The Supreme Court has dismissed appeals from two prisoners over the right to vote under European Union rules. Convicted murderers Peter Chester and George McGeoch had argued that EU law gave them a right to vote - even though they cannot under British law.Quoting Mr Europhile himself:
Prime Minister David Cameron told the Commons that the ruling was "a great victory for common sense".But the BBC rightly acknowledges that:
…[that the concept] is now pretty well established that the UK's blanket ban on prisoners voting is in breach of European human rights law.Therefore the issue is far from over yet. It matters not how long the UK Parliament drags this issue out, nor how many times it votes against its implementation, it is in breach of the law of our land.
It remains a running sore and a perfect example of the duplicity of our politicians who try to pretend otherwise.
The ludicrousness of the situation will be compounded by the outrageous compensations that will no doubt be awarded when the UCHR make their final judgement.
ReplyDeleteIt's not the ECHR we need to worry about particularly, we can ignore that. It's the consequences of the Lisbon Treaty which make the ties between the EU and the ECHR much firmer. Then it becomes far more difficult to ignore the decisions ones which you rightly describe as “ludicrousness”.
Delete"...UK's blanket ban on prisoners voting is in breach of European human rights law."
ReplyDeleteSo you just need one class of prisoner who is allowed to vote and you've thrown off the blanket ban. I've read that is unlawful to wear armour in Parliament, so give anybody convicted of breaking that law the right to vote. Just because nobody is in gaol for that crime ....
Also a conservative MP (Dominic Raab, I think) pointed out on the BBC News channel that it is not a blanket ban anyway, citing several exceptions [which I didn't take in fully].
DeleteI'd like to know the exceptions.
ReplyDeleteThere's definitely a blanket ban on prisoners serving a custodial sentence. Ian E may be referring to the provisions of the Representation of the People Act 2000 which allows prisoners on remand to vote.
DeleteThis is the continuation of one of the most important issues of our time - namely the right of the British people and Parliament to independently make or unmake law for the British people.
ReplyDeleteIn a word - judicial independence.
Cameron's "victory for common sense" is a typical irrelevance and distraction away from this principle which he dare not articulate.
It simply is not possible for a democratic country to tolerate its law being made by a cabal of unelected, and unaccountable bureaucrats who have no legitimate authority by any criteria one could name. Not under our Constitution, our political framework, our principles of law, or any other.
As always the answer is to leave the EU forthwith - and until we do this silly game of 'whose law is supreme' will continue.
"It simply is not possible for a democratic country to tolerate its law being made by a cabal of unelected, and unaccountable bureaucrats who have no legitimate authority"
DeleteExactly, the massive irony is that to impose this on us is not to give prisoners' the right to vote, but in effect to remove that very right from the rest of us.