@DavidL Depends on how the public take to the idea? Farage might get a chance to stick his oar in, to his advantage.
Oh it is by no means a sure fire public success. After the last governments' ever more repressive provisions which had people arrested for having maps of London and the like there is deep and legitimate suspicion of such legislation.
But an argument that national security is bluntly none of the EUCJ's business and that Parliament remains supreme in that area might go down well with some of the UKIP supporters.
As a Lib Dem who joined the party over civil liberty commitments, I'm appalled by what I'm hearing we're signing up to tonight. Nick Clegg is in such a weak position as leader he must be at risk of losing the party if he's really signing up to full security services access to phone messages.
"The company generates no revenue, corporate filings show, and will likely need years to do so if it manages to survive that long. It had no cash on hand at the end of 2010, either, and it managed to raise a mere $250,000 through a private placement deal earlier this year. But thanks to a $3.3 millionpublicity campaign – possibly record-breaking in price – LEXG has skyrocketed from 12 cents to almost $4 a share in barely a month and now boasts a market value that’s approaching $200 million."
Lithium exploration group, went from 0.1$ to 10.57$ per share in 6 weeks in 2011, today its 0.0425$ per share.
@DavidL Evil EU defending a right to privacy that our government wants to remove? I am not sure how well that will play with UKIP voters, but there are a few on the site who might enlighten us.
As a Lib Dem who joined the party over civil liberty commitments, I'm appalled by what I'm hearing we're signing up to tonight. Nick Clegg is in such a weak position as leader he must be at risk of losing the party if he's really signing up to full security services access to phone messages.
We'll have to wait and see what they're proposing to be sure, but the obvious solution would be a new leader. IIUC the process is that you get constituency parties to sign up for a motion now, then have the vote at the conference in early October?
@DavidL Evil EU defending a right to privacy that our government wants to remove? I am not sure how well that will play with UKIP voters, but there are a few on the site who might enlighten us.
If you ignore the EU angle (after all its just a government excuse) then UKIP can do as it pleases with this issue.
As a Lib Dem who joined the party over civil liberty commitments, I'm appalled by what I'm hearing we're signing up to tonight. Nick Clegg is in such a weak position as leader he must be at risk of losing the party if he's really signing up to full security services access to phone messages.
It is ironic that Coulson is in Clink having tapped phones for the interest of the public; the week before his old boss proposes to parliament that he taps phones in the public interest!
Perhaps Coulson should go job hunting in Cheltenham when he is paroled...
@DavidL Evil EU defending a right to privacy that our government wants to remove? I am not sure how well that will play with UKIP voters, but there are a few on the site who might enlighten us.
@DavidL Evil EU defending a right to privacy that our government wants to remove? I am not sure how well that will play with UKIP voters, but there are a few on the site who might enlighten us.
Viva Junckers! Saviour of the traditional British values of privacy...
As a Lib Dem who joined the party over civil liberty commitments, I'm appalled by what I'm hearing we're signing up to tonight. Nick Clegg is in such a weak position as leader he must be at risk of losing the party if he's really signing up to full security services access to phone messages.
We'll have to wait and see what they're proposing to be sure, but the obvious solution would be a new leader. IIUC the process is that you get constituency parties to sign up for a motion now, then have the vote at the conference in early October?
The rules say 75 local parties have to vote for a leadership election, but it's an impossible bar in practice. Many members have tried it recently, and achieved 3 votes. I think a front-bench resignation would be necessary and sufficient however, what is striking has been the total absence of dissent within the parliamentary party, Oakeshott aside. If any Lib Dem minister wants to make a name for themselves (and probably pitch for the leadership) this may be the moment - although I can't detect anyone on manoeuvres.
If there was a leadership election, it's a postal ballot of all members, so I don't think the Federal Conference would have a formal role. Of course if there was an ongoing contest, I'm sure all candidates would be given a chance to pitch.
As a Lib Dem who joined the party over civil liberty commitments, I'm appalled by what I'm hearing we're signing up to tonight. Nick Clegg is in such a weak position as leader he must be at risk of losing the party if he's really signing up to full security services access to phone messages.
It is ironic that Coulson is in Clink having tapped phones for the interest of the public; the week before his old boss proposes to parliament that he taps phones in the public interest!
