[Closed] EU Referendum - are you in or out?

David Davis: ‘Just because you use the word impact doesn’t make it an impact assessment’.

Indeed. [url= https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2017/11/david-davis-boasted-his-brexit-impact-analysis-papers-now-he-wishes-they ]Seema Malhorta (MP and member of the Brexit Select Committee) writing in the New Statesman last week[/url]:

For months, Brexit Secretary David Davis boasted that his department had compiled analyses of the impact of Brexit on 58 sectors of the economy. For months, MPs like me called on him to publish them, to be straight with the public about what Brexit will mean for their lives. For months, he refused.
...
Finally, the Department for Exiting the European Union released a list of the sectors they had analysed. Covering everything from aerospace to broadcasting, telecommunications to road haulage
...
It's striking that in June this year, the Secretary of State said on the Marr Show that “we’ve got 50, nearly 60 sector analyses done”. His department confirmed in September in response to my freedom of information request that the studies were completed. In October, the Secretary of State not only confirmed they had been completed, but that they were in “excruciating detail” and that the Prime Minister had seen the summaries.

Since 1 November, ministers have been saying these same analyses don’t exist.

Absolutely pathetic and a basic contempt for the parliamentary sovereignty and democracy that they claim to be defending.

If this was a normal government Davis would have no choice but to resign....

So what odds on him staying and not being fired?

Bluntly, should be going to jail.

They've lied and lied and lied about these studies.

Regardless of their now claiming they would have been useless they've spend a year reassuring people all would be well on the basis of non-existent evidence they chose not to try and collect.

Bunch of useless ****ing tossers trying to bluff their way to some uncertain future they think will benefit them politically and their friends economically. Arseholes.

Did anyone else read about the slightly ambitious 'terror plot against May' revealed in the papers today and think that maybe someone needed something to keep Brexishambles off the front page?

I think with her shitshow its highly plausible someone wanted her knocked off. Not quite sure its a brexit distraction.

Regardless of how people voted is this how they would expect any UK government to conduct itself during the planning and execution of an EU exit?

There’s definitely a case for contempt of parliament.

So where are these fing reports?

Why won't a Brexiteer come along & explain why 58 (FIFTY FING EIGHT!!!) reports are now being withheld??

Surely theres some good news in there somewhere?.....

After all, aren't we the ones holding all the cards & we should just walk away a la IDS if the EU won't play ball?!

No, the truth is it's all BS & the electorate have been played by a minority of disingenuous, egotistical, RW gits who are only looking after their own bank balance.

The Tories are a DISGRACE.

FFS - have you listened to DD's delivery of that bullshit … ?!? Is he for real?!?

All the promises that the government has made about secotr analysis since June 2016. A lie and a sham. All of it. Not once but repeatedly by different ministers. A complete con trick.

[url= http://jackofkent.com/2017/11/the-early-history-of-the-58-brexit-sector-analyses/ ]http://jackofkent.com/2017/11/the-early-history-of-the-58-brexit-sector-analyses/[/url]

I read somewhere that sources close to DD suggest he’s planning on quitting before March 2019. If he hasn’t commissioned reports to assess the impact of Brexit then it is as David Lammy says a gross dereliction of duty. If he has commissioned reports which are so heavily redacted that they’re merely detailing the current status quo, then there’s a suggestion that ministers have deliberately misled Parliament.

People have been tried in a criminal court for less.

We did have them, but my dog ate them. And then a big boy took them and ran away. Honest miss.

Withholding information? There seems to be something of a pattern emerging...

[i]Party leader, Arlene Foster, revealed that she had been asking the government for the wording of text relating to the Irish border for five weeks. She said it was a “big shock” when the document landed on Monday morning because “we realised there was no way we could sign up to that text”.[/i]

What makes this even more ridiculous is that they're now trying to 'negotiate' with the DUP over this, so they can get a breakthrough before the end of the week. As exercises in futility go, this will take some beating. If you asked the DUP for one red line that they absolutely, positively, definitely will not cross, the answer you'd get is pretty much what May is 'negotiating' for them to sign up too

She's no ****ing chance!!! The truly incredible thing is that she can't even see that, and is wasting yet more valuable time on something that is simply never going to happen!

