ECHR interfere in British Soverignty...

[Nitefly]

Argumentum ad repetition.

Show me where it is not true.

We have submitted the highest authority to the EU - this went against old constitutional interpretations. It is blatent that EU law is supreme, you can't be arguing against that surely?

We cannot legitimately in the UK sense be a member without consent by way of referendum.

So you are saying that we are not legitimately a member of the EU...?

 

[Biohazard]

We have submitted the highest authority to the EU - this went against old constitutional interpretations. It is blatent that EU law is supreme, you can't be arguing against that surely?

Oh dear.

That law is not supreme, it is 'supreme' because we 'accept' it.

My argument, had you not noticed, is that we could not have passed the relevant Act in Westminster to accept it in the first place without 'consent'.

I now give up with you, this is ridiculous for someone who told me I couldn't understand the topic.

So you are saying that we are not legitimately a member of the EU...?

Have I been typing for pages for absolutely nothing at all?

:/

 

[Nitefly]

Oh dear.

That law is not supreme, it is 'supreme' because we 'accept' it.

My argument, had you not noticed, is that we could not have passed the relevant Act in Westminster to accept it in the first place without 'consent'.

I now give up with you, this is ridiculous for someone who told me I couldn't understand the topic.


Have I been typing for pages for absolutely nothing at all?

:/

... right.

OCUK GD will have to decide this debate for us

 

[Biohazard]

Sounds fine by me.

 

[The Running Man]

Im not in favour of the prisoner vote but i say, give them the vote - instead of giving them potentially hundreds of thousands upon release from prison for not letting them vote. There are only 90,000 or so prisoners in the UK hardly enough to really swing any major political pull...

Which would you rather see, a prisoner with a voting slip, or thousands of your tax money to spend on their release? for me the answer is pretty simple.

 

[semi-pro waster]

It isn't just 'theory' however.

Well given that practice is demonstrably different in that successive Parliaments have considered themselves bound by the acts of their predecessors in this arena I'd have to say it's either a theory or has simply been modified.

Irrelevent, we can't have membership. Not without consent. They have true consent to trade with Europe. That is it.

It has been accepted for such a long time now that we are member of the EU institutions that consent could simply be implied even if it were not explicit. We recognise the supremacy of EU law, we can say that no Parliament binds its successors and that we can choose to overrule the laws of the EU but if we do not do so then what value our notional power?

That isn't a valid legal argument.

Which part of it? None of the parties who are likely to be in power in the UK have shown any inclination to rescind membership. If none of the people we (as an electorate) elect to represent us wish to remove themselves from membership then in effect we're bound to remain members of the EU - irrespective of whether Parliament can choose to leave the EU if it does not then all the arguments about the potential are just niceties that mean the sum total of nothing.

De Facto and de jure are well understood legal concepts which are often used in terms of determining monopolies, they may or may not be directly applicable here but I see no real reason why they could not be used.

 

[Castiel]

Im not in favour of the prisoner vote but i say, give them the vote - instead of giving them potentially hundreds of thousands upon release from prison for not letting them vote. There are only 90,000 or so prisoners in the UK hardly enough to really swing any major political pull...

Which would you rather see, a prisoner with a voting slip, or thousands of your tax money to spend on their release? for me the answer is pretty simple.

We could give them the right to vote, if they saw through the bars to get to a polling station....

Out of interest how many other European nations give prisoners the vote?

 

[Biohazard]

Well given that practice is demonstrably different in that successive Parliaments have considered themselves bound by the acts of their predecessors in this arena I'd have to say it's either a theory or has simply been modified.

The legal presidence and constitution has been ignored.

It has been accepted for such a long time now that we are member of the EU institutions that consent could simply be implied even if it were not explicit. We recognise the supremacy of EU law, we can say that no Parliament binds its successors and that we can choose to overrule the laws of the EU but if we do not do so then what value our notional power?

It depends on which institutions as they all aren't tied to membership, but yes I know this. We recognise the 'supremacy' of EU law and at the same time in doing so invalidate it at the same time, legally. Yet, it doesn't fit with the political agenda so it isn't a concern.

It still isn't right.

