David Davis resigns as MP over civil liberties

[exosculate]

No one who understands what a Constitution actually is could rationally take that position.

Especially on a thread discussing changes to the constitution

They could and I do, and I believe myself to be rational.

This thread is about a change in the law.

 

[Threshers_Flail]

Surprised to hear this from the Conservatives tho. Maybe he should join the Liberals, the Tories won't even promise to repeal the 42 days if they get in...

Not really. He voted for the Iraq War, against equal Homosexual rights, the right for homosexuals and unmarried couples to adopt children, a reduction in the period allowed for an abortion. In some instances he appears liberal, but in others he is more like Ann Widdecombe.

 

[butchersapron]

David Davies? Patrician? Really?

He was Shadow Home sec - yeah he's patrician now.

 

[Gmart]

I understand perfectly well thank you, and I am saying it is not a proper constitution. Pretty simple to understand I would have thought.

Too right it's not a proper constitution, we fell for the dodgy story that it is 'unwritten', which means that they can do what they like!!

Still at least we don't get the chance to complain about the constitution not being strong enough or even being totally ignored, which is how the rest of the world is.

Labour promised a proper written one ages ago, but if they had one, it would have to have habeas corpus, and so wouldn't allow the 42 days law.

We need a written constitution which actually effectively protects the population, without being able to be avoided by the encumbants.

Great move by DD, btw.

 

[butchersapron]

Oh FFS.

 

[cesare]

Oh FFS.

I pictured you saying that then

 

[Gmart]

Maybe the erosion of our rights will become more of an issue now...

 

[untethered]

David Davies? Patrician? Really?

A nouveau patrician, perhaps.

Mr Davis famously was brought up on a council estate and went to a comprehensive school, neither of which stopped him making a mint in industry and serving in the TA SAS.

 

[butchersapron]

I pictured you saying that then

I doubt it was just me this time

 

[untethered]

In some instances he appears liberal, but in others he is more like Ann Widdecombe.

Ms Widdecombe was the only Tory to vote with the government last night.

Never trust a former shadow home secretary.

 

[cesare]

I doubt it was just me this time

It was a case of would it be words, or a facepalm pic

 

[Brainaddict]

It's not based on trust. That's a total misunderstanding of what 'it' is.

Some of it is. Some of it isn't. Legislation can be made without going through parliament, using Orders -which just get signed off by the Queen. Orders are not meant to be used for significant legislation but sometimes they are. This one gives the government the right to freeze the assets of a suspected terrorist, without the need to present evidence to the suspect, or even tell them what they are charged with, and banning them from talking to the press about it:
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/SI/si2006/20062952.htm
That shouldn't happen. We're meant to trust the government not to use Orders in that way. Which is always a mistake.

 

[Stoat Boy]

It would be interesting to see if any of the Labour MP's who rebelled against the Government might be tempted to do similar. Especially one with a similar safe seat.

Now that would take some courage.

 

[butchersapron]

Some of it is. Some of it isn't. Legislation can be made without going through parliament, using Orders -which just get signed off by the Queen. Orders are not meant to be used for significant legislation but sometimes they are. This one gives the government the right to freeze the assets of a suspected terrorist, without the need to present evidence to the suspect, or even tell them what they are charged with, and banning them from talking to the press about it:
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/SI/si2006/20062952.htm
That shouldn't happen. We're meant to trust the government not to use Orders in that way. Which is always a mistake.

And the exact same happens in the US via exceutive orders. Trust is neither here nor there. It dosn't enter into it really.

 

[exosculate]

Too right it's not a proper constitution, we fell for the dodgy story that it is 'unwritten', which means that they can do what they like!!

Still at least we don't get the chance to complain about the constitution not being strong enough or even being totally ignored, which is how the rest of the world is.

Labour promised a proper written one ages ago, but if they had one, it would have to have habeas corpus, and so wouldn't allow the 42 days law.

We need a written constitution which actually effectively protects the population, without being able to be avoided by the encumbants.

Great move by DD, btw.

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.

 

[Stoat Boy]

What do you lefties make of the decision by the Speaker of the House to not all Davies to make his announcement to the Commons ? I know that there have been accusations that he is too partizan in how he conducts himself but do you think this might be the case here as well ? Or is it completely within how things are meant to be done ?

 

[butchersapron]

And exo?

What does the constitutional history of the us in the last 7 years tell you?

 

[exosculate]

What do you lefties make of the decision by the Speaker of the House to not all Davies to make his announcement to the Commons ? I know that there have been accusations that he is too partizan in how he conducts himself but do you think this might be the case here as well ? Or is it completely within how things are meant to be done ?

Its part of the unwritten constitution.

 

[King Biscuit Time]

Want

http://www.zazzle.com/magna_carta_r_i_p_shirt-235066075444625492

 

[exosculate]

And exo?

What does the constitutional history of the us in the last 7 years tell you?

That true power is unelected and well beyond and out of reach of silly pieces of paper like constitutions.

 

[magneze]

A better way than a tory patrican resigning his seat in order to further his parties interest and using the issue as his cover and conning a load of people into the bargain. Gosh i can't think of a single thing that would be better than that! As someone whose been involved in civil liberties campaigning of one sort or another for a long time i think this approach undermines any sort of independent defence of civil liberties. It effectively abdicates responsibility to politicians and officials, thereby cutting out the real-life networks that were built up in things like the poll tax that gave those campaigns their real power. Forget DD. Don't base anything on a tory tactial manouvere.

So, you couldn't think of a single thing which would have hauled the issue back onto the news agenda like this has. Fair enough ... I struggled too.

 

[Brainaddict]

And the exact same happens in the US via exceutive orders. Trust is neither here nor there. It dosn't enter into it really.

If you say so.

What is the best type of consitution in your opinion? Within the limits of a borjwah 'democratic' state that is?

 

[untethered]

Some of it is. Some of it isn't. Legislation can be made without going through parliament, using Orders -which just get signed off by the Queen. Orders are not meant to be used for significant legislation but sometimes they are.

What you're talking about is either orders in council which exercise the royal prerogative, or statutory instruments, where regulations are made within the framework of an existing statute that explicitly provides for that possibility.

In both cases the constitutional and legal position is entirely clear. In the former case, an order may be challenged via judicial review as ultra vires. In the latter, it may be reviewed by Parliament or by the courts.

Either way, this is still limited and constitutional government.

 

[butchersapron]

That true power is unelected and well beyond and out of reach of silly pieces of paper like constitutions.

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

 

[Stoat Boy]

Its part of the unwritten constitution.

Surely you mean uncodified ?

 

[Belushi]

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

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

 

[Brainaddict]

What you're talking about is either orders in council which exercise the royal prerogative, or statutory instruments, where regulations are made within the framework of an existing statute that explicitly provides for that possibility.

In both cases the constitutional and legal position is entirely clear. In the former case, an order may be challenged via judicial review as ultra vires. In the latter, it may be reviewed by Parliament or by the courts.

Either way, this is still limited and constitutional government.

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.

 

[exosculate]

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

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.

 

[butchersapron]

If you say so.

What is the best type of consitution in your opinion? Within the limits of a borjwah 'democratic' state that is?

Do i look like Aristotle? There's a thread in my arguments that you may be able to pick up that argues that power relations are far more improtant than constitutions and that the latter flows from or entrenches the former - the paradigm example being the famous written and codified US constitution we should all be copying as well as drinking outside cafes with our kids and going out at 11 o' clock at night for a meal.

 

[exosculate]

Surely you mean uncodified ?

Partially unwritten, totally not codified!