Speaker gives government until Tuesday to publish Brexit assessments

[webfact]

 

Speaker gives government until Tuesday to publish Brexit assessments

John Bercow says if studies of economic impact of Brexit are not released by then, the government needs to explain why

Heather Stewart and Peter Walker

 

LONDON: -- John Bercow, the Speaker of the House of Commons, has set the government a deadline of Tuesday evening to publish the Brexit assessments demanded by parliament – or explain why it has not done so.

 

MPs voted unanimously last Wednesday to call on David Davis’s department to release its studies of the impact of Brexit on various sectors of the UK economy, after he published a list of the 58 sectors covered.

 

Asked by the shadow Brexit minister, Matthew Pennycook, on Monday whether the government was treating the vote with “the respect and seriousness it requires”, Bercow said it should comply “very promptly indeed”.

 

Full story: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/06/speaker-gives-government-until-tuesday-to-publish-brexit-assessments

 

-- The Guardian 2017-11-07

[mfd101]

If done well & professionally, the assessments could be very interesting indeed.

[dunroaming]

24 minutes ago, mfd101 said:

If done well & professionally, the assessments could be very interesting indeed.

I agree but I have no faith in the reliability of the assessments given the way this Brexit has been handled so far.  I am sure that the assessments will be massaged to give the most positive of spins. 

 

I sincerely hope that I am wrong but like most people I have no expectation of the truth from this shower.

 

Breaking news is that the government's spokesman is right now addressing the house backtracking as to what these assessments may contain and saying there aren't that many assessments that are complete yet.

 

Utter bo**ocks!

 

Edited November 7, 2017 by dunroaming

[Baerboxer]

3 hours ago, dunroaming said:

I agree but I have no faith in the reliability of the assessments given the way this Brexit has been handled so far.  I am sure that the assessments will be massaged to give the most positive of spins. 

 

I sincerely hope that I am wrong but like most people I have no expectation of the truth from this shower.

 

Breaking news is that the government's spokesman is right now addressing the house backtracking as to what these assessments may contain and saying there aren't that many assessments that are complete yet.

 

Utter bo**ocks!

 

 

Either they really are inept and haven't done much work on them - scary; or they don't dare release the reality of what the assessments say as it would finish the Tories in elections for a long long time - probable.

 

And all for the vanity of the weak Cameron and the disunited Conservative and Unionist party!

[Khun Han]

What a grandstander and show pony Bercow is. The government has already explained that the info is spread far and wide across many policy documents and research, which is exactly what you would expect with a subject as complex as brexit. It's going to take time for said info to be collated into one bullet point-type file.

[rockingrobin]

34 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

What a grandstander and show pony Bercow is. The government has already explained that the info is spread far and wide across many policy documents and research, which is exactly what you would expect with a subject as complex as brexit. It's going to take time for said info to be collated into one bullet point-type file.

This simply cannot be the case. 

On record we have the Dexeu stating that 50 assesments have been completed , with another 20 to be done. If they are spread across many policy documents then all would have been completed or none.

We also have on record the department stating that the assesments will form the negotations

We are now being told that the assesments are not very detailed , however this contradicts previous statements from evidence hearings and FOI requests , stating  , the assesments go into excruciating detail, or they cannot be released because the contents are sensitive.

[Khun Han]

6 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

This simply cannot be the case. 

On record we have the Dexeu stating that 50 assesments have been completed , with another 20 to be done. If they are spread across many policy documents then all would have been completed or none.

We also have on record the department stating that the assesments will form the negotations

We are now being told that the assesments are not very detailed , however this contradicts previous statements from evidence hearings and FOI requests , stating  , the assesments go into excruciating detail, or they cannot be released because the contents are sensitive.

 

That's quite a clever misinterpretation of the state of affairs on this Robin. Could you flesh out your claims (properly this time please)? Just on your last point alone, the government has stated that documents will require redactions, not that they cannot be released because they are too sensitive.

[rockingrobin]

1 hour ago, Khun Han said:

 

That's quite a clever misinterpretation of the state of affairs on this Robin. Could you flesh out your claims (properly this time please)? Just on your last point alone, the government has stated that documents will require redactions, not that they cannot be released because they are too sensitive.

I will provide the links to the evidence hearings later

The too sensitive claim , came from a reply to a freedom of information request.

The redaction was challenged in parliament .

