EU & Labour to give prisoners the right to vote after 1,000 years

[alexxxxx]

Indeed, and there is no human right as far as I know which tells the government of this country that criminals have a right just like the rest of us, to vote and elect a government despite intentially committing a crime and thus forfeiting their liberty & rights.

There probably isn't a human right, no.

Yes it does, you will support EU policies no matter what the rest of the country think or want. No concept of putting others before yourself, although we are talking about the EU here so thats not a new thing.

This isn't an EU policy. I don't support all EU policies at all. What i thought we were a country of individuals anyway? Why should I care what anyone else thinks? :S Your concepts are incredibly confusing. You seem to care about the UK's past present and future, the way the 'british' do things and what is british and what isn't yet reject the idea of society and we are all individuals.

Indeed, the appeasement to the workings and contruction of a European superstate which ultimately shows that superstates do not work and are not wanted. More to the point and a more recent example; The Soviet Union which was sympathised with by the Liberal Democrats and the Labour Party along with numerous other socialists around Europe who now have jobs in the European Union, a Union which the last Premier of the USSR asked of why European leaders are so determined to recreate the Soviet Union in western Europe.

The EU is far, far, far from the USSR.

No it doesn't change him, but it changes his civil liberties as it has done for criminals over the past 1,000 years. On Ian Huntley maybe not for now, but I do not want any criminal to have the vote. The only reason Labour want this is because a criminal of obviously more likely to vote for the party which gives them a slap on the wrist.

Labour have to obide by the law, and would any other political party, unless they wanted to exit the CoE, which would be unthinkable. Like it or not, unless Britain floats away from europe, we will be involved in european politics, just like we have been for 1,000 years.

Peter Mandelson is not elected because he is Lord, and when he was in the EU he was also not elected. He may of been chosen by his mates Blair and co. but he has no mandate from the people just as George Galloway pointed out the other day about Lord Falconer who became a Lord on the basis because he was Tony Blairs old flatmate. More to the point not only are the EU commission and the people who make EU policy unelected, they also weren't even asked for. I was never asked for a European Union, my Dad was never asked, my Grandad was never asked, his Dad was never asked and so forth.

What a utter corrupt shambles they all are and the whole thing is, where you put the rights of criminals (voting wise) above those of the British people (voting wise).

We have had lords for the last 1000 years, why change it now? EU comission is appointed by the parliament and the parliament are elected via the people. Like our government. The comission drafts laws along with the Council of Ministers and the parliament and they must be passed through these places too.

I've never had a vote on the UN, but I know that the government of the time (elected) willing fully led us into it. There was a vote for the common market, which developed into the EU over time.

[Catzsy]

That makes it even worse! - They obviously do support it because otherwise they would tell the European Courts "No, we and the British people do not want this". The Labour Party was elected in 2005, not the European Court so therefore the Labour Party has a mandate to run this country, not foreign judges. So why are the Labour Party not vetoing/refusing to implement this just and France and Germany do when they dont like something that doesn't suit them.

..Hmm could it possibly be because they really agree with it and it'll gain them more votes, especially when a tight election is around the corner and it'll look good to be taking a tough stand after dithering for the past 13 years?

Did you read the post? It says the most dangerous criminals would not be able to vote so let's get some perspective. Where are the examples of Germany and France saying no to rulings of the Court of Human Rights?
In any event it was the Conservatives who took us into it in the first place.
Fishing for votes? Not unless The Sun or the Sunday Sport back Labour. LOL =]

It is getting out of hand though and I think if a party promised a referendum
on re-evaluating Britain's membership of the EU they would get a lot of votes.
At least we have not joined the Euro yet.

[ifuseekamy]

What is that convict on about? Killing someone unprovokedly with an axe is completely different to not having the right to vote because you committed such an act :S

[GommeInc]

Okay, whoever thought up this brain dead logic probably needs to be institutionalised... Prisoners should not be allowed to vote. The only sort of political involvement they should have is watching it on the news, and that's it :/

[-:Undertaker:-]

There probably isn't a human right, no.

So why should they be given the vote under the banner of 'human rights'?

This isn't an EU policy. I don't support all EU policies at all. What i thought we were a country of individuals anyway? Why should I care what anyone else thinks? :S Your concepts are incredibly confusing. You seem to care about the UK's past present and future, the way the 'british' do things and what is british and what isn't yet reject the idea of society and we are all individuals.

