42 Day Detention
A YouGov poll for the Daily Telegraph this morning found 69% of people supported an increase in the length of time people can be held without charge from 28 to 42 days “in exceptional circumstances”, 24% opposed it.
This is in line with previous polling, which has always tended to show a substantial majority support policies to extend the length of time terrorist suspects can be held. The picture is a bit muddier when alternates like allowing the questioning of suspects to continue after they are charged are brought into the equation, but in general the government’s policy has public support.
Tonight of course, it is the opinion of MPs that matters, not the public – the best place for analysing that is, as ever, Phil Cowley’s site www.revolts.co.uk
Filed under: Terrorism, YouGov
100% of people believe if you speak English very slowly and loudly then all foreigners can understand what you are saying; some horrendous percentage of Americans think Obama is a Muslim etc.. The point I am making is the obvious one–just because people believe it, doesn’t make it right.
“The picture is a bit muddier when alternates like allowing the questioning of suspects to continue after they are charged are brought into the equation”
So, as the public’s view is informed by a little widening of perspective, their opinion begins to change.
Jack’s point is the obvious one, but it applies across the board.
If the public were introduced to any idea that a “terrorist suspect” might one day include,say, a republican person speaking out over the succession after the death of QE2, the polls might well change again…
The government won 42 days by 9 votes.
14 Tory rebels apparently.
Thanks very much to whoever it was for passing a Government legislation and, more importantly, a particularly vile and un British measure aswell.
Browns authority has gone. He can only pass legislation now through blackmail and bribary (allegedly). The Lords will reject this and the debate will continue. This outcome could actually be the worst possible outcome for Brown.
As I understand it the detention period is subject to judicial oversight every seven days-so what’s the problem?
It may in fact be so hedged about with safeguards on the personal liberty issue, that it becomes inoperable in practice-a point made by David Davis.
…but “vile & un-British”-come on now this isn’t Guantanamo Bay…….unless you were refering to the Government, in which case absolutely.
This 42 days in detention bill is going to go down as one of the last “1984″ style bits of legislation this government will be responsible for. This surely has be the straw that broke the camels back amongst the remaining supporters Brown and his government have – we’ve lost so much freedom in the last 11 years – let’s hope the Lords can block this last bit of madness.
I agree with ADRIAN above – Browns victory here will be seen as desperate measures by a desperate man – the media will love it !!
A PM who can only win with the support of a minor party and opposition rebels is in real trouble. They were talking (spinning) about this being an opportunity to re-launch Brown and the Government.
Honestly Browns had more comebacks than Sinatra and like old blue eyes each so called last concert is worse than the last.
I suspect that at least one paper tomorrow will go with “Dead man walking”.
I’d point out that I personally don’t think Brown deserves what’s happening to him and what is now almost inevitabily going to happen to him and his government, but that doesn’t mean that it isn’t going to happen.
Peter.
Oh PETER – I would have to disagree with your last comment about Brown and what’s happening to him !
Brown deserves everything that is happening to him – he contrived with Blair to share power one day / his best buddy saw the writing on the wall and handed it to him when the going was get tougher – don’t forget that Brown was one of two main architects responsible in the last 11 years for all the woes we are in at the moment – Brown was safe hidden behind the doors of number 11 – now he’s in the public gaze – he can’t hide anymore and the true incompetent is there for all to see.
The personal ego trips of Tony and Gordon are coming to an end and because of this they will drag down the Labour Party with them for a long long time !
I know i’m good with these predictions normally – but i can’t put an exact date when Brown’s memoirs will be published – i would think probably between now and 2010 – i know it’s customary to be published after a leader leaves office , but there may be some votes in a “tearjerker” biography.
Usually the best way to end an argument is to remove the root of the problem………unfortunately, as we all know, in the given environment this is often not a viable option and logical sense is not allowed to prevail.
And sadly so we go on……is there really a solution to the threats posed by terrorism in the United Kingdom? I doubt this 42 Days Detention bill is the answer.
