Coalition in big trouble as Nile Gardiner fisked

Coalition in big trouble as Nile Gardiner fisked



Nick Clegg’s votes for prisoners plan is a massive insult to victims of crime

By Nile Gardiner

It is hard to think of a more insensitive policy proposal guaranteed to alienate the British public from the Coalition government than a move to give prisoners the right to vote. Not only is the plan, pushed by Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, a further shameful surrender of British sovereignty within Europe, it is hugely insulting to millions of victims of crime.

The Times noted today in its piece “Clegg goes into battle for prisoners’ voting rights”:

Nick Clegg’s officials said last night that the blanket ban on Britain’s 88,000 prisoners taking part in elections cannot continue. The Deputy Prime Minister took responsibility for the issue from Kenneth Clarke, the Justice Secretary, in July.
Britain is under pressure to act because of a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights and criticism from the Council of Europe. Prisoners are now being encouraged to sue the Government and receive up to £750 each in compensation.

Neil O’Brien has written a detailed post examining the legal background to this disturbing development, and Telegraph readers can find the original 2005 European Court ruling which has prompted Clegg’s decision here.

Nick Clegg’s move should come as no surprise, given his long-standing track record of support for a Eurofederalist vision of Britain’s future. It will provoke a serious split in the Coalition and a furious backlash on the Conservative backbenches. I hope that the Prime Minister will take a clear stand against his deputy’s position, and side with the victims of crime rather than the perpetrators of it.

Clegg’s wrongheaded stance should prompt a full-scale debate in Westminster and across the UK over the future of the Human Rights Act introduced by Tony Blair in 2000, which effectively made British human rights law subservient to the fundamentally undemocratic European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

Prior to the election, the Conservatives had pledged to draw up a new Bill of Rights to replace the Human Rights Act, which has increasingly been used by Islamist terrorists to avoid deportation. They have since dropped the idea, no doubt to appease the Liberal Democrats and to avoid a clash with Europe.

As The Daily Telegraph reported last November, then Shadow Justice Secretary Dominic Grieve had strong reservations over what he called “a degree of deference to Strasbourg”, and made it clear that a Conservative administration would reserve the right to ignore European human rights rulings:

Mr Grieve said in a speech that the current Human Rights Act had been “interpreted as requiring a degree of deference to Strasbourg that I believe was and should be neither required nor intended”.

Instead, he said, a new Bill of Rights – which would replace the Human Rights Act – would make clear that British courts could allow for UK common law to take precedence over decisions by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. Speaking at Middle Temple in central London, Mr Grieve said: “We would want to reword it to emphasise the leeway of our national courts to have regard to our own national jurisprudence and traditions and to other common law precedents while still acknowledging the relevance of Strasbourg Court decisions.”

You can read Grieve’s speech in full here.

There is no reason why a sovereign nation with a great and proud history of advancing liberty and freedom should be bound by European human rights law. The British public never voted on the introduction of the European Convention on Human Rights, and should be given the opportunity to reject it through a referendum. The notion that convicted criminals should have the right to participate in elections, against the will of Parliament and the British people, is an affront to democracy and the principle of national sovereignty.

Nile Gardiner now fisked...

“Nick Clegg’s votes for prisoners plan is a massive insult to victims of crime”.

There was me thinking that the plan to get prisoners the vote was my idea. I would have thought that Nile Gardiner would have spotted the clue what with the Prisoners Votes Case bearing the title Hirst v UK (No2). I did ask the Council of Europe to confirm whether I had ownership of the case bearing my name, and they replied in the affirmative. Nowhere in the blog post does Nile Gardiner explain why he thinks my plan is a massive insult to victims of crime. I do know that the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Court of Human Rights referred to me as being a victim, it follows that the 75,000 convicted prisoners denied the vote are also victims of State abuse.

“It is hard to think of a more insensitive policy proposal guaranteed to alienate the British public from the Coalition government than a move to give prisoners the right to vote. Not only is the plan, pushed by Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, a further shameful surrender of British sovereignty within Europe, it is hugely insulting to millions of victims of crime.”

It is amusing that the Director of a think tank, the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, and someone claiming this to be an area in which he has expertise, finds it hard to think. If Nile Gardiner had taken the time to read the Court’s judgment, he would have seen that the Labour government had argued that giving prisoners the vote would offend public opinion. The Court rejected this line of argument by stating that it was not a ground to deny a vulnerable group in society the basic human right to the franchise because to do so might offend public opinion. The Court’s reasoning is based upon the Actio Popularis principle which is designed to protect vulnerable groups in society from society at large and/or the State. Rather than being insensitive it is a very sensitive perception of victimisation. What is insensitive is Nile Gardiner’s ignorance, arrogance, prejudice and fear. Furthermore, the majority of those who took part in Labour’s consultation exercises favoured all convicted prisoners getting the franchise. As for British sovereignty, it is obvious when a Member State joins the Council of Europe that some national sovereignty will be sacrificed for the common good in Europe. What is shameful is that the UK did not incorporate the Convention into UK domestic law 50 years ago. As for surrender, this is what a losing side has to do to end a battle. The Association of Prisoners are victorious. We accept the coalition government’s White Flag.

