Still laughing here at our colleague Robert Shrimsley’s astute take on the Irish no vote and the aftermath: Here it is in full…

“The great figures of Europe met in the wake of the Irish No vote to agree on a way forward.
About one thing they were absolutely clear. “We must respect the Irish vote,” they agreed. “It would be a terrible sign of European arrogance to suggest we could just sweep aside a democratic vote of a member state.”
So they all agreed to go out and tell the Irish how much they respected their vote. And they agreed there must be no bullying; no warning the Irish to get their ungrateful Fenian butts into line or go it alone in miserable and obscure isolation.
In fact, they were so clear on this point that they at once agreed to go out and start emphasising it in public. Several gave statements noting that there was pressure from some quarters for Ireland to be left behind but adding that the people of Ireland should not be frightened or feel disrespected because they were sure it would not come to this. And so, just to offer further reassurance, they would put up posters in Ireland making clear that the Irish had better vote Yes PDQ or get their miserable Fenian butts out of the EU.
But maybe even this is not enough, said one. Perhaps we ought to get over to Ireland and give TV interviews stressing that under no circumstances will there be any miserable Fenian butt-kicking.
While they were there, they would take the chance to add that so deep was their respect for the Irish No that Ireland could have as long as it liked to change its mind. Across the continent European leaders insisted there would be no pressure. “If the deadline slips by a few months, so be it,” said one, adding that to take any other view would be to “disrespect the Irish No”.
But surely, they argued, the best way to demonstrate our respect to the Irish people is to show how we can move Europe forward. We need to change the agenda, said another.
“The people have spoken,” they said. And the message was that they wanted to get away from all this talk of treaties and constitutions and referendums that had caused the Irish reaction that had to be respected.
“We have to move the agenda on,” they said. We need to stop bothering the people of the EU with these referendums they do not understand.
When you analyse this, they said, what the Irish - who had to be respected - were telling them was that this was far too complex a matter and they want us to drive this through without bothering them. Once you put it that way it was clear their views had to be respected.
More importantly they had to heed the message that they were being told - to stop fussing about internal stuff and start talking about things that really mattered to the people, like jobs and the economy. That meant they needed to drive through those changes as fast as possible so they could get on to the important matters.
So they got to work at once, working out how to secure most of the rejected changes without bothering the Irish again - out of respect for their democratically expressed wishes. After all, they noted, deep down the Irish are good Europeans. They know a convoy cannot move at the pace of its slowest member - unless, of course, that slowest member is France.”

A tennis match with Tony Blair, the former prime minister, is among the auction lots to be sold at a Labour fund-raising dinner next month.The event, which is hoping to raise £500,000 from table places alone - with 500 tickets at £1,000 apiece - as well as more money through the auction.

Among the prizes are lunch with Sir Alex Ferguson, manager of Manchester United, and a day out at a racing circuit with Lord Paul Drayson, the pharmaceuticals millionaire.

The event comes as Labour struggles to reschedule some of its £18m of outstanding debts, prompting fears over its financial stability.

The auctioneers will be Alastair Campbell, Mr Blair’s former press chief, and Richard Caborn, former sports minister.

But what will it do for the party’s reputation if the event is not full?

It was striking that the event has been press-released and publicised. In the old days, there was no need.

A Labour bod has been in touch to say the event has been publicised to enable people - such as City folk - to bid in advance for the prizes. FT readers, that includes you.

My favourite line from today’s report - “Conduct of Sir Nicholas and Lady Winterton” - lies in the appendices. It is a letter to the standards commissioner from Lady W on April 28, 2008:

….”My husband and I have already commenced looking for an alternative property with similar facilities in the Westminster area. As I am currently chairing the Local Transport Bill Public Bill Committee and Nicholas is the lead Chairman on the Finance Bill Public Bill Committee and, in addition, we shall be attending the inauguration of the new Taiwanese President in Taipei in May, I am sure you can appreciate the limits on our time….”

( Sir Nicholas and Ann Winterton were found to have broken expenses rules by claiming rent on a flat they already owned. The Commons Committee on Standards and Privileges accepted that the breach regarding the £700,000 London property was accidental. But they ordered the couple to cease their unusual arrangement from September onwards. The Wintertons claimed more than £120,000 in Commons expenses for their second home, six years after they paid off their mortgage. They did this by moving the building into a family trust, set up for their two children. This allowed them to claim more than £21,600 a year in “rent” on the building and also avoid inheritance tax in the event of their death. )

Gordon Brown announced today that no ministers would take a pay rise this year. Pour encourager les autres, etc, etc.

The government has also rejected Sir John Baker’s recommendation of a 4.6 per cent pay rise for all MPs this year. They will get to vote on this on July 3.

How will the vote go? The Tories are urging all their rank and file to reject the rise, which is far above inflation and sends out all the wrong signals to public sector workers.

Labour is likely to whip its payroll (about 140 ministers etc) and use a “one-line whip” on everyone else.

Given the public mood about a] the economy and b] “fat-cat MPs” I’d be amazed if the 4.6 per cent rise sees the light of day.

 Incidentally…

Sir John raised the prospect of Welsh, Scottish and Northern Ireland MPs being paid less than their English counterparts - because of devolution.

“All MPs are paid exactly the same and it is a deep article of faith of MPs that that should be the case,” he said. “I have always taken the view that as and when we see a complete package of constitutional reform, looking at the House of Lords as well, I think that question will come back on the table and will need addressing then.”

From the BBC….

 ”A personal computer holding sensitive documents relating to defence and extremism has been stolen from Hazel Blears’ constituency office in Salford.

The machine contained a combination of constituency and government information which should not have been held on it.

The theft may mean the communities secretary has broken rules on the handling of restricted government information, the BBC has learned.”