The answer, remember, lies at the root of the problem. Sadly therefore, it looks like this particular problem is here to stay with us for the foreseeable future.
here in the UK, political correctness always wins over national security…. if you live in Australia there’s no room for troublemakers……out you go! Here, Here!
There was only 1 Tory supporting the government.
My earlier information was wrong.
Tomorrows headlines will tell the story of this jinxed PM.
He might just have got “Brown-but narrowly”
Instead it could now be ” Yet another Security breach “
Indeed.
I didn’t manage to find these documents when I came out of London Waterloo yesterday.
As for 42 days, it’s similar to most things in work. If you haven’t got enough time to do something – you work harder, and you do it quicker.
Well, for some.
I couldn’t agree more with Jack, Also with the 42 day question, it all depends how you are asked. Even if the question asked is a straight down the middle “Is 42 days detention without charge a good thing” The culture connotations weigh in favour of a positive answer, as most people will think it’s all about swarthy immigrants is dodgy beards and it won’t apply to their family, but as has been seen councils have been using the RIPA for the most trivial of things when originally the Bill was touted as Anti-Terror Bill even if its powers were not restricted to terror. So function creep is a real danger.
e.g.
Looking dodgy near some important building. It’s differcult to prove a negative
Well done David Davis; now that is an argument I accept and, as someone who does not vote Conservative, on this issue and argument and in that electorate I would be out doorknocking for him. And I do not say that lightly. I hope the total Conservative party listens to him and accepts his view.
“The Oracle”
Well done, Mike–two contributions which once again represent the efforts of today’s Tories to revive the ‘one nation’ approach to politics and embrace an inclusive agenda.
I doubt whether Haltemprice and Howden voters will vote Labour in any significant numbers, whatever their views on 42 day detention before charge, so it’s a bit of achallenge to see this as a brave move.
However, it’s a chance for a proper debate about the issue rather than one that’s coloured by political opportunism.
We haven’t heard anything about alternatives – such as how better is liberty protected in those countries that allow continued questioning after charges.
john tt
If it was just about 42 days your last point would be valid. However, there is something more fundamental here about the relationship between the Government and Governed. It seems to me at least that we have crossed some kind of boundary between acceptable levels of security-driven constraints on liberty and the need to protect.
This Government have, one piece at a time, dismantled or begun to dismantle the core structures of our liberty and justice – attacking judges, liiting jury trial, effectively allowing the suspending of habeas corpus, permitting active surveillance in public environments, allowing the seizure of good and money without the need for proof of a crime, gathering and storing information without good purpose for holding that information and proposing a further raft of restrictions.
I wish David Davis well in his fight and will give what time I can to supporting him – he is right, defending our liberties really is a noble fight.
The rumour mill is moving already on the David Davis issue and it’s a possibility that a family member of someone killed as a result of 7/7 will be putting up in Haltemprice and Howden. Interesting times!
Simon -
Without engaging in that noble fight too much here (it’s not that sort of forum), his existing majority, the fact that he’s persuaded the LibDems not to stand, and the general poll positions all suggest that there won’t be any sort of “fight” at all.
However, I don’t agree with your central point, and offer as evidence the fact that so many concessions were offered during the process that it’s virtually certain that this can only kick in in the most extraordinary circumstances.
I’m looking forward to seeing what happens to the survey poll results when this is debated in the next weeks. How would David Davies have responded if Labour had suggested instead that we should allow post-charge interrogation?
David – if that person is a normal Tory voter, it would certainly be interesting if they stood on an independent ticket, and offered assurances that they’d vote with Cameron on economy issues.
john tt
Interesting point, especially if someone stood on a pro-42 day ticket as an Independent Conservative. This could turn out to be one of the more interesting bye-elections of the last 50 or so years with the very emotive issue of doing everthing to protect the public against the threat and the fear of terrorism pitched against the more esoteric issue of what constitutes a ‘free society’. Fear of theunknown might resonate more strongly than arcane references to Magna Carta.