Perhaps Coulson should go job hunting in Cheltenham when he is paroled...
As usual people on here going into much, much more detail than the public will.
If the PM goes on TV and says there is a serious terrorist threat then 90% of the public will go along with WHATEVER he says - unless it has a direct personal impact on their everyday lives - and this doesn't.
Miliband HAS to support this - if he didn't and he got painted as "weak on terrorism" then he would lose the GE on the spot - Foot style - wipeout.
Hence Miliband will support it and it will go through.
@edmundintokyo That would be the main problem, the government can't be seen to be using "tricks" to push the bill through, just after setting up an inquiry into dodgy dealings.
@DavidL Evil EU defending a right to privacy that our government wants to remove? I am not sure how well that will play with UKIP voters, but there are a few on the site who might enlighten us.
If you ignore the EU angle (after all its just a government excuse) then UKIP can do as it pleases with this issue.
They should use the EU angle. This is the government trying to restore its ability to follow an EU directive that was found illegal by the EU's own court. At the same time, despite making all this noise about repatriating powers, the UK is trying to opt in to other measures to [sinister foreign thing, the details of which I haven't followed but may actually be genuinely sinister].
@DavidL Evil EU defending a right to privacy that our government wants to remove? I am not sure how well that will play with UKIP voters, but there are a few on the site who might enlighten us.
As a Lib Dem who joined the party over civil liberty commitments, I'm appalled by what I'm hearing we're signing up to tonight. Nick Clegg is in such a weak position as leader he must be at risk of losing the party if he's really signing up to full security services access to phone messages.
How can you be appalled by something about which you know virtually nothing?
It's a genuine question. I never ceased to be amazed by the extent to which people jump to judgement.
In this particular case, we have little clue what is proposed. We have absolutely zero clue as to the evidence which, if the reports are true, has persuaded Theresa May, David Cameron, Ed Miliband, and Nick Clegg - none of whom are careless of civil liberties - that whatever measure is proposed is necessary.
Wouldn't it be better to wait for further info on both aspects before being 'appalled', especially since one thing we do know is that governments all over the Western world are suddenly becoming seriously worried about some new threat'?
@edmundintokyo That would be the main problem, the government can't be seen to be using "tricks" to push the bill through, just after setting up an inquiry into dodgy dealings.
Presumably the Labour leadership have already agreed to vote for it?
As a Lib Dem who joined the party over civil liberty commitments, I'm appalled by what I'm hearing we're signing up to tonight. Nick Clegg is in such a weak position as leader he must be at risk of losing the party if he's really signing up to full security services access to phone messages.
How can you be appalled by something about which you know virtually nothing?
It's a genuine question. I never ceased to be amazed by the extent to which people jump to judgement.
In this particular case, we have little clue what is proposed. We have absolutely zero clue as to the evidence which, if the reports are true, has persuaded Theresa May, David Cameron, Ed Miliband, and Nick Clegg - none of whom are careless of civil liberties - that whatever measure is proposed is necessary.
Wouldn't it be better to wait for further info on both aspects before being 'appalled', especially since one thing we do know is that governments all over the Western world are suddenly becoming seriously worried about some new threat'?
Yup, for all we know it could be something useful like a bill to require ISPs to retain important government files on everything from pedophile investigations to torture, which would be a great help as the government isn't very good at looking after its own files.
@edmundintokyo If they have, and without some pretty good caveats, then there might be some of those liberals they gained defecting somewhere else. Greens perhaps?
@edmundintokyo If they have, and without some pretty good caveats, then there might be some of those liberals they gained defecting somewhere else. Greens perhaps?
That's the liberals who selflessly don't mind being blown up, and especially don't mind other people being blown up, right?
It's certainly a respectable view, held by some people. Just not very many.
As a Lib Dem who joined the party over civil liberty commitments, I'm appalled by what I'm hearing we're signing up to tonight. Nick Clegg is in such a weak position as leader he must be at risk of losing the party if he's really signing up to full security services access to phone messages.
How can you be appalled by something about which you know virtually nothing?
It's a genuine question. I never ceased to be amazed by the extent to which people jump to judgement.