We are all individuals, and an individual goes to a polling booth and elects which party they feel would do/has done the best job. No you shouldn't care what anyone else thinks, although if democracy is a core value in yourself then you would naturally care to keep democracy despite the fact you might disagree with the outcome.

The EU is far, far, far from the USSR.

Both are very socialist, very centralised and have structures which are very similar not to mention the fact both cover most of Europe and most people did not elect or choose it. The last President of the USSR said it himself.

Labour have to obide by the law, and would any other political party, unless they wanted to exit the CoE, which would be unthinkable. Like it or not, unless Britain floats away from europe, we will be involved in european politics, just like we have been for 1,000 years.

Exit the CoE then or pass legislation on this issue which vetoes the CoE on this decision. If not, has it not woken Labour up to how wrong this entire European project is?. Why is it unthinkble, we are the country which formed democracy in the modern world yet we are now incapable of making our own decisions?

Involved in Europe, not ruled by Europe.

We have had lords for the last 1000 years, why change it now? EU comission is appointed by the parliament and the parliament are elected via the people. Like our government. The comission drafts laws along with the Council of Ministers and the parliament and they must be passed through these places too.

They are not that old I don't think, and why change it now? - because they are unelected and are nowadays used for political games and political class. They have no mandate. I used to be supportive of the Liberal Democrats, for climate change, socialism and the lot until I read history and realised that without democracy, theres nothing.

That is indirect democracy, which still begs the question anyway whether or not you agree/disagree with indirect democracy of the fact that the British people have never been asked whether or not they want the European Union and its legal systems.

I've never had a vote on the UN, but I know that the government of the time (elected) willing fully led us into it. There was a vote for the common market, which developed into the EU over time.

The United Nations does not pass legislations on the United Kingdom and does not make over 80% of our laws via directives and regulations, if the UN ever did then i'd call for a referendum on UN membership aswell. On the EU, yes we voted for a Economic Community, not a Political, Social and Economic Union.

Did you read the post? It says the most dangerous criminals would not be able to vote so let's get some perspective. Where are the examples of Germany and France saying no to rulings of the Court of Human Rights?

I did read the post and I have answered that point before that it is my belief that it will not stop at that. Not to mention I disagree with the fact any criminal having the right to vote. On France & Germany cannot find at the moment so obviously my word cannot be taken seriously on that, although France and Germany are notirious for not paying fines to European bodies (such as the French meat protests against Britain which cost us millions over a false scare).

In any event it was the Conservatives who took us into it in the first place.
Fishing for votes? Not unless The Sun or the Sunday Sport back Labour. LOL =]

Another reason why I do not support the Conservatives anymore and believe Ted Heath was a another lying, untrustworthy politician. The British people must be consulted on what is the biggest issue facing this country and will continue to be the biggest issue, agree with its existence or not.

It is getting out of hand though and I think if a party promised a referendum on re-evaluating Britain's membership of the EU they would get a lot of votes.

Totally agree, I want European co-operation but not to be ruled by Europe - as do most British people.

At least we have not joined the Euro yet.

They are pushing (the Lib/Lab/Con) for that and when we reach a stage on decision, it will mark a turning point where it will make it incredibly difficult to rule our own country then because essentially to put it crudely, they've got you by the balls.

[Black_Apalachi]

The only possible logic behind this is what Dan was getting at; 'They will vote for us so let them vote'. There is no advantage gained by society in letting this happen. Disgraceful.

[alexxxxx]

So why should they be given the vote under the banner of 'human rights'?

I don't honestly know the ruling as the DM article doesn't really explain the ruling in full as it's article is dreadful.

We are all individuals, and an individual goes to a polling booth and elects which party they feel would do/has done the best job. No you shouldn't care what anyone else thinks, although if democracy is a core value in yourself then you would naturally care to keep democracy despite the fact you might disagree with the outcome.

what.?

Both are very socialist, very centralised and have structures which are very similar not to mention the fact both cover most of Europe and most people did not elect or choose it. The last President of the USSR said it himself.

not really though, as EU competition rules prevent stupid amounts of state aid to companies.

Exit the CoE then or pass legislation on this issue which vetoes the CoE on this decision. If not, has it not woken Labour up to how wrong this entire European project is?. Why is it unthinkble, we are the country which formed democracy in the modern world yet we are now incapable of making our own decisions?

it's impossible to write legislation vetoing a higher courts decision or it defies the point in having a court in the first place. we are completely capable of making our own decisions yet it makes sense that in a lot of areas we set common market rules, increase competition etc for business and set examples for developing nations in central and eastern europe for human rights and rule of law.

