When it comes to the way David Davis has conducted himself of late, it’s really hard to decide whether it’s his dishonesty or his negligence that’s worse.

The former manifested itself in his blustering over the Brexit impact assessments the Government may or may not have done before a Parliamentary committee. Which is it? Who knows, or dares to dream?

The negligence comes in if the answer is indeed that they haven’t been done, and Davis is basically making it up as he goes along.

If that’s the case, we will all pay a price for his piloting of one of those fancy jets he thinks he has a God-given right to into a pile of something smelly.

This led to an idea gestating in the fetid pit of my brain: should not those of us who end up getting hurt by his cavalier approach to his job be able to seek redress from David Davis, his Government, hell, even his party?

Could we crowdfund an attempt to bring him to book through the courts, which might at least give us something fun to do while the prospects for our children are being burned on the fires of his madness?

I got the idea after having sat through a court case brought against the Bank of England by the creditors of collapsed bank BCCI, during which time I was often left feeling like I might like to sue whomever it was who told me journalism was going to be a fun career to pursue.

Now there’s a technical bit coming but don’t worry – I’ll do my best to keep it short.

Hard Brexit would hurt the UK much more than the EU, Dutch PM says

It’s hard to sue watchdogs like the Bank (and the case didn’t get very far) for a very good reason: if it was easy, the staff would be so scared of making mistakes that they wouldn’t allow the businesses they regulate to so much as tie their own shoelaces.

As such, you have to prove that the actions of the person or regulator you’re suing go way beyond mere negligence. You have to demonstrate malice (in a legal sense), and show that the person or institution you go after knew full well that they were going to cause harm but went ahead regardless.

Worth a shot against David Davis with the aid of a crowdfund? I put the idea to the sort of big and powerful law firm we’d need to engage, one that has the right sort of experience. Unfortunately, the answer I got was: no dice. An action like that probably wouldn’t get past first base, let alone before a judge.

David Davis’s conduct, I was told, is the sort of thing that would have to be handled by the political process. In other words, the only option is to vote him and his shabby crew out of office.

It would be a delight to see the look on his face were that to happen.

Trouble is that Davis, and the other Brexit boys, are wealthy men; the sort of people who can easily pick up well-paid work should the public decide to give them their just deserts.

They are thus, in a very real sense, insulated from the consequences of their actions.

It’s often very different for other people, in other walks of life, who conduct themselves like the Brexiteers. The consequences for them frequently go way beyond just losing their jobs.

The Financial Conduct Authority can, for example, hit individual bankers, insurance men, financial advisers, and more besides, with hefty fines and bans under regulations that have been made tougher since the financial crisis. If I were to make a criticism, it is that its rules still aren’t tough enough, and that it ought to pursue the real bad apples with more zeal.

Doctors can be sued and struck off for committing medical negligence. Journalists such as myself have the libel laws hanging over us every time we put pen to paper. And so on.

Politicians are in a different, and more protected, class.

If they’re in safe seats, like the one David Davis has, there’s only a very small chance that the one sanction open to the electorate will ever actually be deployed. His Haltemprice and Howden constituency has been in Conservative hands since the first time it was put up for grabs in the Labour landslide of 1997. Apart from a bit of a squeaker in 2001, when the Lib Dems brought the majority down to just under 2,000, the sometimes quixotic MP has never looked to be in any real danger.

How Brexit affected Britain's favourite foods from Weetabix to Marmite Show all 8 1 /8 How Brexit affected Britain's favourite foods from Weetabix to Marmite How Brexit affected Britain's favourite foods from Weetabix to Marmite Weetabix Chief executive of Weetabix Giles Turrell has warned that the price of one of the nation’s favourite breakfast are likely to go up this year by low-single digits in percentage terms. Reuters How Brexit affected Britain's favourite foods from Weetabix to Marmite Nescafé The cost of a 100g jar of Nescafé Original at Sainsbury’s has gone up 40p from £2.75 to £3.15 – a 14 per cent rise—since the Brexit vote. PA How Brexit affected Britain's favourite foods from Weetabix to Marmite Freddo When contacted by The Independent this month, a Mondelez spokesperson declined to discuss specific brands but confirmed that there would be "selective" price increases across its range despite the American multi-national confectionery giant reporting profits of $548m (£450m) in its last three-month financial period. Mondelez, which bought Cadbury in 2010, said rising commodity costs combined with the slump in the value of the pound had made its products more expensive to make. Cadbury How Brexit affected Britain's favourite foods from Weetabix to Marmite Mr Kipling cakes Premier Foods, the maker of Mr Kipling and Bisto gravy, said that it was considering price rises on a case-by-case basis Reuters How Brexit affected Britain's favourite foods from Weetabix to Marmite Walkers Crisps Walkers, owned by US giant PepsiCo, said "the weakened value of the pound" is affecting the import cost of some of its materials. A Walkers spokesman told the Press Association that a 32g standard bag was set to increase from 50p to 55p, and the larger grab bag from 75p to 80p. Getty How Brexit affected Britain's favourite foods from Weetabix to Marmite Marmite Tesco removed Marmite and other Unilever household brand from its website last October, after the manufacturer tried to raise its prices by about 10 per cent owing to sterling’s slump. Tesco and Unilever resolved their argument, but the price of Marmite has increased in UK supermarkets with the grocer reporting a 250g jar of Marmite will now cost Morrisons’ customers £2.64 - an increase of 12.5 per cent. Rex How Brexit affected Britain's favourite foods from Weetabix to Marmite Toblerone Toblerone came under fire in November after it increased the space between the distinctive triangles of its bars. Mondelez International, the company which makes the product, said the change was made due to price rises in recent months. Pixabay How Brexit affected Britain's favourite foods from Weetabix to Marmite Maltesers Maltesers, billed as the “lighter way to enjoy chocolate”, have also shrunk in size. Mars, which owns the brand, has reduced its pouch weight by 15 per cent. Mars said rising costs mean it had to make the unenviable decision between increasing its prices or reducing the weight of its Malteser packs. iStockphoto

Look, I’m not here arguing that it should be easy to bring a minister to task through the courts for being rubbish. There are similar issues at work to those with suing watchdogs.

Ministers have to be allowed to do their jobs, and put through the programmes they have been elected on, without constantly looking over their shoulders at the courts.

However, if they carry on like Davis – if they wilfully and negligently fail to assess the impact of their proposals, and instead proceed like drivers sitting at the wheel of souped-up BMWs after draining a bar – then that’s a different matter. Then there ought to be a mechanism for their actions to have consequences.