Someone has discovered an exchange (HERE) with David Davis in 2002 in a debate on The Regional assemblies (Preparations) Bill and with reference to a proposed referendum. David Davis had a totally different position then to the one he has now, revealing he is a man without any convictions or principles. He is answering John Prescott who was advocating regional assemblies to bring about more democracy.
This is not the complete exchange but you can read it in full at the link above, but listen to some of this stuff from Davis:
The Deputy Prime Minister says the Bill will bring about more democracy, but, in a democracy, voters have to know what they are voting for. They need to know what the choice is, to use his own word. For that to happen, the proposition has to come before the vote, but with the Bill, it will be vote first, proposition afterwards. The Bill proposes that referendums should be held without voters knowing the structure or powers of the assemblies for which they are asked to vote. Even the Deputy Prime Minister would have a hard job to convince anyone that that is democratic
What is certain is that pre-legislative referendums [ie the EU referendum] of the type the Deputy Prime Minister is proposing are the worst type of all.
Referendums should be held when the electorate are in the best possible position to make a judgment. They should be held when people can view all the arguments for and against and when those arguments have been rigorously tested. In short, referendums should be held when people know exactly what they are getting. So legislation should be debated by Members of Parliament on the Floor of the House, and then put to the electorate for the voters to judge.
We should not ask people to vote on a blank sheet of paper and tell them to trust us to fill in the details afterwards. For referendums to be fair and compatible with our parliamentary process, we need the electors to be as well informed as possible and to know exactly what they are voting for. Referendums need to be treated as an addition to the parliamentary process, not as a substitute for it.
As it stands, the Bill is an affront to those principles. It asks people to vote for proposals that are unspecified, untried and untested. I would have relished the opportunity to debate the details of regional assemblies, but, clearly, the Deputy Prime Minister is not ready to have that debate. It is simply wrong for the Government to come to the House and act in this way. If they do, how can we trust them when it comes to the referendum? Major constitutional changes justify the use of referendums because the constitutional rights of our citizens are owned by the people and not by politicians. However, it is important that referendums are not misused simply as a snapshot of volatile changes of opinion, perhaps as a result of pressure of Government propaganda.
I think all of these points have been put to Davis both before and after the referendum but the hypocrite in him refuses to see the hypocrisy.
It is ironic that even now in Davis World, we don't know what we voted for. He is deciding for us and fighting furiously to prevent parliament or the people having a say when the final deal is known.
It is ironic that even now in Davis World, we don't know what we voted for. He is deciding for us and fighting furiously to prevent parliament or the people having a say when the final deal is known.
You can read the entire debate (HERE)