In this particular case, we have little clue what is proposed. We have absolutely zero clue as to the evidence which, if the reports are true, has persuaded Theresa May, David Cameron, Ed Miliband, and Nick Clegg - none of whom are careless of civil liberties - that whatever measure is proposed is necessary.
Wouldn't it be better to wait for further info on both aspects before being 'appalled', especially since one thing we do know is that governments all over the Western world are suddenly becoming seriously worried about some new threat'?
Possibly people are sceptical because they've heard this before - Iraqi WMDs - and they think that this will turn out to be the same hooey and/or overreaction and that governments are using every excuse to increase their power over us at the expense of our freedoms.
I do not , for instance, share your faith that Theresa May , David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Ed Milliband are not careless of civil liberties. Look at their records.
@Richard_Nabavi At a guess, I would assume ISIS taking control of the chemical facilities in Iraq, and having with them someone from the Saddam era that might know where some nasty stuff that the inspectors missed is to be found? (can't remember the name of the guy, but he was fairly high up) It wouldn't take a lot of sarin to wipe out the passengers on an airliner given the recirculation system.
As a Lib Dem who joined the party over civil liberty commitments, I'm appalled by what I'm hearing we're signing up to tonight. Nick Clegg is in such a weak position as leader he must be at risk of losing the party if he's really signing up to full security services access to phone messages.
How can you be appalled by something about which you know virtually nothing?
It's a genuine question. I never ceased to be amazed by the extent to which people jump to judgement.
In this particular case, we have little clue what is proposed. We have absolutely zero clue as to the evidence which, if the reports are true, has persuaded Theresa May, David Cameron, Ed Miliband, and Nick Clegg - none of whom are careless of civil liberties - that whatever measure is proposed is necessary.
Wouldn't it be better to wait for further info on both aspects before being 'appalled', especially since one thing we do know is that governments all over the Western world are suddenly becoming seriously worried about some new threat'?
2 separate issues Richard: firstly what evidence there is behind this, secondly the response proposed. I've not made any judgement about what's prompted this. How can I? if it is the political class saying "If you've seen what I've seen..." then the shadow of Iraq will loom large.
All I, you, or anyone else outside the cabinet office has to go on is what the Sun is saying, and if the response is to allow security service unlimited access as suggested, then I don't believe Government has any right to go there. I'm as keen as anyone to hear from my party leader who's seen the evidence what he's proposing, what he's agreed to, and why - but it hardly seems unreasonable to flag up that this may be a big deal.
I have every confidence that, if that was the problem, they'd be relying on the painfully slow turning of the wheels of justice to ensure that nothing actually needed to be changed for years.
However, having re-read Tom Watson's post, I'm inclined to the view that it's a fuss about nothing. Surely it would be a three-line whip if there were anything substantial.
I do not , for instance, share your faith that Theresa May , David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Ed Milliband are not careless of civil liberties. Look at their records.
Yes, I do look at their records. That's why I say it. We are not talking Brown or Blair.
Governments are always worried about threats, but the response of curbing liberties surely can't be the only way?
I have no idea. What idea do you have?
Something seems to have given them the willies. I don't know what.
If the government is planning to introduce emergency legislation with cross-party support to combat a current threat then the powers sought will almost certainly be temporary.
This would allow an immediate response to the threat and full scrutiny and a subsequent vote by parliament as well as wide debate in public before any such powers became permanent.
The best course of action for us all is to wait to see what is being proposed and then comment on the basis of fact.
@Richard_Nabavi At a guess, I would assume ISIS taking control of the chemical facilities in Iraq, and having with them someone from the Saddam era that might know where some nasty stuff that the inspectors missed is to be found? (can't remember the name of the guy, but he was fairly high up) It wouldn't take a lot of sarin to wipe out the passengers on an airliner given the recirculation system.
That's a very scary thought. And of course not just airliners: any air-conditioning system or closed space where there are lots of people.
@Richard_Nabavi At a guess, I would assume ISIS taking control of the chemical facilities in Iraq, and having with them someone from the Saddam era that might know where some nasty stuff that the inspectors missed is to be found? (can't remember the name of the guy, but he was fairly high up) It wouldn't take a lot of sarin to wipe out the passengers on an airliner given the recirculation system.