“Nick Clegg’s officials said last night that the blanket ban on Britain’s 88,000 prisoners taking part in elections cannot continue. The Deputy Prime Minister took responsibility for the issue from Kenneth Clarke, the Justice Secretary, in July”.

Nick Clegg’s officials? I thought we have a coalition government? Whilst the Tories and LibDems are separate political parties, they are united in government. Let’s stop all this Them and Us nonsense! Within that 88,000 there are 10,000 Remand prisoners who already have the right to vote. The last government gave in on these in an attempt to hold the line, but the ECtHR crossed that line. I am mounting an injunction to prevent the buck being passed from Kenneth Clarke to Nick Clegg. The July agreement to that extent is unlawful.

“Britain is under pressure to act because of a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights and criticism from the Council of Europe. Prisoners are now being encouraged to sue the Government and receive up to £750 each in compensation”.

Actually, it is the UK and not Britain under pressure to act. Whilst it is true that the Council of Europe is criticising the UK for its unwarranted delay over 5 years, this is not the half of it because it is the Committee of Ministers job to supervise execution of the Court’s judgments. The Lisbon Treaty gave the Council of Europe, Court and Committee of Ministers new powers and this was the subject of the Interlaken Conference 18-19 February 2010, and the Interlaken Declaration was signed on behalf of the UK by the then Attorney General, Baroness Scotland. The new powers came into force on 1 June 2010. Based on case law from the US, I estimate that damages could be as much as £1,000 per prisoner or £135m in total for the loss of the vote in both the European and English elections.

“Neil O’Brien has written a detailed post examining the legal background to this disturbing development, and Telegraph readers can find the original 2005 European Court ruling which has prompted Clegg’s decision here”.

I wouldn’t call a much needed reform a “disturbing development”, rather I think it is a positive step forward.

“Nick Clegg’s move should come as no surprise, given his long-standing track record of support for a Eurofederalist vision of Britain’s future. It will provoke a serious split in the Coalition and a furious backlash on the Conservative backbenches. I hope that the Prime Minister will take a clear stand against his deputy’s position, and side with the victims of crime rather than the perpetrators of it”.

What Nile Gardiner either is not aware of or conveniently ignoring is that Winston S. Churchill had the vision of a United States of Europe. So, this harmonisation within Europe has been going on since the end of World War 2. It is those who still think we have the British Empire who are out of step with developments in Europe and not Nick Clegg who is a former MEP. If there is a serious split in the coalition, it will make no difference to the commitment of the UK to abide by the Convention and Court decisions. All it will mean is that the coalition can no longer continue in government and it will force another general election. I have said all along that this issue could bring down the government. Similarly, if the Tory backbenchers vote against the measure and it leads to the defeat of the government it will mean another general election. Isn’t prisoner power wonderful? If Cameron challenges Nick Clegg after giving him the responsibility for the issue, not only will the LibDems withdraw from the coalition but once again it will bring down the government. Nile Gardiner is being disingenuous to claim that this is an issue between victims of crime on the one scale and prisoners on the other scale, because the victims of crime are not in the equation at all. The victims here are the prisoners and it is between them and the State which is abusing their human rights that is the issue. The law-abiding prisoners and the law-breaking State.

“Clegg’s wrongheaded stance should prompt a full-scale debate in Westminster and across the UK over the future of the Human Rights Act introduced by Tony Blair in 2000, which effectively made British human rights law subservient to the fundamentally undemocratic European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)”.

Nick Clegg is not wrong-headed over supporting prisoners getting the vote. Where Clegg was wrong-headed was when he rowed back from the position of all convicted to get the vote under Charles Kennedy, to only some convicted prisoners to get the vote. My case, and then Frodl v Austria re-emphasised it that all convicted prisoners must get the vote. Actually, the Act was introduced by Parliament in 1998 and not by Tony Blair in 2000. Blair introduced the Bill for the Act, and when it was passed by Parliament it did not come into force for another 2 years. This was to give the judges and public authorities time to get used to the idea that people are entitled to human rights. Some dinosaurs still have not got used to it after 10 years! I would welcome the HRA being amended to make it compatible with the Convention, because it was badly drafted in parts and watered down in others to appease those in power who were scared of the thought of people power. The Convention is not undemocratic because the UK signed up to it. Until the Act was passed we did not have human rights law in this country, therefore it could not be made subservient to the Convention. The Act incorporated the Convention (minus Articles 1 and 13) into domestic law. What the Interlaken Declaration achieved is that Human Rights must be seen as higher law in Member States. In effect, it means a written constitution for the UK for the first time in its constitutional history. It also means that the UK must apply the subsidiarity principle from European law and this binds the courts, Executive and Parliament. Supremacy of Parliament and the Separation of Powers as we know it must adapt to fall into line with Europe.