David – and if Labour decided not to field a candidate but to get behind the Independent, so that the issue was a straight one way or t’other?
“However, I don’t agree with your central point, and offer as evidence the fact that so many concessions were offered during the process that it’s virtually certain that this can only kick in in the most extraordinary circumstances.”
Hardly a robust reponse to my central point. In fact it’s a ridiculous answer – what about ID Cards, DNA datbases, CCTV, ending jury trials, RIPA, what DD called the ‘database society’? You risible and snippy little response doesn’t touch on any of these.
t isn’t just about 42 days and you know it…
Snippy? What a weird criticism!
To expand a little, you raise the issue of how we are governed. if we were really in danger , then the government would not bend over backwards to address concerns raised.
I’m simply suggesting that the evidence of all the concessions shows that there are checks and balances in sufficient quantity to allow us to rest more easily than you are making out.
The list you give does indicate that full use is being made of modern technology to keep records. How far they infringe freedom is of course a matter of opinion.
I respect people who, for instance, might argue that an impending controversial succession is making the Establishment jumpy and over-cautious, but I don’t generally engage with people who describe my input as “risible and snippy”
I’m more interested in what the effects on the polls will be when proper debate is joined, instead of all the politicking. Hopefully I’ll get more out of that than out of reading your remarks
I think it is worth noting that a state must not merely keep its citizens safe but it must do so morally, if a state keeps its citizens safe through means which are immoral (and many will argue that detention without trial is exactly that, consider Guantanamo)then that state traditionally loses its right to exist. This is the classical position which many people (such as myself) agree with.
‘42 days’ is an example of a police state as any detention without trial is axiomatically wrong… Every time one of my traditional and hard won liberties is removed the more I consider that we are becoming that to which we object… And, as said above
‘ID Cards, DNA datbases, CCTV, ending jury trials, RIPA, what DD called the ‘database society’
are but further examples of the creeping police state. If we ‘win’ by losing our liberty then we have not ‘won’ at all. We will have become the’enemy’.
john tt v Simon Cooke
Of course we need a range of checks and balances in a democratic society and I think, for instance, that the requirement in the 42 days bill that the police must get the permission of a judge to go over 28 days and renew that permission every week is an example of the sort of the safeguards that already exist. We also need to give the authorities every reasonable tool in the fight against crime and terrorism. Quite a few murders (including old ones) have been solved by DNA evidence bringing closure to families and lots of criminals are brought to book through CCTV evidence. It’s all very well taking a sort of ‘total civil libertarian’ approach to these matters but anyone who personally suffers from crime, has a member of their family is murdered or blown up in a terrorism attack wants justice and expects governments to create conditions which are as favourable as possible to the achievement of that justice.
Jack – Guantanamo is not being proposed here. Ironically, the USA is among the countries whose freedom is hailed because they have a two-day period.
The specifics of this case (I don’t know enough to argue about the others in that list) involve political over-sight, and judicial review at every stage. Guantanamo did not. The 42 days’ is not intended (at this stage!!!!) to be used for more than extremely rare cases.
Whilst I agree with the general thrust that freedom should be protected, I’m not sure it’s right to describe the authorities as the enemy. The act can be struck out if/when the threat recedes.
I suspect its main purpose is to send a message to any new detainee “Don’t think you only have to sit there for a couple of weeks”.
I still haven’t heard where it would leave our freedom if we had a two-day limit and a “post-charge interrogation” regime.
Browns mistake was not realising that weak governments can’t push the boundaries or rather not realising that as he weakened he had to back down or face defeat/humiliation.
Gordon Brown should take a lead form Alex Salmond and act for a while like a minority government focusing on the non contentious. having said that given the economic slow down, falling house prices and rising inflation I think the time for that might be gone.
Peter.
I’m not sure this is really about civil libertarian absolutism. It is however about the relationship between government and the governed and that is what is being pushed aside in favour of process arguments.
