No. The Tories have tried to force sentencing policy Bu statute, indeterminate sentences, reduce cautions and other non custodial disposals, tried to retain the right of ministers to interfere in parole decisions, played with the right to silence, tried to make judges fear the Daily Mail and Daily Express by encouraging monstering of judges who do not follow the wishes of the whipped up masses, and limited Judges in their sentencing policies.
You are yet to admit that there will still be appeal to Strasbourg even after the HRA is overturned, or that Scotland and Northern Ireland are exempt from Gove’s Folly.
The FO wants to keep Putin in his box. Putin is signed up to the Convention because he wants full favoured nation status with the EC. If the UK reneges on its Treaty obligations, Russia would feel free to do so. The FO would not allow it.
That’s their job! They make the laws, and the judges apply them. The only one of those that’s inappropriate is the interference with parole decisions, all the rest is the job of the legislature.
People can appeal to Strasbourg all they like, it will simply have no binding effect on UK courts. Unlike now, where they are obliged to consider the rulings.
And they’re not “exempt”. Parliament is just as able to change the relevant Acts in force in those regions as it is to change the HRA in force in the UK. The Scotland Act is not something carved in stone and planted in Miliband’s garden, it’s a law that can be repealed or modified by any Parliament, just like any other.
Political realities mean that may not happen, but even if it did, there would be nothing to prevent Scottish judges (or those anywhere else) with agreeing with Strasbourg precedent. They would simply not be forced to.
How, exactly, would they “not allow it”? Not that there’s any proposal to renege on our obligations, at least not prior to a referendum. Unless you’re claiming that Germany is also reneging on it’s obligations.
Go back and read the proposal, and talk about what it actually says, not something you are just making up.
I know the answer is probably “nothing” but what could the Queen do if she feels the nation as a whole wants Scottish independence but the PM/Parliament doesn’t? She can’t dismiss Parliament and hope a new one (pro-Scottish independence) is elected anymore. What happens if Scotland unilaterally declares independence and she as head-of-state recognized the new Scotland?
The Queen would not be involved in anything short of UDI. The Queen always acts on the instructions of her ministers but if she was being advised differently by Scottish and British ministers differently, she might advise.
No, we are not. This is why the HRA needs to be abolished, so we can follow the actual ECHR rather than idiotic interpretations of it.
I’ve managed to think it, and if you try really hard I suspect you could too. I don’t think it’s likely, but your constant pretence that it’s impossible just makes you look silly.
I find it puzzling that you are so opposed to an elected UK government actually governing the country, but so desperately want unelected European bureaucrats to tell you what to do. Which do you want, Scottish rule or foreign rule?
The final decision on what the Convention means will always be determined by a decision of the ECHR itself if it is appealed to that level. Nothing being proposed by the Tories will stop cases going to Strasbourg.
The cases can go there, but the law is going to be changed to keep the final interpretation domestic. Making the appeals irrelevant. As they should be, we should not allow foreign courts sovereignty over our government or our courts.
The UK for generations had limited separation of Judiciary, Executive and Legislature. We are gradually moving towards a system with better separation, and part of hat is a judiciary over which politicians have no control. The ECHR has been the prime driver in that progress.
No, a new law unrelated to either would break the Union. Despite what you seem to think, the Union can only end if Westminster chooses to do so.
Also, changing the Scotland Act or Good Friday Agreement to include the ECHR would not in any meaningful sense be “reneging” on them, and freeing Scotland or NI from European nonsense would be in their interests.
If the law was changed to prevent Scotland or NI recognising the European Court, you might have a point, but there’s been no talk of doing that. It’s just (to use a phrase you are keen on) smoke and mirrors from those who want to pretend the Tories are doing something they’re not.
Now, if the UK votes to leave the EU in 2 years time, things will have to change, and Scotland and NI would have to stop the appeals, whether it’s enacted by central or devolved government. If you want to avoid that happening, you should probably stop spreading lies that discredit your arguments.
The final determination has always been domestic. See Prisoner’s’ Votes. Being found in contravention of the Convention has severe consequences for the FO policy and for our relations with Europe. No European nation has ignored the court indefinitely without sanctions being applied by the EU. Russia has been force by financial reasons to sign the convention and stop its judicial killings in order to maintain most favoured nation status with the EU. If se became serial reneges, the EU could suspend benefits of membership as being a signatory to the Convention is a requirement of cull WU membership.
More sensible conservatives than you will not allow Foreign or European relations are put at risk.
The Scotland Act and Good Friday Agreement establish the ECHR as part of Scottish and N Irish law. Gove’s folly will leave the ECHR in effect with the judiciaries of the two nations.
Your contention about leaving the EU makes no sense. The Convention is administered by the Council of Europe, nothing to do with the EC. If the EU vote resulted in a Brexit, the quite separate ECHR would continue in force. I think you are conflating the European Court of Justice that is part of the EC, and the ECHR which is not.
This is being discussed on Newsnight now although we run half an hour later than England.
That would be the “benefits” of membership where we get to pay billons of Euros to countries unable to mange their economies, yes? That is the sort of crap that is going to have to be renegotiated in the next couple of years if we’re going to stay in Europe.
And I’d like a cite for the Foreign Office forcing the government to give prisoners the vote, since last time I checked they don’t have it.
Also, why keep going on about Russia? This isn’t an American election in the 1950s…
You may be anti EU. but that will be settled by a vote in the next year or so. Currently a majority of the people say they want to stay in the EU. Time will tell.
The FO will not force the Government to give prisoners the vote but will counsel the government against reneging and encouraging Russia and others to do the same.
Why do I mention Russia? Because they have been forced by the convention to humanise their judicial system by the Convention and the ECHR, including stopping executions. They know that if they are in contravention there would be a diplomatic and financial cost.
All “Gove’s Folly”, as no-one but you is calling it, will do is enshrine the ECHR in UK law, unlike now.
It’s nothing to do with it, apart from one being a requirement for the other, and it being run by the same people… We need to get rid of all these stupid layers of government, especially the ones we can’t vote for.
Again, no-one is suggesting the ECHR won’t be in force, quite the opposite. The plan is to put it in domestic legislation. Doing so will guarantee we are meeting our treaty obligations. Not that meeting them would matter, if we did leave the EU.
Let me know when you have a less biased source, like the Morning Star or Socialist Worker.