- Mobile site
- E-Newsletters
-
- News feed
- Find us on Twitter
@BucksFreePress
The latest BFP news, views & sport.
- Find us on Facebook
Bucks Free Press
Like us on Facebook!
Cameron denies disagreement with Dominic Grieve (From Bucks Free Press)
Send your news, photos and videos by texting bucksfreepress to 80360 or email
David Cameron denies disagreement with Beaconsfield MP Dominic Grieve
9:41am Thursday 25th October 2012 in News
Cameron denies disagreement with Dominic Grieve
ATTORNEY General and Beaconsfield MP Dominic Grieve appeared to be at loggerheads with David Cameron yesterday after the prime minister flatly ruled out giving prisoners the vote.
Cameron moved to clarify his position yesterday amid speculation the coalition was preparing legislation on the controversial issue.
Giving evidence to MPs, Mr Grieve had said a European Court of Human Rights ruling against the blanket ban "imposes an international legal obligation on us".
The government’s chief law officer warned Britain was obliged to obey the judgment and could face huge damages claims from prisoners.
"The issue, it seems to me, is whether the United Kingdom wishes to be in breach of its international obligations and what that does reputationally for the United Kingdom," he said.
"This is not a matter where there's not parliamentary sovereignty. There clearly is. Parliament gives and Parliament can take away.
"Governments can leave the Council of Europe if they choose to do so, but all I'm saying is it is quite clear, and I think accepted by the Government, it is accepted that, in so far as the Scopola judgment is concerned, it imposes an international legal obligation on us."
He added: "Exactly what the United Kingdom should do is not specified and indeed it's quite clear there is going to be, or is, a great deal of latitude in what the United Kingdom can do."
But Mr Cameron told the Commons yesterday: "No one should be in any doubt. Prisoners are not getting the vote under this Government."
He pointed out that last year that the House called by an overwhelming margin of 234 to 22 for the blanket ban to be maintained rather than eased in line with the ECHR judgment.
That motion was not binding on the Government, but Mr Cameron signalled that he was ready to hold another vote "to put the legal position beyond doubt".
Speaking at the weekly Prime Minister's Questions session, he said: "The House of Commons has voted against prisoners having the vote.
"I don't want prisoners to have the vote, and they should not have the vote.
"If it helps by having another vote in Parliament on another resolution to make absolutely clear, to help put the legal position beyond doubt, I am very happy to do that."
Tory MPs had reacted with fury to reports that the Government was preparing a draft Bill to comply with the ECHR's so-called Scopola ruling.
The claims prompted speculation that the coalition was backing down in the long-running battle with Strasbourg.
Mr Cameron's official spokesman has denied the PM was in disagreement with his Attorney General.
"There is a single Government view on this issue, and that is that prisoners should not get the vote," said the spokesman.
Comments(6)
Mr Totterdge Hill
says...
12:35pm Thu 25 Oct 12
Timbers
says...
4:39pm Thu 25 Oct 12
The European Court of Human Rights is nothing to do with the EU!
The Court is part of the Council of Europe, which was set up in 1949 and which pre-dates the EEC/EU.
The European Convention on Human Rights is an international treaty which the UK signed up to, and which in consequence it should adhere to.
sparky49
says...
4:47pm Thu 25 Oct 12
washondo
says...
10:27am Fri 26 Oct 12
Timbers wrote:And to which in this instance we choose not to conform. It means a retrospective change in legislation too far.
The question posed in the BFP straw poll displays the usual public ignorance about matters European! We are asked whether the UK should "defy the EU" over giving prisoners the right to vote.
The European Court of Human Rights is nothing to do with the EU!
The Court is part of the Council of Europe, which was set up in 1949 and which pre-dates the EEC/EU.
The European Convention on Human Rights is an international treaty which the UK signed up to, and which in consequence it should adhere to.
Thank you for your expertise, but in a democracy we are entitled to vote, or is that something else the ECHR intend to change?
J B Blackett
says...
1:14am Sun 28 Oct 12
washondo wrote:Some people believe that laws written by politicians are set in stone for perpetuity - never to be questioned or changed for ever and ever.
Timbers wrote:And to which in this instance we choose not to conform. It means a retrospective change in legislation too far.
The question posed in the BFP straw poll displays the usual public ignorance about matters European! We are asked whether the UK should "defy the EU" over giving prisoners the right to vote.
The European Court of Human Rights is nothing to do with the EU!
The Court is part of the Council of Europe, which was set up in 1949 and which pre-dates the EEC/EU.
The European Convention on Human Rights is an international treaty which the UK signed up to, and which in consequence it should adhere to.
Thank you for your expertise, but in a democracy we are entitled to vote, or is that something else the ECHR intend to change?
.
Just like some religions believe that a some bloke (it's never a woman) said he spoke to some god and what he reported must be obeyed for ever and ever until the end of the world.
.
Well laws are writeen by men (mostly) and are not fool-proof , without error or for eternity.
.
Unless you you believe all the lies the politicians tell all the time.
.
So laws and rules should change - just as they do in science - unless you still want to believe in a flat Earth and we are not here through evolution of the species and we were created instantly just like that by some all-powerful Almighty Being.
.
It would be illogical and unnatural for men-made laws not to change and for some to disappear completely as they are inevitably proved invalid and out-of-date.
Dr Truth says...
10:11am Thu 25 Oct 12
Or could it simply be a cynical way to open up a wave of hits/comments on a classic 'red rag to a bull' topic?