Now defy Europe on prisoner votes, Cameron is urged by Tory backbenchers amid risk of rift with Lib Dems
By James Chapman and Jack Doyle
Last updated at 7:43 AM on 14th April 2011
Challenge: Prime Minister David Cameron yesterdayDavid Cameron faced growing Tory calls last night to defy demands from European judges to hand prisoners the vote.
Downing Street sources said the Prime Minister was ‘deeply disappointed’ by the European Court of Human Rights’ refusal even to consider an appeal over its ruling that a 140-year-old ban on inmates taking part in elections is against the law.
Mr Cameron will consider a range of options over the next few months – including simply ignoring the court’s demands.
That would be an unprecedented step which risks an explosive rift with the Liberal Democrats. But little else appears likely to satisfy Tory backbenchers who insist a line in the sand must be drawn to defend British sovereignty.
Senior MPs said last night that 8,000 rulings from the court have simply not been implemented by other countries.
The Prime Minister is being warned by senior Cabinet colleagues that he stands no chance of getting legislation handing even small numbers of prisoners the vote through Parliament. Ministers had argued that one of the key objections of the Strasbourg court to Britain’s ban – that Parliament had not considered the issue for more than a century – has now been addressed.
MPs voted overwhelmingly in February to reject the ECHR’s demands that Britain hands prisoners the vote on the grounds that their human rights were being infringed.
They agreed that the ban must be maintained because convicted criminals have ‘broken their contract with society’.
They voted by 234 votes to 22, a majority of 212, to defy the ECHR’s ruling.
Dozens of Conservative MPs insist after decades of toeing the line, the time has come for Britain to tell Strasbourg judges that they have exceeded their authority.
But this week, the court insisted the ban must be lifted regardless of the vote in Parliament and insisted the Government must bring forward new laws within six months.
Leading opponents of votes for prisoners urged Mr Cameron to resist the court’s demands.
Tory backbenchers pointed to a speech last week by the Master of the Rolls, Lord Neuberger, who said Parliament was free to choose whether it listened to judges in Strasbourg or ignored them. MPs said ministers could simply refuse to pay the estimated £150million in compensation claims from inmates denied the vote.
One possibility is the Government will introduce legislation, but encourage Conservative MPs to vote against it.
An eight-page leaked Government document confirms that the European court has no legal powers to force the Government to pay compensation for denying prisoners their human rights.
Foreign body: The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France‘The direct sanctions for failure to comply with Strasbourg judgment are political rather than judicial,’ the document says.
‘We are not aware of any country that has been expelled from the [European] Council for non-execution of a judgment.’
The paper also reveals that if the Government made a ‘genuine attempt’ to introduce legislation to allow prisoners to vote, even if it was voted down, they would escape censure.
The legal advice said this would be enough to ‘persuade Strasbourg that the UK has done its best’.
Esher and Walton MP Dominic Raab, who helped engineer the Commons vote on the issue, said: ‘The Strasbourg Court has triggered a constitutional clash it cannot win – if we stand firm.
‘We cannot be forced to implement the judgment – senior British judges have made that clear. We cannot be forced to pay compensation, and there is no serious risk of Britain being kicked out of the Council of Europe.
‘If we do not draw the line here, and stand up for the democratic rights of the British people, there will be even more perverse rulings to come.’
Former shadow home secretary David Davis said: ‘Parliament should not and in my view will not back down in this matter.
‘We are in the right both morally and legally and the court is guilty of extending beyond its remit. It can instruct Governments but it cannot instruct a Parliamentary democracy.’
Conservative MP for Witham Priti Patel said: ‘David Cameron has been vocal about his personal view on this issue. This is a strong opportunity for him to show decisive leadership and say enough is enough.
‘This is morally wrong as well as democratically wrong and we must say that we will not take instruction from an unelected group of European judges. The Government should not simply ignore this ruling, it should say publicly that it is going to defy it.
‘This is about Parliamentary sovereignty and it is about who governs Britain.’
Eurosceptic MP Bill Cash said: ‘The British Parliament must be its own master and make decisions on behalf of its people. The Government must not simply buckle to bullying by Strasbourg.’
The ruling was made by a five member panel of Grand Chamber judges. It was headed by Jean-Paul Costa, who has been the president of the European Court since 2007. Last year, Mr Costa took a swipe at the UK for daring to propose its own Bill of Rights, warning it would be a ‘bad idea’.
He is paid from the £49million annual European Court budget, which is paid for by member states including Britain. However, the court does not reveal details of his salary in its reports.
