David Davis resigns from Commons
Interesting article from uk Column, Is it now Dodgy David Davis?
So it looks like David Davis is just another gate keeper.
from BBC
Shadow home secretary David Davis has resigned as an MP.
He is to force a by-election in his Haltemprice and Howden constituency which he will fight on the issue of the new 42-day terror detention limit.
Mr Davis, 59, told reporters outside the House of Commons he believed his move was a "noble endeavour" to stop the erosion of British civil liberties.
He is one of the best-known opposition MPs and his resignation came as a complete surprise in Westminster.
He told reporters: "I will argue in this by-election against the slow strangulation of fundamental British freedoms by this government."
BBC Political Editor Nick Robinson said it was an extraordinary move which was almost without precedent in British politics.
But so far no party has said they will put up a candidate against Mr Davis - the Lib Dems say they support him on terror detention and Labour is stil deciding whether to take part in what some of their MPs have described as a "stunt".
The BNP, which came fourth in the seat in the 2005 general election, says it will not stand against Mr Davis as it agrees with his stance on terror detention.
UKIP, which was fifth, said it was still considering its position, although one of its MEPs, Godfrey Bloom, has offered to campaign for Mr Davis.
If no other candidate has come forward by the close of nominations, Mr Davis would be returned as the MP without a vote.
'Personal decision'
Mr Davis has led the opposition to Labour's plans to extend the maximum limit terror suspects can be held beyond the current 28 day maximum.
On Wednesday, he accused the government of "buying" the nine votes they needed to get the legislation through the Commons.
He vowed that the Conservatives, who are the official opposition and favourites to win at the next election, would continue the fight in the House of Lords.
Tory leader David Cameron paid tribute to his campaign on 42 days and insisted the party would not change its policy.
But he stressed Mr Davis' decision to quit had been "a personal decision, a decision he has made".
He said it was a "courageous" move and he hoped Conservatives would support Mr Davis's by-election campaign.
But he added: "We cannot put home affairs on pause and it is my job to ensure that we have a team that's ready for government."
Shadow attorney general Dominic Grieve, who Mr Cameron has appointed as the new shadow home secretary, rubbished reports the Tory leadership was split on the issue of 42 days and pledged to repeal if they gained power.
Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said: "Faced with a crucial decision on the safety and protection of the British public, the Conservatives have collapsed into total disarray on what is their first big policy test since they have come under greater scrutiny.
"David Cameron must come clean on what has really happened and why David Davis has really resigned."
Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg, who also voted against 42 day detention, said his party would not be fielding a candidate in the by-election, after speaking to Mr Davis.
'Stunt'
Labour MP Denis MacShane said he was sure Mr Davis would win the by-election but added "I think this will be seen as a stunt" which showed the Conservatives were "utterly unfit" for government.
The former Europe Minister said he thought Mr Cameron had "cut the ground from under David Davis by not pledging to repeal 42 days" if the Tories won the next election.
But he said Mr Davis' decision to resign was "a bad day for Parliament" and said he did not personally think Labour should run a candidate against him in the by-election.
Mr Davis mounted a passionate attack on government plans to extend terror detention in the Commons on Wednesday - only to see the government win the key vote by the narrowest of margins.
In his resignation statement, he said he feared 42 days was just the beginning and next "we'll next see 56 days, 70 days, 90 days."
But, he added: "In truth, 42 days is just one - perhaps the most salient example - of the insidious, surreptitious and relentless erosion of fundamental British freedoms."
He listed the growth of the "database state," government "snooping" ID cards, the erosion of jury trials and other issues.
"This cannot go on. It must be stopped and for that reason today I feel it is incumbent on me to make a stand," said Mr Davis.
"At least my electorate and the nation as a whole will have had the opportunity to debate and consider one of the most fundamental issues of our day - the ever intrusive power of the state into our lives, the loss of privacy, the loss of freedom and the steady attrition undermining the rule of law," he said.
The Lib Dems had targeted the seat in 2005 as part of its ill-fated "decapitation" strategy to unseat key Tory figures but Mr Davis was re-elected with a 5,116 majority.
Mr Clegg said the party would fight the seat at the next general election but he said the "unnecessary and illiberal" 42 day proposal transcended party politics.
This is the full statement:
Up until yesterday, I took the view that what we did in the House of Commons representing our constituents was a noble endeavour because with centuries or forebears we defended the freedoms of the British people. Well we did up until yesterday.
This Sunday is the anniversary of Magna Carta - the document that guarantees that most fundamental of British freedoms - Habeus Corpus.
The right not to be imprisoned by the state without charge or reason. Yesterday this house decided to allow the state to lock up potentially innocent British citizens for up to six weeks without charge.
Now the counter terrorism bill will in all probability be rejected by the House of Lords very firmly. After all, what should they be there for if not to defend Magna Carta.
But because the impetus behind this is essentially political - not security - the government will be tempted to use the Parliament Act to over-rule the Lords. It has no democratic mandate to do this since 42 days was not in its manifesto.
Its legal basis is uncertain to say the least. But purely for political reasons, this government's going to do that. And because the generic security arguments relied on will never go away - technology, development and complexity and so on, we'll next see 56 days, 70 days, 90 days.
But in truth, 42 days is just one - perhaps the most salient example - of the insidious, surreptitious and relentless erosion of fundamental British freedoms.
And we will have shortly, the most intrusive identity card system in the world.
A CCTV camera for every 14 citiziens, a DNA database bigger than any dictatorship has, with 1000s of innocent children and a million innocent citizens on it.
We have witnessed an assault on jury trials - that balwark against bad law and its arbitrary use by the state. Short cuts with our justice system that make our system neither firm not fair.
And the creation of a database state opening up our private lives to the prying eyes of official snoopers and exposing our personal data to careless civil servants and criminal hackers.
The state has security powers to clamp down on peaceful protest and so-called hate laws that stifle legitimate debate - while those who incite violence get off Scot free.
This cannot go on, it must be stopped. And for that reason, I feel that today it's incumbent on me to take a stand.
I will be resigning my membership of the House and I intend to force a by-election in Haltemprice and Howden.
Now I'll not fight it on the government's general record - there's no point repeating Crewe and Nantwich. I won't fight it on my personal record. I am just a piece in this great chess game.
I will fight it, I will argue this by-election, against the slow strangulation of fundamental British freedoms by this government.
Now, that may mean I've made my last speech to the House - it's possible. And of course that would be a matter of deep regret to me. But at least my electorate, and the nation as a whole, would have had the opportunity to debate and consider one of the most fundamental issues of our day - the ever-intrusive power of the state into our lives, the loss of privacy, the loss of freedom and the steady attrition undermining the rule of law.
And if they do send me back here it will be with a single, simple message: that the monstrosity of a law that we passed yesterday will not stand.