That's a very scary thought. And of course not just airliners: any air-conditioning system or closed space where there are lots of people.
I do wish TimT were still posing here regularly.
It would be interesting to hear his expert views on the extent of the threat from this 'chemical facility' in Iraq.
"Research suggests average wages in Britain have fallen more than official figures suggest due to shift to self employment"..... ......"She said: "What we know about earnings is central to our understanding of the recovery and the timing of interest rate rises so it's crucial that we equip ourselves with the best possible wage measure." More than 700,000 people have declared themselves self-employed since 2008, bringing the total number of people who work for themselves to 4.5 million or one in seven of the total.
Over the same period only 260,000 workers have been added to the ranks of the employed on a net basis, said the report."
How can you be appalled by something about which you know virtually nothing?
It's a genuine question. I never ceased to be amazed by the extent to which people jump to judgement.
In this particular case, we have little clue what is proposed. We have absolutely zero clue as to the evidence which, if the reports are true, has persuaded Theresa May, David Cameron, Ed Miliband, and Nick Clegg - none of whom are careless of civil liberties - that whatever measure is proposed is necessary.
Wouldn't it be better to wait for further info on both aspects before being 'appalled', especially since one thing we do know is that governments all over the Western world are suddenly becoming seriously worried about some new threat'?
It is really very simple. The government has ample and excessive powers to deal with what it describes as "terrorism". Every conceivable "terrorist" action is unlawful and punishable by severe penalties. No further derogations from the liberty of the subject can be justified. It looks as if the government are proposing to restrict the liberty of the subject even further. Ergo the legislation should be opposed.
I have every confidence that, if that was the problem, they'd be relying on the painfully slow turning of the wheels of justice to ensure that nothing actually needed to be changed for years.
However, having re-read Tom Watson's post, I'm inclined to the view that it's a fuss about nothing. Surely it would be a three-line whip if there were anything substantial.
Not sure about that. Parliament doesn't rise till the end of next week. Tom is saying that the announcement will be made on a day when not that many MPs are around, but not that the legislation itself won't be taken through on Tuesday on a 3-line whip.
If the speculation mounts over the next few days, I think one can assume that lots of MPs will in fact turn up on Monday. Constituents may or may not accept that whatever it is has been put forward on a solid basis, but they're very unlikely to accept MPs saying "oh well, I'd planned a long weekend so i didn't go to ask details".
Of course, access to chemicals does not a viable weapon make, but?
"He informed Ban that Iraq is unable to “fulfill its obligations to destroy chemical weapons” because of the deteriorating security conditions. In his letter, Alhakim cautioned that the seizure included bunkers 13 and 41 at the complex. UN weapons inspectors reported in 2004 that Bunker 13 housed 2,500 sarin-filled chemical rockets and about 180 tons of sodium cyanide, “a very toxic chemical and precursor for the warfare agent tabun.”
@Richard_Nabavi At a guess, I would assume ISIS taking control of the chemical facilities in Iraq, and having with them someone from the Saddam era that might know where some nasty stuff that the inspectors missed is to be found? (can't remember the name of the guy, but he was fairly high up) It wouldn't take a lot of sarin to wipe out the passengers on an airliner given the recirculation system.
That's a very scary thought. And of course not just airliners: any air-conditioning system or closed space where there are lots of people.
You don't need an Iraqi chemical facility for that, sarin can be made by regular Japanese crazy people with no special equipment.
Governments are always worried about threats, but the response of curbing liberties surely can't be the only way?
I have no idea. What idea do you have?
Something seems to have given them the willies. I don't know what.
If the government is planning to introduce emergency legislation with cross-party support to combat a current threat then the powers sought will almost certainly be temporary.
@edmundintokyo Most of the chemical agents are not overly difficult to create if you have the personnel, the precursors, and some equipment. Has ISIS got those? I would guess they can't be far off having the complete set by now.
Governments are always worried about threats, but the response of curbing liberties surely can't be the only way?
I have no idea. What idea do you have?
Something seems to have given them the willies. I don't know what.
If the government is planning to introduce emergency legislation with cross-party support to combat a current threat then the powers sought will almost certainly be temporary.
Wasn't income tax supposed to be temporary?
Yes. But I guess subsequent decisions to increase and extend it received full parliamentary scrutiny.
