Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Case of the Missing Documents
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Case of the Missing Documents
One of the votes lost by the government shortly before Parliament was prorogued was in relation to a demand that it provide by Wednesday 11 September correspondence and communications (defined very widely) sent to or from 9 named people since 23 July “relating to the prorogation of Parliament”. There has been much fuss made about the demand for communications made on personal phones or via various message services as if this were an intolerable intrusion into people’s privacy and/or a breach of their human rights and/or the GDPR (a regulation which many quote and few understand). The reality is more prosaic.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Sadly, the referendum result has proved to be unimplementable. This was mainly because leave promised every voter everything in order to win - and those promises are utterly incompatible. They also gave Farage an almost god-like position of being able to nod his head to say whether 'Brexit', when it is delivered, is really Brexit. Hence the complicating factor of the BXP.
Of the MPs who voted against the deal, there were remainer MPs - such as the Lib Dems and SNP - who were very unlikely to vote for any deal. Then there are the hardcore ERGers, for whom any deal appears to be betrayal. And then there are those who were persuadable, but voted against the deal because of the party whip (e.g. many in Labour).
I have little problem with the hardcore remainers voting it down: that's their belief - even if you think they're wrong. If their constituents disagree with them, they'll suffer at the next election. You can also argue that they're speaking for the 16 million who voted remain.
The ERGers and Brexiteers share much of the blame. They voted against a deal many of them would have accepted a few years ago, a deal that gave them leave. It's classic bait-and-switch. Worse, before the votes they were on the airwaves trashing the deal, giving others cover to vote against. Some did so not because of their belief that the deal was bad, but for their own political ends.
Finally, there are those (e.g. in Labour) who voted against because their party told them to - and despite the various flavours of unicorn farts their leadership promises, would probably have voted for a deal identical to May's deal if it had been presented by *their* leadership.
All in all, the 2016 referendum result appears to be unimplementable. It has caused harm to the country, our standing in the world, and our relationships with our neighbours. No-deal does not respect the referendum campaigns or result, and certainly does not respect the 2017 manifestos.
Yet no deal appears to be the quickest way out. Bait and switch, indeed.
An excellent threader, Ms Free. Official business should be done on official channels, not private channels.
A certain US politician found this to her cost.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_email_controversy
Your last paragraph sums up best why conflicts over things essentially unimportant or marginal to the great arguments of policy actually matter.
One assumes future governments will ensure this order is complied with even if this one doesn’t.
Such a vote would be no different to the dilemma facing those in Parliament. Vote for May’s deal, or hold out for better (but risk worse).
I don’t see “people’s vote” advocates expressing any concern that Leavers might boycott their preferred referendum... (whether on principle, or because commits them to an unfavoured form of leave)
Therefore May’s deal is actually Transition period with U.K. OR NI backstop (UK chooses if no trade agreement by end of transition). Alternative simply takes away the choice. Thereby weakening U.K. negotiating position in trade deal talks.
Ridiculous.
Suppose your preference is 1) deal 2) remain 3) no deal. Are you pro leave or pro remain? Should you have voted Leave because you wanted 1) or Remain because your feared 2)?
My referendum simply gives the public a chance to vote for a compromise that Parliament can’t agree on. If they reject it then they might get a future Remain majority govt committing to revoke, or a future leave majority govt committing to no deal. But they would have a chance to END IT!
As no-one likes the idea of extension it makes people reflect on the value of compromise, without removing any options from them. It also would have helped deliver govt policy with legitimacy so is hard for parliament to justify blocking.
The problem with it now is that the govt is against the WA, and we would be in the same situation as when Cameron did the first ref.
The equivalent for this govt would be "Do you prefer to leave the EU with no deal on 31 Jan (assuming extension granted, not time to do it before) or extend for 12 months?". Even as very much anti no deal myself, this would be far more legitimate than crashing out based on a 1.8% support at the last GE.
Slightly rubbish weather, although with the sky so dark I'm surprised it isn't raining still.
