Turn on thread page Beta

European court gives Cameron ultimatum on prisoner votes watch

  • View Poll Results: Should the ECHR be able to overide Parliment?
    Yes
    10
    18.18%
    No
    45
    81.82%

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...ner-votes.html

    The Coalition lost its final appeal against a ruling that some inmates should be allowed to vote because of their human rights.

    The rejection, from the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights, came despite a vote in parliament that overwhelmingly opposed giving prisoners a vote.

    It means the Government now has until September to act or face a flood of compensation claims, which it will almost certainly lose.

    And Europe is even demanding that it dictate a time frame in which the Government passes any necessary legislation.

    Ministers were last night “disappointed” by the decision while one MP accused the Strasbourg court of “shocking arrogance” to dismiss the concerns of British politicians.
    I don't see why we have to follow what these people say. Parliament is sovereign and should tell the ECHR to get stuffed, then refuse to pay a penny of 'compensation' to the little darlings detained at Her Majesties Pleasure.

    Rather than have yet another thread on the right of prisoner votes, what do you think about the ECHR being able to dictate to Parliament what it can and cant do?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    EU are clowns. They can go and stick their human rights BS up their *******s.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I don't really see how, on a personal level, answering to the UK government is any different to answering to the EU government. Even if it was the Supreme Military Junta of Jupiter, it still merely be a tyranny of the majority, ergo none of this matters really, does it?

    Get some perspective.

    I'm going to bed.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Lord_Farquad)
    EU are clowns. They can go and stick their human rights BS up their *******s.
    I'm not quite sure what the EU has to do with any of this...
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Barden)
    I don't really see how, on a personal level, answering to the UK government is any different to answering to the EU government. Even if it was the Supreme Military Junta of Jupiter, it still merely be a tyranny of the majority, ergo none of this matters really, does it?

    Get some perspective.

    I'm going to bed.
    I agree with this. Nothing more to add.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Renner)



    I don't see why we have to follow what these people say. Parliament is sovereign and should tell the ECHR to get stuffed, then refuse to pay a penny of 'compensation' to the little darlings detained at Her Majesties Pleasure.
    As far as I'm concerned it makes no difference whether I'm dictated to by some arrogant middle aged toff in Westminster or an arrogant middle aged toff in Brussels. Personally I think there should be a referendum on changes such as these.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    This is rediculous, i;d love it if some of these clown from the European Court of Human Rights went to texas for a few month and told them how to run their country, they'd literally be strung up by their testicles. I might go out and commit a crime because being in jail sounds excellent.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chucklefiend)
    As far as I'm concerned it makes no difference whether I'm dictated to by some arrogant middle aged toff in Westminster or an arrogant middle aged toff in Brussels. Personally I think there should be a referendum on changes such as these.
    Referendums arent legally binding in this country. Even if people vote Yes to AV it still might not happen if you read the leaflet.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Barden)
    I don't really see how, on a personal level, answering to the UK government is any different to answering to the EU government. Even if it was the Supreme Military Junta of Jupiter, it still merely be a tyranny of the majority, ergo none of this matters really, does it?
    As far as I'm aware, we are being dictated to by the ECHR, not the EU 'Goverment'. So the 'tyranny of the majoraty' doesn't apply here.

    It doesn't effect me on a personal level, but neither does most of stuff that comes from Westminster. If we only talked about personal issue's the D&D section on here would be a much quieter place.

    Get some perspective.
    How patronising
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Renner)
    Parliament is sovereign and should tell the ECHR to get stuffed, then refuse to pay a penny of 'compensation' to the little darlings detained at Her Majesties Pleasure.
    If Parliament was truly 'sovereign' then it should be able to refuse to give prisoners the vote. This whole story is another indication that the UK Parliament isn't supreme.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by doivid)
    If Parliament was truly 'sovereign' then it should be able to refuse to give prisoners the vote. This whole story is another indication that the UK Parliament isn't supreme.
    It can, and should, say no
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Renner)
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...ner-votes.html



    I don't see why we have to follow what these people say. Parliament is sovereign and should tell the ECHR to get stuffed, then refuse to pay a penny of 'compensation' to the little darlings detained at Her Majesties Pleasure.

    Rather than have yet another thread on the right of prisoner votes, what do you think about the ECHR being able to dictate to Parliament what it can and cant do?
    I can't imagine Cameron giving into the ECHR. He will probably issue a demand that they give the UK the right to deny Rapists and Murderers the vote, or the UK leaves.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stanley Baldwin)
    I can't imagine Cameron giving into the ECHR. He will probably issue a demand that they give the UK the right to deny Rapists and Murderers the vote, or the UK leaves.
    I hope so, the idea that the ECHR can effectively hold us at ransom with prisoner compensation claims is quite frankly disgraceful
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stanley Baldwin)
    I can't imagine Cameron giving into the ECHR. He will probably issue a demand that they give the UK the right to deny Rapists and Murderers the vote, or the UK leaves.
    I would love to agree, but after seeing him in Pakistan t'other week I think he may well just give in.

    If he does then most of his Tory support will evaporate
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    This makes me sick. I'm Labour and euroskeptic and I really don't want some other court deciding what Britain should do, especially when they're making ridiculous decisions such as these.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Want to know the real reason it's all kicking off? http://vimeo.com/22258503
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by doivid)
    If Parliament was truly 'sovereign' then it should be able to refuse to give prisoners the vote. This whole story is another indication that the UK Parliament isn't supreme.
    This.

    The ECHRs forcing the UK to do things is pretty undemocratic. Personally I think any rulings from them that affect us should be decided on via an MP vote or better yet a legally binding referendum
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stanley Baldwin)
    I can't imagine Cameron giving into the ECHR. He will probably issue a demand that they give the UK the right to deny Rapists and Murderers the vote, or the UK leaves.
    Herp derp they aren't suggesting giving murderers and rapists the vote you idiot. Its prisoners serving less than five years who haven't committed violent crimes.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by hamijack)
    Herp derp they aren't suggesting giving murderers and rapists the vote you idiot. Its prisoners serving less than five years who haven't committed violent crimes.
    I thought that was the governments alternate plan that the ECHRs did't accept?


    On a side note


    Dominic Raab, the Conservative MP who has been campaigning against the ruling, said: “It is shocking arrogance for the Strasbourg Court to dismiss the legitimate concerns of Britain's elected lawmakers without even listening to the arguments.

    Woo thats my MP
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Renner)
    I would love to agree, but after seeing him in Pakistan t'other week I think he may well just give in.

    If he does then most of his Tory support will evaporate
    What amazing hyperbole.
 
 
 
Poll
Is the Big Bang theory correct?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.