Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x 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%

    Offline

    19
    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
    Parliament acceded to the European Convention on Human Rights. It now has to abide by its international obligations.

    then refuse to pay a penny of 'compensation' to the little darlings detained at Her Majesties Pleasure.
    Then we'd be chucked out of the Council of Europe, not to mention having repudiated the terms of the Convention. We'd become an international pariah-state.


    (Original post by Lord_Farquad)
    EU are clowns. They can go and stick their human rights BS up their *******s.
    I never cease to be amazed by how stupid people will blame the European Union for anything, even when it has absolutely nothing to do with an issue at hand. "The EU" (without further specification, of course - do they mean the elected Parliament, or the Council of Ministers representing the nations of Europe? They never say.) has become a sort of pantomime villain for the Daily Express readership.
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    Looks like the perfect opportunity for Cameron to prove he has a backbone - here's hoping he fights them every step of the way.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Great_One)
    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.
    The same Texas which answers to the US Federal Government?
    Offline

    15
    (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 am 100% against the prison vote, they lost their rights when they committed a crime and went to prison. I really hope Cameron doesn't bend over for those moron's, the EU was meant to be an Economic Union not an organisation that can control sovereign countries.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Parliament should tell the court to stuff it.
    Offline

    16
    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.
    yeah right
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tehFrance)
    I am 100% against the prison vote, they lost their rights when they committed a crime and went to prison. I really hope Cameron doesn't bend over for those moron's, the EU was meant to be an Economic Union not an organisation that can control sovereign countries.
    European Court of Human Rights =/= European Union.
    They are two totally different organisations - the ECHR came way before the European Union. Don't get them confused.

    As much as I detest both organisations, I hate it when people confuse them.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    Parliament acceded to the European Convention on Human Rights. It now has to abide by its international obligations.
    If we still believe that Parliament is sovereign, then we accept that its up to Parliament itself to decide what to do, regardless of past treaties. Also, the decision of a previous parliament is not binding on a current one. Things can change.

    I know that many may disagree, but I believe our own constitution comes above international treaties.

    Then we'd be chucked out of the Council of Europe, not to mention having repudiated the terms of the Convention. We'd become an international pariah-state.
    That's the ultimate threat, but would it happen? If they did kick us out (which I doubt) there would be outrage. Its such a trivial matter (in terms of Human Rights, nobody is being shot in the street), and one i'm sure the majority of Europe sympathises with us on.

    I never cease to be amazed by how stupid people will blame the European Union for anything, even when it has absolutely nothing to do with an issue at hand. "The EU" (without further specification, of course - do they mean the elected Parliament, or the Council of Ministers representing the nations of Europe? They never say.) has become a sort of pantomime villain for the Daily Express readership.
    To be fair, people are never told about the differences in the European institutions. The BBC and others are just as guilty as the Daily Express
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Anyone who suggests that we would be kicked out is talking nonsense - that is such an unlikely situation given some of the countries in the organisation. It pathetic propaganda.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    I don't see the harm in giving prisoners the right to vote. I'm neither for or against but if they don't have the right, it's basically equivalent to the government choosing the electorate.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anti-duck)
    I don't see the harm in giving prisoners the right to vote. I'm neither for or against but if they don't have the right, it's basically equivalent to the government choosing the electorate.
    The harm is that these people have broken the law of the land, they do not deserve the same rights as the normal folk. I read that thousands of sex offenders (it's a wide catagory) will get the vote. Could you imagine being voted in because a pervert voted for you?
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by Teaddict)
    European Court of Human Rights =/= European Union.
    They are two totally different organisations - the ECHR came way before the European Union. Don't get them confused.

    As much as I detest both organisations, I hate it when people confuse them.
    Ah well either way they shouldn't forcing their crap on us!
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Renner)
    If we still believe that Parliament is sovereign, then we accept that its up to Parliament itself to decide what to do, regardless of past treaties. Also, the decision of a previous parliament is not binding on a current one. Things can change.
    We accept that Parliament is sovereign insofar as it can, in theory, make any law on any subject of its choosing. In practical terms, however, this supremacy is patent nonsense: Parliament cannot, for example, repeal the independence acts and reassert its authority over the former colonies, it cannot make water run upstream. It cannot ignore physical realities, but neither can it ignore political realities: and the political reality is that it can do bugger-all about this ruling.

    That's the ultimate threat, but would it happen? If they did kick us out (which I doubt) there would be outrage. Its such a trivial matter (in terms of Human Rights, nobody is being shot in the street), and one i'm sure the majority of Europe sympathises with us on.
    It's not about the matter in dispute, it's about adherence to the law. If we say 'instead of following your rulings, we'll happily ignore you when it suits us' then that, rather than the initial issue raised, becomes the central problem. That's why they'd kick us out, and quite right too.

