David Davis resigns as MP over civil liberties

[Louis MacNeice]

Quite

Constitutions are designed to set out the rules and regulations within which governments operate.

They establish the composition, powers and functions of the institutions of the state, regulate the relations between these institutions, and enshrine the legal rights and duties of the citizenry.

An important distinction can be drawn between codified and uncodified constitutions.

Codified constitutions are largely written, centred around a single document incorporating key constitutional provisions that are binding on all political institutions.

They are usually 'entrenched', enjoying the protection of a higher or supreme court, and can only be repealed or amended by special provisions, beyond the ordinary legislative process.

Examples of codified constitutions include the American Constitution of 1878, or the German Basic Law of 1949. Indeed, most constitutions are written and codified.

The United Kingdom is rare among liberal democracies in not having a codified constitution of this kind.

The article you are quoting from (entitled The UK Constitution) unsurprisingly refers to the UK constitution; at no point does it say we don't have one or that we have an improper one.
Rather the author, Nicola McEwen Lecturer in Politics at the University of Edinburgh, states that 'the UK constitution is often described as an 'unwritten constitution', but it is best described as 'partly written and wholly uncodified' (Budge et al, 1998).'

You can see what I'm getting at can't you?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

 

[butchersapron]

Because in the UK context I would rather have a fully written constitution, as I think it is useful at the lower levels of the power structure, for the benefit of ordinary people in a manner of speaking.

a) as suggested earlier, the US example seems to blow this argument out of the water
b) custimary or convential 'laws' can and have proved better safeguards than formal top-down law.

 

[untethered]

Orders in Council is what I meant. I don't think it's a very meaningful constitution that enables an abusive law to be passed without going through parliament, but then says 'Okay, after this law has made your life a living hell for, say, six months you might have enough evidence to challenge it in court'.

If you think that's enough protection, fine. I beg to differ.

Ultra vires is a matter of law, not of practice. Judicial review can take place at any time with respect to the parent legislation, even if the measure hasn't been used.

 

[exosculate]

The article you are quoting from (entitled The UK Constitution) unsurprisingly refers to the UK constitution; at no point does it say we don't have one or that we have an improper one.
Rather the author, Nicola McEwen Lecturer in Politics at the University of Edinburgh, states that 'the UK constitution is often described as an 'unwritten constitution', but it is best described as 'partly written and wholly uncodified' (Budge et al, 1998).'

You can see what I'm getting at can't you?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

Yes I do, but to me uncodified means not proper, I should have made that more clear.

Also to re-emphasise I am saying not a proper constitution

 

[Stoat Boy]

Partially unwritten, totally not codified!

Aint playing on this one. I am sure Idi Amins Uganda had a very nice written constitution so it means bugger all.

But I am still interested in why the speaker would not allow Davies to announce his resignation in the HoC. It strikes me that it would be the logical place for a MP to declare his resignation in.

 

[Gmart]

So why get so het up about constitutions when the fact of being codified or not appears to make zero difference?

Doesn't make NO difference, with a written constitution lots of laws such as the Criminal Justice Act and Public Order Acts would have had to have been adjusted to adhere to the constitution, as happens in the other countries.

It makes it more difficult for the government to abuse the people with bad laws.

And if we had one the legal sector would contract over night while many issues would be solved overnight. (We have one of the biggest due to this).

that would upset the lawyers etc.

But apart from that....

 

[exosculate]

a) as suggested earlier, the US example seems to blow this argument out of the water
b) custimary or convential 'laws' can and have proved better safeguards than formal top-down law.

a) I think UK and US are different
b) Probably true.

Must go out now, perhaps this should all be on a separate thread, its quite interesting.

I am being a bit devils advocado here to be fair, though not totally.

 

[Belushi]

Yes I do, but to me uncodified means not proper, I should have made that more clear.

Also to re-emphasise I am saying not a proper constitution

wriggle wriggle wriggle

 

[exosculate]

wriggle wriggle wriggle

advocados to you to.

 

[Stoat Boy]

Gotta love the BBC.

The spin they are putting on it is of it being a Tory split rather than anything to do with Labour. LOL. The Tories votes against the bill and one of their number has been so incensed by the passing of the bill that he resigns and wants to fight a by-election over it. And thats a split ?

What do Labour have over the BBC that is so terrible ?

 

[untethered]

Interestingly,

Foreign suspects held in Guantanamo Bay have the right to challenge their detention in US civilian courts, the US Supreme Court has ruled.

It overturned by five to four a ruling that upheld a 2006 law that took away the rights of suspects to seek full judicial review of their detention.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7451139.stm

 

[Wilf]

Yes I do, but to me uncodified means not proper, I should have made that more clear.

Also to re-emphasise I am saying not a proper constitution

CUNT!

[we've got proper FAQs on here about abuse - all written down, proper and nice. Did it stop me swearing at you? Eh?]

 

[cesare]

CUNT!

[we've got proper FAQs on here about abuse - all written down, proper and nice. Did it stop me swearing at you? Eh?]

Swearing isn't against the FAQs

 

[butchersapron]

Did anyone notice J Freedland shutting about the US constitution and why we must adopt most of it soon after the patriot act?

 

[Brainaddict]

Gotta love the BBC.

