Breaking The Law?

There are in my view two fundamental objections to the European Court of Human Rights’ judgment on the UK’s position on prisoners’ right to vote.

The first is by allowing an unelected and unaccountable court to effectively act as a legislator as well; telling Parliament what laws it can and cannot pass - against the expressed wishes of the UK population. It is with dazzlingly irony that the judgement doesn’t actually give prisoners’ the right to vote but instead removes that very right from the rest of us.

The second is that the right to vote is not a human right, unlike for example access to food, clothes and medicine. It instead is a contract between the government and its taxpaying citizens. Democracy resides on the basis of the rule of law. As responsible adults we have duty to abide by those laws, even ones we disagree with and in return we have the privileges of being able to make or influence those laws. It should, if it worked properly, allow us to have say in how our money is spent.

Thus if we breach our side of the bargain and break a law we should expect to be removed from the process during a period of incarceration as a consequence of not keeping our side of the contract.

Conversely if we have no means of making law – we simply have no choice- as in a dictatorship run by fear via tanks on the streets then we have a moral right to ignore the law and break it by virtue of the government having not kept their side of the bargain. An example of this is the Arab Spring.

And this leads me onto our membership of the European Union. One of the most insidious consequences of EU membership is it encourages UK citizens to demand that their government breaks the law when we have no moral right to do so. The EU - and this is crucial - does not rule by fear, it rules by our consent.

The UK, by due process via Parliament has chosen to be a member, has chosen to implement EU law and in many ways gold plates such laws, and has chosen to accept EU diktats. Thus Parliament remains sovereign because it still has the right to leave. It simply chooses not to. The fault line in our democracy is between us the people and Parliament, not between us the people and the EU.

The EU is a club we as a country chose to join and as a country we can choose to leave. The basic principles of joining any club are as follows:

1. Abide by the rules or laws
   
   
2. Change the laws within the context of membership
   
   
3. Or leave

Public opinion is increasingly saying option a) is not acceptable, option b) which Cameron allegedly advocates is not possible as has been pointed out many times, so that only leaves option c). But option c) remains elusive because the UK population has not yet exercised their peacefully, law-abiding right to demand exit via current electoral processes.

And the establishment cannot cope with option c) so they try to work within option b) with unproductive results. It leads to demands to treat EU membership like an a la carte menu; apparently we abide by the laws we agree with and ignore the ones we don’t. But ironically it becomes a demand that says we wish to remain members - because if we left abiding by EU rules would no longer be a problem.

One can see this a la carte phenomenon by today's Daily Mail article on immigration which made its front page:

 

This from the same paper that has continually argued for membership of the same club i.e. the EU:

Let the Mail lay all its cards on the table. This paper has no desire for Britain to pull out of Europe [EU]...

Richard North rightly takes apart its report on the detail of immigration - immigration is a fiendishly complex issue, yet what also is disturbing is the Daily Mail (who supports EU membership) implying very heavily that the Government should break the law as the paper cannot bring itself to argue that we should leave the club:

But the threat of big fines from the European Court of Justice was brushed off by almost two thirds of the public.

They said that – even if it meant legal sanctions – the Prime Minister should keep the restrictions in place to ‘serve the national interest’. And 80 per cent of voters say Westminster should retain the final say over who enters the country. 

And even Tory MPs agree:

But, under EU rules, the arrangements must be lifted on January 1. Any failure to do so would be considered a breach of the free movement directive – a founding principle of the EU.

Britain would most likely face heavy fines, but the European Court of Justice – the EU’s enforcement arm – is notoriously slow moving.

Tory MPs believe the 2015 general election may even have passed before a verdict is handed down.

I most definitely don't want to encourage the government to break the law - it should be subject to the same laws as the rest of us - otherwise therein lies a very slippery slope indeed. Instead what such position highlights is sovereignty or more accurately the lack of.

Such sentiments are also expressed in the view, often in newspaper comments, that other countries ignore EU laws so why don't we? Such sentiments are not true - we are not the most compliant state and nor is it correct that other EU nations flagrantly ignore EU law. We can see this by the latest report by the EU Commission on application of EU law (click to enlarge):

As becomes apparent the UK has more infringements than France, yet is still 9th on the list. And also regarding infringment procedures the UK comes 9th (again click to enlarge):

The implementation of EU law is actually rather good across all member states and so it should be, we chose to join we can choose to leave. But while we remain members we have a duty to abide by the law - EU law or otherwise - so any demands to ignore EU law while we choose to remain members carries with it no moral weight.

We simply just have to leave...

A Running Sore

The BBC reports on a temporary victory for those against prisoners’ having the right to vote.

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.

