Not according to the highest court in the EU

(PsychoChomp, Wed 24 Oct 2012, 14:53, 1 reply, 13 years ago)

How about the highest court in the UK?
Because you'll find that we don't necessarily follow the EU in all things and we've shown by our actions as a country that we don't agree with the EU being the final arbiter on what happens to our citizens so, really, saying that the highest court in the EU disagrees is as useful as saying the highest court in the US or Namibia disagrees i.e. not at all.
( Kroney, Wed 24 Oct 2012, 14:56, Reply)

We're not a ratified signatory to any US or Namibian legal system.

(PsychoChomp, Wed 24 Oct 2012, 14:58, Reply)

If the EU allows their prisoners to vote and we don't
then we haven't ratified or signed anything that gives the EU the right to tell us how our prisoners should vote, or not.
( Kroney, Wed 24 Oct 2012, 15:00, Reply)

We have signed up to abide by the european court of human rights judgments.
Not letting prisoners the vote, isn't just saying "our problem not yours" it's breaking an international treaty we signed. It's not the end of the world, no, but it's not simply ignoring someone who has no authority.
(PsychoChomp, Wed 24 Oct 2012, 15:03, Reply)

I don't intend to comment on whether or history of picking and choosing
which parts of signed European agreements that we actually follow is right or not, I'm just pointing out that we've decided not to follow this one so it's the UK high court, not the EU one that's salient when discussing UK prisoners.
( Kroney, Wed 24 Oct 2012, 15:06, Reply)

Well because a high court ruling has been overturned by the court of human rights
it's obviously the court of human rights that counts.
(PsychoChomp, Wed 24 Oct 2012, 15:10, Reply)

Apparently it doesn't.

( Kroney, Wed 24 Oct 2012, 15:13, Reply)

I doubt the EU looks kindly on rendition either
still happened though.
(localboy purveyor of pisspoor puns, Wed 24 Oct 2012, 15:05, Reply)