Governments are always worried about threats, but the response of curbing liberties surely can't be the only way?
I have no idea. What idea do you have?
Something seems to have given them the willies. I don't know what.
If the government is planning to introduce emergency legislation with cross-party support to combat a current threat then the powers sought will almost certainly be temporary.
Wasn't income tax supposed to be temporary?
Yes. But I guess subsequent decisions to increase and extend it received full parliamentary scrutiny.
That's the critical issue here.
And the scrutiny to whatever wish list has been dusted down this time will amount to the square root of sod all. Cameron and Clegg et al will prove to be no more worthy of defending our civil liberties than Blair and Straw etc. They have all been utterly house trained by the civil service.
Yes. But I guess subsequent decisions to increase and extend it received full parliamentary scrutiny.
That's the critical issue here.
Income tax can only be charged in a financial year pursuant to the Finance Act or a resolution having effect under the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968. The terrorism legislation, which it was once claimed would be temporary, is now unfortunately a permanent part of the law of the land. If only we had a government that had the intellectual courage to be "soft on terrorism".
The thing is this is generally an issue on which Lib Dems would probably see Nick Clegg as pretty sound. There may be some who think he's a closet Tory, rather loftily removed from the electorate and with a whiff of establishment about him but I'd suspect few would question his commitment to civil liberties.
Governments are always worried about threats, but the response of curbing liberties surely can't be the only way?
I have no idea. What idea do you have?
Something seems to have given them the willies. I don't know what.
If the government is planning to introduce emergency legislation with cross-party support to combat a current threat then the powers sought will almost certainly be temporary.
Wasn't income tax supposed to be temporary?
"I love democracy. I love the Republic. Once this crisis has abated, I will lay down the powers you have given me!"
The thing is this is generally an issue on which Lib Dems would probably see Nick Clegg as pretty sound. There may be some who think he's a closet Tory, rather loftily removed from the electorate and with a whiff of establishment about him but I'd suspect few would question his commitment to civil liberties.
Anyone who voted for the Justice and Security Act 2013 and the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 cannot be said to be committed to civil liberties. When you add in Clegg's fanatical support for the European Arrest Warrant, it is perfectly clear that he belongs in the authoritarian mainstream of British politics.
I see Newsnight has offered an unreserved apology to former MP Allan Rogers after inaccurate comments about him were made by Neil Hamilton. Hamilton accused him of 'outrageous behaviour' or some such. Just tried to check the programme online but it's not available (quelle surprise). Hamilton thought he was referring to someone who was dead. Mr Rogers is very much alive and we can assume has access to lawyers.
Governments are always worried about threats, but the response of curbing liberties surely can't be the only way?
I have no idea. What idea do you have?
Something seems to have given them the willies. I don't know what.
If the government is planning to introduce emergency legislation with cross-party support to combat a current threat then the powers sought will almost certainly be temporary.
Wasn't income tax supposed to be temporary?
Yes. But I guess subsequent decisions to increase and extend it received full parliamentary scrutiny.
That's the critical issue here.
And the scrutiny to whatever wish list has been dusted down this time will amount to the square root of sod all. Cameron and Clegg et al will prove to be no more worthy of defending our civil liberties than Blair and Straw etc. They have all been utterly house trained by the civil service.
The right balance between security and liberty is never easy to decide. It is also not a constant and will vary in accordance with current threats.
Emergency powers to restrict civil liberties have been sought before in times of heightened threat: for example in wartime. Threats today have increased from terrorism and we therefore need to reconsider this balance and the strategies deployed to defend public safety.
This undoubtedly involves difficult judgements to be made and I expect significant public debate and political scrutiny of the issues. You only need to read Nick Palmer's comment downthread to see how seriously he expects MPs to respond to the tasks and responsibility of scrutiny.
I do not , for instance, share your faith that Theresa May , David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Ed Milliband are not careless of civil liberties. Look at their records.
Yes, I do look at their records. That's why I say it. We are not talking Brown or Blair.
My own opinion is increasingly that there are a lot of mad people who post on blogs and are determined to not let facts interfere with the comfort of their own fantasies and prejudices.
Yes. But I guess subsequent decisions to increase and extend it received full parliamentary scrutiny.