The spin they are putting on it is of it being a Tory split rather than anything to do with Labour. LOL. The Tories votes against the bill and one of their number has been so incensed by the passing of the bill that he resigns and wants to fight a by-election over it. And thats a split ?

What do Labour have over the BBC that is so terrible ?

I have to say the BBC analysis here is not what I expected to see:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7450983.stm
It seems naive apart from anything else. They are dubbing it a 'high risk' strategy

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Because its not a real one because its different to the one on American TV shows dammit

Instead of making fatuous comments like that, why not engage with the substantive points made by me and others?

For what it is worth, I largely agree that a constitution is no guarantee of rights, but the US, where the constitution in fact works rather well, is a poor example of this. South American republics are a much better example - beautifully phrased constitutions that are ignored pretty much totally by those in power.

 

[Wilf]

Swearing isn't against the FAQs

Ah, right, must be something in the Human Rights Act. Whatever it is, it ceratinly washes my mouth out with carbolic.

 

[magneze]

Interesting to see the reactions of some of the Labour rebels and other parties. If a cross-party pro-civil liberties consensus comes out of this that would be positive.

 

[London_Calling]

Just saw Nick Robinson's piece to camera on the BBC web site - once again, they've got entirely the wrong angle on the story. Totally 'Westminster Village' guff and not a clue about how important this issue is in the country.

I do hope this snowballs.

 

[dirtyfruit]

I still don't trust ANY of them

 

[marty21]

didn't see the robinson thing - but at the moment, it is westminster village stuff - MPs love this sorta thing - being interviewed outside the house - speculating - gossiping -

 

[cockneyrebel]

KBJ must be in his element with this one. Another chance to shout out to vote for the Tories.

I agree with butchers, I can't believe that so many people on here are being taken in by this.

It's very clever (and very cynical), but the Tories are no friend of either civil liberties or the working class.

I mean where would people draw the line? Would the BNP suddenly become more appealing if they put civil liberties high up the agenda?

 

[Gmart]

I still don't trust ANY of them

Just ignore them, maybe they'll go away

 

[butchersapron]

Just saw Nick Robinson's piece to camera on the BBC web site - once again, they've got entirely the wrong angle on the story. Totally 'Westminster Village' guff and not a clue about how important this issue is in the country.

I do hope this snowballs.

Eat the apple L_C. Eat it.

 

[cockneyrebel]

Yeah eat the fucking apple.

 

[Hocus Eye.]

Gotta love the BBC.

The spin they are putting on it is of it being a Tory split rather than anything to do with Labour. LOL. The Tories votes against the bill and one of their number has been so incensed by the passing of the bill that he resigns and wants to fight a by-election over it. And thats a split ?

What do Labour have over the BBC that is so terrible ?

Gordon Brown has his foot on the breathing tube of the BBC that is to say the Licence fee.

To some extent it is a partial Tory split or rather a bit of a power struggle at the top. The Tory MPs and party members are probably as bemused about it as the rest of us. Davis is manoeuvring to get into a stronger position than Cameron with his eye on the big prize if Cameron falters before the General Election.

I hope that someone puts themselves up to pick up the few Labour votes that are to be had in Davis's constituency. It needs to be an Independent Labour candidate sailing under the flag of 'Old Labour' or 'Real Labour' so as to distinguish themselves from New Labour. Any Labour votes in such a right-wing constituency must be the real thing.

The candidate should fight on a single issue of Stop the privatisation of the Welfare state, concentrating on the NHS and education and debunking the PFI schemes . They could pick up on any local stories that are related to this - there will be some. The independent Labour candidate will also be able to agree with Davis on the 42 day issue but use the election for there own propaganda.

This will of course split the Labour vote, but it does not matter, Davis will win in any case, but it will embarrass New Labour on a second issue, that of PFI which is just getting noticed, several years on, by the public and even some of the media to a lesser extent.

 

[Belushi]

Instead of making fatuous comments like that, why not engage with the substantive points made by me and others?

What substantive points? all I've seen are ludicrous claims that the UK doesnt have a constitution and then some belated attempts to save face when confronted by the evidence that we do, in fact have a constitution

 

[butchersapron]

To some extent it is a partial Tory split or rather a bit of a power struggle at the top. The Tory MPs and party members are probably as bemused about it as the rest of us. Davis is manoeuvring to get into a stronger position than Cameron with his eye on the big prize if Cameron falters before the General Election.

Not really they're happily lining up to support him. He's not in any real snse the man coming, he's 59 for gods sake, he's not stupid. There's no split -and why should there be over such a win-win ploy?

 

[Brainaddict]

For all these claims that the majority of the British public supported 42 days, I see the comments on the beeb's notoriously right wing Have Your Say are pretty evenly split. If anything leaning towards agreement with DD.

 

[Hocus Eye.]

Not really they're happily lining up to support him. He's not in any real snse the man coming, he's 59 for gods sake, he's not stupid. There's no split -and way should there be over such win-win ploy?

I don't think that Davis's age is a factor. At 65 or so at the time of the next election he would be well within the age range for UK Prime Ministers or even just senior ministers for the 20th Century. It is only the young upstart Blair who started the recent fashion for young politicians.