On-topic: shocked and appalled to learn some people don't trust Boris Johnson. Can't imagine why.
mays deal yes/no
revoke yes/no
no deal yes/no
if no wins each one, then "the people" will have done the same as MPs, and everyone can stop complaining about parliament, as they will be shown to have been representing the voters pretty well. brexit won't be solved but it will be healthy for democracy
Not surprisingly, a government run by Boris Johnson does not believe the rules apply to it. As far as I remember, Gove and Cummings also used private emails while they were in the Education Department.
The courts have decided in the prorogue case that parliament should be the judge. But the prorogue event is shutting down parliament, meaning that the relevant parliamentary committe cannot convene to see if the prorogue is legal in the eyes of parliament. It seems that there is no method for parliament to impose an injunction on the prorogue.
Wonder if anybody thought of it at the time/it was considered?
Dominic Cummings seemed to be concerned about this order.
I'm just waiting for some wag to ask Dominic Cummings, 'WhatsApp, Doc?'
Although he'll probably not get the implication that he's Wile E. Coyote...
Thanks Cyclefree
The Court then has to consider an application to allow an appeal to the Supreme Court. It is already assumed that the losing side, whichever one, will make that application and that this case will join the English case which has been fast tracked for a hearing on 17th September. Normally getting leave to appeal to the Supreme Court is a difficult hurdle but in this case it is assumed. My guess, as with Lord Doherty, the decision of the court will be pretty brief as was their hearing last Friday. The NI case was a bit behind but is apparently making substantial efforts to catch up so that it can be there too.
As I mentioned before some of the material that the HoC was looking for was produced in the Court before Lord Doherty but I don't think that it was as extensive as is now being sought. It seemed to have very little impact on the decision.
What happens to Prorogation if the appeal succeeds next week?
Which is why referenda are such awful ideas. Especially the 2016 one which contained a fatally flawed binary choice without anyone working out what leave actually meant.
It may all be resolved through the General Election. Which is much better. Like all other policies, wrap it within a manifesto. The reason Cameron didn't and couldn't is because the Conservatives are riven on Europe.
Or onto more secure messaging systems or burner phones.
Dominic Grieve may think he’s Robocop but I saw him and his son wearing matching tabards on the sleeper train - no doubt off to shoot some well armed what’s app using No deal Grouse.
The brute fact is whatever the facts of the matter this looks like a lot of sore losers getting hissy because they're not getting what they want and haven't a clue how to react. And it isn't a good look. They would have been much better off sticking to political routes.
That’s all.
That’s a view.
As I said - 4 days extra of parliament next week would achieve nothing productive as we saw on Monday - it’s just a remainer bubble outrage shriek.
May I take this opportunity of painting a scenario before I go and leave it there to see if this develops and finally resolves the 31st October exit
Boris agrees a superficial change with the EU over the Irish backstop and then declares the agreement in a joint UK-EU conference at the summit alongside Tusk and Junckers/ Von der Leyen. Lots of congratulations and declarations of relief from Merkel, Macron and others.
The agreement is based on the 'Kinnock' amendment and the adjustments to Ireland and Boris declares he will put it to a vote in the HOC on Friday 18th October
At the EU press conference the EU state that the WDA has to pass by the 31st October with this new deal or it will be no deal as the commission will not allow any futher extensions, as all discussions and possible solutions have been exhausted
The HOC then have their choice and remainers are able to stand at the next GE campaigning to re-join
Of course in all of this time will be needed to pass the legislation but hopefully Boris and the EU will address this with a technical extension whilst we still leave on the 31st October
Fantasy or answer to prayer
I leave it with you folks
1 - What is the basis for the Court of Session to make rulings concerning the UK Parliament, given that it is not based in Scotland? I am thinking that it is some historic power under common law.
2 - Was Cummings actually declared in Contempt of Parliament? I have the Committee of Privileges report; however I thought it was down the Commons to do the deed, and I cannot find any motion etc. making it happen.