Prisoners And Power (2)

In effect what has been announced today regarding prisoner's right to vote is an admission that Parliament chooses to be bound by European law - in whatever guise - in this case we can choose otherwise or to leave. Naturally there is legal wriggle room in today's statement to try to reject the proposal while remaining a member of the Council of Europe in form of 'international law vs Parliamentary sovereignty' which is an argument that is legally winnable on both sides.

But ultimately, and most importantly, it's also an admission that Parliament chooses to be bound by international agreements, thus choosing to be a member of the EU (our enemy lies within - Whitehall & MPs). Here's part of Chris Grayling's statement:

However, the Government are under an international law obligation to implement the Court judgement. As Lord Chancellor, as well as Secretary of State for Justice, I take my obligation to uphold the rule of law seriously. Equally, it remains the case that Parliament is sovereign, and the Human Rights Act 1998 explicitly recognises that fact. The current law passed by Parliament remains in force unless and until Parliament decides to change it. As Lord Justice Hoffmann put it in a case in 1999:

Parliamentary sovereignty means that Parliament can, if it chooses, legislate contrary to fundamental principles of human rights. The Human Rights Act 1998 will not detract from this power. The constraints upon its exercise by Parliament are ultimately political, not legal. But the principle of legality means that Parliament must squarely confront what it is doing and accept the political cost.

Last month, the Attorney-General made it clear in evidence to the Justice Committee that

“it is entirely a matter for Government to make proposals but ultimately for Parliament to determine what it wants to do. Parliament is sovereign in this area; nobody can impose a solution on Parliament, but the accepted practice is that the United Kingdom observes its international obligations”

So we come back to power, Parliament is so reluctant to abide by the ECHR ruling because the issue is so toxic because the people wish it so. Mr Grayling said there would be a "political cost" in doing so, But to whom? Not to the MPs who are supposed to represent us.

However we come to the sting in the tail, and what is so insidious in our membership of supranational institutions, Parliament forces itself to break the law it has passed because it is reluctant to repeal those laws it agrees largely with - against the wishes of those it is supposed to represent. Our own people power is not yet enough...

This is why I've been following this challenge with such interest. Exit for the EU or other European courts (established with the same aim as the EU for eventual political union) is not going to be on the back of arguments on tedious EU Directives but toxic issues such as this.

An axe murderer, who made a pot of coffee while waiting for his landlady to die, then with charmless, racist and homophobic arguments was always going to be a gem for tabloid headlines - influential as they are - which adds to the EU sceptic cause. I say ship him out to be interviewed more. (And I'm almost inclined to send Mr Hirst a crate of beer in thanks for his contribution for helping to get us out),

And the Pandora's box on prisoners' voting rights does not stop there, as James Landale at the BBC points out:

I am told that it is not actually the ECHR that is forcing the pace on this. The real issue that is concerning the government is a case sitting before the Supreme Court here in the UK and it is a case that could change the whole debate. George McGeoch is serving a life sentence in Dumfries prison for murdering a man in Inverness.

He is not arguing that the blanket ban on prisoner voting breaches his rights under the European Convention. He is arguing that his rights as an EU citizen are being infringed because he will not be able to vote for in the European Parliamentary elections in 2014.

The draft bill that Chris Grayling will publish this week will refer not just to prisoners' voting rights relating to domestic general and local elections. It will also refer to elections to the European Parliament.

So the hope in the Ministry of Justice is that the draft bill will delay - and ultimately sway - any decision by the Supreme Court on this matter so that Mr McGeoch does not end up with the vote.

And (my emphasis):

And that is an important hope. For if the Supreme Court did allow Mr McGeoch to get his name on the register of electors that would automatically allow thousands of other convicted prisoners around the UK to vote in European and municipal elections.

And many of them would demand compensation for past electoral moments they had missed. And that would be hugely expensive to the government. Ministers can in theory ignore unenforceable compensation orders from the ECHR. But they cannot do the same when the Supreme Court issues what are called Francovich damage orders, in other words, fines for breaking EU law.

So there would be a mess. The government would be forced to rush emergency legislation through Parliament. Compensation claims would come rushing in. So the key test for this Thursday's draft bill is not just what the judges in Strasbourg say. It is also how those judges sitting on the other side of Parliament Square respond.

A problem that will be accentuated by Article 6.2 of the Lisbon Treaty which requires the EU to join the Council of Europe and so come under ECHR rulings.

This is a mess of their making...they asked for it....we didn't, and I have no sympathy for the predicaments they find themselves in.

Oh what a web...

