Thread by @IanDunt

Michael Gove versus Hilary Benn at the Brexit committee parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/2e…

Two men being extremely polite trying to stab each other to death.

Benn: "Do you feel comfortable about the expulsion of your former colleagues."

Gove says PM was quite clear. "The PM was very, very clear." Jibbers about undermining the govt and how he "completely agrees with that analysis". But "no-one can be anything other than saddened"

Asked if he has called for their reinstatement. Says no.

Benn wants Gove to confirm he'll comply with the law. "A simple yes or no will suffice."

Gove: "Yes."

Gove trying to water down Yellowhammer findings. Says many of its findings were dated.

Benn: "By definition if the doc is dated Aug 2, it could not have been leaked by former ministers who left office on the week of 22nd July. So can you explain why No10 briefed that it was?"

Gove insists he has "no knowledge of that specific briefing."

Gove says there's no reason to believe Hammond leaked it.

So Gove's position on Yellowhammer is that while report was new, much of the information in it was old with assumptions which hadn't been "tested".

It was more of a "hand-over" document, from the old government to the new, based on new "assumptions". Incredible.

Benn asks if the "assumptions" were out of date. Gove says new govt presented with the assumptions were given to new government and they now had to "test that".

People thought it was a "live assessment". Insists the reporting at the time suggested this was a "base case scenario".

Benn says Gove described Yellowhammer as "absolutely the worst case". The document itself says reasonable worst case scenario. But Gove very clear the document does not say it is base case.

Benn asks if the document contains best case scenario? No. Gove says it is not composed of most likely outcome. It is basically a risk register type document, looking at what could go wrong.

Benn: "Last Sunday you said there'd be no shortage of fresh food." The British Retail Consortium said this was "categorically untrue". Can he tell the committee why it, which distributes food, is wrong?

Gove says he doesn't know why they used the words they did. But insists when people talk about shortages, they imagine the "standard range of broad choice" will be reduced. Actually they are talking about "likely disruption".

Gove's argument is basically that they are using technical terms which do not correspond to people's intuition about what they mean. Ie: When they say scarcity, they don't mean empty shelves. He also claims they are lobbying, which implicitly suggests they can't be trusted.

Are there enough palettes for trade? Gove hedges desperately. "I can be asked, any of us can be asked, will there be enough of X or Y in any available scenario and it all depends on what one means as 'enough'."

Benn bursts out laughing. "Doesn't sound to me that you now the answer to the question.

The govt put out guidance that consignments sent to EU on a non-permitted palette could be destroyed. SO again: Are there enough palettes?

Gove descends into epistemology. "It's perfectly possible to ask a question which appears reasonable but contains within it an assumption that is impossible to objectively verify."

Benn: "That was a wonderful SIr Humphrey answer."

Gove: "Thank you."

Benn: "I think we'll take that as a no."

Gove: "You can take it in any way you think."

Gove asked what's the most likely delay to lorries at Calais. He says if every business is aware of what it needs to do to export then "there should be no delay". Yes, and if I had lots of money there would be no obstacle to me buying a palace.

Here is the journalist who broke the Yellowhammer story directly contradicting what Gove just told the committee

https://twitter.com/RosamundUrwin/status/1169570606582554624

Benn: Is it true the govt got an analysis from the Dept of Transport that worst case delay is 1.5 days and best case 2-3 hours. Can he confirm that he received that analysis?

Gove says the analysis did not contain best or worse case estimates. "It is the case that 1.5-2.5 delay scenario is drawn from the reasonable worst case scenario that we did have in the original Yellowhammer document." Says they're not testing that.

Gove admits if a lorry arrives and doesn't have necessary documentation it could take two hours. But it could be met before it got to the border.

Starting to difficult for Gove here now. Benn says they were told by a former HMRC witness that French authorities said trucks without correct paper work would be held for between 2 to 8 hours.

Gove in his chair. "They will be held. I can't make a specific judgement about how long."

Benn: We've been told Calais has space for 300 lorries to be in a red lane for inspection, because they don;t have right paper work. What happens when they're full.

Goe reiterates that lorries with papers go on, those without can't.

"Benn: "That doesn't quite answer the question. What happens when all 300 spaces are full?"

Gove: "Then they're full."

Benn: What does that mean for lorries that are ferries? They can't get off can they?"

Gove: "It all depends on whether or not they have the documentation required."