Comment: "Now defy Europe on prisoner votes, Cameron is urged by Tory backbenchers amid risk of rift with Lib Dems".
In my view, there is something xenophobic and racist about this headline. Are we going to war against the whole of Europe?
My understanding is that there are obvious weaknesses in the Human Rights Act 1998, and as a result I was forced to go to Strasbourg with my legal challenge. The ECtHR on 30 March 2004 ruled in my favour that s.3 of ROPA 1983 was incompatible with Article 3 of the First Protocol of the Convention. The UK appealed to the Grand Chamber and on 6 October 2005 it was announced that the UK had lost its appeal. For over 5 years the Labour government defied the ECtHR ruling. Now it would appear that a group of Tory backbenchers are urging David Cameron to do likewise.
As we know, the present government is a Coalition between the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties. It would appear that David Cameron is not a strong enough leader of the Conservatives to keep the Tory backbench MPs in check. Behind their rebellion is that some frontbench seats have been given, quite rightly in a Coalition, to some LibDem MPs. It would appear that the government is in some kind of disarray. This infighting shows that the MPs are more interested about jockeying for position than representing the electorate. Perhaps, the LibDems should seriously consider withdrawing from the Coalition and let the Tory party stew in its own mess?
"David Cameron faced growing Tory calls last night to defy demands from European judges to hand prisoners the vote".
I don't suppose that these Tory calls were made in Parliament and therefore recorded in Hansard? Perhaps, there is an argument that these Tories are attempting to bring the party into disrepute or worse still undermining the legitimacy of Parliament? Surely, it cannot be a good thing that politicians are openly challenging a court judgment? Does the ECtHR or these MPs have legitimacy? They cannot both be right. Perhaps, the MPs are trying to rewrite the rule book in an attempt to make their wrongs right?
"Downing Street sources said the Prime Minister was ‘deeply disappointed’ by the European Court of Human Rights’ refusal even to consider an appeal over its ruling that a 140-year-old ban on inmates taking part in elections is against the law".
So, David Cameron has gone from the thought of giving prisoners the vote making him physically ill to being deeply disappointed that the highest court in Europe disagrees with his statement. As I have already pointed out above, the UK did launch an appeal bid which was heard by 17 judges of the Grand Chamber before being rejected on the grounds that it was a meritless appeal. Under the Convention the Grand Chamber decision is final. Following my case the ECtHR has ruled in Frodl v Austria, Greens and MT v UK, and Scoppola v Italy. Recently, the UK attempted to appeal against the Chamber decision in Greens and MT v UK, but as the Chamber had relied upon the leading case of Hirst v UK (No2) the Grand Chamber, not surprisingly, refused to allow the UK to re-argue that Hirst No2 was wrongly decided.
"Mr Cameron will consider a range of options over the next few months – including simply ignoring the court’s demands".
I am puzzled why David Cameron is to consider a range of options including the unlawful option of ignoring the Court's ruling. He maybe the Prime Minister, however, surely the Minister with responsibility for considering this issue is the Secretary of State for Justice, Kenneth Clarke? Certainly, the Minister responsible to the Council of Europe for compliance with the UK's international law obligations is the Secretary of State for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, William Hague.
"That would be an unprecedented step which risks an explosive rift with the Liberal Democrats. But little else appears likely to satisfy Tory backbenchers who insist a line in the sand must be drawn to defend British sovereignty".
Are we to understand from this that according to the Tory backbenchers Europe has declared war upon British sovereignty and that we must now defend ourselves from this invasion on our shores? If this was the case, I would have little faith in an army which has a rebellion going on in the ranks at the back, and is in danger of an attack by an allied force on the left flank.
Surely, the UK surrendered some sovereignty when the UK signed up to the Treaty of London 1949 (Statute of the Council of Europe)?
"The Governments of the Kingdom of Belgium, the Kingdom of Denmark, the French Republic, the Irish Republic, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Kingdom of Norway, the Kingdom of Sweden and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,
Convinced that the pursuit of peace based upon justice and international co-operation is vital for the preservation of human society and civilisation;
Reaffirming their devotion to the spiritual and moral values which are the common heritage of their peoples and the true source of individual freedom, political liberty and the rule of law, principles which form the basis of all genuine democracy;
Believing that, for the maintenance and further realisation of these ideals and in the interests of economic and social progress, there is a need of a closer unity between all like-minded countries of Europe;
Considering that, to respond to this need and to the expressed aspirations of their peoples in this regard, it is necessary forthwith to create an organisation which will bring European States into closer association,
Have in consequence decided to set up a Council of Europe consisting of a committee of representatives of governments and of a consultative assembly, and have for this purpose adopted the following Statute".