The problem is that despite these new intrusions there hasn’t really been any drop in crime or in people’s fear of crime. Nor does it appear necessary to further extend powers in respect of terrorism – previous changes have, if anything, been negative.
Finally, it does appear that the westminster village and its outriders don’t get this – because the idea of a politician resigning on principle simply doesn’t register with all the apperachiks. It does resonate with the public – I think it will prove good for the Tories
“It does resonate with the public – I think it will prove good for the Tories”
Well I certainly hope you are right simon-but am by no means certain.
Why not resign over the loss of “freedom” in EU-creep? The Lisbon Treaty debate was a travesty-providing all the amunition for a “principled stand” .
DD had better have something very convincing to say on a front far wider than “the 42 days” or this is going to look very strange.
We will see how this plays out -at present I see no Poll upside for Cons in this.
But if the Press tease out any hint of a tiff between DC & DD as the reason, then I can see only downside for Cons.
All this could be the case but it’s going OK so far!
Another theory is that DD wants to make sure his position on the civil liberties issue becomes mainstream Tory policy – this, I think, will succeed.
In a way I admire David Davis for his stand here but I get the impression that his colleagues are scratching their heads a bit over a decision which makes me wonder how reliable a cabinet minister he will be should he still get to be one. He could become a loose cannon rather like Michael Heseltine over Westland.I hope not for Davis is -whether you agree with him or not-clearly an able man and the Palace of Westminster is not exactly overflowing with them.
A debate on the question of civil liberties is to be welcomed but like I suspect much of the public I am not sure where the balance should be struck. The natural instinct is to want to give the authorities every weapon they need to fight terrorism and therefore I tend to start from a presumption in favour of ID cards and the like
But I still expect the government to make a good case-and they have failed to do so. Now let them do so.
If the government and police could be trusted to apply this law with common sense – i.e. apply it to people who are suspected of genuine (in the eyes of the proverbial man-in-the-street) terrorism – it wouldn’t be such a problem.
The public seem to have short memories. Only a couple of years ago a woman tried to read out the names of the dead soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan at the Cenotaph, and was descended on by armed police under some law or other. Under the new law she could be locked up for 42 days without trial.
I doubt if 69% of the public would be in favour of that.
antoney wells,
any idea why my comment was removed?
as it was very non partizan
Getting back to the polls, I don’t imagine the government victory will help very much. It’s not as if suddenly everything is going well again. It just means people will get locked up for 42 without trial instead of 28. Next time this government berates the leaders of China or Zimbabwe about human rights I’ll be wondering if we ought to be worrying about them here first.
Well, let me make it clear I entirely support what Davis is doing. I think he manifestly has vastly more to lose than gain, and I really think all this speculation that he is trying to upset the Cameron applecart is entirely illogical. If that were true, why on earth doe he not wait till Cameron becomes unpopular before making such a move, rather than when he is 20 points ahead in the polls?
However, in a strategic sense, this course of action is entriely dependent on capturing the public immaginination, and on getting a good press. And the press is not going to be good. From a survery of all the main papers, all the main broadsheets seem to imply he is crazy (including the telegraph), the Sun SAYS he is crazy, the Mail seems mildly negative running a good-old ‘tories in turmoil headline’, and I could not penetrate deeply enoguh past the big brother and the football on the mirror website to find what they think, although I doubt it would be terribly supportive. The sole champion of Davis is the Independent, which goes out on its own limb, as ever. It’s frontpage has a taboideeque huge picture of Davis with the headline ‘The Freedom Fighter’.
He has got one fan at least, but the otherwise unifromly hostile reaction of the press tend to suggest this was an ill concieved move from a strategic point of view. I got the impression journalists were unsure which side to come down on throughout the day, but they have decided to opt for the negative, celebrity punch-up Cameron vs. Davis take.
Are the Greens going to stand against him?
There’s no reason why Davis’s opponents have to fight on the issue of 42 days. If neither the Liberals nor Labour stand this might be their best ever chance of getting a member of parliament. With the support of Labour voters, Liberal voters and any Tories who are upset with Davis they must at least have a chance. Maybe?