 

The position that the assesments lie across policy documents is somewhat illogical, impact assesments are there to help formulate policy , not the other way round

 

 

Edited November 7, 2017 by rockingrobin

[Khun Han]

2 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

I will provide the links to the evidence hearings later

The too sensitive claim , came from a reply to a freedom of information request.

The redaction was challenged in parliament .

 

The position that the assesments lie across policy documents is somewhat illogical, impact assesments are there to help formulate policy , not the other way round

 

 

There was a government statement that redactions were required. I'm sure you'll find that the reply was that some of the documents are too sensitive without the necessary redactions. The government also made clear why those redactions were necessary. The ploy by Labour to cause political strife for the government over this is not in any way some kind of justification of Labour's position.

 

Your analysis of impact assessments is simplistic to say the least. Where those various assessments are depends on who asked for them, when they were asked for, under which policy they were asked for, etc, etc. Or do you thing that the government and civil service is just one big homogenised department? 

[ilostmypassword]

25 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

There was a government statement that redactions were required. I'm sure you'll find that the reply was that some of the documents are too sensitive without the necessary redactions. The government also made clear why those redactions were necessary. The ploy by Labour to cause political strife for the government over this is not in any way some kind of justification of Labour's position.

 

Your analysis of impact assessments is simplistic to say the least. Where those various assessments are depends on who asked for them, when they were asked for, under which policy they were asked for, etc, etc. Or do you thing that the government and civil service is just one big homogenised department? 

There was also this taken from the article:

“As we have made clear, it is not the case that 58 sectoral impact assessments exist,” Davis said. Instead, he said, civil servants had carried out “a wide mix of qualitative and quantitative analysis, contained in a range of documents developed at different times since the referendum”, and it would take time to prepare them for publication.

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

“Given the above, it will take my department – and other departments, since this work draws on inputs from across government – time to collate and bring together this information in a way that is accessible and informative for the committee,” he said.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/06/speaker-gives-government-until-tuesday-to-publish-brexit-assessments?utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=GU+Today+main+NEW+H+categories&utm_term=251188&subid=20190052&CMP=EMCNEWEML6619I2

 

I certainly hope Davis is lying. Otherwise we would have to believe that the government doesn't even have an idea of what the total impact of Brexit would be. Nothing like flying blind into a storm.

[rockingrobin]

43 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

There was a government statement that redactions were required. I'm sure you'll find that the reply was that some of the documents are too sensitive without the necessary redactions. The government also made clear why those redactions were necessary. The ploy by Labour to cause political strife for the government over this is not in any way some kind of justification of Labour's position.

 

Your analysis of impact assessments is simplistic to say the least. Where those various assessments are depends on who asked for them, when they were asked for, under which policy they were asked for, etc, etc. Or do you thing that the government and civil service is just one big homogenised department? 

The FOI reply was before Parliament debated and voted on the assesments to be made available

[Khun Han]

25 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

There was also this taken from the article:

“As we have made clear, it is not the case that 58 sectoral impact assessments exist,” Davis said. Instead, he said, civil servants had carried out “a wide mix of qualitative and quantitative analysis, contained in a range of documents developed at different times since the referendum”, and it would take time to prepare them for publication.

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

“Given the above, it will take my department – and other departments, since this work draws on inputs from across government – time to collate and bring together this information in a way that is accessible and informative for the committee,” he said.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/06/speaker-gives-government-until-tuesday-to-publish-brexit-assessments?utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=GU+Today+main+NEW+H+categories&utm_term=251188&subid=20190052&CMP=EMCNEWEML6619I2

 

I certainly hope Davis is lying. Otherwise we would have to believe that the government doesn't even have an idea of what the total impact of Brexit would be. Nothing like flying blind into a storm.

 

A complete misinterpretation. David Davis was referring to the collation of these assessments in a form which can be presented to the relevant committee. Civil servants look at the bigger picture. They can analyse complex collections of documents. They compartmentalise such things according to their requirements, not to present one particular aspect to a government committee.

[rockingrobin]

36 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

There was also this taken from the article:

“As we have made clear, it is not the case that 58 sectoral impact assessments exist,” Davis said. Instead, he said, civil servants had carried out “a wide mix of qualitative and quantitative analysis, contained in a range of documents developed at different times since the referendum”, and it would take time to prepare them for publication.