That's the critical issue here.
Income tax can only be charged in a financial year pursuant to the Finance Act or a resolution having effect under the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968. The terrorism legislation, which it was once claimed would be temporary, is now unfortunately a permanent part of the law of the land. If only we had a government that had the intellectual courage to be "soft on terrorism".
We need intellectual courage and capability to strike the right balance.
@Richard_Nabavi At a guess, I would assume ISIS taking control of the chemical facilities in Iraq, and having with them someone from the Saddam era that might know where some nasty stuff that the inspectors missed is to be found? (can't remember the name of the guy, but he was fairly high up) It wouldn't take a lot of sarin to wipe out the passengers on an airliner given the recirculation system.
Chemical facilities in Iraq? What chemical facilities? We were told there were none. Are you talking about Iran? This would be the Iran the labour party did not want to bomb. Tghis will be the Iran where all the Iraqi chemicals probably ended up.
What concerns me is that the restriction on these new powers is apparently that they'll only be used for 'counter terrorism and serious crime'. Exactly what is serious crime? And presumably it means spying on anyone who might commit a 'serious' crime. That could be a lot of people.
Governments are always worried about threats, but the response of curbing liberties surely can't be the only way?
I have no idea. What idea do you have?
Something seems to have given them the willies. I don't know what.
If the government is planning to introduce emergency legislation with cross-party support to combat a current threat then the powers sought will almost certainly be temporary.
Wasn't income tax supposed to be temporary?
Yes. But I guess subsequent decisions to increase and extend it received full parliamentary scrutiny.
That's the critical issue here.
And the scrutiny to whatever wish list has been dusted down this time will amount to the square root of sod all. Cameron and Clegg et al will prove to be no more worthy of defending our civil liberties than Blair and Straw etc. They have all been utterly house trained by the civil service.
The right balance between security and liberty is never easy to decide. It is also not a constant and will vary in accordance with current threats.
Emergency powers to restrict civil liberties have been sought before in times of heightened threat: for example in wartime. Threats today have increased from terrorism and we therefore need to reconsider this balance and the strategies deployed to defend public safety.
This undoubtedly involves difficult judgements to be made and I expect significant public debate and political scrutiny of the issues. You only need to read Nick Palmer's comment downthread to see how seriously he expects MPs to respond to the tasks and responsibility of scrutiny.
Most MP's motivation will be to do as their whips tell them to. Ministers concern will be to not get labelled as soft on terrorism so will go along with whatever their officials advise. And then more documents from Ed Snowden will reveal that it has already been going on for some time. It's all a circus.
What concerns me is that the restriction on these new powers is apparently that they'll only be used for 'counter terrorism and serious crime'. Exactly what is serious crime? And presumably it means spying on anyone who might commit a 'serious' crime. That could be a lot of people.
Would that be the sort of serious crime that RIPA was intended for? Dog fouling and school catchment areas etc.
@AveryLP All this stuff about the "balance" between liberty and security is sophistical casuistry designed to restrict the liberty of the subject and enhance the powers of the executive. The test for emergency powers should be (as that noble Lord, Baron Hoffmann argued, dissenting, in A and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department) [2004] UKHL 56 at [95]-[97]) whether there is a threat to the life of the nation.
[T]he question is whether such a threat is a threat to the life of the nation. The Attorney General’s submissions and the judgment of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission treated a threat of serious physical damage and loss of life as necessarily involving a threat to the life of the nation. But in my opinion this shows a misunderstanding of what is meant by “threatening the life of the nation”. Of course the government has a duty to protect the lives and property of its citizens. But that is a duty which it owes all the time and which it must discharge without destroying our constitutional freedoms. There may be some nations too fragile or fissiparous to withstand a serious act of violence. But that is not the case in the United Kingdom. When Milton urged the government of his day not to censor the press even in time of civil war, he said:
“Lords and Commons of England, consider what nation it is whereof ye are, and whereof ye are the governours”.
