ECHR interfere in British Soverignty...

Castiel · 13 Apr 2011 at 21:02

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...for-prisoners-must-be-fought-all-the-way.html

With an insouciance bordering on arrogance, the European Court of Human Rights has refused even to hear the Government's appeal against its ruling that British prisoners should be given the vote. Instead, it has given the Government a six-month deadline to change the law.

Rarely has there been a more blatant challenge to parliamentary sovereignty. This judgment has been handed down just two months after MPs voted by 234 votes to 22 to reject the ruling. So an unelected, unaccountable panel of judges drawn from countries across Europe, some of which have only the flimsiest judicial traditions, is not only defying the clearly expressed views of the House of Commons, but is also seeking to impose new legislation.

If the law is not changed in the way prescribed in Strasbourg, the court will order compensation payments to be paid to the 4,000-odd prisoners who claim that their human rights have been infringed by being deprived of the vote – a restriction that has always existed in Britain. The bill to the taxpayer could run to £150 million, but that would be just the first instalment: thousands more prisoners would undoubtedly climb aboard the bandwagon.

Let us put to one side the issue of prisoner voting rights and consider the ECHR itself.

Should the ECHR, an unelected, unaccountable judiciary be able to dictate law making to an elected, accountable and democratic Government?

Should our own domestic lawmakers and judiciary always have precedence over rulings emanating out of Europe?

I have to agree with the Telegraph, we should draw a line in the sand and refuse to curtail to any more enforced judgements from Europe, be it the ECHR or otherwise.

What say OCuk.......

arknor · 13 Apr 2011 at 21:04

what happens if we refuse to pay compensation to prisoners?

why dont we just threaten to pull out of nato , the UN and any other rubbish we dont need to be involved with if europe dont stfu

Nitefly · 13 Apr 2011 at 21:07

Castiel said:
Should the ECHR, an unelected, unaccountable judiciary be able to dictate law making to an elected, accountable and democratic Government?

Unlike like our own common law system of unelected, priviledged and rich upper class men?

Should our own domestic lawmakers and judiciary always have precedence over rulings emanating out of Europe?

No.

What say OCuk.......

You know when I said about '3 years'...?

OCUK couldn't get a grasp of the EU if it ran up and bit everyone in the bum

arknor · 13 Apr 2011 at 21:12

eu needs us more than we need them seeing s we contribute more than we gain back by a large margin , were about the only worthwhile military force that is prepared to get involved in europes stupid wars.

its about time we stopped beeing walked over by countries that give little to europe

Pinkribbonscars · 13 Apr 2011 at 21:16

Castiel said:
Should the ECHR, an unelected, unac...ple in Europe wishes their governments would.

Judgeneo · 13 Apr 2011 at 21:17

No, they should NOT be allowed to make laws that effect the UK directly, especially if our own government isn't allowed a say.

I hope this is a wakeup call for the nation, and that those in power do something about it.

Castiel · 13 Apr 2011 at 21:19

Nitefly said:
Unlike like our own common law system of unelected, priviledged and rich upper class men?

Our judiciary enforce law, they don't make them....the Government do, they are elected.

Nitefly said:
No.

Why not?

Should unelected bodies in Europe be able to over-ride elected Governments such as our own?

big_white_dog84 · 13 Apr 2011 at 21:19

My understanding of this issue is that the british media as usual is blowing everything out of all proportion.

the EU is not forcing us to give prisoners the vote. All it is asking for is a removal of the automatic blanket ban on every person sent to prison having their right to vote removed. My understanding is that we can continue to ban every single prisoner from voting simply by adding 'and removal of your civil right to vote' to every custodial sentence. I agree this is unneccesary beuraucracy - but hardly a reason for withdrawing from an organisation whose members take over 50% of our exports.

Castiel · 13 Apr 2011 at 21:20

big_white_dog84 said:
My understanding of this issue is that the british media as usual is blowing everything out of all proportion.

the EU is not forcing us to give prisoners the vote. All it is asking for is a removal of the automatic blanket ban on every person sent to prison having their right to vote removed. My understanding is that we can continue to ban every single prisoner from voting simply by adding 'and removal of your civil right to vote' to every custodial sentence. I agree this is unneccesary beuraucracy - but hardly a reason for withdrawing from an organisation whose members take over 50% of our exports.