“Prior to the election, the Conservatives had pledged to draw up a new Bill of Rights to replace the Human Rights Act, which has increasingly been used by Islamist terrorists to avoid deportation. They have since dropped the idea, no doubt to appease the Liberal Democrats and to avoid a clash with Europe”.

This British Bill of Rights was always going to be a non-starter, and it is time that the racists are no longer tolerated and appeased.

“As The Daily Telegraph reported last November, then Shadow Justice Secretary Dominic Grieve had strong reservations over what he called “a degree of deference to Strasbourg”, and made it clear that a Conservative administration would reserve the right to ignore European human rights rulings:

Mr Grieve said in a speech that the current Human Rights Act had been “interpreted as requiring a degree of deference to Strasbourg that I believe was and should be neither required nor intended”.”.

Dominic Grieve, it has to be said, is not the sharpest pencil in the box. The UK in the Treaty of London (1949) (The Statute of the Council of Europe), agreed to abide by the Convention and abide by the decisions of the ECtHR. However, UK courts only took these into account and did not consider them binding in domestic law until the Convention was incorporated into the HRA. Now the courts apply the Act rather than show deference to Strasbourg. When the Convention states that the ECtHR decision is final, unless the UK withdraws from the Council of Europe then it follows that the UK must show deference to Strasbourg. European law must prevail on matters relating to Europe, and where domestic law is in conflict the UK is under an obligation to harmonise it to the European standard. It is what being part of Europe is all about. If the UK wants to remain an island entirely unto itself, it has no option but to get out of Europe. Personally, I believe that as a nation we are better off in Europe.

“Instead, he said, a new Bill of Rights – which would replace the Human Rights Act – would make clear that British courts could allow for UK common law to take precedence over decisions by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.
Speaking at Middle Temple in central London, Mr Grieve said:

“We would want to reword it to emphasise the leeway of our national courts to have regard to our own national jurisprudence and traditions and to other common law precedents while still acknowledging the relevance of Strasbourg Court decisions.”

You can read Grieve’s speech in full here.”.

What Grieve was suggesting was that we go back in time or go forward by going backwards! There is a place for the common law, and HRA to work in conjunction with European law, but no place for us in Europe if we insist on trying to dictate terms to the other 46 Member States of Europe whilst maintaining UK independence. It’s a team game we are either in or out, we cannot have it both ways. Given that Dominic Grieve is the Attorney General, the legal adviser to the Crown and government, it has to be questioned whether he is fit for the purpose. He quite obviously did not get the job on merit!

“There is no reason why a sovereign nation with a great and proud history of advancing liberty and freedom should be bound by European human rights law. The British public never voted on the introduction of the European Convention on Human Rights, and should be given the opportunity to reject it through a referendum. The notion that convicted criminals should have the right to participate in elections, against the will of Parliament and the British people, is an affront to democracy and the principle of national sovereignty”.

The problem with this is that it is complete bunkum. The UK record of advancing liberty and freedom is atrocious. In Europe, they refer to the people as citizens. In this country we are still referred to as subjects of the Queen! It is precisely because we have the worst human rights record as adjudged by the ECtHR that the UK needs an outside body to watch over us. Neither the judges nor Parliament nor the Executive have shown that they can be trusted to deliver the minimum standards of human rights. We are 50 years behind Europe in this respect. 46 other Member States look upon us and pity our plight. If the UK pulls out of the Convention, will the last person to leave the UK switch out the lights? The reason why the ECtHR decided that prisoners should have the vote is because for too long the Executive, Parliament and the Judiciary did not show the political will for reforms which would lead to the UK becoming a civilised nation. The civilised countries of Europe saw this as an affront to common decent standards for all human beings. For too long the King has been parading in the nude and claiming to be wearing a suit of green. Now he has been exposed because I said what needed to be said. I was fed up of living a lie. The problem with Nile Gardiner is that he is a hypocrite. For a so-called expert dealing with the US led alliance against rogue states, not to see when the UK is itself a rogue state in Europe shows that he is either blind or as daft as George Bush and that he has the morals of Tony Blair going into an illegal war with Iraq and claiming he did what he believed to be right! It is worth remembering that the prisoners in Iraq do have the right to vote. When it is in the US and UK interests they supported prisoners having the vote. When it is in the prisoners own interests, funny how the US and UK are against the idea isn’t it?