A few points spring to mind:

Firstly, this is not an example of someone foolishly leaving data lying around. There was a break-in of Blears’ constituency office, despite its reinforced glass and security system - a legacy of her time as a Home Office minister.

Secondly, just how contentious is the material in question, which is thought to relate to emails between Blears and the DCLG? The Beeb says it is “relating to defence and extremism”.

But DCLG staff are scratching their heads over the “defence” connection, saying there are no such emails.

As for ”extremism”, this could relate to DCLG narratives on how to tackle violent extremism through improving community cohesion - the type of stuff that is on the department website.

The only classified document on the computer, bizarrely, is thought to be an assessment of the housing market from March (a PowerPoint presentation) which is now seriously out of date. 

Gordon Brown told permanent secretaries of all departments this morning to find out whether similar embarrassments could happen elsewhere.  But for now - until more definitive facts emerge - that may be all it is.

Yesterday was a day of sheer drama as the terror bill was passed in the Commons by the thinnest of margins after genuinely heartfelt debate over balancing security against human rights.

And now we’ve been treated to an even more entertaining event - this morning’s resignation by David Davis, shadow home affairs secretary, ove the same issue; the defence of Habeas Corpus etc. He has already been replaced by Dominic Grieve; not temporarily.

Davis hopes that in the imminent by-election for his seat he can campaign on the single issue of human rights, turning it into a mini-referendum. Although David Cameron has known since last night, he doesn’t seem very enthused by the gesture, describing it as a “private” decision.

Will the move have the intended effect? If Davis didn’t have a rock-solid majority it would be a more brave and selfless manoeuvre.

As it is, he will still win - not least because the Lib Dems and UKIP* will not put up a candidate (Labour is undecided for now). But how will anyone know whether this is because the good people of Haltemprice and Howden, in North Yorkshire, are committed to the ancient liberties of the United Kingdom?

He may increase his majority simply because the locals hate Labour even more than the Tories**. 

* UKIP and the BNP both agree with the Tories on 42 days, they say, making it unlikely they will field candidates - although neither have confirmed this yet 

** See Crewe & Nantwich by-election 

An Ulster Lord has just dropped by to tell me that he will help Davis’s campaign. Not, not from the DUP (who swung Wednesday’s knife-edge vote for Gordon Brown). Lord Laird of Artigarvan, an Ulster Unionist peer, says he despises the alleged deal which will allow Northern Ireland to keep water rates in return for DUP anti-terror backing: “The people of Northern Ireland should realise they are getting cheaper water because some unfortunate guy is in jail”, he thunders.

Distracted, momentarily, from the 42 day anti-terror debate.

My eye is caught by the collapsing share prices of Britain’s housebuilders.

Questions are being asked about the financial viability of some of the biggest players, with Barratt, for example, down about 95 per cent in recent months.  

Housebuilders have called for drastic policies - such as lifting stamp duty for some buyers - to revive their ailing industry. Jobs losses are inevitable, they warn.

We asked the communities department for reaction today:  It says: “The conditions remain in place for a healthy house-building industry in the longer term.” *

My view? The government’s housebuilding target of 200,000 homes a year is looking increasingly hallucinogenic.  

* “We recognise that market conditions are currently difficult for housebuilders as result of the global credit crunch, which is why we are putting more measures  in place to support industry …However, the continuing high demand for homes from young families and first time buyers over the long term, and our fundamentally strong and stable economy, with record numbers of people in work, mean the conditions remain in place for a healthy house-building industry in the longer term.”

The Commitee for Standards in Public Life, the Commons watchdog, doesn’t seem to think so.

Today it showed its thinly disguised disdain for the members estimate committee, chaired by Speaker Michael Martin, which is reviewing expenses and perks and is due to report in the summer.

The standards committee issued a statement of principles which - it suggests - should “govern Parliament’s review of MPs’ allowances”.

It the outcome of the current review fails to command public confidence, it says, then the committee “is prepared to undertake its own independent review of the issues involved”.

Ministers have been maintaining for ages that the housing market is not at the start of a painful crash. Even Caroline Flint, housing minister - who was photographed with a briefing note suggesting price falls of 10 per cent this year - has maintained that long-term demand remains strong.  The prime minister, meanwhile, is pushing ahead with numerous ways to ensconce new first-time buyers on the wavering housing ladder.

Matthew Oakeshott, Lib Dem Treasury spokesman, has a suggestion for senior ministers.

Lord Oakeshott points out that the futures market is now pricing in a 13.5 per cent fall in the Halifax house price index over the coming year, 21.5 per cent over three years and not recovering to previous highs until 2018.

He suggests that if ministers are as confident as they sound - that falls will be more modest - they should put their money on this outcome.

When 35 Labour MPs signed up to an EDM criticising plans to raise fuel tax in the autumn it was seen as a massive threat to Gordon Brown’s authority.

Was it really?

When you look at the list of current EDMs - some more riveting than others - there are several, critical of the government, signed by hundreds of Labour backbenchers.

Friends of the Earth made a good point today as the Climate Change Bill was debated in the Commons. The pressure group said an EDM calling for the emissions reduction target to be fortified from 60 per cent to 80 per cent by 2050 has attracted 257 signatures, including 167 from Labour.

This is far more than those who signed EDMs criticising the abolition of the 10p tax rate, let alone the fuel tax change. Yet the government continues to fob off this tide of criticism with vague promises to review the emissions target (and the tangential issue of including aviation fumes.)

Interestingly, of the five most “signed” EDMs, four are on environmental issues (buildings’ energy performance, amphibian extinction, feed-in tariffs).  Are party leaders - backpedalling rapidly on green policies - in tune with their own MPs?