Why Priti Patel should only write about what she knows (if anything)

Why Priti Patel should only write about what she knows (if anything)

Priti Patel MP: Why Parliament must debate ECHR reforms

"Next month Britain has a once in a generation opportunity to spearhead reform of the European Court of Human Rights, the European Convention on Human Rights and their related institutions when it assumes the chairmanship of the Council of Europe. As the chairmanship rotates between the Council of Europe’s 47 members every six months, it will be a quarter of a century until Britain is in this position again so it is an opportunity that cannot be missed".

The correct institution to debate reforms of either the European Convention or European Court is the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) and not our Houses of Parliament. The UK does not have the jurisdiction to interfere in the Council of Europe's affairs. Given the mess MPs made of their sham debate on prisoners votes, it is another reason why they should keep their snout in the trough noses out of business which does not concern them.

The UK is not in any position to spearhead anything in the Council of Europe because the UK is only 1/47th of the Member States and has no greater say than any of the other 46 Member States. The UK will not assume the Chairmanship of the Council of Europe next month, rather it only takes over the chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers within the Council of Europe.

"These Strasbourg-based European institutions have grown in power and the European human rights system they have created has resulted in the powers of our Parliament being eroded. The laws they create have crippled our immigration system, placing huge and often insurmountable barriers in the way of the authorities when they want to throw a foreign murderer, rapist or violent offender out of our country. They give criminals gold-plated rights, such as allowing prisoners access to IVF treatment. And, as we've seen with their desire to force Britain to grant all prisoners the right to vote, they have no respect for British democracy. Worryingly, these institutions are attempting to go even further and are issuing diktats ordering countries to have soft border controls, grant immigrants more rights and criticising cutbacks to public spending".

True, the institutions have grown in power. Powers granted by all Members States (including the UK) within the Council of Europe. Our Parliament sacrificed some of our national sovereignty to enable us to be part of the United States of Europe. Therefore the UK eroded its own powers and cannot legitimately blame Europe for this state of affairs. Why isn't William Hague criticising her for sticking her brown nose into Foreign and Commonwealth Office affairs?

Priti Patel although born in this country is of Ugandan Indian immigrant parents, and the thought of her trying to be whiter than the whites makes me feel physically ill. Immigration comes under the Home Office, why isn't Theresa May telling her to mind her own business?

It is only right that the Council of Europe guarantees all citizens rights including criminals and prisoners. As Hirst v UK (No2) has proven the UK is not a democracy, because universal suffrage is not applicable. So, for Priti Patel to go on about our totalitarian or authoritarian State as though it is a democracy stinks of hypocrisy. She appear to have conveniently forgotten that she only became a MP because of reverse discrimination which saw her placed on the "A-List" of Conservative Party candidates ahead of more suitable candidates. Her status remains as a Tory party token black to satisfy diversity. It beggars belief that first she criticised the Tory party for being institutionally racist, then took a bribe ("A-List" placing) to join a racist party, only to attack other people of ethnic origin. Clearly it is not only whites who can be racist. Priti Patel is a black racist against those of her own skin colour. Would she not be better suited joining the BNP or UKIP?

"It is time to hold them to account and in advance of Britain's chairmanship, Parliament and backbench MPs need to have an opportunity to question ministers over their plans. MPs are aware of the frustration and concern their constituents feel when they see human rights allowing prisoners to have IVF treatment or foreign criminals free to walk our streets by claiming that they have a right to a family life. Our constituents expect action and change. Now that the British Government has an opportunity to deliver that change it would be a beneficial use of Parliamentary time for the Backbench Business Committee to grant time for MPs to debate these matters".

It is time that Parliament was held to account. They work for us, or at least are supposed to. Instead, they are more interested in fiddling their expenses, extending their holiday breaks and increasing their pensions. It appears that Priti Patel is complaining that Ministers are keeping her, a non Minister, in the dark about their plans. It would be a wasteful use of Parliamentary time and taxpayers money (note that the Taxpayers Alliance is silent on this?) for the unconstitutional Backbench Business Committee to air their prejudices.

"Much of the discussions within Europe over the future of the ECHR relates to streamlining its caseload. With claimants going to the Court being successful in claiming their rights have been violated in over 80% of cases, it is not surprising a backlog of 120,000 cases have built up as more and more people view the Court as a final court of appeal. Inevitably, this will lead to greater integration at the expense of the British Parliament being able to make its own laws. Parliament and the Government must resist attempts for deeper integration".

The Interlaken process to which Priti Patel refers equally to Member States failing to abide by the Convention and Court decisions, and sanctions to be applied to rogue or pariah States which ignore Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law (such as the UK, in the Prisoners Votes Case). Priti Patel fails to point out that over 90% of cases lodged before the ECtHR are subsequently declared inadmissible. Therefore the over 80% of the less than 10% which are successful upon being heard is not unusual. Priti Patel fails to state that the UK is guilty of adding 3,500 cases in relation to prisoners votes to those 120,000 backlog of cases. It beggars belief that Priti Patel has been integated via her parents immigration to this country calling to resist deeper integration in Europe. It is either in or out.

"Reforms to the Convention and the last Government's Human Rights Act have already forced our courts to follow the European human rights system. So the priority for the Government in chairing the Council of Europe must be to push forward an ambitious serious of reforms to bring human rights back to Britain. That goes far further than looking into whether a Bill of Rights should replace the Human Rights Act. While the European Court of Human Rights and the Council of Europe continue to act the way they do, British lawmaking and British justice will continue to be undermined".

The UK signed up to the Convention and a requirement is that the UK abide by it and the Court decisions and this includes the domestic courts. It was not forced upon the UK, we signed up to it willingly. The HRA does not belong to the last government, it is part of UK law which Parliament passed. Bring back human rights to Britain? Chance would be a fine thing, but our record of human rights in the past has been atrocious. British justice failed the likes of the Birmingham 6, Guildford 4, Maguire 7 and Stephen Kisko, etc. We in the UK undermined British justice. Priti Patel is beginning to sound like Idi Amin the infamous dictator of Uganda!

"Those who support the current system or who want to see closer integration will often claim that it was British lawyers who drafted the Convention and Winston Churchill who pushed for its adoption, as Nick Clegg alluded to during his speech to the Lib Dem conference. But while Britain has a strong tradition of promoting human rights and after the Second World War and the horrors of the Holocaust were revealed it was right to look at ways to prevent future genocide and persecution in Europe, Churchill would never have allowed Europe to meddle in our laws the way it currently does. He would have stood up to put the British interest first and that is what Government ministers and Parliament must do now. Otherwise, a failure to curtail the Council of Europe and European Court of Human Rights will lead to Britain facing a further unstoppable flow of powers to Europe, which would severely undermine our democracy".

It is a lie for Priti Patel to claim that Britain has a strong tradition of promoting human rights, because we failed to incorporate the Convention into domestic law for 60 years! Winston Churchill was the first European, and saw the benefit of a disintegrating British Empire becoming part of the United States of Europe. The UK is not in any position to curtail either the power of the Council of Europe or jurisdiction of the ECtHR. I would like to see the Council of Europe give the UK a stark warning to either toe the line or get shown the red card. What undermines our democracy is that the elected are choosing the electorate, when in a true democracy the electorate chooses the elected. I have started a revolution in democracy with my campaign for prisoners votes, if Priti Patel does not like it she is free to tender her resignation and her constituents can pick their own candidate rather than a Cameron flunky!