No Deal? Vote Contempt

As previously noted, Harper's reaction to a contempt ruling is nothing to fear. I see absolutely no reason why all the drama can't be avoided by coming to a deal in which MPs have the final say over the disposition of documents, whatever the intermediate steps (consultations with relevant authorities over disputed uses of papers, etc.). There is no real national security argument: MPs aren't about to contradict serious advice, except if SIRC folk advise calling bullshit and ministry officials are claiming security when it's just embarrassing for themselves and politicians. Well, in such disagreement between advisors, SIRC & common sense should be followed, obviously. I still think if deadlocked, then put disputed papers aside till end and have Milliken cast deciding vote, as he was elected by all parties and represents Parliament's authority in its most disinterested form. Sure, whatever mechanism you think is best. But Parliamentarians must have final say. And contempt ruling doesn't mean some arrangement can't be found subsequently. But one can't forever delay a Parliamentary Order, issued 154 days ago, or submit, without making a mockery of Parliament and democracy. It's odd how the Con negotiators are reasonable in the room, and then, after checking with Giorno the Liar & Harper PMO, are forced to return with more difficult conditions, eh? Sad. They know better.

So remember, be of good faith and good will, uphold your obligations as parliamentarians, and do a decent deal, and if impossible, let Speaker rule, and vote contempt - make sure you have the votes, eh? Embarrassing repudiation of Parliamentary authority otherwise. If Government wants to avoid further consequences, they can become more reasonable and come to a deal before the rest ensues. And if they want an election over it, fine - they'll lose. Coalitions are no longer a dirty word. Thanks UK.