BAE

John Jackson (London, Mishcon de Reya): At the end of her judgement in the BAE case one of the law lords, Lady  Hale, said “- - I would wish that the world was a better place where honest and conscientious public servants were not put in impossible situations such as this - - -“. I would wish that too. I would also wish that people and nations did not seek to advance their interests by violence or the threat of violence. If that were so there would be no need of armaments industries and questions of national security could be dealt with in a more open and satisfactory way.

The impossible situation to which Lady Hale referred was the dilemma confronting the Director of the SFO in deciding, with incomplete information, whether, to quote Lord Bingham, “the public interest in pursuing an important investigation into alleged bribery was outweighed by the public interest in protecting the lives of British citizens”. The incompleteness of information available to the Director is the link to my second wish and my remark about how questions of national security are dealt with.

Andrew Blick and Stuart Weir (London & Cambridge, Democratic Audit): Two important conclusions can be drawn from Thursday's High Court judgement, which ruled the dropping of the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) probe into the 'Al-Yammamah' BAe/Saudi arms deal to be unlawful. One is that the judiciary, for all its faults, can be relied upon to defend the rule of the law, the legal process and its independence from executive interference. The second is that the executive and in particular ministers cannot.

John Jackson (London, Mishcon de Reya & Unlock Democracy): The High Court judgement delivered today, that the Serious Fraud Office acted unlawfully in ceasing to investigate an allegation that BAE had resorted to bribery in obtaining Saudi arms contracts, repays careful reading which you can do here in full. It should not be welcomed with enthusiasm by democrats whatever the motives of the British government.

Stuart Weir & Andrew Blick (Cambridge & London, Democratic Audit): The latest revelations about the dropped serious fraud office investigation into the BAe-Saudi Arms deal demonstrate the need for the government to pursue its present constitutional reform programme harder and more thoroughly. A number of measures are required. First, the forthcoming draft constitutional reform bill must clearly put a wall (and not a Chinese one) between ministers of the crown on the one hand and criminal investigations and decisions about prosecutions on the other hand. Second, Parliament must be given greater purchase over decisions relating to foreign policy and our entry into international alliances with countries such as Saudi Arabia. Third, the parliamentary export controls committee should be given advance notification of the granting of major export licences, with the opportunity to take evidence on them and report a view. Through these means, if an unpleasant regime working in tandem with an unpleasant multinational company wants to make threats about not cooperating over terrorism, it will have to do so in public to the UK Parliament and electorate, rather than to a Prime Minister who may be ready to "roll over".

David Smith (Weymouth, Saving Democracy): Some while ago I expressed to my MP (Labour) and to Kenneth Clarke the thought that the use of the Royal Prerogative to ratify treaties weakened the UK's negotiating position. Both agreed. Had Tony Blair not had the ability to put strong pressure on the SFO to halt its investigation into allegations of corruption in regard to BAE Systems dealings with Saudi, or had SFO decision to halt the investigation been prevented by law, the Saudi's would have had to accept that everything would have come out. Being realists they would probably not made good their alleged threats. Another argument for those advocating proportional representation and wider reform.

Anthony Barnett (London, OK): I am getting more than irritated by the way the government is playing with the democratic issues it says matters to it so much. First, it has cocked up citizens juries now it is gaming with citizenship. If you asked yourself who from the Blair lot is the most inappropriate person to review what it means to become a good citizen, Lord Goldsmith would be close to the top of any list. How can one trust the straightforward honesty of the man who by all accounts was pressured into changing his mind on the legality of the Iraq war, and who agreed that the inquiry into massive corruption associated with BAE Systems should be stopped just when the definitive evidence was about to come into police hands? Is this how we want the future citizens of Britain to behave? Wouldn't anyone from abroad who did things like this fall into the category of those Gordon Brown would send back to where they came from?

Jon Bright (London, OK): Sometimes politicians produce statements so blandly hypocritical that one wonders if they have actually deceived themselves. Current International Development Secretary Hilary Benn may not think that the public are idiots but what are we to think of him judging by his self-aggrandising call for a treaty to 'control' the movement of small arms. In the current search for British values is he suggesting that one of them is two-faced perfidy?

Jon Bright (London OK): Party representatives start talks today to try and decide on new rules for party funding, following the publication of the review by Hayden Phillips. Unlock Democracy decided to test public opinion and commissioned an ICM poll (opens in a word document). In addition to probing attitudes on party funding they asked: "Which of the following organisations do you think has the most important role to play in Britain's democratic system of government?" Here are the answers.