NationStates Jolt Archive

Source (http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4422086.stm#)


Prime Minister Tony Blair has lost the key House of Commons vote on plans to allow police to hold terror suspects without charge for up to 90 days.

MPs rejected the proposals by 322 votes to 291. They are now voting on whether to accept a compromise detention limit.

The defeat came despite Mr Blair saying MPs had a "duty" to give police the powers they needed to tackle terrorism.

The vote - the government's first Commons defeat - will be seen as a blow to the prime minister's authority.

But it does not mean he will have to stand down as prime minister - something he has said he will do before the next election.

'No police state'

The Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and some Labour backbenchers said the 90-day plans went too far.

Civil liberties groups compared the proposal to internment - a charge rejected by ministers.

In his final plea for MPs to back the plans, Mr Blair urged MPs to take the advice of the police who had foiled two terrorist plots since the 7 July attacks in London.

In heated exchanges at prime minister's questions, Mr Blair said: "We are not living in a police state but we are living in a country that faces a real and serious threat of terrorism."

Ministers tried to reassure waverers by promising that the new laws would expire unless MPs renewed them in a year's time.

Conservative leader Michael Howard warned that the detention plans could alienate ethnic minority communities.

Shuttle diplomacy?

Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy said the measure would almost certainly be defeated in the House of Lords, where two ex-law lords had called it "intolerable".

The prime minister admitted he could lose the vote but argued: "Sometimes it is better to lose and do the right thing than to win and do the wrong thing."

In a sign of the importance given to the vote, Chancellor Gordon Brown was called back within minutes of arriving in Israel for a high profile visit.

And Foreign Secretary Jack Straw also flew back early from EU-Russia talks in Moscow.

MPs will now vote on whether to accept a compromise detention time limit of 60 days or 28 days.


Good.

Good.
Indeed. I was rather worried that MPs were going to vote this through - maybe Blair will now realise the sooner he leaves the better.

Source (http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4422086.stm#)

Good.

They can already detain you for two weeks without charge.

What's to stop them from re-detaining you the moment you're released?

Conservative leader Michael Howard warned that the detention plans could alienate ethnic minority communities.

ha ha ha ha aha ahahahahahahahaha !!!

oh the irony ...

They can already detain you for two weeks without charge.

What's to stop them from re-detaining you the moment you're released?
Hmmmm...good question....IS there anything that would prevent this?

Glad to see this Bill fail. Was hoping for a trouncing though. 322 to 291 doesn't say "blow to government's authority", it says "pothole in the road to Nineteen Eighty-Four".

Problem is now that if something does happen again (even unrelated) Blair can point and go "SEE. I told you it would happen. You should have listened to me" thereby gaining an unnerving amount of support the next time something is tried.

I hope the British intelligence services are good enough to stop anything happening again... without bungling it the Menezes incident.

They can already detain you for two weeks without charge.

What's to stop them from re-detaining you the moment you're released?
I think they need fresh evidence to detain you again. Don't quote me on that though.

Good.
Just about sums it up.

I can understand why the government would like to lock up anyone it considers a "terrorist" for three months whilst it hastily fabricates some evidence, though.

I think they need fresh evidence to detain you again. Don't quote me on that though.

No, you're right. Unless they come up with new evidence they cannot re detain somone... which is fair enough really. Unlike the US (post Patriot Act), in Britain I still believe that "beyond all reasonable doubt" and "probable cause" still apply (or their versions of it anyway)

I think they need fresh evidence to detain you again. Don't quote me on that though.

I thought the Special Branch just waved their hands in the air, and did one of those Harry Potteresque incantations...

I thought the Special Branch just waved their hands in the air, and did one of those Harry Potteresque incantations...

They can give it a shot if they like. And then get hammered by the Court of Appeal.

Indeed. I was rather worried that MPs were going to vote this through - maybe Blair will now realise the sooner he leaves the better.

meh, i'm not looking forward to it, then we'll have a brown government, and then tax rates could well hit 50%...

Wow. For the first time in all these years that Blair's been in power, Labout MPs have grew a spine. I'm actually impressed!

An update: MPs backed 28 days' detention (up from the current 14) by 323 to 290.

An update: MPs backed 28 days' detention (up from the current 14) by 323 to 290.

So, a compromise?

So, a compromise?
Sure thing. It was the one Blair wanted least, though (there were also options for 42 and 60 days). The Conservative and Liberal Democrats officially supported an increase from 14 to 28.

Personally, I am a little disappointed that parliament could not dispense with their pre-occupation with human rights in precedence to security, since we need considerably more stringent security laws at present, however, as a devoted Tory, I absolutely love it:)

...and the semi-trailer has now officially cleared the pothole on the road to 1984.

Personally, I am a little disappointed that parliament could not dispense with their pre-occupation with human rights in precedence to security, since we need considerably more stringent security laws at present, however, as a devoted Tory, I absolutely love it:)
What is it Ben Franklin said? "He who sacrafices liberty for security deserves neither"?

What is it Ben Franklin said? "He who sacrafices liberty for security deserves neither"?

Loses both and deserves neither?

I think that would be more appropriate anyway, that's why I was with the Liberal Democrats.

As a former loyal Labour party supporter these draconian measures were the straw that broke the camels back for me and I'm more than delighted that they've been thrown out. Listening to Blair whingeing afterwards about 'selfish' MP's might have resonated a bit more with me if it weren't for three words: "Iraq" and "De Menezes". I'm not 100% happy with 28 days and frankly would prefer 14, but as a lesser of several evils, it was just about good enough for me.

And now, to save comprehensive education from the hands of Opus Dei (I mean Ruth Kelly :rolleyes: ).

Personally, I am a little disappointed that parliament could not dispense with their pre-occupation with human rights in precedence to security, since we need considerably more stringent security laws at present, however, as a devoted Tory, I absolutely love it:)

Poor Tony, sure didn't internment work before?:rolleyes:

Personally, I am a little disappointed that parliament could not dispense with their pre-occupation with human rights in precedence to security, since we need considerably more stringent security laws at present, however, as a devoted Tory, I absolutely love it:)
Aha, many people would foolishly point out that no amount of 'security' can prevent any and all possible acts of terrorism, however they have failed to properly reason the matter through.

We all know that terrorists hate the 'free world' for our freedoms. Whether or not turning the 'free world' into a police state can actually lead to the detection of all and any terrorists and the prevention of their terrorist acts isnt relevent. Anyone with any sense can see that since the terrorists grudge is with 'liberty' and 'freedom' by getting rid of 'liberty' and 'freedom' we remove the reasons for attacking in the first place.

Why anyone wouldnt want to live in a police state to avoid less deaths per year (in fact per decade) in Britain than car accidents cause in a year, I cant even begin to imagine. Clearly such people have no sense of perspective.