Another fight looms for Cameron over votes for prisoners

Another fight looms for Cameron over votes for prisoners

James Forsyth 7:46pm, Tuesday, 12th April 2011, Spectator

Prisoner voting is back on the agenda. The European Court of Human Rights has rejected the British government’s appeal and declared that the coalition has six months to draw up proposals to change the law.

David Cameron now has to decide whether to ignore the Strasbourg Court or go against the will of his MPs, who voted overwhelmingly to oppose giving prisoners the vote in response to the court’s initial decision. In many ways, ignoring the court is the safer option. Tory MPs aren’t inclined to back down on this issue and if Cameron tried to make them he would create a lot of ill-will and take an awful kicking from the press. On top of this, there’s no enforcement mechanism for the European Court of Human Rights, and the Master of the Rolls, Lord Neuberger, confirmed last week that the government was under no domestic legal obligation to implement its judgements.

But set against this is how the Liberal Democrats might react to simply ignoring the European Court of Human Rights. Their effective neutering of Cameron’s commission on a British Bill of Rights shows just how strongly Liberal Democrats feel on these issues. Cameron, though, will surely have to explain to them that this is a fight the coalition can’t pick with Tory backbenchers, the press and — most importantly — the public.

Comment: "David Cameron now has to decide whether to ignore the Strasbourg Court or go against the will of his MPs, who voted overwhelmingly to oppose giving prisoners the vote in response to the court’s initial decision". This is a false dilemma. There is no choice whether to fully comply or ignore the Court's decision. Nor does he need to go against the will of his MPs. It was just the backbench MPs that voted against prisoners votes. The backbench MPs vote is not binding on the Government whereas the Court decision is. "Tory MPs aren’t inclined to back down on this issue and if Cameron tried to make them he would create a lot of ill-will and take an awful kicking from the press". The backbench Tory MPs do not come into the equation, they are merely sticking their noses into something which does not concern them. They can be dismissed easily by thelling them to mind their own business. In a genuine democracy neither the media nor backbenchers dictate terms.

Part of the enforcement mechanism is that Member States remedy the breach of human rights. Then there is the Interlaken process of applying sanctions to rogue or pariah states.

Whilst Lord Neuberger, MR, has opined in a speech that under domestic law there is no obligation to abide by the Court's judgments, Lord Hope of Craighead in his speech appears to disagree with the Master of the Rolls.

"Cameron, though, will surely have to explain to them that this is a fight the coalition can’t pick with Tory backbenchers, the press and — most importantly — the public". As I have already said, both the backbenchers and press are not part of the equation. James Forsyth makes the big mistake of thinking that the public have any say on this issue. Public opinion has already been excluded by the Court. This is solely an issue of the Individual v the State, and the State lost.