The ECHR and the EU are not the same.

Tefal · 13 Apr 2011 at 21:21

Castiel said:
Our judiciary enforce law, they don't make them....the Government do, they are elected.

think he meant the house of lords.

VoG · 13 Apr 2011 at 21:22

Judgeneo said:
those in power do something about it.

the previous government had a hard on for the EU, the current government has a hard on for the EU, no one will be doing anything about it any time soon, other than paying lipservice to the EU doubters.

growse · 13 Apr 2011 at 21:25

Castiel said:
Our judiciary enforce law, they don't make them....the Government do, they are elected.

Why not?

Should unelected bodies in Europe be able to over-ride elected Governments such as our own?

My understanding is that the British 'supreme court' has the power to overturn various statutes in specific circumstances, although it has no power to make law by itself. Given that they're not elected, isn't that exactly the same as the ECHR overturning one of the government's laws?

Is it consistent to be happy for an unelected British supreme court to have the power to overturn laws created by our elected parliament, but to be unhappy for an unelected European supreme court to have the same power?

Do we want a system where no single body has the power to overturn laws created by parliament, no matter how crazy they might be?

Nitefly · 13 Apr 2011 at 21:25

Castiel said:
Our judiciary enforce law, they don't make them....the Government do, they are elected.

I'm afraid my friend that is very far from the truth.

A statute is essentially a blank canvas, ready to be interpreted, subject to law commission guidance. The courts can, within these boundaries, do as they wish. Many 'key elements' of English law come from case law, that is, from the courts, including how intent is found for murder (and honestly, just about everything else) and entire doctrines of law (most obviously promissory estopple - Mr. Denning!).

Why not?

Should unelected bodies in Europe be able to over-ride elected Governments such as our own?

I'm going to have to get back to you as I'm playing poker

pingwing · 13 Apr 2011 at 21:25

Oh noes sovereignty what are we going to do with that?!?!

Literally no idea what we can do with it, it's not like its quantifiable or will pay our taxes, fix our problems or do anything at all for us.

Best thing to do is watch the simpsons and see what happens (MILKING RATS)

Castiel · 13 Apr 2011 at 21:27

growse said:
My understanding is that the British 'supreme court' has the power to overturn various statutes in specific circumstances, although it has no power to make law by itself. Given that they're not elected, isn't that exactly the same as the ECHR overturning one of the government's laws?

Are they not appointed by the Government however, and as such are still subject to democratic process within the UK.

meghatronic · 13 Apr 2011 at 21:28

"Parliament thus defined has, under the English constitution, the right to make or unmake any law whatever: and, further, that no person or body is recognised by the law of England as having a right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament."

Whilst we recognise EU supremacy with EU issues, I suspect we'll win this one

growse · 13 Apr 2011 at 21:31

meghatronic said:
"Parliament thus defined has, under the English constitution, the right to make or unmake any law whatever: and, further, that no person or body is recognised by the law of England as having a right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament."

Whilst we recognise EU supremacy with EU issues, I suspect we'll win this one

Unfortunately, I suspect that the 'law of England' has very little meaning or consequence given the treaties we've signed presumably making European law a 'higher' law.

growse · 13 Apr 2011 at 21:32

Ah, wikipedia just told me that the supreme court of the UK has no power to overturn primary legislation passed by the government. I stand corrected. It also says that the only power it has to challenge primary legislation is to declare it incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. Logically, given that the ECHR has already ruled on this issue, the UKSC must side with the EHCR on this one and declare it incompatible.

This could be interesting then.

Strife212 · 13 Apr 2011 at 21:34

England doesn't have a constitution.

Anyway, of course we should tell them to get lost. ECHR is a joke, and a bad one.

meghatronic · 13 Apr 2011 at 21:37

growse said:
Unfortunately, I suspect that the 'law of England' has very little meaning or consequence given the treaties we've signed presumably making European law a 'higher' law.

Well they'd just have to repeal the European Communities Act 1972. Job done. Which won't happen obviously, but is a good bargaining chip. Especially as long as EU member countries keep bankrupting themselves.