Saturday, 10 August 2013

Anna Soubry should be sacked

This is astonishing. During Anna Soubry's car crash of an interrogation by the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee, she was asked to provide written evidence showing what effect Britain's vote had on the Tobacco Products Directive. It turns out that Soubry's decision to bypass parliament and take a personal decision to approve the legislation was absolutely critical.

From Liberal Vision...

In a letter (dated July 31st) to Bill Cash MP (Chairman, House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee) Soubry says:

“The committee asked whether the UK’s support was vital to a General Approach being agreed” (at the Council of European health ministers meeting on 21st June)…..

“Four member states – Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Poland and Romania were unable to offer their support, which meant that the UK’s support (of the Tobacco Products Directive) was decisive in forming a qualified majority”

Given that we know Ms Soubry asked for, but was refused, a waiver from the relevant House of Commons committee, her statement should more accurately read:

“Four member states – Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Poland and Romania were unable to offer their support, which meant that my support (of the Tobacco Products Directive), acting on my own and in defiance of UK parliament, was decisive in forming a qualified majority“

Quite how one woman – sticking two fingers up to the UK democratic process – was able to waltz into a room and declare she was negotiating on behalf of the United Kingdom – when, in fact she clearly had no authority to do so whatsoever – will be beyond most people’s comprehension.

That her role was then “decisive” in “forming a qualified majority” at the meeting will shock and infuriate in equal measure.

Quite right. Here we have a junior minister single-handedly deciding the fate of a controversial piece of legislation that will affect hundreds of millions of people.

In her own mind, the fact that the EU vote was finely poised made it imperative for her to cast the deciding vote without bothering with parliamentary scrutiny or democratic mandates. In fact, it makes her behaviour all the more scandalous. She made herself judge, jury and executioner despite not even understanding what she was voting for (see video below).




The hubris and incompetence is breath-taking. She should resign immediately, as should her Department of Health accomplice Andrew Black. If they will not resign, they should be sacked and never be placed in a position of authority again.




8 comments:

sheila said...

Hear, hear

JD said...

Quite. But that's not how it works these days....

Xopher said...

Hey Davey boy - I know it's hard to believe but she'll be after your job and be even less democratic than you!
It's a good job there's UKIP where up themselves people aren't welcome.

Michael J. McFadden said...

"In fact, it makes her behaviour all the more scandalous. ... She should resign immediately, as should her Department of Health accomplice Andrew Black. If they will not resign, they should be sacked and never be placed in a position of authority again."

Very well-stated and I'd agree 100% from across the ocean here. Her role there, if I understand it correctly, in *NO* way gave her the authority to cast a deciding vote on a major issue that she knew was dividing the Parliament of the country back home. By unilaterally binding the country under treaty into an agreement that she had good reason to believe her government might well have refused I'd say she came pretty close to treason. What if some other "junior minister" signs over a British aircraft carrier to generalized EU defense someday without bothering with consulting the government or taxpayers? Would it be valid? Would Britain have to go to war to reclaim its property?

- MJM

nisakiman said...

Not only should she be sacked, but her vote on the TPD should be declared null and void on the basis that she had no authority vested in her to make that decision.

And still I haven't seen a peep in the MSM about this treasonable act by a junior minister. Are they totally bought and paid for by the Tobacco Control Industry?

Junican said...

I don't think that Soubry is of any significance at all, any more than Lansley was of any significance, or even whats-her-name (see? I've forgotten already) who introduced the smoking ban.
None of the politicians know the facts. They do what the civil servants tell them to do.

Junican said...

Patricia Hewitt.

JD said...

Junican is right about this - the elephant in the room here is the civil service. Civil Servants should have made sure their minister had gone through all the required procedures (or more realistically have ensured that all the required procedures had been completed and reported to the minister. A sensible minister would have known that the procedures hadn't been followed and wouldn't have voted - an intelligent neutral civil servant would have advised a less savvy minister accordingly. The conclusion I draw is that the relevant civil servants are pushing their own agenda on to thick ministers. Nothing new there then.