Off Topic Political Debate

There is no rule book, the decision was at the discretion of the PM, he may live to regret it.

 

Dependent on the manic speed of the Euro countries in rushing headlong into political and fiscal union we may be like the SNP and call for another 'lifetime' referendum in a few years!!

 

SH you write the most bizarre things. Of course there is a rule book that has existed for decades. Can you prove that there is not one?

Your mate Boris left Howard out to dry. He suggested there could be a second referendum which Howard was quick to adopt. Then he changed his position leaving Howard looking like a lone voice in the wilderness.

 

I understand that Sir Jeremy Hayward has been instructed to explain his reasoning to a Government select committee. If he says that the decision was not based on convention and that Mr Cameron told him to do it I shall, of course, apologise.

 

Sorry OFH - I should have added that not only is there a rule book but the advice to civil servants has been published on the Government website. You probably knew that already as not even I would be unprofessional enough to broadcast restricted Government advice on a football forum

 

In one of my earlier posts I suggested there is a wealth of information if you choose to look for it. If only people would take the trouble to inform themselves rather than use arguments that do not stand up to even simple scrutiny.

 

I am not sure how and why a civil servant can deny access to information to a minister based on their position regarding the position of the UK within the a EU. Firstly, that civil,servant would have to understand the position of the minister requesting the information - this would mean a kind of Blacklist that civil servants had to check against. Secondly how can they judge the reason for the request! How can they be certain that the minister does not need that information to do his day job.
Asking the Civil Service to control the supply of ministers based on a political decision seems a very dangerous strategy to me. After all the leaders of the opposition party is provided with very sensitive data as a member of the Privy Council - and Comrade Corbyn could never be accused as a supporter of government policy - well apart from the EU vote.

 

Remember Yes Minister w_y? That was said by Thatcher to be very close to the truth.

 

Boris is not my mate but he is a big beast on the 'leave' team along with Michael Howard, Michael Gove etc. If there is a rule book, as you suggest, that specifically covers a referendum on the membership of the EU, why would Hayward be summoned to explain his actions before a select committee.?

Either way, it is Cameron and his preferred successor, Osborne, that will be harmed by any perceived unfairness to the eurosceptics. Boris Johnson has enough support amongst the PP to call a leadership election and certainly enough support amongst the party faithful to be elected.

You sound as desperate as Cameron on the 'stay' side.

 

It is a bit complicated. As I understand it we only withhold information where it is directly to do with the campaign. So, for example, if a Minister campaigning for the no vote is attending a Council of Ministers meeting we would brief him or her in the usual way.
I won't pretend to have all the answers on this one as I only actually have the same info that all of you have access to. I welcome the hearing as it should provide clarity and, personally, I would like it to be in the public domain as it makes our lives easier as no one can accuse us of hiding things without any real basis to do so. I concede that this could be slightly idealistic.

 

I'll have to take the fifth on that one

 

You are getting muddled up SH. The rule book concerns everyday interaction between civil servants and government. They did not need to write a new one as you seem to suggest.
Which leave team are you referring to? Has Boris decided yet which one to join as I have not seen anything.

 

OFH - I do not pretend to be any expert in politics or TV satire. But from my understanding even low life MP's have researchers (paid by our taxes) who gather information and brief their masters. So would imagine a low level minister would have rooms full of such researchers. So if one of them asked a civil servant in DEFRA for a figure for the number of farmers fined by DEFRA in accordance to a EU directive, how can that civil servant judge the reason for the request?
For me, it's not a question of what side you are on, but rather just how ethical is the denial of information. What would happen if I made a Freedom of Information request for the same information? Will I be asked how I will vote before the information is released?

 

My guess is that this is simply a political decision in the same way that it was for the PM/majority of the cabinet (same thing) to decide whether or not to allow cabinet members to openly defy the government's line. If not, there is an awful lot of ignorance regarding the 'rulebook' amongst some very senior government officials that should have more knowledge than any of us pretend to possess.

 

It is you who is mightily confused, you are suggesting that normal rules cover all eventualities. There are obviously many senior figures in the parliamentary village who profoundly disagree with your guesswork.

I would rather have Boris on my team than crooked Mandelson and 'fingers in the pie' Kinnocks on yours!!

 

I would suspect there are no specific rules covering this and it's the government applying some that suits their position. In a couple of years some poor fall-guy civil servant will be pulled over the coals for this by some select committee.
I wonder if any human rights activist lawyers would be interested - perhaps Cherry Blair?

 

Really? Only one group gets the money, so they will have to sort themselves out eventually. I would suggest you give it all to Galloway as he will know how to spend it. He might even buy Farage a pint.

 

My guess is that lawyers have been crawling over this for months in order to enable the Government to refute any such suggestions. Anyway, I rather suspect the purpose of the select committee hearing is to demonstrate a transparent and reasoned approach in order to try and reassure the public. For many of us it is the biggest political decision we have had to make in our lives and it is entirely right that we believe the Government has acted correctly. Of course some may believe that it is not the case.

WY - as luck would have it, your specific question on fines is already in the public domain ( all info on prosecutions is) so there is no reason why it would not be released. However, so as not to be obtuse, I can tell you that a Government department would not give you info on policies that are currently in development. They would however give it to a Minister in the no camp as to not do so would prevent them from doing their job.

As I said, I am really not to sure of how this will work yet as it is still early days. One thing is for sure - if a Minister thinks the Civil Service is taking the piss ( sorry all but it seems the most appropriate word) he / she won't be slow in making it public!

Incidentally - I suspect some may pose questions hat I will not answer ( and I know WY's was not directed to me) for obvious reasons and I hope you'll understand why. I will be as open as I can though as this is an important issue and a decent debate.

 

The Blair's need all the money they can get poor socialist souls!

 

The legality will not be a lasting issue, it is the reaction from the grassroots towards the PM and his pals as judged by the blue rinse brigade that will shape the future. Any further perceived unfair slights on the eurosceptics could make the next 6 months very interesting whatever the outcome of the referendum.