I have 2 down more to tantrumming by Mr Grieve to cover his own embarrassment - imo Select Committee Chairs hardly cover themselves with glory these days eg Margaret Hodge using the Treasury Committee as a platform for abusing witnesses. Ditto Frank Field.
They're correct of course, but they fail to understand that the extremist Remainers care nothing for democracy. When you have an exaggerated sense of your own superiority, democracy is unnecessary. Its the fault of fascists and communists alike.
Personally, I think that the May deal will probably lead to us staying, but it could be a temporary fix, and would show just how little MPs actually care about voter's opinions.
'We can't leave, it's too complicated' also applies to the Scottish independence aspirations. After all, we've been entangled for 300 years not less than fifty. But this is about democracy now. As an ex-LD voter, I can't understand how this "I know better than you, so you don't count,' came from. Perhaps a current LD voter can explain?
https://twitter.com/nataliesedacca/status/1171307167921639425?s=19
That is entirely different and I can only conclude that you didn't read my comment proeperly.
How will the nation cope for 4 days without sing songs, the worshipping of bullying dwarves and the waving of pieces of A4 etc etc ?
And since he is himself a fluent, serial leaker and disloyal backstabbing liar, forger and loser, he is also a hypocrite for doing that.
It's more than a bit worrying to see so many Tories become also Corbynista in their tribalism.
See you this evening.
I don’t see why the govt communications make any difference to the court cases. The courts have (so far) said that it is not a matter for them. The reasons for the prorogation are irrelevant. It’s not even clear if legally there have to be any reasons for prorogation.
That is not to say that Parliament, for its purposes, cannot require their release.
It would appear that a lie was propagated - that the motive for shutting down parliament was for a Queen's Speech rather than to avoid scrutiny of the government's Brexit plans.
With this at risk of being exposed beyond all doubt one wonders if an attempt is now underway to destroy the key evidence?
If so, the people involved may live to regret their actions. Consulting my book of what They Say, one of the entries is -
"The cover up is what gets them, not the crime."
Untrue, as always, but not entirely false either.
It would need about 30 Labour and Independent MPs to commit to vote for it to pass
So, in answer to your question. If 52% of the public vote for something, (a very small majority) it does not mean that individuals, or parties, who opposed that position should suddenly drop all opposition. Such individuals have a moral and democratic responsibility to continue to oppose, and if necessary reverse the position. It is up to those that persuaded the 52% to continue to represent the views of the 52% (this is extremely arguable in the case of Brexit) and then fight for the decision to be upheld.
Leavers seem fond of war analogies, so here is one. Imagine there was a referendum in war time to persuade the public that the Geneva Convention should be ignored, that it was a foreign device, and our soldiers should be allowed to use their discretion on how to treat prisioners. If 52% voted in favour I think it would be a moral and democratic duty to persuade them of their error.
Therefore in summary, the LDs position is not in any way undemocratic. they have a right to represent a view that seeks to correct what they consider a gross error by an electorate that was misled. To oppose that right is very undemocratic
The point with all this stuff is that Cummings is running a massively despotic government with Johnson only as its figurehead. People who think the UK deserves better governance than Dagistan should resist.
As a lawyer, I expected a more nuanced argument from you. How is the LD view for revocation democratic?
Where were they when we were told that net annual immigration was being reduced to the 'tens of thousands' ?
Or when we were told that the government was 'paying down Britain's debts' ?
Or when we were told that the government had 'halved the bill' ?
Or when we were told there was a '70,000 strong' moderate army in Syria ?
Or when we were told that a year long recession would immediately follow a Leave vote ?
We often hear about Cabinet meetings, which are then followed by “political cabinets”. I’m guessing that civil servants aren’t present at the latter and they probably aren’t minuted? Specifically because they are NOT Govt business.
If correct, a thought for those arguing all business is Govt business.
"The Leave prospectus has been shown to be unimplementable. So the advice in the advisory referendum should be set to one side."