"Article 3
Every member of the Council of Europe must accept the principles of the rule of law and of the enjoyment by all persons within its jurisdiction of human rights and fundamental freedoms, and collaborate sincerely and effectively in the realisation of the aim of the Council as specified in Chapter I".
I would contend that the conduct of these backbench Tory MPs is contrary to the UK's obligations under the Treaty of London. Rather than the UK being attacked by Europe, is it not the case that these anarchist Tory MPs are being traitors?
"Senior MPs said last night that 8,000 rulings from the court have simply not been implemented by other countries".
If this is the case, then surely those MPs, and indeed MEPs, should be raising their concerns with the Committee of Ministers, Council of Europe and Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe? I am assuming that these MPs are criticising this disgraceful situation, and then hypocritically suggesting that the UK conducts itself irresponsibly and adds to the mess by also refusing to fully comply with the Court's rulings?
"The Prime Minister is being warned by senior Cabinet colleagues that he stands no chance of getting legislation handing even small numbers of prisoners the vote through Parliament. Ministers had argued that one of the key objections of the Strasbourg court to Britain’s ban – that Parliament had not considered the issue for more than a century – has now been addressed".
Rather than issuing warnings what the Prime Minister cannot do, shouldn't the Cabinet instead be instructing David Cameron on what can be done to resolve the issue? For example, Kenneth Clarke can issue a remedial order under s.10 of the HRA 1998 to amend s.3 of ROPA 1983 and lays it before Parliament. It is true that one of my arguments to the Court referred to the fact that Parliament had not debated the issue of prisoners votes before disenfranchising them. Whilst the Court accepted this point, it was not a deciding factor reflected within the Court's reason for deciding that the UK was guilty of a human rights violation. The backbench MPs misconstrued the Hirst No2 judgment to give the lack of debate more prominence than it deserved. The purpose being that if they then went through the motions of holding a sham debate in the Commons, then the Council of Europe might be fooled into thinking that the issue had been debated properly and ignore the UK's human rights violation. The ploy obviously failed. The Commons vote is not binding on the government whereas the Hirst No2 judgment is binding.
"Dozens of Conservative MPs insist after decades of toeing the line, the time has come for Britain to tell Strasbourg judges that they have exceeded their authority".
Given that the Court gets its legitimate authority from the Convention that the UK signed up to, it is a bit rich that these MPs without lawful authority are claiming that the judges have exceeded their authority.
"Tory backbenchers pointed to a speech last week by the Master of the Rolls, Lord Neuberger, who said Parliament was free to choose whether it listened to judges in Strasbourg or ignored them. MPs said ministers could simply refuse to pay the estimated £150million in compensation claims from inmates denied the vote".
First these Tory backbenchers argued that minority dissenting opinions in Hirst No2 should outweigh the majority opinion of the Court, and now they are attempting to give to Lord Neuberger's speech to lawyers a legal status not in keeping with any sensible person's understanding of the law. It is the following segment of Lord Neuberger's speech which the Tory MPs rely upon and I find somewhat alarming:
"It is true that membership of the Convention imposes obligations on the state to ensure that judgments of the Strasbourg court are implemented, but those obligations are in international law, not domestic law. And, ultimately, the implementation of a Strasbourg, or indeed a domestic court judgment is a matter for Parliament. If it chose not to implement a Strasbourg judgment, it might place the United Kingdom in breach of its treaty obligations, but as a matter of domestic law there would be nothing objectionable in such a course. It would be a political decision, with which the courts could not interfere".
By contrast, Lord Hope of Craighead in his speech on the role of the UK Supreme Court:
"It is to ensure that this country’s international obligations under the EU treaties and the European Convention on Human Rights, which were entered into by the United Kingdom and on its behalf and have been made part of our domestic law by the Parliament at Westminster, are secured in a consistent manner throughout the United Kingdom".
"One possibility is the Government will introduce legislation, but encourage Conservative MPs to vote against it".
We have already had the unlawful backbench motion and sham debate and vote in the Commons, as I failed to see the point of this so I fail to see the point of the government introducing legislation whilst at the same time supporting Tory MPs to vote against its own motion! It's called playing silly buggars!
"An eight-page leaked Government document confirms that the European court has no legal powers to force the Government to pay compensation for denying prisoners their human rights".