Which part of it? None of the parties who are likely to be in power in the UK have shown any inclination to rescind membership. If none of the people we (as an electorate) elect to represent us wish to remove themselves from membership then in effect we're bound to remain members of the EU - irrespective of whether Parliament can choose to leave the EU if it does not then all the arguments about the potential are just niceties that mean the sum total of nothing.

That it 'is', therefore it is correct because it 'is'.

De Facto and de jure are well understood legal concepts which are often used in terms of determining monopolies, they may or may not be directly applicable here but I see no real reason why they could not be used.

Because it isn't applicaple. See above.

 

[Biohazard]

Out of interest how many other European nations give prisoners the vote?

Many nations, including Denmark, Sweden and Switzerland, have no form of electoral ban for imprisoned offenders. In some of them, however, severe restrictions make it very difficult in practice for offenders to vote. In Cyprus, for example, an inmate must happen to be out of prison on the day of the elections, and in Slovakia, prisoners can legally vote but no provision is made to allow them to do so.

The Republic of Ireland lifted its ban in 2006, passing legislation enabling all prisoners to vote by post in the constituency where they would ordinarily live.

In 13 European countries, electoral disqualification depends on the crime committed or the length of the sentence. Italy, Malta and Poland, for example, ban those deemed to have committed serious crimes. In Greece, anyone sentenced to life receives a permanent voting ban.

Germany's law actually urges prisons to encourage their inmates to vote, although it does ban those whose crimes undermine "democratic order", such as political insurgents.

Until 2005, Austria banned all those sentenced to more than one year. However, a convicted murderer challenged that and won, meaning that Austria now allows the vote in all cases except where the offence is particularly relevant - such as electoral fraud.

Other than the UK, the only other European countries with an outright ban on prisoners voting are Russia, Armenia, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Luxembourg and Romania.

However, until a legal challenge is brought in those countries, Europe will not seek to force a change in their domestic legislation.

 

[The Running Man]

We could give them the right to vote, if they saw through the bars to get to a polling station....

Out of interest how many other European nations give prisoners the vote?

My assumption is that they will all have to if this comes to pass as a de facto law for us. Someone in a foriegn prison will also sue and they will have to take our position? They cant kick it into the long grass indefinitely in this country however, so lets deal that that first.

The issue is, if we want to maintain our position with the ECHR then we'll have to implement it.

Does anyone agree with the notion of putting tax up to 20%? No but we have to do it because it will hurt less in the long run as part of our austerity measures to help avoid us going greek.

Same thing here imo, take the hit let people vote or at least, give long term prisoners the right to apeal to vote in some cases (as has been mooted that they could do to simply walk around the law itself). Failure to address our law by adding in a right to apeal for a vote will end up costing us undefined millions, how an we let that happen?

Personally i dont give a rats if they can vote. They will mnake next to no difference, and you of all people plus othersa talk about jail being for rehab not punishment anyway. So maybe rehabilitate thyem by treating them like humans and telling them what a vote is?

 

[semi-pro waster]

The legal presidence and constitution has been ignored.

So by implication if we continue not to use it then we're changing it and/or removing it in certain circumstances.

It depends on which institutions as they all aren't tied to membership, but yes I know this. We recognise the 'supremacy' of EU law and at the same time in doing so invalidate it at the same time, legally. Yet, it doesn't fit with the political agenda so it isn't a concern.

It still isn't right.

It appears to be one of those horse has bolted situations, you can point to Parliament's inability to bind its successors but since successive Parliaments have considered themselves bound then at some point the principle is ultimately useless and falls into desuetude (although that's more commonly a term used in civil law jurisdictions but it's too nice and neat to ignore).

That it 'is', therefore it is correct because it 'is'.

It's somewhat circular as you're pointing out and yet that is enough legally speaking sometimes. A situation exists, it is accepted by those who have the power to challenge it, therefore it is an acceptable situation as consent has been given by implication.

Because it isn't applicaple. See above.

You're telling me what it should be if the principle of Parliament being unable to bind its successors remains true and is followed, that this has been repeatedly ignored in this particular arena suggests strongly that an exception to the aforementioned principle can be argued, especially if this remains the situation.