This is a nation which has been tested in adversity, which has survived physical destruction and catastrophic loss of life. I do not underestimate the ability of fanatical groups of terrorists to kill and destroy, but they do not threaten the life of the nation. Whether we would survive Hitler hung in the balance, but there is no doubt that we shall survive Al-Qaeda. The Spanish people have not said that what happened in Madrid, hideous crime as it was, threatened the life of their nation. Their legendary pride would not allow it. Terrorist violence, serious as it is, does not threaten our institutions of government or our existence as a civil community. For these reasons I think that the Special Immigration Appeals Commission made an error of law and that the appeal ought to be allowed.
I remember being told once of how the top civil servants were in certain depts chosen on their chess playing skills.. I bet they are a lot better than our politicians...
I remember being told once of how the top civil servants were in certain depts chosen on their chess playing skills.. I bet they are a lot better than our politicians...
Also the people who want more power have a lot of leverage over the politicians, starting with access to their browsing histories.
Governments are always worried about threats, but the response of curbing liberties surely can't be the only way?
I have no idea. What idea do you have?
Something seems to have given them the willies. I don't know what.
If the government is planning to introduce emergency legislation with cross-party support to combat a current threat then the powers sought will almost certainly be temporary.
Wasn't income tax supposed to be temporary?
"I love democracy. I love the Republic. Once this crisis has abated, I will lay down the powers you have given me!"
- Emperor Palpatine while still Chancellor
You'd have thought that they would have been sensible enough to add a sunset clause to that particular legislation!
Comments
But an argument that national security is bluntly none of the EUCJ's business and that Parliament remains supreme in that area might go down well with some of the UKIP supporters.
http://www.thestreetsweeper.org/undersurveillance/LEXG__The_Biggest_Snow_Job_of_the_Year_
"The company generates no revenue, corporate filings show, and will likely need years to do so if it manages to survive that long. It had no cash on hand at the end of 2010, either, and it managed to raise a mere $250,000 through a private placement deal earlier this year. But thanks to a $3.3 millionpublicity campaign – possibly record-breaking in price – LEXG has skyrocketed from 12 cents to almost $4 a share in barely a month and now boasts a market value that’s approaching $200 million."
Lithium exploration group, went from 0.1$ to 10.57$ per share in 6 weeks in 2011, today its 0.0425$ per share.
What goes up goes down.
Evil EU defending a right to privacy that our government wants to remove?
I am not sure how well that will play with UKIP voters, but there are a few on the site who might enlighten us.
Perhaps Coulson should go job hunting in Cheltenham when he is paroled...
The point is that UKIP suporters might not like the EU, but they might not like Cameron's plan either?
If there was a leadership election, it's a postal ballot of all members, so I don't think the Federal Conference would have a formal role. Of course if there was an ongoing contest, I'm sure all candidates would be given a chance to pitch.
As for Coulson, I thought that was a non-story?
Just stop the Romanians coming will be their response.
If the PM goes on TV and says there is a serious terrorist threat then 90% of the public will go along with WHATEVER he says - unless it has a direct personal impact on their everyday lives - and this doesn't.
Miliband HAS to support this - if he didn't and he got painted as "weak on terrorism" then he would lose the GE on the spot - Foot style - wipeout.
Hence Miliband will support it and it will go through.
https://medium.com/@tom_watson/22c3136de17c
That would be the main problem, the government can't be seen to be using "tricks" to push the bill through, just after setting up an inquiry into dodgy dealings.
It's a genuine question. I never ceased to be amazed by the extent to which people jump to judgement.
In this particular case, we have little clue what is proposed. We have absolutely zero clue as to the evidence which, if the reports are true, has persuaded Theresa May, David Cameron, Ed Miliband, and Nick Clegg - none of whom are careless of civil liberties - that whatever measure is proposed is necessary.
Wouldn't it be better to wait for further info on both aspects before being 'appalled', especially since one thing we do know is that governments all over the Western world are suddenly becoming seriously worried about some new threat'?
Governments are always worried about threats, but the response of curbing liberties surely can't be the only way?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-28230970
Something seems to have given them the willies. I don't know what.
If they have, and without some pretty good caveats, then there might be some of those liberals they gained defecting somewhere else. Greens perhaps?
It's certainly a respectable view, held by some people. Just not very many.
I do not , for instance, share your faith that Theresa May , David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Ed Milliband are not careless of civil liberties. Look at their records.