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

“Given the above, it will take my department – and other departments, since this work draws on inputs from across government – time to collate and bring together this information in a way that is accessible and informative for the committee,” he said.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/06/speaker-gives-government-until-tuesday-to-publish-brexit-assessments?utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=GU+Today+main+NEW+H+categories&utm_term=251188&subid=20190052&CMP=EMCNEWEML6619I2

 

I certainly hope Davis is lying. Otherwise we would have to believe that the government doesn't even have an idea of what the total impact of Brexit would be. Nothing like flying blind into a storm.

This FOI reply to Robert Davidson states that the impact assesments do exist

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/400172/response/977358/attach/html/3/DEX000365.pdf.html

[rockingrobin]

7 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

A complete misinterpretation. David Davis was referring to the collation of these assessments in a form which can be presented to the relevant committee. Civil servants look at the bigger picture. They can analyse complex collections of documents. They compartmentalise such things according to their requirements, not to present one particular aspect to a government committee.

Lord Bridges told Parliament , I think during 2016 that they was already in a managable form

[Khun Han]

3 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

Lord Bridges told Parliament , I think during 2016 that they was already in a managable form

 

Lord Bridges is a remainer who was pushed out of government in a similar way to Sir Ivan Rogers being pushed out of the civil service: they were both troublemakers operating in enemy territory.

 

https://www.ft.com/content/273fb412-503f-11e7-a1f2-db19572361bb

 

Again, could you be more specific with your claim?

[ilostmypassword]

48 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

A complete misinterpretation. David Davis was referring to the collation of these assessments in a form which can be presented to the relevant committee. Civil servants look at the bigger picture. They can analyse complex collections of documents. They compartmentalise such things according to their requirements, not to present one particular aspect to a government committee.

So the civil service has not prepared a collation of these documents for the government either? Or it has but somehow this isn't suitable or nearly so for presentation to the relevant committee? Really?

[rockingrobin]

1 hour ago, Khun Han said:

 

Lord Bridges is a remainer who was pushed out of government in a similar way to Sir Ivan Rogers being pushed out of the civil service: they were both troublemakers operating in enemy territory.

 

https://www.ft.com/content/273fb412-503f-11e7-a1f2-db19572361bb

 

Again, could you be more specific with your claim?

Lord Bridges was the permanent under secretary for the DexEU. So would have a good grasp on the state of affairs

[Grouse]

Haha! Poor Han is really terrified about what will be revealed to parliament.

 

It makes me snigger frankly ?

[partington]

I know right.

 

Whatever redactions need to be done, this is not the response expected from being required to release a series of assessments that reveal a multitude of positive outcomes, but rather reeks of damage limitation.

 

Unfortunately everybody now realises that the three weeks the government are asking for to "prepare" these documents (that are apparently the basis for negotiations taking place right now!)will allow these documents to be altered and censored to the point where they say almost nothing.

 

 

[Khun Han]

8 hours ago, rockingrobin said:

Lord Bridges was the permanent under secretary for the DexEU. So would have a good grasp on the state of affairs

 

Lord Bridges was given his chance in government. He continued to be an unrepentant remainer who undermined the government's brexit plans, so he had to go. Anything he said about said plans has to be put into this context.

 

You didn't provide that link to what you claim he said about collated brexit impact surveys.

[rockingrobin]

1 hour ago, Khun Han said:

 

Lord Bridges was given his chance in government. He continued to be an unrepentant remainer who undermined the government's brexit plans, so he had to go. Anything he said about said plans has to be put into this context.

 

You didn't provide that link to what you claim he said about collated brexit impact surveys.

Apologies 

There are a few links from committee hearings I am not in a position to post at present.

However to keep you going DD on the Andrew Marr show in June stated 50 analysis had already been completed 

 

I understand it is likely an interested party is going to launch a judicial revue to have them published

Edited November 8, 2017 by rockingrobin

[rockingrobin]

15 hours ago, Khun Han said:

 

Lord Bridges was given his chance in government. He continued to be an unrepentant remainer who undermined the government's brexit plans, so he had to go. Anything he said about said plans has to be put into this context.

 

You didn't provide that link to what you claim he said about collated brexit impact surveys.

It seems rather strange that the PM and Cabinet have only seen the summaries of the assesments if they have not been produced

 

See answers to questions 131 and 132 from DD oral evidence on the 25th Oct 2017

 

http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/exiting-the-european-union-committee/the-progress-of-the-uks-negotiations-on-eu-withdrawal/oral/72017.pdf