He then insists they will try to stop lorries without appropriate documents before they get to Dover. Basically the plan is to localise the problems and scatter them, so they don;t clog the border.

Benn: "The truth of all this is no-one, including yourself, can know what's going to happen."

Gove: "The future is known only to the almighty."

Benn: "Well he's not a witness to the committee today."

Gove now being questioned by other MPs. He says there have been three iterations of looking at assumptions of what will happen in border in no-deal.

That's done in two ways. One is business surveys. The other is on traffic analysis on roads leading to Dover.

MP asks why preparations have apparently become worse over time. Gove says that relates to "pressures on warehousing and also nature of the flow of certain fresh foods but overall as a govt we are more prepared".

Hammond said he didn't want to spend money on no-deal pep until he had to. So was there any progress when the old govt was in charge, before Gove came in?

(These Qs come from pro-Brexit Tory Mp Whittingdale, fwiw)

Gove: After April "surge capacity" on no-deal in civil service went back to their home dept. Once Johnson came in "preparations were significantly accelerated".

Gove says when he was at Defra he got what he wanted. But he says "other things I felt could and should have been done in order to prepare us" were not done. Sticking it to May a bit.

Have we achieved any bilteral deals with individual member states. Gove says Commission has put certain arrangements in place unilaterally. This is true, btw. Commission put in place tie limited arrangements on haulage, aviation.

It's done in their interests, not ours.

Gove says there has been bilteral arrangements with EU member states on citizens. That's also true - Commission basically said each state should sort it themselves.

Crabb asks if Gove would vote for May's deal if it was returned to Commons. Gove says yes, interestingly.

Asks if Gove can see a "landing zone" for a new deal.

Gove says new Pm is in a position where he would get a "material improvement" on backstop. Also ants changes in future relationship document making it clear that you;re outside Customs Union and Single market.

Useless. Future relationship can say anything. It;s not legal. The backstop programme is the problem and no detail on that.

Gove says he "knows there is" a negotiation taking place. Insists it is real.

Has he ever felt uncomfortable with the rhetoric from Johnson which makes a deal less likely. "No, I don't think so." And now he just gets lost in the "wholly desirable and achievable outcome" of alternative arrangements.

Once we get into the backstop issue, Gove's answers lack any specificity at all.

Gove says it might make changes to existing govt statements on tariffs under no-deal. He wants them published before Oct 14th.

Stephen Kinnock now.

Fresh from his wonderful achievements bollocking things up yesterday.

Focuses on negotiations with EU in event of no-deal. Barnier said all existing obligations would continue on budget payment, Ireland etc. Does he agree?

Gove accepts that is Barnier's position and the mandate the Council gave him.

Best Gove can do: "The negotiating mandate the Council gives the Commission can always change."

Bit of an admission of defeat on that point. Gove is conceding that in no-deal, as things stand, Britain's only future relationship with Europe would entail the same problems it has now.

Peter Bone asking questions now, God help us.

Hilariously, he's actually the most aggressive towards Gove. Seemingly outraged by Gove saying he'd vote for May's deal again.

If May;d deal was brought back under some alternative govt - maybe using the rebel's SO24 emergency debate procedure - would he vote for it? This isn't that silly a question given Kinnock's amendment.

Gove: "No." Whaaaaa? Thought he just said he would.

"My preferred option is the deal the PM has set out. In a world that was impossible and the choice was between staying in the EU,leaving with that deal, or no-deal, I would leave with that deal. But we're not in that world now."

Incredible befuddled gibberish.

"There is a hierarchy of our favourite outcomes." Gove then suggests the Commons agrees with the PMs intention because it is the same as the Brady amendment, which got a majority. Like trying to make a house out of playdough.

Bone seems baffled, and to be fair, how could you not be.

Bone: "It's quite possible to get the previous agreement brought back through other means in the House. Surely that cannot be your position sir?"

Gove: "I'm not sure how it could be brought back."

Bone: "I think Mr Kinnock might have some views on that."

Richard Graham, who attempted another of the amendments yesterday, wants to know what progress has happened in the (imaginary) talks with EU.

That's especially pertinent if there's an election, which might rather get in the way.

Gove's answer is hilarious.

"I can't anticipate every aspect of the future. There are a number of potential hypothetical scenarios that people can put. But it's difficult for me when you're thinking about all these hypotheticals to follow all the way through and say: 'And then we would do X'."