Did anyone else read about the slightly ambitious 'terror plot against May' revealed in the papers today

They clearly hadnt thought it through. Surely leaving her in place is far more damaging.

Bit like late in WW2 the allies decided against trying to assassinate Hitler on the grounds someone more competent might take over.

Regardless of how people voted is this how they would expect any UK government to conduct itself during the planning and execution of an EU exit?

Maybe I should have put 'want' not 'expect' - that was more what I meant 🙂

Oh and;

[i]Davis: I don’t know how long existing full sectoral reports are. I don’t want to be rude about my own department. First round of reports weren’t all that good...[/i]

So even if they had been done they'd have been rubbish.

It's pretty much going as I expected.

Yep, i am sure the usual Tory apologists will pop up and claim nothing to see here.

Regardless of how people voted is this how they would expect any UK government to conduct itself during the planning and execution of an EU exit?

yes, it's one reason I voted remain.

I think with her shitshow its highly plausible someone wanted her knocked off. Not quite sure its a brexit distraction.

Regardless of how people voted is this how they would expect any UK government to conduct itself during the planning and execution of an EU exit?

No. It was always going to be messy but the sheer incompetence of this government has taken me by surprise.

A p1ss up in a brewery would be beyond the Tories abilities....

I've never known anything like it!

Regardless of whether you're for or against Brexit, surely this is time for a vote of no confidence in the current government?

Regardless of whether you're for or against Brexit, surely this is time for a vote of no confidence in the current government?

I thought the quotes above were made up.
They are not. ****ing hell.
What deals are they going to manage with the Chinese?

Have you seen the state of the opposition?

To not be 20+ points ahead of this shower in the polls takes some serious doing!

That is the power of the press.

Well, when you've a Labour Party who want to bring back Galloway - then it's no surprise that folks are running scared of them..

[img] [/img]

Bit like late in WW2 the allies decided against trying to assassinate Hitler on the grounds someone more competent might take over

😆

I had to laugh at this. Hysterical laughter, mind but still.

Apparantly no point looking into the effects on industry (despite claiming that was the ongoing work of his department) of any form of Brexit, because they would all result in a [b]"paradigm shift"[/b]. The man is both a liar [b]and[/b] intelligently ill equipped for his role. Stil, he's fully beind "the cause", and that's all that matters to supporters of said cause. DD for PM? Or send him back to Tate&Lyle?

Yep, i am sure the usual Tory apologists will pop up and claim nothing to see here.

I'd have agreed with the idea that Labour would make even more of a hash of this process than the Conservatives earlier in the year… but like most people, I'm well past that point now. I don't want a Labour government, but they are the only available alternative given the ticking clock we're up against now. The current government needs replacing.

The impobable but sensible third way : Time for MPs from multiple parties to come forward and form a government with the aim of getting us through the two years ahead of us? These are not normal times… we have to cope with a "paradigm shift", after all.

Thing is if everyone *expected* a complete ****ing shambles of a brexit process why the hell did they vote for it?

A triumph of hope over experience?

I'm encouraged at the suggestion by Sir Keir Starmer that we retain off the shelf Single Market and Customs Union access. So much so in fact, that I have emailed him to express my support, whilst copying in my own MP who happens to have been a prominent remainer. The latter is probably too busy fwapping like a safari park chimp over internet grot to respond, though.

We won;t get customs union and single market without free movement and complete regulatory alignment.

So why are we leaving?

Its the incompetence and outright lies that get me. It would be bad enough if they were competent and truthful but Davies outright lies astound me.

