Written by Rafael Behr
It called to mind Bill Clinton’s sublimely evasive remark when questioned about the veracity of statements he had made about the nature of his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. “It depends upon what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is,” said the president. David Davis, when asked by a House of Commons committee to explain why he had failed to provide anything adequately resembling the Brexit impact assessments that had been demanded by parliament fell back on an extraordinarily devious defence. There are no “impact assessments” and never had been.
The secretary of state did not deploy air quotes in his testimony but the implied inverted commas carried the full weight of his argument. It was, in essence, that MPs had voted to insist on the provision of something that didn’t exist and so there was no real need to question whether or not he had complied.
He had instead served up material that might help committee members navigate complex Brexit-related issues, while excluding (or actually allowing officials to exclude) anything that might be commercially sensitive or that might compromise the UK government’s negotiating position. But, in Davis’s terms, that is not the same as an “impact assessment” and MPs’ disappointment at the quality, breadth and detail of their hoard stems from some unfortunate misunderstanding. Semantics. You say “impact assessment”, I say “sectoral analysis”, pot-ay-to, pot-ah-to, tom-ay-to, tom-ah-to, let’s call the whole thing off …
For more read the full of article at The Guardian.