    The ECHR was crafted as a basic framework for human rights, a minimum level where international agreement could be found, while states could build upon rights within their own countries. If we can't even adhere to that, then God help us.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    It's not about the matter in dispute, it's about adherence to the law. If we say 'instead of following your rulings, we'll happily ignore you when it suits us' then that, rather than the initial issue raised, becomes the central problem. That's why they'd kick us out, and quite right too. .
    Yeah so out of all the countries in the ECHR they would kick Britain out because we won't let prisoners have the vote. The states of the former Yugoslavia, The Russian Federation and Azerbaijan are members and yet they would kick Britain out for not giving prisoners the vote?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Azerbaijan

    "Despite being a member of such bodies as the Human Rights Council and Council of Europe, several independent bodies, such as Human Rights Watch, have deemed human rights in Azerbaijan to be subpar at best"

    Yes, they are content with Azerbaijan but not us? Come on L i b, you attack Eurosceptics if they take nonsense yet that is exactly what you are putting forward.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    We accept that Parliament is sovereign insofar as it can, in theory, make any law on any subject of its choosing. In practical terms, however, this supremacy is patent nonsense: Parliament cannot, for example, repeal the independence acts and reassert its authority over the former colonies, it cannot make water run upstream. It cannot ignore physical realities, but neither can it ignore political realities: and the political reality is that it can do bugger-all about this ruling.
    I think the political reality is that if we refused, there is bugger all the ECHR would do about it. After all, the ECHR is not the body entrusted with enforcing its rulings.

    As Teaddict pointed out, other members of ECHR are committing heinous crimes against human rights and are still part of the team. So I would be amazed if they moved to kick us out. By refusing the ruling it would give the government a boost as well as setting the precedent that Parliament, not the ECHR, has the final say on such matters. We have nothing to lose yet much to gain

    Other members of the European Institutions (mainly the French) seem to pick and choose the regulations they want to follow, and defend their own interests to the death. Why should we follow every little thing when the others don't
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Let's go French on their arse.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teaddict)
    Anyone who suggests that we would be kicked out is talking nonsense - that is such an unlikely situation given some of the countries in the organisation. It pathetic propaganda.
    What is far more ridiculous is suggesting that the UK would ever refuse to substantively implement a decision of the European Court of Human Rights. In fact, no country is stupid enough to turn around to a court and say 'stuff you' when they don't like what they hear.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    What is far more ridiculous is suggesting that the UK would ever refuse to substantively implement a decision of the European Court of Human Rights. In fact, no country is stupid enough to turn around to a court and say 'stuff you' when they don't like what they hear.
    Except Aberbaijan which refused to abide by "binding" European Court judgements to release wrongfully imprisoned journalists, political opponents etc As I said, countries like Azerbaijan ignore the court, most recently in November of 2010, so for some reason I don't think we will be kickd out L i b... it's highly unlikely.

    Russia has ignored the court several times, Turkey has ignored the court several times and if I recall correctly, even Sweden has.

    I am not suggesting that it is in everyones best interest to ignore the court, just that your assertion that they would kick us out is complete and utter nonsense and I really cannot stress how completely and utterly nonsensical it is.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Can we just make new laws saying voting has to take place in schools (reasonable), and that criminals aren't allowed near or in schools (also reasonable), then our problem is fixed.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Renner)
    I think the political reality is that if we refused, there is bugger all the ECHR would do about it. After all, the ECHR is not the body entrusted with enforcing its rulings.
    There is indeed something the ECHR, via the Council of Europe's bodies, could do - kick the UK out. Indeed, if the UK does not comply with a ruling, then that is the only option they have.

    As Teaddict pointed out, other members of ECHR are committing heinous crimes against human rights and are still part of the team. So I would be amazed if they moved to kick us out. By refusing the ruling it would give the government a boost as well as setting the precedent that Parliament, not the ECHR, has the final say on such matters. We have nothing to lose yet much to gain

    Other members of the European Institutions (mainly the French) seem to pick and choose the regulations they want to follow, and defend their own interests to the death. Why should we follow every little thing when the others don't
    I'm not sure where you get this nonsense, but it's simply not true. Unlike the UK, France was not one of the 11 states mentioned as having "substantial implementation problems" in the Council of Europe's Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights 2010 Report on implementation of judgments. Britain was mentioned over this prisoner voting issue, and the practices surrounding police DNA storage.

    As that number suggests, plenty of countries do have implementation problems: they have not yet complied, or perhaps their domestic laws are poorly enforced and so on. None of them, however, have flicked the V-sign at the court and refused to comply or pay compensation as ordered. That is not some sort of regular occurrence, it is an entirely novel one which would create a European constitutional crisis. The only other occasion where anything comparable has occurred was when Greece denounced the Convention in the 1960s, when it was effectively a military dictatorship.

    If the only way to resolve it would be to suspend the UK's membership of the Council of Europe, then I have no doubt that is precisely what would happen. The only reason this is unlikely is because no sensible nation-state would behave in such a way.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: October 21, 2011
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
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.