Thread by @fascinatorfun

1/. 1) are you going to ask that the papers be released to the public in electronic format? 2) WHY is not “excising material” a contempt. 3) The excised material should be described by type at the very minimum. What areas of work does it deal with. What type of work?

2/. Did you see data described by Lord Bridge (HofL EU Committee 13/10/16) We have used the method used by the Office for National Statistics to record economic activity, which is to use standard industry classification codes,..

3/. “.. and these have segmented the UK economy into roughly 100 production sectors. “ (so 100 sectors not 39, 51,57 or 58). Was that in the files. If not where is it? Or are we supposed to think Lord Bridge lied too?

4/ Lord Bridge: “We have looked at those to understand the size and contribution that each of these sectors makes to the economy and used that to support our analysis of the impact on them of Brexit. The codes are used by the Bank of England, BEIS and others across government.”

He is describing work consistent with statistical methodology and specifies measuring impact on each sector.. He continues. “we have looked at the way those sectors are treated in EU law and how future negotiations might bear down on them. “

6/ Lord Bridge Continues : “Just to be absolutely crystal clear, when I talk about the 51 sectors, it is all the sectors. It is not the 51 that are the most important or the biggest.”. So we should be able to see data on 100 sectors with docs version controlled date c Oct 2106.

7/ Lord Bridge contd. “It is an attempt to try to get this into a manageable format so that we can analyse what Brexit might mean for those particular sectors.” So there should be rich statistical date, graphs and reports describing impact.

8/ “9th November 2016. Same committee. Written evidence of Lords Price and Bridge (appears to be a joint statement .

“We have structured our approach by sector because it is a robust way of breaking down the economy into units, which lend themselves readily to analysis. “

9/ cont:”These 51 sectors were chosen so as to break economic activity down into the lowest levels at which they had reasonably common relationships with the EU Regulatory Framework. “. V. specific evidence about relationship of data between manufacturing codes & EU Reg Framewk

10/ “we took into account the way that the Office for National Statistics records economic activity.”. That seems a pretty damn clear reference to using ONS (statistical) methods. So where are these data?

11/ contd. “ We are using these categories to develop a rigorous understanding of the size and contribution of sectors to the economy, and use that to support our analysis of the impact on them of leaving the EU.” NB: ONS methods, manufacturing codes, rigorous, measuring impact

12/ Either those data are in the lever arch folder, spreadsheets, analysis, 100 sectors, or they are not. If they are not where the hell are they? Have these data been “excised” by David Davis? If so what possible excuse is there for doing so? They will be held electronically

13/. Retrieve them and hand the damn stuff over so businesses have more information to base their decision and WE know what the GOVERNMENT DID know or should have known.

14/. if that work was not done or was not done “rigorously” as the Lords Bridge and Price suggests then what are we supposed to believe? That all the DexEU ministers conspired together over a 15 month period (I’ve Hansard & SC evidence for longer than that)...

15/ conspired to comprehensively mislead, indeed lie to, Parliament, SCs, MEPS and the public? I have evidence from DD, Robin Walker, David Jones as well as the above. Such statements and “51 reports have been completed” (Robin Walker in FOI response to Seema Malhotra.

16/. So where are those 51 completed reports? Or was he too lying? Did anyone check the version controls and dates on the docs in the lever arch files. Civil service departments routinely put that on the headers or footers of docs.

17/ Or were those 2 lever arch folders cobbled together hastily AFTER the order of 1st November to disclose the materials the Department had AT THAT DATE unredacted? If so who was involved? For that, for sure, would be yet another effort to mislead parliament..

18/ ..Mislead Parliament about the care of preparation for Brexit (D Davis told Select Committees that the analysis needed to be complete PRIOR to giving notice under Article 50). However it seems HIGHLY like,y that work has been done and evidence is still being concealed.