I do not believe that this is an official government document. Rather, I believe that it is nothing more than a document produced by someone supporting the Tory rebels stance and which may have been submitted to the government by one of the Tory backbenchers. In any event, it ignores the Interlaken process, the subsidiarity principle, and the obligation upon Member States to remedy the breach of human rights and ensure it does not reoccur. The so-called legal advice was produced long before the Grand Chamber's recent refusal to allow the UK to appeal against the Greens and MT v UK ruling, clearly it was not good enough to ‘persuade Strasbourg that the UK has done its best’. I guess it is now back to the drawing board for the Tory rebels.
"Esher and Walton MP Dominic Raab, who helped engineer the Commons vote on the issue, said: ‘The Strasbourg Court has triggered a constitutional clash it cannot win – if we stand firm.
‘We cannot be forced to implement the judgment – senior British judges have made that clear. We cannot be forced to pay compensation, and there is no serious risk of Britain being kicked out of the Council of Europe.
‘If we do not draw the line here, and stand up for the democratic rights of the British people, there will be even more perverse rulings to come’".
Dominic Raab is a failed international lawyer who some claim to be a rising star within the Tory party, however, if this stunt of his is anything to go by then he is fast becoming a failed MP too! He misses the point that I am proactive whilst the Court is ony reactive, so it is down to me that there is a constitutional clash. He is drawing his line in sinking sand and talks about standing firm. He forgets that I have already won. It remains to be seen if the UK can be forced to implement the judgment, or be forced to pay compensation, or be suspended or expelled from the Council of Europe and European Union. There is something perverse about Dominic Raab claiming to stand up for the democratic rights of the British people, whilst at the same time he is attempting to deny some British people from having their human right to vote. It is not up to a failed international lawyer to tell successful judges with far more experience than he has that their ruling is perverse.
"Former shadow home secretary David Davis said: ‘Parliament should not and in my view will not back down in this matter.
‘We are in the right both morally and legally and the court is guilty of extending beyond its remit. It can instruct Governments but it cannot instruct a Parliamentary democracy’".
David Davis is not the sharpest pencil in the box. He has totally missed the point that Hirst UK (No2) is a case of the Individual v the State, and that within the State are the 3 arms of the State being the Executive, Parliament and the Judiciary. Therefore, Parliament is under the same obligation as the government to remedy the breach of human rights. There is no moral or legal authority to breach human rights therefore rather than being in the right quite obviously they are in the wrong. Instead of the Court being guilty of extending its remit, David Davis needs reminding that it was the UK in the dock of the Court and that the UK was found guilty of breaching human rights.
"Conservative MP for Witham Priti Patel said: ‘David Cameron has been vocal about his personal view on this issue. This is a strong opportunity for him to show decisive leadership and say enough is enough.
‘This is morally wrong as well as democratically wrong and we must say that we will not take instruction from an unelected group of European judges. The Government should not simply ignore this ruling, it should say publicly that it is going to defy it.
‘This is about Parliamentary sovereignty and it is about who governs Britain’".
Priti Patel is another blunt pencil in the box. David Cameron made his stupid remark in the Commons about the thought of prisoners votes made him physically ill, and she cannot see how unwise it was of him to say that? A stupid comment from someone with a weak stomach being a strong opportunity? He cannot even control his backbenchers let alone govern the country. Come the election I think it will be the public who says "enough is enough" of the Tories. The judges of the ECtHR are, of course, elected officials unlike our own judges. What this stupid from foreign-stock woman is saying is that Cameron should stand up and shout "It is ok for us all to ignore court rulings, let's all defy the courts". This is not about Parliamentary sovereignty or who governs Britain. It's simply about the UK abusing human rights.
"Eurosceptic MP Bill Cash said: ‘The British Parliament must be its own master and make decisions on behalf of its people. The Government must not simply buckle to bullying by Strasbourg’".
It puzzles me that we have signed up to European integration and that there are still dinosaurs called Eurosceptics roaming the earth. It is an old fashioned attitude to describe Parliament as the master of its people. This is like the butler describing himself as the master of the house. Perhaps, it is time that we introduced the European law concept of sovereignty of the people into domestic law because MPs seem to think that sovereignty of Parliament makes the MPs the masters and the people the slaves. Far from it being Strasbourg bullying the UK government, Strasbourg has stood up to David Cameron's bullying tactics he used when he was in the Bullingdon Club at Oxford in his student days.
No comments:
Post a Comment