![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Feb. 11th, 2011 08:26 pmSo, the European Court of Human Rights tells the UK government to give prisoners the vote. The Commons holds a debate on the issue, listens to speeches both for and against, and then votes overwhelmingly (234 to 22) for not giving the prisoners the vote. Technically this is non-binding, but it'd look rather silly for the government to ignore it.
The Council of Europe then tells the UK government to, basically, ignore what the Commons have decided and give prisoners the vote anyway.
Riiiiight. So apparently the fact that our democratically elected ministers have made a decision (properly debated and all) means absolutely nothing unless it's the decision that the EU wants.
For the record, if anything I'm slightly in favour of prisoners nearing the end of their sentence getting the vote. However, I don't think that should happen because the EU has browbeaten us into doing so.
The Council of Europe then tells the UK government to, basically, ignore what the Commons have decided and give prisoners the vote anyway.
Riiiiight. So apparently the fact that our democratically elected ministers have made a decision (properly debated and all) means absolutely nothing unless it's the decision that the EU wants.
For the record, if anything I'm slightly in favour of prisoners nearing the end of their sentence getting the vote. However, I don't think that should happen because the EU has browbeaten us into doing so.