Do
At least we’ll have a bit of a refresher on the Magna Carta.
This reminds me of the US Constitutional right to bear arms.
When that was enshrined as a fundament of Liberty, did they have in mind to-day’s 80 rounds per second weapons, or were they only thinking of the prevailing weapons, most of which couldn’t even kill at twenty paces?
Did the jolly old knights who stood up to King John have to-day’s problems in mind? Or would they have baulked at the idea that the hard won freedom should be enjoyed by people whose beliefs drive them to plot the murder of the entire non-muslim population of the world?
Of course they are innocent until proven guilty, but the old saying that “it is better for ten guilty men to walk free than one innocent man to be jailed” loses a little validity for me when the ten free are acquiring the capability to wipe out thousands of lives at a time.
That’s the argument that the voters will tussle with, not some strange notion that it’s not worth trying, because they’ll get us anyway.
Any chance of a snap poll in one of the Sundays? 2 days to do the fieldwork (today and tomorrow)
[...] option and the one favoured in this blog is that Davis is just an idiot. His cause is not only unpopular but does not at all chime with the core Conservative support. Those traditional working class [...]
Labour voters would do well not to clutch at too many straws here. Once the press lose interest in speculating why Davis did it then they will focus on the by election campaign and the unique single issue that lies behind it.
And we still wait to hear what the DUP were promised in return for their support. Strange is’nt it that the Unionists always appear with hands outstretched the moment they sense that a government is in a tailspin. As Shirley Williams said last night on Question Time they are the funeral undertakers of British politics and indeed when dressed up in their Orange Order finery that is exactly what they look like. And dead creepy too.
Will any of this extraordinary affair affect the result of the Henley by election? I doubt it. People there will vote on the usual bread and butter issues.Plus la change…
Nick – The NI peace process was aided hugely by the fact that Blair didn’t need to rely on the unionist MPs in the same way that Major did, but I can’t see too many occasions like this in the next two years.
The most worrying thing for Brown since October has been the lack of “traction”. He could solve the Middle East, find bin Laden and Lord Lucan, and it wouldn’t make any difference to the tailspin.
What this does is offer a gust of wind where there would have been none otherwise. A gulp of air, and for that Brown will be grateful.
What the DUP would like is the maintenance of grammar schools in Northern Ireland and a ban on new Irish language schools.
I like the idea of a Green candidate. After all it’s not for Mr Davis to decide on what issue this will be fought. It will give voters a chance to test the Vote Blue, Go Green branding exercise.
Well the SNP aren’t standing, so maybe the Tories can hold it. Seriously though as well as the greens this might be an opportunity for one of the English Parliament groups to make an stand.
Come on Fluffy, cometh the hour cometh the man….
Peter.
Peter – the English Democrats have apparently ruled out standing, as Mr Davis supports an English parliament
Nothing to do with this but the Irish have voted NO!!
Paul D
Fluffy should shake off the shackles and go for it. That’s what Thatcher did in Finchley, after years in the wilderness.
‘Jack – Guantanamo is not being proposed here. Ironically, the USA is among the countries whose freedom is hailed because they have a two-day period.’
My point being that it’s a slippery slope; 42 days now, 90 days next year, Guantanamo after that. Yes, the USA has 2 days for this issue , but also they happily hold people without any rights (but long live the Supreme Court, even when stacked it upheld a view separate from the President (Pakistan should learn…)
Glad to see someone making a public stand to defend our disappearing freedoms – only time will tell if David Davis will come out of this with egg on his face / but everyone likes a trier.
There’s nothing wrong with keeping this archaic bit of legislation kept in the media eye for a while – I don’t think it matters at all whether there is competition for David Davis in the by-election , he will still get his point across on the day.
Ah, you missed me!
I thought of giving June a miss. A sort of rehab after the manic May I had. But, as you request, I am back with my own views on events.