Prisoners Votes Part 346

To the surprise of no-one the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights has refused to even consider the Government's appeal. As Grand Chamber rulings can't be appealed against one can only assume that this was merely a tactic by the Government to buy time.

This case has been a prime example of what happens when unaccountable institutions have power. The ECHR not only is not listening to the wishes of a democratically elected Parliament but is telling that Parliament in effect what laws it should pass and in what time frame:

The court also demanded the right to fix the Parliamentary timetable for introducing the legislation.

If the Government does not bring forward new laws within six months, European judges will begin ordering the payment of an estimated £150million in compensation to killers, rapists and other prisoners.

Tory MP Dominic Raab called it shocking arrogance:

‘It is shocking arrogance for the Strasbourg Court to dismiss the legitimate concerns of Britain’s elected law-makers without even listening to the arguments.

It's hard to disagree. If seeing our elected Parliament bossed around like this by an unaccountable body is not a reason for a revolution then I'm not sure what is.

It'll be interesting to see what Cameron does. I do actually believe Cameron when he says wants to resist this measure. Not because he doesn't want prisoners to have the right to vote - he probably doesn't give two hoots about that - nor does he want to stand up to Europe, however on this deeply unpopular issue he knows, as well as we do, that capitulation will ironically hasten our exit. It's no coincidence that since this subject cropped up last year that UKIP national membership has experienced a very significant increase.

What really makes Cameron 'physically sick' is thought that he may be the one that helps our exit from his beloved EU project.

Cameron Will Cave In

...to the ECHR on the issue of prisoners right to vote. This post from David Blackburn (Spectator) outlines the legal difficulties of the coalition's position regarding prisoners right to vote. Here are the recommendations of the advice (my emphasis):

1. The Strasbourg judgments on Hirst and Greens and MT are binding on the UK and no action that could be taken now – even withdrawal from the ECHR – will remove the legal obligation to implement them.
   
   
2. The sanctions at a European level for failure or refusal to implement the judgments (and non-compliance with any subsequent order by the Strasbourg court to pay compensation in the 3,500 clone cases) are primarily political: criticism by the Committee of Ministers in Strasbourg. In theory the UK could be suspended or expelled from the Council of Europe (CoE) and EU, but this is highly unlikely. The timing of any criticism, compensation decisions and suspension/expulsion depends on the UK’s stance. Outright refusal to implement is likely to result in a much quicker reaction (eg. Court rulings on compensation in a matter of months).
   
   
3. Failure to implement the judgments is also being challenged in the domestic courts. 585 domestic cases are pending and could lead to declarations of incompatibility and, in relation to Northern Ireland or European elections, order for compensation.
   
   
4. In addition, as we have previously discussed, the UK would lose international credibility on human rights. In CoE, our ability to press other states to implement human rights judgments (eg. Russia on Chechnya) would be completely undermined. So would our broader international dialogues on human rights with countries like China.

In effect the democratic will of our Parliament and the people is being disregarded. Apparently we will lose 'international credibility' on human rights unless we comply with an unaccountable unelected foreign court. Er...hello? I'm not sure how the UK obeying the democratic will of its own Parliament loses us credibility. Unless I'm mistaken, the argument seems to run that if our goverment does not defy its own people it will become a diplomatic laughing stock. Have I just woken up in a Salvador Dali dream?

Regardless our government will still capitulate:

The UK’s position in the Strasbourg and UK litigation (under the previous and current administrations and with collective agreement) has been that the government accepts that the current law is incompatible and intends to remedy it. The issue has been about when and to what extent to extend the franchise.

At a time when our government is praising the actions of people in the Middle East who are defying their government, they are expressing a different message at home. It's about time we got on the streets and voiced our own concerns and told our regime where to go. In the words of the Prodigy; fuck 'em and their law.

This Vote Won't Count

Today was the Parliamentary debate and decision on prisoners' right to vote and as expected there was a significant victory to maintain the ban (234 to 22 - a majority of 212) in defiance of a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights.

But will it matter? No not really. Firstly the House of Commons' vote is not binding. Although it will undoubtedly exert some political pressure on ministers to go against the ECHR's decision, ultimately the vote does not change our international obligations to honour the European court’s judgments.

Instead matters have become somewhat complicated. It’s now not clear how the government will be able to satisfy both the ECHR and Parliament - who must approve any change in the law. A fight between Europe and Parliament? Well on experience we all know which way that will eventually go, as Attorney General Dominic Grieve has indeed hinted:

...he anticipated “a drawn-out dialogue between ourselves and the court” over the issue.

In other words how can we amend or implement a European law / ruling that will be able to get rammed through Parliament against the electorate's wishes. We've been here before.

