February 11, 2011 at 11:27 in Nick de Bois
Last night, the House of Commons did a remarkable thing: on a contentious and vital issue, it found virtual unanimity.
I was proud to vote against prisoners having the vote. This time last year, the Prime Minister said that burglars leave their human rights outside when they break into your house. Well, criminals sent down leave their vote outside the prison gates.
The absurd prospect of taxpayers paying a nine-figure sum to compensate criminals for the consequences of their own criminal behaviour has served one useful purpose - it has thrown into stark relief the illegitimate power of the ECHR over our own institutions.
That blatant illegitimacy should prompt a further free vote - on leaving the jurisdiction of the ECHR. Its overweening ambition demonstrated by its judicial activism to hold itself above our parliament makes it incompatible with a British view of democracy. There was a time when it served a useful purpose – but that time has gone when 'human rights' embraces so many fatuous cases as we have witnessed over the last decade.
I have no doubt that given the chance, the Conservative Parliamentary Party would vote enthusiastically for such an exit. And in doing so, they would genuinely be expressing the will of the people.
But as last night showed, there are other parties who also would vote to leave. And that is why it should be a free vote.
After all the opprobrium that has been thrown at politicians in recent years - and the sight of MPs and ex-MPs being found guilty of fraud and given custodial sentences - we could now do something to show that we are in fact in touch with our electorate; that their instincts are our instincts too; that we believe in the sovereignty of our country through its parliament and the power of our electorate to decide our own laws.
So, it’s time for another free vote. And I know which way I would be voting.
Comment:
Was it really remarkable? What impact did it have on anything? Zero. If zero effect is remarkable then Nick de Bois does not know his arse from his elbow! I would contend it was not strictly speaking "the House of Commons", but instead a sub-grouping of MPs within the Commons. And, of course, "virtual unanimity" is not the same as actual, real, unanimity. The numbers do not add up "234 to 22" = 256 deduct this sub total from the 650 MPs in the Commons 394 are unaccounted for. The vast majority of MPs abstained.
Pride comes before a fall. Baroness Butler-Sloss has said that it is a national disgrace that the UK has failed to fully comply with the decision in Hirst v UK (No2). So, Nick de Bois is proud about being disgraceful? How foolish of him to quote the foolish off the cuff and factually incorrect remark by David Cameron. Then attempts to beat his leader's stupidity by issuing his own factually incorrect statement! Clowns belong in a circus not the Commons!
What is absurd is the UK's failure to abide with the law, and not expecting sanctions for breaking the law! The compensation is not for the prisoners criminal behaviour, but because the UK broke the law and abused their human rights to the vote. One glance at the Convention and it quickly becomes apparent that the ECtHR has legitimate jurisdiction over the UK.
It is one thing to call for a free vote on leaving the jurisdiction of the ECHR, and quite another to claim that it is down to the blatant illegitimacy of the ECHR. Note he says "the jurisdiction of the ECHR", he both accepts and rejects in one breath. I wonder if he is Bi-polar, or just very confused? It is amusing that he attempts to turn the issue of s.3 of ROPA 1983's incompatibility with Article 3 of the First Protocol of the Convention, into the Court's incompatibility with a British view of democracy. The Court does not have to be compatible with the UK. The Court is innocent, the UK is guilty. The latter has to amend its legislation, the former keeps its integrity intact.
The Conservative Parliamentary Party is not the will of the people, just self-interested snout-in-the-troughers!
I reject the idea that the vote showed that other parties would vote to leave. There may well be some with in the parties who would vote that way. Nick de Bois' hypocrisy raises its ugly head again when he states it must be a free vote. He favous democracy for MPs, but not for the electorate!
What stupid logic! Deny convicted prisoners the vote to show that MPs are now clean of the fiddled expenses scandal? It would not show that they are in touch with the electorate at all, the only thing they are in touch with is the till holding the taxpayers money! Those who believe in UK sovereignty to decide its own laws must accept that this is only possible by leaving both the Council of Europe and European Union. A rogue or pariah state the UK would then be, and what a state it would then be in!
It beggars belief that this complete idiot got elected to office!
Tory MPs are like Yosemite Sam, but without the laughs.
ReplyDelete