Why should the EDP stand. We support England’s historic rights. Good luck to David Davies, and £25 is on his way to support his campaign.
As for Labour…. How can they let the mask fall? The 42-day campaign is being run and financed by Rupert Murdoch. And here was me thinking Labour was run by the unions.
[Of course, as I pointed out on Guido's blog, foreign funding of such a campaign is illegal. Crick Jr must have read my comment, as he has posted the same thing on the BBC.
]
PS. Anthony, I’ll try to curtail my antics from now on! It has seemed have been reflected in some recent response on this site.
Fluffy,
It’s not so much that we missed you as with a looney tunes by-election being called our thoughts immediately turned to you…….
Peter.
Peter,
Trust a Scotsman to treat an election related to Magna Carta as looney tunes. Pfft!
Fluffy Thoughts (E.D.P.)
I certainly haven’t missed you as I don’t really think this blog should be any sort of medium for wind-up merchants and I would of course include ‘the Oracle’ in this category. As a Labour supporter I’m always happy to take serious comments by thoughtful people of other persuasions at face value and I’m perfectly happy with the odd rant if it’s witty and entertaining–unfortunately you and ‘the Oracle’ certainly don’t come up to scratch on those fronts.
David, looking at what our dear friend fluffy has to say above, the comments seem thoughtful if a little inclined to the conspiracy theorist’s perspective. Certainly they don’t warrant your rather superior remarks. What qualification do you have to define who is thoughtful and what is serious? As to the oracle – such folk are needed to leaven out the pomposity of the rest of us. Sometimes a little OTT but mostly provoking of response and argument which is what we want here.
Incidently the foeign funding issue mentioned by fluffy is significant – and hasn’t bene raised in the context of a Sun candidate (or even Kelvin and Ruoert’s vicar on earth). As I recall Australians with US citizenship living in Los Angeles are not allowed to fund UK political parties’ election campaigns.
simon cooke
Well, I might have been a little OTT but I hold to my point that the sort of comments made by Fluffy and ‘the Oracle’ are much improved by a bit of wit and perhaps they could help me out there?
Anyone who thinks this by election is about defending the Magna Carta should join John Major and his warm women playing cricket on a bike brigade.
Between Magna Carta and the twentieth century we had precious little democracy including slavery and every other king bumping off his brother/sister/wife (delete where applicable) at every opportunity. Hell it’s less than 100 years since we had equal suffrage and a century before that only the landed could vote.
Truth is for the vast bulk of the time since the eleventh century the Magna Carta hasn’t been worth the the parchment it was scribed on.
What invoking it does is appeal to peoples sense of their cultural superiority and by and large the public love it. We tend to like to be told that we are something special. That’s why politicians are always talking about decent hard working families and the decent fair minded British public, we tend to just lap that stuff up.
My own party and country tend to do the same thing about the declaration of Arbroath, all countries tend to like to think of themselves as different.
Habius Corpus is important by unfortunately I think this by election is going to be dominated by a lot of mock Churchillian posturing like an episode of Yes Minister.
Peter.
Why should the hard-pressed British tax-payer have to find up to £100,000 to finance a totally unnecessary by-election in order to give a rejected leadership candidate an egotistical outing? It is instructive that his much wiser and more discerning leader moved so swiftly to dismiss him permanently from his exalted position in the Shadow Cabinet. With regard to the exaggerated worshippings of Magna Carta, Peter Cairns, canny Scotsman, is indubitably right.
So far as I am aware David Davis hasn’t mentioned Magna Carta.
What he said was :-
“I will argue in this by-election against the slow strangulation of fundamental British freedoms by this government,”
This has to do with Habeas Corpus, but not Magna Carta.
Views about the wisdom of DD’s actions run the gamut of opinions, but apart from the official Labour line ( a stunt)there seems to be a wide acceptance of his sincerity on the point.
He may indeed finish up debating with himself-or a number of assorted nut-cases, but I think David Davis does feel Habeas Corpus is “important” (sic !), and he would be the last person to employ “mock posturing.”-he doesn’t do either.