Gove: "Anyone who knows me could infer from everything I've said in the past that I have a strong commitment to the rule of law."

Here he is last Sunday suggesting the government might not abide by the law.

https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/1168083554447659008

Pat McFadden. This'll likely be an improvement.

Both you and the PM have said you'll obey the law. You've now seen the bill. Does that mean you'll comply with the terms of the bill?

Gove: "My view is properly constituted statute passed in the right way places an obligation on the government that believes in the rule of law to obey that statute. That's my view. Beyond that I wouldn't want to go."

"I don;t want to quibble. I want to state that clearly."

McFadden: How do we square that with Pm saying he'll never apply for an extension?

Gove: "Fair point but I won;t get into that speculation."

McFadden: "How are we to make sense of these two statements. They can't be reconciled."

Gove: "We could have a long conversation about the many ways in which they might be reconciled but it's not for me to get into that conversation."

McFadden says PM could resign. Gove: "I don't think the PM has any intention of resigning."

McFadden: If he doesn't get the general election that he wants, he will have to face up to the irreconcilable statements.

Gove: "These are fair points for reflection." Heh.

McFadden: If we leave the EU with no-deal, is that a lasting stage. Could it continue for some years?

Gove: "It's theoretically possible that it could continue for some years but I don't believe it's an end point."

There;s a lot more epistemology in this session than there is politics.

Discussion on non-VAT registered businesses which need an EORI number to export to EU, before Oct 31st. How many in this situation?

Gove says it doesn't apply to that many, but they don't know how many it is.

He is told some 240,000 businesses need the number. How many have applied so far.

Gove says we know 150,000 VAT registered businesses which trade with EU and not beyond, but they can't know how many below VAT level.

Asked about assessment of delays from France to UK.

Yellowhammer had various scenarios, including that if France imposed controls, there would be significant harm to flow levels within a day. So what's the current assumption?

Gove: "In the Yellowhammer document, it says 'what is our base scenario'?"

What. I thought he said it did not say that.

Go back and check.

12:07:43 onwards. Early on in the session.

parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/2e…

Benn: "Does the report use at all the phrase 'base case' or 'case scenario'."

Gove: "No."

Fast forward one minute. Gove is saying that "in the Yellowhammer document it says 'what is our base scenario', as in 'what do we expected will be unalterable facts".

(sorry - meant fast forward one hour, to what's happening now)

Gove's argument I think is that there are two aspects of this: One are the facts, the rules etc. The next is the forecast you base on the which includes a reasonable worst case.

That;s fine, but it is still unclear why he would say the phrase 'base scenario' was not in the document at all.

Benn jumps in: "Can I just check one thing. You used the words 'base scenario'. Now I did ask you at the beginning of this session whether the words 'base case' or 'base scenario' appeared in the Yellowhammer report and I think you said no. Do you want to revisit that?"

Gove: "Yes, that was the reason that I mentioned it. There is a difference between a base scenario and base case."

Benn: "All I need for the moment is the words 'base scenario' do appear in the Yellowhammer report?"

Gove: "Yes."

Benn: "So you're correcting what you said earlier?"

Gove: "Yes."

"Is it true that Nicki De Costa, the director of legislative services, an Mark Sedwell, the Cabinet secretary, have refused to sign witness statements for the Scottish proceedings for fear of having to either perjure themselves or tell a truth that would be damaging to the govt."

Gove: "I have absolutely no idea. I haven't asked either of them about that."

Bone tries to close down the conversation. Suggests they are straying into an area before the court.

Benn: "I haven;t heard anything that's disorderly. These issues were raised in the House yesterday. The Speaker didn't rule them disorderly."

Joanna Cherry presses on: "I've been advised by a number of reliable sources that key figures in No.10 are communicating about the real reason for prorogation through unofficial channels, that is to say personal emails, WhatsApp and burners phones."

Gove: "A burner phone?"

Cherry: "Yeah, that's a phone that quite often used by a drug dealer. Phones which can;t be tracked because they;e used once and then thrown away."

Gove: "All news for me."

If Gove was asked to provide testimony to the courts, would he be prepared to do so?

Gove: "I wasn't involved in the decision. So I can't imagine I could provide information which was material."

Right dear God that's enough of that. Watching Michael Gove talk for two hours is enough to make you extremely sympathetic to the prorogation.