For example - he denied in parliament today that there would be any impact on the NHS. 96% loss in EU nurses coming to work in thee NHS is a huge loss. IIRC around 40 000 nurses short because of brexit and we haven't even left yet.

I have been a political geek for 45 years and have never seen anything like this for a toxic mix of hubris, incompetence and lying

wwaswas - Member

We won;t get customs union and single market without free movement and complete regulatory alignment.

So why are we leaving?

Because of a moral panic whipped up by a large section of the press over 20 years and the actions of vested interests all manipulating public opinion

It's obvious that our reasons for leaving the EU have less to do with the EU per se than nefarious ambition of certain politicians.

The rank dishonesty is startling, in any other age these individuals would be suspended pending an investigation, they're bringing parliament into disrepute.

I say again, it's more about inflicting sufficient shock to our economy and society to restructure it on the cheap in the way that those on the political fringes (especially on the right) wish to see it.

[i]Because of a moral panic whipped up by a large section of the press over 20 years and the actions of vested interests all manipulating public opinion [/i]

It was in the way of being a rhetorical question 😉

I have read the FT pretty much every day for 30 years - very much a Europhile paper

Choose what you want to read

Choose what you want to read

I have read the FT pretty much every day for 30 years

Yup, I do follow the FT too. Isn't it strange that when newspapers are bought by right-wing billionaires with agendas that the quality of news suffers? Who'd have thought...

Choose what you want to read

When you post parliamentary briefings here people can’t be bothered to read them

Faux outrage about documents - since views are so entrenched anyway

FT is unusual in accommodating a range of views but there are plenty of papers that are pro Europe. Odd that moaners who complain about press must ignore the quality papers if they refute this

Must be Wail readers 🙂 or even worse WoS

what if all EU countries go out from EU? and stay as autonomous states

THM - stop it with the bullshit. Pretty clear from the history of this thread that plenty of people posting here read briefing papers, and bills, and the FT. And they (and I) would read the impact reports, at the very least for any sectors we have interest in, if they were published (if they have been written). This obviously isn't true of most voters… because most voters aren't as boring us those of us who take such a close interest in such things… what appears in the "popular press", on the radio, and on TV, sets the agenda far more than pink papers and full unredacted parliamentary briefing papers.

"Faux outrage" - over the minister in charge of a new department set up to handle how we leave the EU clearly lying about the work his department has/hasn"t done as regards looking at the effects of how we leave the EU?
"Faux" ?

Odd that what is read is immediately forgotten

What a waste of paper and time!

“In the single market” etc.... 😯

EMA debate showed the same

[i]“There were no 58 sectoral impact assessments” says the PM today... but Davis said she had read some of them in October...?[/i]

They *really* never expected to have to actual provide them did they.

So are we back to the thickos again? Stop then voting, they have no rights to express their views....

Timewasting troll.

Davies lies to parliament must be running close to contempt surely?

[i]The SNP is going to raise a point of order immediately after PMQs suggesting David Davis is in contempt of parliament.[/i]

*rubs hands*

Close to contempt?

We're way beyond that right now.

Source: www.parliament.uk

[i]Contempt of privilege is a term used to describe any act - or failure to act - that may prevent or hinder the work of either House of Parliament.[/i]

THM, forget party for a moment, if an MP has knowingly lied, repeatedly. They should be stripped of the whip and thrown out of parliament. Yes or No.

When you post parliamentary briefings here people can’t be bothered to read them
Faux outrage about documents - since views are so entrenched anyway

I'm quite happy to admit that I have no intention of reading 58 sectoral impact analysis papers that are in such [i]excruciating detail[/i] that even the PM and cabinet only bother to read the summaries.

BUT... I do agree with Seema Malhorta that by not making these papers available (despite being ordered to do so) [i]"the fundamental right and responsibility of MPs to scrutinise government policies on behalf of our constituents is being undermined"[/i].