I only wish he had waited for the final outcome to the potentially doomed 42 days.
He could by now have been laying into the undemocratic farce that EU political integration has become.Plenty of “slow strangulation of fundamental freedoms” to expose there.
What Davis has shown clearly is what a lucky escape the Tories had when they picked Cameron. Whether you agree with the by-election or not it’s clear that the people who have responded most favourably to it are those to the right in politics and particularly euro sceptic Tory voters.
Cameron has moved the Tories in to poll position by moving to and attracting centre voters and it looks like those people would see a Davis would probably like Howard, IDS and Hague just not appeal to them.
Like those since Major a Davis lead Tory party would still be lagging behind.
Peter.
“it’s clear that the people who have responded most favourably to it are those to the right in politics and particularly euro sceptic Tory voters.”
What is the evidence for this asertion?
Your reading of British Public Opinion Polls on EU is not the same as mine!
“Euroscepticism” as you put it is very much centre stage. Enough of power transfer to Brussels-more democracy & accountability is not a “right wing” position at all-unless of course you see the status quo in Brussels-more transfer of power, more integration, less democracy-as “left wing”-in which case I suppose you are right.
I never believed the media portrayal of DD as “right wing”-his background tells his story-he was always a man of the people in my book.
But you are correct about the Tories choosing the right leader.Cameron is a collegiate team player.
DD -very sadly-is not , as is now so painfully evident.
Colin,
Portraying the current EU treaty as “More power to Brussels” is exactly how the right see it, and it’s not about that at all. the vast majority of the treaty is an exercise in streamlining a n administration that can only move at the speed of the slowest.
For those of us who are pro European this is about effective government. It is only people on the right who do the “wake up Britain” bit and claim that this is a threat.
I remember about six or more years ago speaking in a Euro debate at the SNP conference where I advocated That Scotland no have it’s own EU commissioner because what we didn’t want was a commission with limo for every nation as the EU expanded but rather as few Limos as possible or only as many as was needed.
I lost ( and badly) because the argument that one was ” if they have a commissioner we should have one too” and ” Our commissioner will do deal s to get us what we want”.
I remember in my summing up ( which I lost) saying that that was an argument for good governance but one for institutionalised corruption.
I am strongly pro Europe and want this treaty but because it streamlines what we need to do and are already doing, I don’t se it as a loss of sovereignty and to be honest think that those that do are close to paranoid.
Like 42 days detention it says more about the lack of confidence and fear of the unknown that seems to grip us than anything else.
Peter.
“I don’t se it as a loss of sovereignty and to be honest think that those that do are close to paranoid.”
Noted.
The Brussels elite will no doubt attempt to ensure that the paranoid electorate of Europe have as little say as possible in it’s governance.
Commentary on reasons for the Irish “No” vote highlights fear of loss of influence for small countries as a result of the change from a revolving to a permanent Presidency.
This view is shared by the Czech President.It will be interesting to see what the Czech Republic, and other countries yet to ratify, now do.
Vaclav Klaus said:-
“The result is hopefully a clear message to everybody. It is a victory of freedom and reason over artificial elitist projects and European bureaucracy.”
No doubt the bureaucrats have already stamped “Paranoid” across his file.
David,
As the purpose of this blog is focused upon polls and the underlying reasons upon them, I intend to try to keep my slightly irreverent responses within the guidelines as defined by Anthony. [When I stray, I stop commenting. See above.] Your partisanship is hardly any better then my lunacy.
Sir, you have from the very first attacked me and not my comments, yet have not tried to understand who, what or why I am. Instead you have name-called and preached to my peasant views. I can only put this down to the relaxed way Anthony manages this blog – very well in my view – as opposed to the other blogs I visit; Guido’s, PB.com, Iain Dale, and Boulton’s.
I understand it is difficult for someone of your views to be treated with anything but derision on the internet, which is why I have read your views but have only replied to your abuse. [Your comments are self replying.] Please use your obvious intellect to make similar judgments before posting.
