Comments on: Westminster rumour mill

By: Marc

Marc — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 16:01:27 +0000

So I have been hearing this rumor off and on for the past few years that the UK is planning to drop out of the EU and will join the US as the 51st and 52nd states. Any thoughts?

By: ladytizzy

ladytizzy — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 01:16:18 +0000

Baroness Murphy – what happened to your avatar, or was this comment made by an imposter?

Whatever, your phrase ‘…what else was going on in his life..’ has left me wondering whether I should put a spread bet on the time span before the news is confirmed.

Tiz

By: Adrian Kidney

Adrian Kidney — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 17:17:30 +0000

This may or may not be the right place to ask this, Lord Norton, but could you by chance ask a question in the Lords about the conduct of Mr. Speaker over David Davis’ resignation?

I find the fact that a Member of Parliament was forbidden from giving his resignation in the House (thereby keeping it off the official record) by the Labour Speaker quite disturbing. This has not been mentioned once by the BBC or most media, which seems obsessed with questioning David Davis’ sanity and implying Tory division, which is rich given the government’s situation lately.

I know the Lords has no jurisdiction over the Speaker, but I wasn’t sure who would be appropriate to ask, given the unlikelihood of MPs to attract the dislike of the Speaker.

By: Baroness Murphy

Baroness Murphy — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 13:32:55 +0000

I can’t be the only person to see David Davis’ stand as political suicide? Now being the cynic I am it seems to me the sort of crazy step you take when either you are in an emotional state (which he might have been after the failed vote) or bearing in mind the not insubstantial, if transient, damage he might do to his colleagues in the shadow cabinet, I wonder if he had learnt some other news from his leader he was upset about.

I don’t impugn his real strength of feeling on the issue but do wonder what else was going on in his life to lead him to do it. We shall probably never know.

By: James

James — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 18:58:22 +0000

If only I believed this was about the principle of the matter (or at least entirely because of principle). It is unquestionably an act of political calculation. He knows as well as any of us that he is almost certain to be re-elected with a much greater majority (the Lib Dems were his only real opposition at the last election), although if, as I hope, Labour doesn’t waste its time putting forward a candidate, this won’t really be seen as much of a contest…

Unless of course some other (seemingly independent) candidate with an excellent prior knowledge of anti-terrorism cases – a senior Ex-Copper, for instance, comes forward and there’s a real debate on the issue.

Not entirely sure that’d be a good thing anyway.

Has anyone else noticed, out of interest, that all these individuals banging on about principled politics continually fail to mention the Labour rebels and Anne Widdecombe?

By: Stuart

Stuart — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 17:55:09 +0000

I salute the man. Jolly good stuff. P.S. I do like the photo you used on this post.

By: ladytizzy

ladytizzy — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 15:29:33 +0000

Thank you, Lord Norton, for your prompt reply (and to Matt, in the previous post).

In his resignation speech, David Davis said this:

“The counter-terrorism bill will, in all probability, be rejected by the House of Lords very firmly. After all, what should they be there for, if not to protect Magna Carta?

But because this is defined as political, not security, the government will be tempted to use the Parliament Act to overrule the Lords.

It has no democratic mandate to do this since 42 days was not in its manifesto. Its legal basis is uncertain to say the least but, purely for political reasons, this government is going to do that.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jun/12/speeches

You have answered clearly my original question. Can you shed light on what legal uncertainty DD may be referencing?

By: NHackett

NHackett — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 14:20:09 +0000

I attended a Q&A session David Davis did at Hull Uni when the 90 day debate was going on and have to say he gave a very persuasive case for post charge questioning and charging suspects for not giving passwords to computers under existing legislation. But having a by-election on a single issue – See referendums debate and the “Who Governs” election of 74.

By: lordnorton

lordnorton — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 14:14:52 +0000

ladytizzy: There is a difference between whether the Parliament Act should be used to get a particular piece of legislation on to the statute book and whether it could be used to get it on to the statute book. In this case, one can argue that it should not be used but I know of no basis on which a case could be successful in arguing that it cannot be so used. If it does make it to the statute book, any challenge through the courts will be best made under the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998, not the Parliaments Acts of 1911 and 1949.

By: Gareth

Gareth — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 14:01:42 +0000

We do indeed live in remarkable times.

On a more sneaky note, it is of course no less remarkable than the related news concerning the 42 day matter you mention, which is also true, that an un-elected head of state (sic) has been using public money and favours in order to push through a possibly illegal change in the law for, amongst other reasons, his own personal benefit and in the process overturning hundreds of years of democracy and liberty within the UK.

It will be interesting to read your Lordships views on this matter.