Must be Wail readers or even worse WoS

My link was to The New Statesman. Not sure if that counts as a "quality paper" or not to you, but it's hardly the Daily Mail.

So are we back to the thickos again?

YOU are the one criticising people for not reading the right papers!

The SNP is going to raise a point of order immediately after PMQs suggesting David Davis is in contempt of parliament.

*rubs hands*

Good.

not sure of exact protocol tbh but certainly should lose position - BTW I am not a DD fan at all. Never have been. That’s why I am relieved that there are sensible people doing the actual negotiations. Hence the progress made to date with some imaginative solutions that were a bit too nuanced for Arlene and her friends sadly

Irony is that both sides of the border have relatively high exposure to negative effects of a failure. And they are making it more likely - at least the RoI were on board and being sensible with the compromise that had been reached

So why are we leaving?

Manufactured faux outrage from the remainders as usual in presenting something that they already knew as some sort of devastating revelation

they knew this ages ago:

[i]The sectoral analysis is a wide mix of qualitative and quantitative analysis, contained in a range of documents developed at different times since the referendum. It examines the nature of activity in the sectors, how trade is conducted with the EU currently in these sectors and, in many cases, considers the alternatives following the UK’s exit from the EU as well as considering existing precedents. The analysis ranges from the very high level overarching analysis to sometimes much more granular level analysis of certain product lines in specific sectors. The analysis in this area is constantly evolving and being updated based on our regular discussions with industry and our negotiations with the EU. [b]It is not, nor has it ever been, a series of discrete impact assessments examining the quantitative impact of Brexit on these sectors.[/b][/i]

http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2017-11-07/HCWS231/

[url] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/06/mps-feared-a-david-davis-cover-up-worse-he-had-nothing-to-hide [/url]

Utter.

Clowns.

It is not, nor has it ever been, a series of discrete impact assessments examining the quantitative impact of Brexit on these sectors.

Why not?

[i]Rees-Mogg asks PM “when she goes to Brussels will she apply a coat of red paint to her red lines, because they are beginning to look a bit pink?”. Blue on Blue.[/i]

It's all kicking off.

JRM asking the PM @ PMQs to ensure her redlines don't start turning pink… still, it's the noises made by "remoaners" that prevents her seeking out sensible compromises, I'm sure.

[url= http://www.seemamalhotra.com/do_ministers_understand_brexit_impacts ]Transcript[/url] of the Brexit Select Committee exchange on 25th October 2017:

Seema Malhotra: Could I ask you another question? You have answered that question; that was very helpful. Has the Prime Minister seen the impact assessments that have been published, yes or no?

Mr Davis: The details of them? Sorry, did you say “have been published”?

Seema Malhotra: Sorry, I am just asking whether she has seen the impact assessments. A yes or no answer is fine.

Mr Davis: Which ones? I will give a proper answer; I do not give yes/no answers.

Seema Malhotra: I mean the impact assessments that you have not published.

Mr Davis: That we have not published?

Seema Malhotra: Yes.

Mr Davis: [b]She will know the summary outcomes of them. She will not necessarily have read every single one. They are in excruciating detail.[/b]

Seema Malhotra: Has the Cabinet seen the analyses?

Mr Davis: No, they will not have. They will have seen the summary outcomes. That is all.

Seema Malhotra: I imagine there may have been interest expressed if they covered the areas of other Secretaries of State.

Mr Davis: They would have elements of their own departments. Of course they will have a view of anything their own department is responsible for, yes.

GrahamS - Member

Transcript of the Brexit Select Committee exchange on 25th October 2017:

Seema Malhotra: Could I ask you another question? You have answered that question; that was very helpful. Has the Prime Minister seen the impact assessments that have been published, yes or no?

Mr Davis: The details of them? Sorry, did you say “have been published”?

Seema Malhotra: Sorry, I am just asking whether she has seen the impact assessments. A yes or no answer is fine.