And today's scenes in Parliament give an illustration. On a debate that was supposedly reasserting Parliament's authority, the green benches were empty; far fewer than half bothered to vote - 394 out of 650 MPs were absent. Of those that took part in the debate, there was plenty of passion, and references to voters' anger and indignant claims of "laws should be made in this place". Well, where have they been since May? Especially when this coalition Government has passed more laws over to the EU faster than you can say Cameron is a liar. Indeed only 12 voted against approval of the Lisbon Treaty.

Despite all the talk in Parliament, and Cameron's carefully worded PR dog whistle sound bite that it made him; “physically ill to contemplate giving the vote to prisoners”, Parliament or this Government has no intention of repatriating powers back to the UK. As Mary Ellen Synon argues:

All I can say to the Commons over this votes for prisoners dispute is: just shut up and pull the trigger and get out of the Council of Europe. Or admit you are too timid to pull the trigger, so shut up anyway and submit in the manner that suits men who are cowards.

Exactly, if we really wanted to stand up against Europe (EU or otherwise) we would threaten, or take, the nuclear option. Otherwise, the mantra; "we're fighting for Britain's interests by standing up against Europe" is what it's always been;

bollocks...on stilts.

Update: Witterings From Witney has the latest that Cameron plans to overrule Parliament's / our wishes. It's oh oh so so predictable.

Quote Of The Day

From the comments on prisoners votes:

"I'm beginning to wonder if [John] Hirst is a sleeper agent for UKIP".

Why Prisoners' Right To Vote Is A Good Thing

After 5 years the issue simply won't go away. The saga of the rights of prisoners to vote is still rumbling on, much to the discomfort of Cameron. There's a Parliamentary vote on Thursday which Cameron, knowing that he could lose on a whip, has allowed a free vote. And today the Policy Exchange think tank has called for withdrawal from the 'expansionist' European Court of Human Rights:

The report, written by a former government adviser, Dr Michael Pinto-Duschinsky, says the UK has become "subservient" to the Strasbourg court.

He says it also ignores the traditional British freedom of the press.

The report claims the 47 Strasbourg judges have "virtually no democratic legitimacy" and are poorly qualified compared to Britain's own senior judges.

Lord Hoffman, a former Law Lord, who wrote the foreword to the report, said Strasbourg has "taken upon itself an extraordinary power to micromanage the legal systems of the member states".

The report says the ECHR is a "virtually unaccountable supra-national bureaucracy".

Before my readers get the wrong impression regarding my blog post title, I would like to express that personally I'm against prisoners' having the right to vote for two main reasons:

1. Firstly it is my view that the right to vote is a contract between our country's citizens and the Government. As responsible citizens we have an obligation to respect the rule of law. As part of that contract to abide by Government laws (even ones we don't agree with) it is only fair and justified that there is a process which gives us the opportunity to remove them from power and vote in a different Government who can change existing laws (no Parliament may bind its successor etc)
   
   Therefore it follows that criminals who have broken the law have - by choice - refused to abide by their side of the contract, so it is only right that while they are incarcerated temporarily (however long temporarily is) that the Government removes their right to have a say on law making - for breaching the terms and conditions of being a responsible citizen. In short, if you want the right to vote don't break the law.
   
   And this contract works both ways: if a Government removes the right to vote (effectively hands over power to foreign undemocratic and unelected bodies) then it has broken its side of the contract and so removes law abiding citizens from the obligation to abide by its laws. A la Egypt and us; it's a two-way process.
   
   
2. More importantly and connected with the first point, my main objection is that this decision regarding prisoners' right to vote is not being made by democratic discussion in Parliament, with parties voted in by the will of the people. It is being made instead by an undemocratic, unaccountable foreign court. The dazzling irony is that prisoners are being given 'democratic rights' by an unelected, unaccountable court against the democratic wishes of the British people. That position is fundamentally wrong, as well as strangely surreal.
   

However despite my fundamental objections I wish to be pragmatic. Given the current situation our country finds itself in it is my belief that prisoner votes are a good thing because it helps hasten our exit out of the EU. (yes the decision is largely a non-EU European Court of Human Rights one but such details are unimportant in the propaganda war - Europhiles constantly criticise the press coverage of the EU over eggs but are happy to ignore other more fundamental issues).

As I argued here the problem with fighting the EU is its Directives. Essentially the electorate at large do not care about the EU technicalities of food safety, the intricacies of foreign treaties or the differences between the EU and the Council of Europe. And this is exacerbated by the fact that laws - which get made in Brussels - aren't articulated clearly by our traitors in Parliament. Our so called government does its best to hide EU laws.

