Post on European Law - 16/02/2011
Posted by Jacob Rees-Mogg, MP for North East Somerset, at 10:18, Wed 16 February 2011:
Last week, the House of Commons voted to oppose the European Court Human Rights (ECHR) and keep the ban on prisoners voting. Although I have had little correspondence on this issue and the only person to telephone me was in favour of prisoners being allowed to vote it is of fundamental importance.
All constitutions depend on the rule of law. As has been seen in Egypt, where the ruler and the law are in indistinguishable tyranny takes hold. The question is who decides the law? In our system Parliament lays out the law in detail through legislation which the judges then interpret. On top of this there are two types of European law; one involves the European Union (which I will leave for another week), the second the European Council which administers the European Convention on Human Rights. This is unobjectionable and has done some good as continental countries have moved from dictatorships to democracies. There is nothing wrong with the United Kingdom being a signatory to it and implementing its principles.
The argument develops when the ECHR decides something which Parliament on behalf of the British people objects to. Does the principle of the rule of law allow Parliament to override the Court or does it take us to the foothills of tyranny? Ultimately there has to be a legitimate source of law. In this country it is Parliament. Thus, any law may be amended and any treaty obligation changed. The ECHR has legitimacy given to it by Parliament. This can then be taken away so that the will of the people prevails.
Comments
If you are subscribed to HearFromYourMP in this constituency,
log in to post a reply.
Otherwise, if you live in the UK,
sign up in order to
HearFromYourMP.
Posted by Frank Hutton, 10:24, Wed 16 February 2011: (Is this post abusive?) #
I agree - the key difference between the UK and places where dictatorship rules, is that our parliament is duly elected and subject to change through the will of the people. An interpretation of existing law is what the court gives. Parliament can rightly adjust that law.
Posted by John Doran, 12:05, Wed 16 February 2011: (Is this post abusive?) #
The idea of giving prisoners the right to vote is repugnant to me. By committing and being senetenced to jail for their crime, prisoners surely forfeit their "human right" to vote? There are also many practical difficulties. In which constituency will a prisoner vote? That of the prison or that of the district where they normally live? Who and how will candidates canvass/ address the prisoners? How will we ensure that an individual prisoner is not coerced by fellow prisoners into voting in a particular way? Will there be a polling station at every prison? The questions are endless, and I can see no workable solution. It is certainly not the postal vote
Posted by anna beria, 09:34, Thu 17 February 2011: (Is this post abusive?) #
The idea of giving prisoners the right to vote is not repugnant to me. Convincted offenders are denied their right to freedom, but they do not cease to be citizens. Unless they have been declared insane and committed to a secure psychiatric unit, I don't see why they should be disenfranchised, any more than they should be denied the right to medical care, education, paid work. If detainees are not encouraged to take an active interest in the country's political system (not as candidates, of course, but as voters) how can we expect to see them return to society, after their term is over, as better individuals and better citizens? John, the questions you raise could be applied to many voters who opt for postal vote. Could you kindly explain why the postal vote would not be an option for detainees?
Posted by John Doran, 11:56, Fri 18 February 2011: (Is this post abusive?) #
Hello Anna, The postal vote is already known to be subject to widespread abuse as there are no inbuilt checks to ensure that personation, and double voting does not occur to name but two of the many possible abuses : e.g a student can register for a postal vote in his "home" constituency, and also register to vote in his university town. A vote is registered in person in the university town, but no one checks that the same student has not voted by post in the home constituency. And who is to know that the student's home constituency postal vote has not been cast by a keen and well meaning parent? Imagine this in a prison context! 500 votes coerced en bloc towards one candidate could swing a tight constituency, and the MP could be elected on the strength of a prisoner vote. Not for me. A prisoner convicted of a crime worthy of prison surely loses temporarily his/her "human right" to vote? One aspect of prison is to punish, and this is surely part of the punishment? And what is prison? Many denied their liberty are on remand awaiting trial. How/where will they vote? No, Anna. Far too many uncontrollable imponderables for me to be in favour