Your personal view, I believe. That encapsulates the whole problem. Do you not think that fascists/communists use personal opinion as fact and therefore it excuses their actions.
Fact … we voted to leave
Opinion … I don't like the decision, therefore it's wrong.
The Unfair Dismissal thing is a personnel matter, and may well be a beach :-) of something, possibly a political whale that has lost its sense of direction.
Governments need to be able to operate in private, otherwise they will not have frank discussions. There is a role for disclosure to aid accountability, but this measure has been rushed through without care or thought
The abuse of SO24 to prevent the executive setting the agenda. This about the only power the executive has vis a vis the legislature (whipping being a party arrangement not an executive power)
Bercow’s debasement of the role of the Speaker to aid one side in a political dispute
I am sure there are others (prorogation is not one of them - it was aggressive but in line with constitutional rights).
I am reminded of Robert Bolt’s wonderful play
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/7515521-william-roper-so-now-you-give-the-devil-the-benefit
How so?
Democracy is organic. It needs to test and re-test the ever shifting sands of public opinion so that they can judge how well a party is delivering on promises, and amend their decision accordingly. Parties stand by manifestos and are elected and judged on them.
The problem with a referendum is that it seeks to establish a decision in a fixed point in time. When you throw into that mix the exacerbations of the 2016 poll and you have a recipe for a clusterfuck. There was, literally, no preparation for Leave winning. I know because I had contacts inside No.10. Cameron thought he would pull off an essay-crisis victory like he had with Scottish indyref. That's the first flaw. The second is that the referendum presented a simplistic binary choice on what is actually a very complex issue. There are, for instance, as many varieties of 'Leave' as the fingers with which I'm typing this. They're all significantly different from one another. No one actually worked out what Leave meant. Thirdly I don't think anyone can seriously keep a straight face whilst arguing that No Deal was part of the referendum decision. Fourth there were obviously unregulated shenanigans by both sides in the build up. Fifth the final result was close. Yes, Leave 'won' but the narrowness should have led Theresa May to reach out and include the reality of the nearly half of the country who didn't want to Leave. A compromise Brexit was required, perhaps along the Ken Clarke lines. She was manifestly unsuited to the job with her jarring school ma'am approach.
I'd be happy never to see another referendum again in our lives. Let's take this to a General Election. There's a national party with a clear policy to remain in the EU.
If you want us to Remain, vote LibDem.
Given BXP and Boris at least seem to believe he won't win an election without their help, and all other parties of note will overwhelmingly seek to remain, it is far from clear that the electorate as an amorphous mass are sufficiently annoyed as claimed.
Furthermore, why wasn't the country asked about apparently becoming so integrated into an extra-national political organisation we cannot be extricated?
And, last but not least, those who have determined leaving is too difficult are also those who did not and do not want us to leave. A cynic might suggest that MPs would say that, wouldn't they?
Saddam Hussein has WMD.
There will be no more than 13,000 migrants annually from Eastern Europe.
Nothing is happening in Rotherham (ditto others).
Stafford hospital is safe (ditto others).
Jimmy Saville is a wonderful person (ditto others).
HS2 will cost about X and be running by Y (ditto others).
The banks are safe.
Politicians expenses are honest.
Elections in Tower Hamlets are fair.
Kids Company is a deserving charity.
I'm sure the list can be added to.
The legal cases air the issue. The key point though is that if the parties won't keep within conventions, the current constitution doesn't work and we will need to move to a formalised written one.
Not that the proposer should matter, its about the merits, butvuts how some acted before.
And she calls herself a QC?
Swinson's quote is "A majority Liberal Democrat government would not renegotiate Brexit, we would cancel it by revoking article 50 and remaining in the European Union."
Note the word "majority". A majority LD government would have a mandate to do whatever was in its manifesto. If "we will revoke A50 and stay in the EU" was in its manifesto, a majority would enable them to do that.
The 2016 referendum did not void all future mandates. It can be superseded, and the LD policy is to seek a mandate to do just that.