News0 min ago
British Courts need not be bound by Europe.
5 Answers
http://www.telegraph....e-says-top-judge.html
/// Lord Phillips, the President of the Supreme Court, told the peers that Strasbourg can cause “serious problems” when it rules against the UK courts.///
/// But he said that as long as the Human Rights Act existed Strasbourg would win.///
But, /// Lord Judge, the Lord Chief Justice, said the UK need only “take account” of the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights but not necessarily follow it. ///
Who should we believe? Why don't we take the bull by the horns and ignore Strasbourg, then see what happens?
/// Lord Phillips, the President of the Supreme Court, told the peers that Strasbourg can cause “serious problems” when it rules against the UK courts.///
/// But he said that as long as the Human Rights Act existed Strasbourg would win.///
But, /// Lord Judge, the Lord Chief Justice, said the UK need only “take account” of the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights but not necessarily follow it. ///
Who should we believe? Why don't we take the bull by the horns and ignore Strasbourg, then see what happens?
Answers
1 to 5 of 5
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
If only that were true, jake (and that would be bad enough by itself).
But there are numerous examples of the Supreme Court making a ruling only for that ruling to be challenged in the ECHR. One or other of these pieces of legislation is surplus to requirement. Our own 1998 Act virtually mirrors the ECHR but still cases progress from the Supreme Court to Strasbourg, earning in the process a few more squillions for m’Learned Friends.
Once our own Act was introduced we should have withdrawn from the ECHR. Lord Judge (not surprisingly) is quite correct. The Strasbourg court has no powers to enforce its rulings or to punish miscreant States. In short, it’s a complete waste of time and money. Unfortunately the UK still kow-tows to its rulings. Among the hugely important issues currently occupying its time is that of votes for prisoners. The Westminster Parliament has stated in no uncertain terms that the matter should not be entertained. But Strasbourg has said that we are acting illegally. Instead of telling Strasbourg to go forth and multiply, we now have a number of officials examining what should be done. What should be done, clearly, is that the wishes of the Westminster Parliament should prevail.
But that’s what happens when a nation gives up its right to legislate for itself.
As far as the origins of the ECHR goes, rojash, you will know that it was born out of the ashes of WW2. Europe was desperate to avoid further conflicts caused by dictatorships and the convention was largely designed to curb the powers of rogue states. Its architects (least of all Sir Winston Churchill) could not have imagined in their wildest dreams that it would be used to enable convicted prisoners to have a vote, for foreign murderers and rapists to remain in the UK, or for “travellers” to circumvent the planning legislation to which the rest of us are subject. It is outdated, past its sell-by date and is hugely over interpreted. Time it went into the dustbin.
But there are numerous examples of the Supreme Court making a ruling only for that ruling to be challenged in the ECHR. One or other of these pieces of legislation is surplus to requirement. Our own 1998 Act virtually mirrors the ECHR but still cases progress from the Supreme Court to Strasbourg, earning in the process a few more squillions for m’Learned Friends.
Once our own Act was introduced we should have withdrawn from the ECHR. Lord Judge (not surprisingly) is quite correct. The Strasbourg court has no powers to enforce its rulings or to punish miscreant States. In short, it’s a complete waste of time and money. Unfortunately the UK still kow-tows to its rulings. Among the hugely important issues currently occupying its time is that of votes for prisoners. The Westminster Parliament has stated in no uncertain terms that the matter should not be entertained. But Strasbourg has said that we are acting illegally. Instead of telling Strasbourg to go forth and multiply, we now have a number of officials examining what should be done. What should be done, clearly, is that the wishes of the Westminster Parliament should prevail.
But that’s what happens when a nation gives up its right to legislate for itself.
As far as the origins of the ECHR goes, rojash, you will know that it was born out of the ashes of WW2. Europe was desperate to avoid further conflicts caused by dictatorships and the convention was largely designed to curb the powers of rogue states. Its architects (least of all Sir Winston Churchill) could not have imagined in their wildest dreams that it would be used to enable convicted prisoners to have a vote, for foreign murderers and rapists to remain in the UK, or for “travellers” to circumvent the planning legislation to which the rest of us are subject. It is outdated, past its sell-by date and is hugely over interpreted. Time it went into the dustbin.
1 to 5 of 5
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.