If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.

- George Washington

Thursday 10 February 2011

Parliament Grows a Pair

So the House of Commons has voted, with a 212 majority, to reject plans to give prisoners the vote.

I'm delighted with this, for two reasons:

One, that it is the right thing to do. Prisoners should not have the ability to vote on those who make the laws we live under. As is often said, "those who break the law should not make the law" or, put another way, your human rights, other then the very basic ones of food and shelter, end the moment you moment you infringe mine by theft or assault. Parliament's decision is a sharply-defined moral choice, at a time when making such moral choices is unfashionable.

Two, it demonstrates that our Parliament has the ability to decide for itself. Cameron has wrung his hands and said we can't vote no because of our commitment to the ECHR, but Parliament has stuck two fingers up and done what they wanted. That is how Parliament should work, and always did work before our Prime Ministers became Presidents in all but title.

What happens next will be interesting. The decision is not binding on the Government, which has until April to decide what to do. Either it will go with what Parliament wishes, which will bring it into direct conflict with the EU (and if Cameron wants the support of the British people, that's a good way to get it), or it will fudge and compromise - say, by giving the vote only to nice prisoners - and thwart the will of the people as expressed by their elected representatives.

Either way, we are heading towards a crunch. I hope Cameron grows a backbone, remembers his 'cast-iron' promise, and tells the EU to stuff itself. This could be the start of the process of disengagement from the EU altogether. Public opinion is against the EU, but not galvanised enough to do anything about it. A constitutional crisis such as this might well be the tipping point that gets people up off their sofas and shouting. If he doesn't, and compromises with, say, votes for prisoners on sentences of 12 months or less, then Parliament will rightly say that he is acting for his EU paymasters and not the British people.

And David Davis is waiting in the wings. I wouldn't underestimate him.

17 comments:

  1. Pity it wasn't about something like the EU Arrest Warrants. Got no confidence at all in this vote ... it's just spin.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Another thing ... 400 of the twats were missing! Gutless wonders!

    ReplyDelete
  3. It's a decision. The spinning starts when Cameron has to decide how to play it. I have no confidence that he will act robustly or correctly, but that's not Parliament's fault. For once, they got it right. And all those missing meant the vote wasn't even close - more ammo for those who wish the Govt to stick by the decision. 212 is a big majority, however it is achieved.

    ReplyDelete
  4. It seems churlish to say, too little too late, but at least Parliament acted for Britain.
    You will search Camerons trousers in vain for a pair of cojones.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Even Hitler, allegedly, had one.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Now that Parliament has properly considered the matter (which it failed so to do when the Representation of the People Act 2003 was passed) one leg of the court's reasoning is demolished.
    The illegimacy of the ECHR for deciding voting rights is displayed by the 2001 case that Spain brought against Britain to prevent Gibraltarians voting in EU elections (only possible since the 2004 election). That the case wasn't thrown out immediately leaves me speechless.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Another thought: why are people with learning disabilities or a mental illness who are incapable of making a reasoned judgement banned from voting? What about their human rights. Equally, why is an MP disqualified from parliament if mentally ill for six months or more yet a convicted MP is only disqualified for sentences of twelve months or longer?

    ReplyDelete
  8. I've been having a hunt around, and there's an article here by Mary Ellen Synon which has a different, and far less optimistic, take on the issue. Well worth a read.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Yes Richard he did. History tends to forget that he was shortlisted with Gandhi in 1938 for the Nobel Peace Prize and was Times magazines Man of the Year.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Or this link to an article here by the Policy Exchange.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Parliament has not grown a pair, it has had a pair thrown upon it. As Smoking Hot points out 400 of the twats absented themselves though I cannot remember a time when the Govenment position found support from just a measly 22 members (presumably all ministers and lackies).

    Something nags in the back of my mind that this is actually an EU power play in which they will emerge as victors no matter what our own legislators say; in a similar way they are picking a fight over a relativly trivial matter in Lithuania where the issue of promoting gayness to infants is merely a ploy to demonstrate EU power

    http://rt.com/news/homosexuality-lithuania-legislation-struggle/

    ReplyDelete
  12. I believe all ministers and opposition spokesmen were required to abstain, so the 22 were genuine enough. I agree that the turnout was pathetic.

    As to the rest ... we shall see. It's getting interesting.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Either it will go with what Parliament wishes, which will bring it into direct conflict with the EU

    Apologies for being pedantic but the ECHR is not part of the EU although thanks to recent EU treaties the distinction has got a bit murkier.

    The ECHR is part of the Council of Europe a separate institution altogether (although historically it's a forerunner of the EU).

    We can still be part of the ECHR (Council of Europe) without being member of the EU al la Russia and Turkey.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Feel free to be pedantic. I sort of knew that, but I was talking in generalities, as I am not up to speed on the technical issues. As I understand it, even the top lawyers aren't 100% sure about the relative relationships, so I will accept my ignorance and wait to see what eventuates. But anything factual you can add is very welcome.

    ReplyDelete
  15. As I understand it the EU has taken it upon itself to be the Policeman or enforcer of the ECHRs pronouncements, how many divisions it commands is another question.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I would have liked to see David Davis in Clarke's seat...

    ReplyDelete
  17. Brian - your comment at 23.06 was spamtrapped, but has now been released into the wild. Sorry about that.

    ReplyDelete

Comment is free, according to C P Scott, so go for it. Word verification is turned off for the time being. Play nicely.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...