Lisbon Treaty debate: Lib Dems flounce out

February 26 2008

The interminable and frustrating debate on the Lisbon was livened up this afternoon by a major spat between the Liberal Democrats and the Deputy Speaker, Sir Michael Lord. Ed Davey was unhappy I think that a Lib Dem amendment hadn’t been selected by the speaker; he tried making a point of order, was ruled against – but kept pressing the point, with the support of colleagues such as Simon Hughes. In the end the Deputy Speaker ran out of patience and suspended Ed Davey from the House for the day – whereupon the Lib Dems, apart from Jo Swinson and a chap I don’t recognise, collectively upped and left the chamber.

All good fun.

2008-02-26T18:02:00+00:00Tags: , |

Security versus freedom: cheering Aaronovitch, quibbling with Pannick

February 26 2008

Regular readers will know I quite often disagree with with what David Pannick writes in the Times; I also find myself often agreeing with David Aaronovitch who writes in the same paper. Well, this week my reactions are more or less as per usual.

First, David Aaronovitch on a national DNA database. It’s not so much that I agree with him that there should be a comprehensive national DNA database – I don’t. I’m happy with the current messy compromise, under which those arrested by the police are swabbed and their DNA kept, so that slowly but surely, and in highly practical way so far as the police are concerned, the database will grow to cover most criminals and troublemakers, as well as of course some wrongly arrested innocent people, without the need to trouble impeccably-behaved maiden aunts. Where I strongly agree with him, though, is in his criticism of the current intellectual fashion for an ill-though-through “unease” about surveillance, DNA collection and so on. He’s right that Liberty and others who take this view must face up to, and openly admit, the consequences of their argument: that murders, rapes and other crimes will go unsolved, and fewer Kate Sheedys will get the legal resolution they seek.

The one point I depart from him on is his last: I think the Sedley position, that collecting DNA selectively is racist, essentially, so we should collect it from everyone, is daft, to be frank. It’s the kind of thing the Archbishop of Canterbury might have said.

And now David Pannick, whose piece on the balance between freedom of expression, specifically the right to use extreme Islamist websites, and security is in effect a skeleton argument for the intelligentsia default position. I agree with his headline; but I’m not sure I’m entirely happy with everything David Pannick says here.

Yes, the more open, public discussion there is of Islamist terrorist ideas, the better – everyone will see how mad they are. But internet discussions are not open, but cliquey, and their aim is not to defend views publicly but to draw in the vulnerable and brainwash them. I think there is is, arguably, a war of ideas here, as with, say, Nazism in the 1930s, and that freedom of expression may not be the moral trump he implies – indeed, we may even, legally, be dealing with that kind of expression which is outside human rights protection, according to the European Court of Human Rights case of Garaudy v France.

And how is his approach here consistent with any legal restriction on pornography?

Finally, it seems to me this security/freedom dilemma is a policy problem, not solely a legal one – and I worry that Pannick sees it as solely one for lawyers to resolve.

2012-07-19T20:49:06+00:00Tags: , , , |

Chaudhry: victory not far off

February 25 2008

As I said to Charon in his weekly review yesterday, it’s time I blogged again about Pakistan. The outcome of the elections means the next government is almost certain to be a coalition between the Pakistan People’s Party, formerly led by Benazir Bhutto, and Nawaz Sharif’s Pakistan Muslim League (N), together with one of more smaller parties. It’s unlikely they’ll have the two thirds majority they’d need to impeach President Musharraf, but the political tide has clearly turned decisively against him; so much so that the Sunday Telegraph reported yesterday that Musharraf’s thinking of stepping down.

What I’m a bit confused about is where discussions between the PPP and the PML-N have got to over restoration of the judiciary and the constitution: that Sunday Telegraph article suggests the parties and a smaller ally have pledged to restore the status quo ante November 3rd; but this BBC story about the sacked Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry suggests there remains disagreement. Chaudhry’s view, though, is that victory is in sight for the lawyers’ protests. I think he must be right. It looks as though Pakistan is throwing off the military and returning to the rule of law. All those Pakistani lawyers who helped lead the protest movement can be proud of what they’ve now very nearly achieved.

My own view is that the parties should immediately form a transitional coalition for limited purposes: to replace the incumbent government immediately so that it no longer has any levers of power; to release remaining political prisoners without further delay; and to restore the judiciary and lift any remaining unconstitutional measures. Once those things are achieved, new negotiations can start about the coalition’s other home and foreign policies. To be honest I think arguing about impeachment would be a waste of time: if Musharraf steps down, that is the important thing, and if I were involved in these discussions I’d be tempted to offer him a deal – immunity, say – if he did just that and spoke publicly backing the new dispensation and arguing for the army to stay out of politics.

