Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Nov 2002
- Posts
- 16,379
- Location
- 38.744281°N 104.846806°W
ECHR interfere in British Soverignty...
- Thread starter Castiel
- Start date
Unfortunately, given the similar political persuasions of the 1972 government and our present government, I don't think its a bargaining chip the EU are going to take that seriously.
Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Nov 2002
- Posts
- 16,379
- Location
- 38.744281°N 104.846806°W
Well the coalition seem pretty determined over the prison=vote thing, so lets grab the popcorn?
If we loose control of our own laws, I say no, I can't think of anything that could outweigh the loss of our ability to decide our own laws. But this is coming from a UKIP voter so perhaps a little biased
You have asked an essay length questioncastiel said:
Because, in essense, it allows governments to be accountable to an external source. It stops governments using dubious tactics to unfairly promote their own economic success at the expense of others (e.g. Ireland's repeated campagnes to stigmatise all foreign goods). It also gives us an alternative route to exercise our rights. It is, in most ways, a fundementally good thing.
The downsides of the EU are its slowness to act and its inevitable bureaucracy.
Of course they should, because it's far easier to harmonise laws using directives than asking individual countries to come up with their own legislation with minimal guidance for the sake of free trade.
I'm going to assume you mean the court of human rights (ECtHR), not the convention of human rights (ECHR).
They are not literally the same thing no. But since the treaty of lisbon the ECJ has jurisdiction over the ECHR anyway so could decide the exact same issues. The only realy difference now in terms of governance is that it's far easier for individuals to bring cases infront of the ECHR as it's (mainly) countries that apply to the ECJ (at least that is how it has been executed).
Members of all judiciaries mentioned thus far are elected on grounds of merit so the whole 'unelected' frame of mind could run for all of them.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 25,821
- Location
- Glasgow
It's not just EU courts that make law with naked judicial creativity - admittedly they tend to do it with rather more flair/disregard for the prevailing law* than we do here as it is somewhat frowned upon but UK courts have been culpable for some quite curious interpretations as well as some inspired ones. However EU courts don't have to recognise past precedent or the binding nature of decisions from a higher court as we do in the UK so two essentially identical cases can have two very different outcomes - under the UK court system you'd have to distinguish from a previous case in point to get a different result.
*depends on your point of view, the EU courts have managed some brilliant interpretations of legislation that have rendered them massively more useful than otherwise they might be under a strict interpretation.
"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
I wouldn't be so convinced - if this was a game of Top Trumps then EU law is the card you want to be holding.
Theoretically, the ECHR can impose any fine they want but they can't force us to pay it. They're a dog without teeth.
The ECJ, the highest court in the EU, can however take heavier sanctions against us. To become a member of the EU you have to agree to implement the basic human rights as put forth by the ECHR. This was done by us implementing the Human Rights Act 1998.
Whether we agree to go ahead and give them the vote or not I really can't tell. Technically there is nothing either the ECHR or EU/ECJ can physically do to make us give them the vote. They have no force to make us do anything. The government will however be weighing up the pro's and con's of the potential sanctions etc that the EU could impose on us if we don't do as the ECHR order along with the fine the ECHR will try to impose. This will be weighed against the benefits of pulling out of the EU and ECHR. If we do both, technically the HRA 1998 will still stand but there will be no European body to enforce it. Consequently Parliamentary Supremacy will remain intact and common sense would hopefully prevail.
Personally I think we should pull out, keep the HRA and enforce it as we see fit rather than bow to the pressure and give the prisoners the vote. I think they're all completely barmy to even suggest that we give all those prisoners the vote. The only sensible concession I would be willing to give is to allow the vote to those prisoners who are serving a year or less in prison. If we do pull out of the EU, I can't honestly see all other European nations severing economic ties with us so it shouldn't affect us too drastically. The worst effect will come in the form of the workforce. Many working abroad could be forced home and likewise many here could be forced out. But they would have to mitigate that somehow by allow individuals a time limit in which they have to leave or to apply for a working permit to continue to stay.
The ECJ, the highest court in the EU, can however take heavier sanctions against us. To become a member of the EU you have to agree to implement the basic human rights as put forth by the ECHR. This was done by us implementing the Human Rights Act 1998.
Whether we agree to go ahead and give them the vote or not I really can't tell. Technically there is nothing either the ECHR or EU/ECJ can physically do to make us give them the vote. They have no force to make us do anything. The government will however be weighing up the pro's and con's of the potential sanctions etc that the EU could impose on us if we don't do as the ECHR order along with the fine the ECHR will try to impose. This will be weighed against the benefits of pulling out of the EU and ECHR. If we do both, technically the HRA 1998 will still stand but there will be no European body to enforce it. Consequently Parliamentary Supremacy will remain intact and common sense would hopefully prevail.
Personally I think we should pull out, keep the HRA and enforce it as we see fit rather than bow to the pressure and give the prisoners the vote. I think they're all completely barmy to even suggest that we give all those prisoners the vote. The only sensible concession I would be willing to give is to allow the vote to those prisoners who are serving a year or less in prison. If we do pull out of the EU, I can't honestly see all other European nations severing economic ties with us so it shouldn't affect us too drastically. The worst effect will come in the form of the workforce. Many working abroad could be forced home and likewise many here could be forced out. But they would have to mitigate that somehow by allow individuals a time limit in which they have to leave or to apply for a working permit to continue to stay.
My views are widely known probably. Down with the EU and all that chat.
I say the UK gets what it deserves for giving a mandate to a parliament that in reponse turns round and disregards their democratic rights.
No.
Yes.
I say the UK gets what it deserves for giving a mandate to a parliament that in reponse turns round and disregards their democratic rights.
Castiel said:
No.
Castiel said:
Yes.
This exactly. All the EHCR has said is that a blanket ban is unfair, not that we have to give all prisoners the vote.
I agree entirely with the EHCR, Removal of the franchise should always be justified, not used as a punishment.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2008
- Posts
- 4,255
- Location
- North Sea
So, what would the likely consequences be of shooting the ECHR the bird, then simply ignoring them?
The political parties will never agree it is so far pretty polarizing.. This is why it is ban or nothing.
You have asked an essay length question
Because, in essense, it allows governments to be accountable to an external source. It stops governments using dubious tactics to unfairly promote their own economic success at the expense of others (e.g. Ireland's repeated campagnes to stigmatise all foreign goods). It also gives us an alternative route to exercise our rights. It is, in most ways, a fundementally good thing.
The downsides of the EU are its slowness to act and its inevitable bureaucracy.
Are not Governments accountable to the electorate?
Do we not have our own courts which also hold them accountable.
Given that economic decisions in the EU are hugely biased in favour of Germany/France I fail to see that it is a fundamentally good thing, it seems to be fundamentally open to abuse by the larger more influential powers.
Outside courts should not have the power to dictate policy within a sovereign democratic country, they should only have the power to advise and recommend. The ultimate decision should remain within the sovereignty of the nation at hand....in this case Britain.
Courts clogged with prisoners taking tens of millions in compensation, if not more over longer periods...
What we have today shouldn't be in force.
Westminster cannot bind to a successor.
It's a massive smoke and mirrors job.
So what is all this talk about 6 months notice and issuing fines and forcing compensation if we do not comply if it is only a statement of relative fairness?
It's a classic example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy in action when it comes to politics. Just because something is popular (or unpopular) doesn't make it right or wrong.