That's why the prisoners' voting saga matters, it does resonate, it can't be hidden and our political class cannot pretend otherwise. Instead of having to constantly recite EU Directives that lead to Post Office closures, higher fuel bills etc there is now a demonstrably direct link with a toxic issue and Europe. Even the BBC can't hide it - having it on the front page of their web site today.

Quite simply it's another example that the unaccountable European elite will implode because it will over reach itself - with power comes greed. The more power the EU / Europe gets the more it reveals itself. And this is its fundamental weakness - it will intrude more and more on issues that do cause electoral heartache: taxes, health, crime etc - something the EU acknowledges itself.

It was only ever a matter of time before politically toxic decisions were made that could no longer be hidden by UK politicians.

In effect John Hirst has unwittingly helped the UK move nearer the EU exit door, which in turn will repeal prisoner voting rights without interference from unelected foreign judges.

Getting Away With Murder

Laughably John Hirst, him the 'personal crusader for human rights', seems to be ignorant of other's human rights, notably freedom of speech (article 10) - other than, of course, the right to live. He's threatening to sue just about everyone for libel, including Gawain Towler:

John, you cut your landlandy up with an axe. Deal with it, some will not allow you the convienmce that you allow yourself, your manslaughter verdict does not in any way diminish your responsibility in my or many other eyes. To me you are an axe-murderer, and what is more I describe you as such ion converstaions, on line and elsewhere.

So go on, add me to your list of legal targets. Because that email and threat just has to be the most pompus thing I have seen in years.

Hirst's response?

I am putting you on notice to remove the libel against me or face the legal consequences.

Apparently the European Convention on Human Rights only works one way for the likes of John Hirst

Threats

If I received personal threats which endangered my personal safety then the last thing I would do is tweet to all of my followers a letter which contains my full home address for the whole of the world to see.

That isn't really very bright.

We've Received Numerous Calls

I've just had a response from Humberside Police (which is 6 years quicker than Thames Valley's response when I got burgled). I've been advised that even though Mr Hirst appears to be smoking a joint and admits he is, unless the Police catch him in the act then no prosecution will be forthcoming. They can't prove that the joint in the video is illegal.

However using language unbecoming of a policeman, Humberside police informed me that they are aware of this 'chap' and are maintaining a constant surveillance.

Reported

Following Guido's post here, I've also put in a formal complaint regarding John Hirst and smoking a joint*. Very helpful PC Spray was too.

Humberside Police details can be found here.

Will update.

*Normally I'm not bothered but in these circumstances I'll make an exception

I Could Murder A Joint

This didn't make me laugh, honestly:

John Hirst, the axe killer who paved the way for prisoners to get the vote in Britain, is facing a police investigation over a possible breach of licence after he filmed himself apparently smoking a cannabis joint.

What's interesting, and not at all surprising, is that despite Cameron's attempt to bury this news on the eve of America's mid term elections this issue is not going away - and nor will it. The political toxicity of this demonstrated rather aptly by Nick Clegg who showed the same level of backbone as Cameron.

Far from being the issue that no-one cares about, Europe has just suddenly shot up everyone's priority list

Murderous Charms

I don't want give this gloating man any more publicity than necessary, but he is helping the 'exit out of Europe' cause no end. It's only for this reason I post this (via Ian Dale) It truly is excruciating:

What Am I?

I'm setting off shortly to further depress myself by watching this, meanwhile I thought I would blog this rather fine tune from Death in Vegas. Some may recognise it from the PS2 game Gran Turismo 3: A-Spec:



"What am I? What am I? I'm a murderer"

Cameron Capitulates Again

The only surprise is that it's taken so long, but prisoners are to get the right to vote. Cameron could have said no, the only sanction the Council of Europe could impose is our exit. An “exasperated” and “furious” Cameron is never going to fall out with any European institution if he can help it.

Of course the giving prisoners the right to vote will have precisely no impact on rehabilitation rates, it merely helps the consciousness of those who have never been burgled Lib Dems.

One beneficial outcome will be that resentment of the EU will fester even more. Though the ECHR is nothing to do with the EU, such distinctions are lost as can be seen in the comments here and here. Even the normally very sound Bloggers4UKIP has erred.

Unwittingly Cameron is bringing our exit so much closer.

Axe-Killer John Hirst Takes Offence

Further to my previous post, this from the Telegraph:

How an axe murderer used 'human rights' to change the law, and give the Government a splitting political headache

Apparently this has upset axe-killer John Hirst a little teeny bit:

I feel for him I really do...how hard life must be when the Telegraph commits, shock horror, a 'libel'.

Update: This is my response, I expect the Telegraph to remove it:

Update 2: The Telegraph has wimped out and changed its headline.