EU referendum, brexit and the aftermath

Davis just now, apparently explaining why the impact assessments are of such poor quality in explaining the Brexit impacts. I believe this is a direct quote:

Just because you use the word impact doesn’t make it an impact assessment

no, but the words "impact assessment" do.

he's just not done his homework, has he? he's also lied to parliament. how can he still have a job?

Because firing him would demand and assume standards of competency this government can't meet.

or - they exist, they just paint such an obviously bleak picture it makes more sense to pretend his dog ate them.

Davis was...

in the midst of carrying out about 57 sets of analyses, each of which has implications for individual parts of 85% of the economy.

It's mystefying why he's still involved. It's mystefying why any of them are still involved.

This is plausible, sadly. But which is it? Did he lie to everyone then, or is he lying now? It has to be one or the other.

Who looks into dishonest politicians, or are we so desensitised to it that we don't care anymore.

If he's lying it will break. You can't do that many assessments without a lot of civil servants.

“There is zero assessment of the economic impact. Nothing is redacted because there is nothing to redact.”

Would be funny if it wasn't so depressing. 2 lever arch files for 18 months work to analyse the impact of Brexit on 85% of the UK economy. That's as lightweight as villa-jr3's homework and he's bone-idle.

Craig Mackinlay, a Conservative, goes next.

Q: Is it the case that you did not edit this material yourself?

Yes, says Davis. He was provided with a sample two chapters before they were given to the committee. He did not read them because he did not want to take responsibility for deciding exactly what was and was not released himself. And he would not have time to read 850 pages either, he says.

^^ amazing.

Sorry, I'm basically just copy pasting the Guardian live blog here, but it's all gold this morning:

Jacob Rees-Mogg, a Conservative, says is is concerned about the government honouring parliament. If these impact assessments did not exist, the government did not have to publish anything, did it?

Davis agrees.

Q: So the government has generously gone beyond what was required?

Davis accepts that.

Trump's politics have fully penetrated Britain.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0_i5DbcpPA

It's c̶o̶m̶p̶u̶l̶s̶i̶v̶e̶ convulsing reading.
"Davis says he is already late for his next appointment."
Please, make it stop...

Did the government undertake an assessment of leaving the customs union before the cabinet took that decision?

Not a quantitative one, no, says Davis.

My old boss always used to say something along the lines of 'if you haven't made a decision based on a quantitative model, then you haven't made a decision'. I mean, granted, he was a quant, so this was possibly a little over the top.

However, I'm not sure what Davis's role was if not to at least prepare something (if nothing else, a shitty one to cover his own arse for these kind of inquests).

Fuck me. This is the very definition of Post Truth Society.

I'd love to try and pull this shit in any other job; "Yes boss, I may have said I'd personally ordered detailed analysis of the impact of these monumental economic changes on the sectors involved, but of course, this didn't involve any quantitative analysis or detailed reporting and naturally, I didn't have time to read the conclusions of these myself to inform my negotiating positions."

"Great job David, have a 200% raise and a one-off bonus of £1000000. Truly outstanding work."

I truly can't see how his position is tenable after this.
They haven't done any impact assessments (negligent) and they have repeatedly lied about doing them.
And what they have done, he hasn't read, despite saying how vital it is to their negotiating position.

I'd like to know what the qualitative study said. It doesn't strike me as a research question particularly well suited to ethnographic approaches.

Surely a knighthood awaits.

Not a quantitative one, no, says Davis.

Although this could just be wiggle words. I can imagine a follow up that goes "A qualitative one then?" and him responding "No, not one of those either."

Shameful. This shower of incompetents need to resign and let some grown ups govern.

I'd like to know what the qualitative study said

Indeed - it must have a compelling conclusion.

Oh no. Wait. I think he'd already said earlier that they hadn't done any studies. I guess he was just clarifying that he definitely hadn't done any quantitative ones...

It seems to be cooking everywhere atm :/

2 party systems, I think, are worsening this situation as well.

In Aus/NZ/Canada there's a lot of one party VS the other politics as well...coalition governments with STV voting systems have their own flaws (the Dutch coalition is a bit...weird atm) but I think the lack of "full power" and compromise tampers the one party vs another quite a bit.

PS: In France, it's usually 2 parties, but the Senate is made up out of local parties and has lots of them, limiting the power of the executive.

Wow, just caught up with the David Davis statement. Breathtaking.

For info here is a summary of the claims made about the impact assessments
http://jackofkent.com/2017/11/the-early-history-of-the-58-brexit-sector-analyses/

So bizarre. It's painful following it.

Wonder how that conversation between May and Foster is going!?