Before Davis was Brexit minister, he brought a case to the EU, about data retention by the UK government. Now he is Brexit minister, and the court has found in his favour. ...
In my opinion the man is a sell-out. He made a lot of noise and then gave up completely (even withdrawing from the case) so he could get a senior job. complete sell-out and as such deserves no respect. shows politicians for what they are (e.g. only interested in their own career and own interests).
Psamathe wrote:In my opinion the man is a sell-out. He made a lot of noise and then gave up completely (even withdrawing from the case) so he could get a senior job. complete sell-out and as such deserves no respect. shows politicians for what they are (e.g. only interested in their own career and own interests).
As he is likely to be shuffled out at the next opportunity, he's got little to lose by standing up for his advertised principles. Like you I am often cynical about politicians, but his silence on this, and the speed of his capitulation has surprised me. Davis was known for little but his stance on civil liberties, so any hypocrisy in that area casts a longer shadow.
Psamathe wrote: ... He made a lot of noise and then gave up completely (even withdrawing from the case) so he could get a senior job. ...
FWIW, I think he got the senior job then had to accept collective responsibility as a member of the Cabinet. I only mention that because I've posted about cabinet government before. So much of this is internal party politics. AFAIK, having bizarrely resigned his seat and caused an otherwise unnecessary bye-election and in so doing effectively resigned his role as deputy leader, he was prominent in anti-Cameron circles. His support of civil liberties had him urging body-worn cameras for the police, but again AFAIK only after his chum became embroiled in the so-called plebgate controversy and Downing Street refused to release security camera footage. Taking this case to Europe would have embarrassed Cameron's govt., were Cameron still in No 10. Can you shoot yourself in the foot with a time bomb?
While I've been editing this for embarrassing spelling mistakes, I've remembered the name of his chum Andrew Mitchell.
Before Davis was Brexit minister, he brought a case to the EU, about data retention by the UK government. Now he is Brexit minister, and the court has found in his favour.
“General and indiscriminate retention” of emails and electronic communications by governments is illegal, the EU’s highest court has ruled in a judgment that could trigger challenges against the UK’s new Investigatory Powers Act, the so-called snooper’s charter.
The finding by came in response to a legal challenge initially brought by the Brexit secretary, David Davis, when he was a backbench MP, and Tom Watson, Labour’s deputy leader, over the legality of GCHQ’s bulk interception of call records and online messages.
This hardly matters at all. I think it's a good outcome, but David Davis is unlikely tobe able to do anything further, even if he didnæt ahve toehr priorities to worry about.
The current government needs only to engage in a bit of inertia and prioritse Brexit, after which, they can do as they like.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.” ― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
thirdcrank wrote:AFAIK, having bizarrely resigned his seat and caused an otherwise unnecessary bye-election and in so doing effectively resigned his role as deputy leader, he was prominent in anti-Cameron circles.
To be fair to Davis (are we allowed to be fair to Davis?), he was campaigning for civil liberties long before he had reason to trouble Cameron. I think I've said before, I was at an early (the first?) public meeting of No2ID, at which he was speaking (very much against data retention).
It matters for his integrity, and for his reputation among his former allies.
I think it's a good outcome, but David Davis is unlikely tobe able to do anything further, even if he didnæt ahve toehr priorities to worry about.
Are you speaking Norwegian?
Sorry. Just typos.
Should have been 'even if he didn't have other priorities'.
Also, I didn't mean Davis' reputation. I meant in terms of the law.
We don't know what Davis did or didn't do among his colleagues. For all we know, despite not being publically noisy about it, he brought it up out of public view every chance he got. He may also have made some behind-the-scenes deal that is yet to bear fruit. Or maybe, it is simply a matter of he put the suit in action & carried through and didn't feel that he needed to make a big fuss?
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.” ― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
bovlomov wrote:... To be fair to Davis (are we allowed to be fair to Davis?), he was campaigning for civil liberties long before he had reason to trouble Cameron. I think I've said before, I was at an early (the first?) public meeting of No2ID, at which he was speaking (very much against data retention).
And then he gave it all up without a 2nd glance when "career progression" opportunities arose.
bovlomov wrote:... To be fair to Davis (are we allowed to be fair to Davis?), he was campaigning for civil liberties long before he had reason to trouble Cameron. I think I've said before, I was at an early (the first?) public meeting of No2ID, at which he was speaking (very much against data retention).
And then he gave it all up without a 2nd glance when "career progression" opportunities arose.
Ian
Do you have any evidence of this? Or is it just in how you interpret his lack of public statement on the matter?
I'm no fan of politicians, and especially conservative ones, but I do think it unfair to denigrate someone for something without any evidence.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.” ― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
bovlomov wrote:... To be fair to Davis (are we allowed to be fair to Davis?), he was campaigning for civil liberties long before he had reason to trouble Cameron. I think I've said before, I was at an early (the first?) public meeting of No2ID, at which he was speaking (very much against data retention).
And then he gave it all up without a 2nd glance when "career progression" opportunities arose.
Ian
Do you have any evidence of this? Or is it just in how you interpret his lack of public statement on the matter?
I'm no fan of politicians, and especially conservative ones, but I do think it unfair to denigrate someone for something without any evidence.
Immediately he was appointed to the cabinet he withdrew his name from the court case being taken against the Government. On accepting the position in the Cabinet he would have known he would have to give-up fighting against the Government's snooping legislation. So he had a choice, his promotion to the cabinet (and give-up his privacy campaigning) or stick with what he had given the impression he believed in and decline the cabinet position.
Psamathe wrote:Immediately he was appointed to the cabinet he withdrew his name from the court case being taken against the Government. On accepting the position in the Cabinet he would have known he would have to give-up fighting against the Government's snooping legislation. So he had a choice, his promotion to the cabinet (and give-up his privacy campaigning) or stick with what he had given the impression he believed in and decline the cabinet position.
Ian
Or maybe that was okay with him because he knew that the law suit would go forward & he trusted the others involved to keep fighting?
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.” ― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
"Among the detailed examples provided were Midlothian council using the powers to monitor dog barking and Allerdale borough council gathering evidence about who was guilty of feeding pigeons."
bovlomov wrote: ... I think I've said before, I was at an early (the first?) public meeting of No2ID, at which he was speaking (very much against data retention).
I was against ID cards on the basis that they would have been an unnecessary burden on most people and ineffective against the type of person who would have several. ie A utilitarian (?) position rather than libertarian. I do seem to read a lot of speeches being quoted from earlier years which contrast with their current stance: Teresa May seems to figure often. There's a fine line between pragmatism and hypocrisy.
thirdcrank wrote:There's a fine line between pragmatism and hypocrisy.
Often there is, but there are certain indicators to differentiate the two. Where the pragmatism coincides with opportunism and self-interest, then it is easy to diagnose hypocrisy. Also, where the initial position is unequivocal, the revised position can only be described as hypocritical.
Think of all the senior Labour MPs who before 1997 made unequivocal statements about their opposition to privatisation. Yet within a few weeks of assuming power all that changed. Perhaps they realised that government is more complicated that they had imagined - that wouldn't say much for their intelligence. Perhaps they were telling their supporters what they wanted to hear. Or perhaps they revised their positions in the light of the promotions and financial benefits they would receive for supporting privatisation. I wouldn't say that pragmatism was at work in any of those cases.
While I've been editing this for embarrassing spelling mistakes, I've remembered the name of his chum Andrew Mitchell. 
