engagement. Call me paranoid, but I cannot help but wonder what the government has been doing for the past 3 weeks since they were compelled to publish - and it seems very likely that they've spent it making phonecalls and calling in favours with the press so as to keep all this very quiet. If so, that is a very disturbing precedent and speaks to an extremely sinister attitude on the part of the government.
two hypothetical questions and two hypothetical answers
yes - we have a right to know their opinion
BUT Davis is saying that there are competing rights such as not screwing up negotiations half way thro
contempt of parliament is a contemporary non-starter
You used 1780 to be able to imprison, summon to the bar of the commons and blah blah blah
now you cant
Maxwell if you recollect refused to answer qq on his father's business when summoned to the Bar of parliament
( advice was - he had to go and then he cd say 'I aint sayin narfin')
was found in contempt
and when someone said - what happens now?
the answer was - we all go home for tea!
yes - we have a right to know their opinion
BUT Davis is saying that there are competing rights such as not screwing up negotiations half way thro
contempt of parliament is a contemporary non-starter
You used 1780 to be able to imprison, summon to the bar of the commons and blah blah blah
now you cant
Maxwell if you recollect refused to answer qq on his father's business when summoned to the Bar of parliament
( advice was - he had to go and then he cd say 'I aint sayin narfin')
was found in contempt
and when someone said - what happens now?
the answer was - we all go home for tea!
It also says that DD was not sure the information would be held securely and that some of it is sensitive to business and Brexit negotiations.
Although I agree that information should be given to MPs because we do, rather foolishly sometimes, entrust them to run the country. However I do think some of the hand waving and righteous indignation is more to do with power and self importance than anything else.
Although I agree that information should be given to MPs because we do, rather foolishly sometimes, entrust them to run the country. However I do think some of the hand waving and righteous indignation is more to do with power and self importance than anything else.
The Exiting the European Union Select Committee was set up by Theresa May, and its job is to scrutinise the work of the Department for Exiting the European Union (D4XEU).
It is reasonable therefore for the Select Committe to see the Impact Assessments, and it is not able to do its job of overseeing the D4XEU if it is denied the information.
It is reasonable therefore for the Select Committe to see the Impact Assessments, and it is not able to do its job of overseeing the D4XEU if it is denied the information.
The problem with this sort of thing is that there will inevitably be information that cannot, and should not, be divulged. Labour cannot be trusted in it's current form to hold any information secret if needed. They are more concerned with scoring political points than seeing the country win (An idea they loath anyway).
I do not know whether that is the case here or whther as Gromit asserts it is DD hiding bad news.
Only time will tell.
I do not know whether that is the case here or whther as Gromit asserts it is DD hiding bad news.
Only time will tell.
//The problem with this sort of thing is that there will inevitably be information that cannot, and should not, be divulged.//
Like what?
The trouble is it would be very easy to "get behind" the government etc. if it wasn't so blatantly using the country's precarious position as an excuse to suppress politically embarrassing information. Fundamentally that undermines trust.
Like what?
The trouble is it would be very easy to "get behind" the government etc. if it wasn't so blatantly using the country's precarious position as an excuse to suppress politically embarrassing information. Fundamentally that undermines trust.
"...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 to (constitutionally, at least, although for sure morally there was little option).
Now it seems that David Davis et al are determined to respect Parliamentary sovereignty only as a sort of "rubber stamp" for his, and the cabinet's, position. That's not tenable, and it will come back to bite them.
The defence of die-hard Brexiters seems to be that it's impossible for any scrutiny to be applied by anyone without ruining our negotiating position. I'm happy to accept that I, personally, have no right to see what's going on behind the scenes in order to scrutinise the government's plans. Quite apart from anything else, what meaningful scrutiny could I give it anyway? But the Select Committee of Parliament, and by extension Parliament itself, has a right and a duty to understand the plans and process, and guide them and comment on them as necessary. By denying key information that denies Parliament the role it's entitled to play.
There's a further point, and one that I am sure May is trying to ignore in particular. The referendum is not the only way for the public to express their views on how the country should be run, and by whom. That's what general elections are for. Theresa May, David Davis et al, applied to the country for a mandate to implement Brexit in the way they saw fit. They did not get that mandate. Carrying on regardless is contemptuous of democracy as a whole.
OK. So clearly I have a self-interest in seeing Brexit scrutinised by, among others, the well-known not-Brexit-supporters Keir Starmer and Hilary Benn. So let someone who supports Brexit speak for me instead:
https:/
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 to (constitutionally, at least, although for sure morally there was little option).
Now it seems that David Davis et al are determined to respect Parliamentary sovereignty only as a sort of "rubber stamp" for his, and the cabinet's, position. That's not tenable, and it will come back to bite them.
The defence of die-hard Brexiters seems to be that it's impossible for any scrutiny to be applied by anyone without ruining our negotiating position. I'm happy to accept that I, personally, have no right to see what's going on behind the scenes in order to scrutinise the government's plans. Quite apart from anything else, what meaningful scrutiny could I give it anyway? But the Select Committee of Parliament, and by extension Parliament itself, has a right and a duty to understand the plans and process, and guide them and comment on them as necessary. By denying key information that denies Parliament the role it's entitled to play.
There's a further point, and one that I am sure May is trying to ignore in particular. The referendum is not the only way for the public to express their views on how the country should be run, and by whom. That's what general elections are for. Theresa May, David Davis et al, applied to the country for a mandate to implement Brexit in the way they saw fit. They did not get that mandate. Carrying on regardless is contemptuous of democracy as a whole.
OK. So clearly I have a self-interest in seeing Brexit scrutinised by, among others, the well-known not-Brexit-supporters Keir Starmer and Hilary Benn. So let someone who supports Brexit speak for me instead:
https:/
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.