Pakistaniat.com is already speculating on who Musharraf’s replacement could be: it’s interesting that Iftikhar Chaudry and the other leader of the lawyers’ protest movement, Aitzaz Ahsan, are both mentioned. I don’t know enough about either of them to comment really, but Chaudhry in particular is now so widely admired for his stand as Chief Justice that I think his appointment would symbolise commitment to a new path for Pakistan.

Qaisar Rashid’s Pakistan Politics article comparing the election result to a Pakistani “orange revolution” is also worth a read.

2008-02-25T18:03:00+00:00Tags: , |

Charon QC’s weekend review

February 24 2008

This bloody, bloody bug just runs and runs, and I’m still off prime form, but I have been perked up a bit by talking to Charon QC for his weekly review. We talk about DNA, Pakistan and the Speaker, he talks to Geeklawyer about file sharing, HMRC’s outrageous conduct, and that inquest, plus there’s a written piece about DNA from Richard Ramsey and an interview with Peter Groves about copyright.

It’s excellent that people like the President of the Law Society and Conservative front bench spokesman Ed Vaizey (the Peter Groves piece this weekend is a follow-up to Ed Vaizey on illegal downloading) want to be interviewed by Charon now. It shows new media is getting serious, and deservedly being taken seriously.

2008-02-24T16:26:00+00:00Tags: , |

Roll up, roll up! For Fayed’s amazing circus!

February 21 2008

Following my last post about Mental Health Act, I remembered I’ve not blogged, since my semi-(cough-sniff!)-return to health, about the Diana inquest. I was amused today that Lord Foulkes and Denis MacShane have called the inquest a farce, a circus and so on, now that any number of MI6 spooks are being called to give evidence.

Have they only realised this now? Most of us thought it was a farcical circus and a waste of time and money some time ago.

What’s really worrying is the thought of what this all might mean for the jury system if the case goes his way.

2008-02-21T23:13:00+00:00Tags: , |

Northern Rock

February 21 2008

One of the dubious benefits of having a BLOODY cold is that you sit, Lemsip in hand and with thtuffed-up node, mindlessly watching the entire Commons debate on the Banking (Special Provisions) Bill on a Tuesday night, being momentarily perked up by Yvette Cooper’s explanation of how the Bill was drafted so as to avoid its being hybrid. That’s how bad the cold was.

It was amazing how basic information about the nationalisation scheme came to light only as the Bill progressed from committee stage of the whole house, to report and third reading – such as the relevation that assets in the form of mortgage security owned by Granite will not be included in the plan. I think the late revelation of this is breathtaking even if, as John Band explains, Granite’s exclusion is no big deal in financial terms.

Anyway, the government’s now been defeated in the Lords. Who knows where any of this is heading? I think Northern Rock may be beginning to cause a slow loss of blood from the government, and, with its assets and its future lending business both dwindling because of the housing market, I think it may come to have the same kind of political meaning as phrases like “Profumo”, “Black Wednesday”, “three-day week”, “devaluation” and “sleaze”.

Albatross? Neck? Gordon Brown’s glittering eye?

2008-02-21T19:23:00+00:00Tags: |

Tesco and the price of booze

February 21 2008

This morning while struggling to beat off my cold enough to get out of bed at least, I listened to a discussion on BBC Radio 4’sToday programme about what action, if any, can be taken to prevent supermarkets selling booze as cheaply as they do – this is needed, some think, to tackle binge-drinking, although I’m not sure anyone could get drunk and anti-social on the kind of beer supermarkets sell for 22p a can. Isn’t vodka more of a problem?

Anyway, Lucy Neville-Rolfe of Tesco argued that her firm could not lawfully agree with others to increase booze prices: that would amount to price fixing, contrary to article 81 of the EC Treaty. She was backed up by a competition lawyer from DLA Piper (sorry, I can’t remember his name: I’ll keep blaming the cold) who said that if supermarkets got together over this the OFT would be “down on them like a ton of bricks”. They agreed legislation would be needed to tackle the problem.

Later on, the MP and former competition minister Nigel Griffiths said he thought supermarkets could lawfully get round a table with the OFT and agree increased prices – all very cosy and nice, if he’s right. But surely he can’t be. It seems to me that Lucy and the lawyer must have it right: any agreement between undertakings to fix prices would be squarely ruled out by article 81, and the involvement of government would help not a jot. Indeed in a way it’d make it worse, because if the OFT lent itself to such a plan, it’d be failing in its duties under Regulation 1/2003 and the Commission would need to step in, not only to put a stop to the cartel but also potentially to take infingement action against the UK in the shape of its national competition authority the OFT, for acting in breach of EC law.

I don’t even think the supermarkets could tacitly do this – that’d be a concerted practice having the effect of limiting price competition, so would also breach article 81.

Am I missing something or is the former competition minister barking entirely up the wrong tree?

2008-02-21T15:16:00+00:00Tags: , |
Copyright 2022 Carl Gardner. Site by Samsara
Go to Top