19/. This is an absolute scandal. It is putting two fingers up to the democratic process. It is not just holding Parliament in contempt it is holding us, the public in contempt. It is long past time that Lords Bridge and Price were recalled before the Lords Selects Committees.

20/. They need to explain whether they did do what they said. Were ONS staff involved? What data did they see? What docs and graphs were produced. They should be shown the two lever arch files and asked: “ARE those data and analysis AS YOU SAW THEM present in these files.?”

21/ They should be asked “Where are the data relating to 100 sectors? Where are the impact analysis?” . It is a scandal.

Parliament has to demonstrate that it WILL regulate itself according to the standards in the 7 Princs of Public Life & the Ministerial Code.

22/. When the DEXEU returned a “not guilty” verdict on David Davis on 6/12/17 because Conservative and DUP MPs outnumbered the rest it took a step into a very dirty place. Accepting D Davis’s assurances without a full & transparent investigation will not wash.

23/. Putting David Davis on the naughty step in Parliament to give him a Public telling off for being less than transparent and for excising material does not even touch the sides of this exceptionally grave democratic deficit.

24/. Time for this masquerade of democracy to stop and for true democracy must assert itself through relentless pressure from MPs, from the House of Lords, MEPs and from the public. We will not stand for this utterly shameful episode in our democratic history to go unchecked.

Steve Bullock @guitarmoog last night posted an absolutely must read thread on this subject. I don’t know how to post the link to the thread but maybe he could? ...
“But perhaps the very worst thing isn't even directly related to leaving the EU 3/

2/ “I think the very worst thing might be the seemingly irreparable damage done to standards in political and public life 4/

3/ “Since the referendum constitutional conventions have been broken flagrantly and without consequence to those breaking them
The convention of individual ministerial responsibility requires the resignation of a minister for serious errors by their dept ........

4/ “ Being found to have knowingly lied, particularly but not exclusively to Parliament, was regarded as the most serious matter And yet on numerous issues around Brexit, Ministers have lied and misled with total impunity........

5/ .........”To point out any of these things though is to be a whinger, a loser, as if it is special pleading or pedantry 15/
Our ministers of state consider it normal to refer to vast swathes of the electorate with silly insults

6/ “Many MPs dismiss or ignore constituents' legitimate concerns & block them on FB or twitter. And why not? Once you've done any of these things once, and got away with it, it doesn't seem such a big deal to just carry on doing it.

7/ “It's not even just about getting away with it. Doing it well can now get you a ministerial post. But once the rubicon is crossed, once conventions have gone and a new normality is established.

8/ Getting back any regard for conventions and personal honour, things which hold our constitution together, may be impossible

9/ “Like an escalating arms race, if your opponent does it, you must too or risk defeat 23/
It's all out political war, and those with scruples or regard for this stuff pay for the luxury of morality by losing

10/ “This in turn leaves a lot of the public, that should be outraged, simply expecting this new normality.
And worse, it gives credence to a public discourse focussed on winners and losers, like a cut-rate game show.

11/ “It snowballs to the point that we can have an unashamedly anti-Parliament Repeal bill.

Grabbing executive power on a scale that could not have been dreamed of only a few years ago

12/ “And it being promoted as essential, with opposition to it being couched as betrayal of the people. Whatever your views about the EU, this erosion of any regard for truth and honesty.

13/. This idea of honour and probity as something for the weak and the losers
And the casual disregard for the constitution, must be opposed right now
To allow these low grade charlatans to succeed is to consent to this new normality, and to perpetuate it

14/ The damage may already be too great to undo. It may be too late. But we have to try.
They might not be, but the rest of us are better than this. If we let them get away with it, this may be the worst consequence of Brexit.

I apologise to Steve Bullock for quoting only sections from his blistering comments. I thought, when I set off, that I could just use a few bits. As it transpired I needed most because it pierces to the very heart of the issues we must address. All of us. Right now.

Finally. I have found the link to @GuitarMoog ‘s brilliant thread. threadreaderapp.com/thread/9080088…

.com unroll