Involved in Europe, not ruled by Europe.

we are europe. we rule ourselves.

They are not that old I don't think, and why change it now? - because they are unelected and are nowadays used for political games and political class. They have no mandate. I used to be supportive of the Liberal Democrats, for climate change, socialism and the lot until I read history and realised that without democracy, theres nothing.

That is indirect democracy, which still begs the question anyway whether or not you agree/disagree with indirect democracy of the fact that the British people have never been asked whether or not they want the European Union and its legal systems.

there is always going to be 'indirect' democracy in almost every government as it is impossible to vote in everyone. the usa has the supreme court, we have the house of lords, commission in the EU (yet that has more to do with making sure the parliament doesn't pass laws that it isn't allowed to) and more legal systems.

The United Nations does not pass legislations on the United Kingdom and does not make over 80% of our laws via directives and regulations, if the UN ever did then i'd call for a referendum on UN membership aswell. On the EU, yes we voted for a Economic Community, not a Political, Social and Economic Union.

it does pass laws on us telling us who we can and can't be allowed to engage in wars with. laws on the treatment of prisoners of war, international co-operation etc. where's my referendum on the UN? :rolleyes:

[-:Undertaker:-]

I don't honestly know the ruling as the DM article doesn't really explain the ruling in full as it's article is dreadful.

They are being given this vote under the banner of rights, as a criminal they have forfeitted their civil liberties.

what.?

You know perfectly well what, just explained it to you.

not really though, as EU competition rules prevent stupid amounts of state aid to companies.

1) EU stifles competition with its thousands of pieces of legislation.
2) Has the UK suddenly lost the ability to create its own legislation regarding competition?

So despite hundreds of years of development and being the first truly democratic modern state in history, we are now deemed incapable of creating our own legislation on competition laws despite being the former economic superpower in the modern world and since the 1980s, being an incredibly strong economic power. Meanwhile our European neighbours (the ones who have been fighting with eachother for the past 1,000 years) have the knowledge and know-how to tell me how my country should be run!

it's impossible to write legislation vetoing a higher courts decision or it defies the point in having a court in the first place. we are completely capable of making our own decisions yet it makes sense that in a lot of areas we set common market rules, increase competition etc for business and set examples for developing nations in central and eastern europe for human rights and rule of law.

Then you leave the court, very simple. On setting examples, what kind of an example are we setting when we fought against the Soviet Union which ruled them countries, yet now we are creating the exact same thing in western europe. I'd understand you have a case if we chose this European Union, but no matter what you say, love, glorify about the EU the fact remains it has not been chosen and as opinion polls show, we do not want it.

we are europe. we rule ourselves.

We are the sovereign state United Kingdom, we are ruled by Europe.

there is always going to be 'indirect' democracy in almost every government as it is impossible to vote in everyone. the usa has the supreme court, we have the house of lords, commission in the EU (yet that has more to do with making sure the parliament doesn't pass laws that it isn't allowed to) and more legal systems.

Of course there will be, but the fact remains the EU creates most of our legislation so not allowing a vote on the EU/having it unelected might make democratic sense to a tinpot like Robert Mugabe, but not in a 21st century western country. A country which is against superstatism and always has been.

it does pass laws on us telling us who we can and can't be allowed to engage in wars with. laws on the treatment of prisoners of war, international co-operation etc. where's my referendum on the UN? :rolleyes:

No it doesn't tell you if/not a war is allowed, it merely sets out the legal standards for war and what it classes as illegal/legal. You know perfectly well alex that the United Nations is in no way the same as the European Union, thats like comparing the EU to NATO - no match what so ever. The EU creates over 80% of our laws, not the UN or NATO. If the UN ever did then i'd call for a referendum on that aswell.

You want a federal superstate, yet have made it clear you think the British people are too stupid/not qualified and not deserving enough to decide this issue for themselves. An issue which is so important to this country, especially in future terms. Yet on the other hand you think prisoners (murderers, criminals in general) should have the right to vote.

Your logic is;

The British people having a referendum on a highly important issue?
No, certainly not!!

The criminals in prison being allowed a vote despite not having the vote for the past 1,000 years?
Yes in the name of rights - how dare we not allow them to vote!!