Finally, how is your search for a new supreme leader going…? Does the short-list include Peter Robinson M.P.?
Peter,
No, this is nothing to do with Magna Carta per se.
It’s about limiting the scope of the state. As a Millsian [sp?] liberal the actions of this government turn my stomach.
What you may see as show-boating by David Davies is seen by many, including Labour’s Tony Robinson and Tony Benn, as a noble fight against a foreign threat to English liberty. I have also seen GIN trying to get someone to confirm whether or not 42-days applies to Scotland.
One plausible reply to this question has been that the senior law-officer has said that the law exists in Scotland, but will not be implemented. Is this correct and, if so, is it not strange that Scottish and Irish MPs have been bought in order to subject the English people to such a hideous law?
As for David Davies failed leadership being a boon for the Tories I disagree with your analysis, but the overall conclusion may be correct. That defeat made me become an English Democrat!
John C,
£100,000 to hold a bye-election? The figures I have seen suggest it will cost £75,000. But then what is £25,000 to an MP? [Answer: Little more then there second-home allowance.]
Taking your figure, £100,000 equates to 33-1/3 days illegal detention under the 42-day law. That itself equates to just over two innocent people being illegally detained without charge for 42-days. In my book that is a bigger affront to the English tax-payer citizen-subject then any stunt by the Honourable rebel MP.
Simon Cooke,
Cheers mate. However I don’t do conspiracy theories, at least not conscientiously…!
I do tend to approach topics from an informed, if left-field [?!] manner.
—–….
Geesh, that must be the longest post I have ever submitted on here. Unfortunately their are a lot of questions I like to ask on this site, not least because there are a number of good posters here whose views I respect. However that is not the type of debate Anthony encourages, so I have to watch my P’s & Q’s.
Those of you who have no interest in my views, please skip my comments. However admit to your egos that not everyone sees the world through you immensely perceptive minds.
Peter, do you have your own website where I can discuss our two nations futures with you? As a proper politico you seem to have your head pretty well screwed on. Well, apart from Europe that is…!
Colin – David Davies did mention that this week is the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta.
I think its importance is unfairly dismissed. When looking back at historic events it’s important to see what went before those events.
Was Magna Carta something of progress?
If we simply look backwards, we end up looking down our noses at the past.
Having said that, I think it’s time for a modern bill of rights that takes account of to-day’s conditions.
I hope the Labour Party puts some-one up and stands on a ticket for a Bill of Rights, rather than simply the 42-days issue.
john-yes he said that this morning on Marr’s programme.
My seperation of Magna Carta & Habeas Corpus was a bit flimsy anyway!
I agree with your other comments.
DD was fascinating on TV this morning-he sounded utterly convincing-until you contemplate what he has thrown away personaly.
He is either:-
*The only truly principled MP at Westminster.
*Covering up an deep disagreement/hurt with DC
*Off his trolley.
But he seems to be lining up lots of interesting people for his big debate-can’t see any opposition yet though.
Given that the “dithering” epithet has tended toi stick to Brown, I’m dis-appointed he seems to be waiting to test the wind before deciding whether to contest or not.
I’d have thought any chance to debate in public would be seized on by Labour at the moment.
Colin – I reckon people think he’s aff his trolley, and like him all the more for it.
He’s got spirit. Like Thatcher. (And Fluffy)
Not that I agree with any of them.
John tt,
How do I add you to my Christmas card list…?
Cheers bud!
If there is sufficient evidence to lock someone up for 42 days then there must be something there that they can be charged with, if this is not the case then it is in breach of our hard won freedom and an insult to the thousands of soldiers who have died to uphold this freedom. But if there is evidence of a crime ( and maybe new laws are needed) then they could be charged on that and given whatever sentence is relevant, although the law lords would probably oppose anything to safeguard the public, IE not allowing people to remain anonymous to give evidence, who in there right mind is now going to come forward to testify if they are in fear of there life?