Mr Davis: Which ones? I will give a proper answer; I do not give yes/no answers.

Seema Malhotra: I mean the impact assessments that you have not published.

Mr Davis: That we have not published?

Seema Malhotra: Yes.

Mr Davis: She will know the summary outcomes of them. She will not necessarily have read every single one. They are in excruciating detail.

Seema Malhotra: Has the Cabinet seen the analyses?

Mr Davis: No, they will not have. They will have seen the summary outcomes. That is all.

Seema Malhotra: I imagine there may have been interest expressed if they covered the areas of other Secretaries of State.

Mr Davis: They would have elements of their own departments. Of course they will have a view of anything their own department is responsible for, yes.

Posted 2 minutes ago # Report-Post

Choose what you want to read

Good to see THM is fully aligned to Tory policy, at least.

All together now...........

"You say Brexit, I say fiasco, dum de dum de dar.....

Let's call the whole thing off."

Manufactured faux outrage from the remainders as usual in presenting something that they already knew as some sort of devastating revelation

Since we've known for ages that the Tories are incompetent lying fools, we shouldn't be surprised when they act like incompetent lying fools?

Danny - tell me which major party is not committed to delivering Brexit (ignoring Starmer contradicting Corbyn yesterday which is acceptable)?

If the government were to fall, snap election, and Labour were elected - I suspect they would (rightly) use the notion that the 'Brexit' we are heading for is not what the majority of people who voted for it were expecting.

When the terms were known, I think they might go for a second referendum - one last chance before we pull the trigger etc.

A vote for Labour in a GA right now is a clear vote against Brexit, so I think they would be empowered to do something like this.

It's all pie in the sky anyway - Labour sit back, pay lip service by making the 'right noises', watch the Tories destroy themselves over this and enjoy 15 years in power afterwards.

Brexit is so toxic that no one else wants it.

A second referendum would also make sense for Labour in that they are divided themselves over it all - although not to the extent of the tories

On the contrary, a fringe group of influential Conservatives and ragtag bunch of old socialists want Brexit but for entirely incompatible reasons, which have been largely debunked for the latter group anyway.

Regardless of who wants Brexit, I find it deeply concerning that parliament is mired in misinformation and obfuscation.

We should've called a public inquiry in July 2016 and ensured that the judiciary heading the inquiry were protected from political and media interference and left to get on with creating their own impact assessments.

I can't imagine that anyone thought impact assessments wouldn't be useful docs. If they haven't therefore been created, then that to me says someone specifically said not to. Who would do that, and what purpose / why?

If I planned a project for work with significant cost and didn't do an IA, I'd be fired. IF I were even able to get away with it.

I think Davies is toast. Clear lies to parliament.

More lies then. 😥

Nice little video from the Marr show a few months ago

Contempt yet?

If I planned a project for work with significant cost and didn't do an IA, I'd be fired. IF I were even able to get away with it.

This x 1000

Its absolutely staggering that this hasn't been done. Which leads me to this conclusion..

I can't imagine that anyone thought impact assessments wouldn't be useful docs. If they haven't therefore been created, then that to me says someone specifically said not to. Who would do that, and what purpose / why?

What if staff were asked to start work on impact reports, but the answers were wrong, so they were moved on to other things. I might have heard something along those lines. But that was ages ago, if it was said at all.

DD had a meeting with my CEO together with others recently. Don’t know where this got written up though.

We did our own impact reports!! Like most businesses. Never rely on politicians

If I planned a project for work with significant cost and didn't do an IA, I'd be fired. IF I were even able to get away with it.

Quite. THM and others have been telling us for some time about the extensive impact assessments and planning they have quite rightly being doing with financial institutions, big business and the like.

(Edit: 3 seconds before I posted this in fact 🙂 )

But the DexEU claim they haven't bothered with all that? And that the 58 impact reports they repeatedly mentioned were more of an aspiration?

Stinks!