At a guess, I would assume ISIS taking control of the chemical facilities in Iraq, and having with them someone from the Saddam era that might know where some nasty stuff that the inspectors missed is to be found? (can't remember the name of the guy, but he was fairly high up)
It wouldn't take a lot of sarin to wipe out the passengers on an airliner given the recirculation system.
All I, you, or anyone else outside the cabinet office has to go on is what the Sun is saying, and if the response is to allow security service unlimited access as suggested, then I don't believe Government has any right to go there. I'm as keen as anyone to hear from my party leader who's seen the evidence what he's proposing, what he's agreed to, and why - but it hardly seems unreasonable to flag up that this may be a big deal.
- Benjamin Franklin, 1755
However, having re-read Tom Watson's post, I'm inclined to the view that it's a fuss about nothing. Surely it would be a three-line whip if there were anything substantial.
This would allow an immediate response to the threat and full scrutiny and a subsequent vote by parliament as well as wide debate in public before any such powers became permanent.
The best course of action for us all is to wait to see what is being proposed and then comment on the basis of fact.
It would be interesting to hear his expert views on the extent of the threat from this 'chemical facility' in Iraq.
COME BACK TIMT!
"Research suggests average wages in Britain have fallen more than official figures suggest due to shift to self employment".....
......"She said: "What we know about earnings is central to our understanding of the recovery and the timing of interest rate rises so it's crucial that we equip ourselves with the best possible wage measure." More than 700,000 people have declared themselves self-employed since 2008, bringing the total number of people who work for themselves to 4.5 million or one in seven of the total.
Over the same period only 260,000 workers have been added to the ranks of the employed on a net basis, said the report."
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/jul/09/average-wages-fallen-further-britain-thinktank-claims
Something's afoot. And it ain't pleasant
If the speculation mounts over the next few days, I think one can assume that lots of MPs will in fact turn up on Monday. Constituents may or may not accept that whatever it is has been put forward on a solid basis, but they're very unlikely to accept MPs saying "oh well, I'd planned a long weekend so i didn't go to ask details".
"He informed Ban that Iraq is unable to “fulfill its obligations to destroy chemical weapons” because of the deteriorating security conditions.
In his letter, Alhakim cautioned that the seizure included bunkers 13 and 41 at the complex.
UN weapons inspectors reported in 2004 that Bunker 13 housed 2,500 sarin-filled chemical rockets and about 180 tons of sodium cyanide, “a very toxic chemical and precursor for the warfare agent tabun.”
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/isis-seizes-chemical-weapons-depot-baghdad-sarin-gas-rockets-article-1.1859934
Most of the chemical agents are not overly difficult to create if you have the personnel, the precursors, and some equipment.
Has ISIS got those? I would guess they can't be far off having the complete set by now.
That's the critical issue here.
Cameron and Clegg et al will prove to be no more worthy of defending our civil liberties than Blair and Straw etc.
They have all been utterly house trained by the civil service.
- Emperor Palpatine while still Chancellor
Emergency powers to restrict civil liberties have been sought before in times of heightened threat: for example in wartime. Threats today have increased from terrorism and we therefore need to reconsider this balance and the strategies deployed to defend public safety.
This undoubtedly involves difficult judgements to be made and I expect significant public debate and political scrutiny of the issues. You only need to read Nick Palmer's comment downthread to see how seriously he expects MPs to respond to the tasks and responsibility of scrutiny.
Ministers concern will be to not get labelled as soft on terrorism so will go along with whatever their officials advise.
And then more documents from Ed Snowden will reveal that it has already been going on for some time.
It's all a circus.
Not unless there is a Baghdad in Iran, and the papers have got confused.
"ISIS seizes chemical weapons depot near Baghdad, may have access to deadly sarin gas rockets"
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/isis-seizes-chemical-weapons-depot-baghdad-sarin-gas-rockets-article-1.1859934
Dog fouling and school catchment areas etc.
All this stuff about the "balance" between liberty and security is sophistical casuistry designed to restrict the liberty of the subject and enhance the powers of the executive. The test for emergency powers should be (as that noble Lord, Baron Hoffmann argued, dissenting, in A and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department) [2004] UKHL 56 at [95]-[97]) whether there is a threat to the life of the nation.
The man is the largest nought on the planet....
I bet they are a lot better than our politicians...