The E.U. strike agian, telling us what to do!

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
One assumes they will have a postal vote! :p The one exception I would make is for anyone who has been convicted of murder/manslaughter. My reply to the EU court of human rights would be that the government will of course restore their voting rights as soon as the voting rights of their victim/s have been restored also. :mad:
 
[pedant mode]It is a decision of the European Court of Human Rights which is not an EU body. Europe doesn't have to mean the EU and vice versa[/pedant mode]

Apart from the judgement that caused this, what I fail to understand is why, if Government sees membership of the Council of Europe (again, not an EU body) as essential, nothing has been done to implement this for years in the full and certain knowledge that we would be fined.
 
[pedant mode]It is a decision of the European Court of Human Rights which is not an EU body. Europe doesn't have to mean the EU and vice versa[/pedant mode]

.

Yes, agreed but to me it's 'them' again telling 'us' what to do! :wallbash:
 
And how do you feel when your wife tells you what to do? ;)

Point being, the EU is a partnership with compromises and give and take.

Mercedes are kind enough to make RHD cars and export them to the UK. That's not such a bad trade off :)
 
Yes, agreed but to me it's 'them' again telling 'us' what to do! :wallbash:

Actually it is us telling government what to do. The whole point of human rights legislation is to defend individuals from excessive power of the state.
 
And how do you feel when your wife tells you what to do? ;)

Point being, the EU is a partnership with compromises and give and take.

Mercedes are kind enough to make RHD cars and export them to the UK. That's not such a bad trade off :)

I believe 30% of car owning countries drive on the left...Mercedes are doing us no particular favours.
 
Actually it is us telling government what to do. The whole point of human rights legislation is to defend individuals from excessive power of the state.

I would differ slightly on that point, it would appear to be the minority telling government what to do, not the majority. When has any government listened to what the majority want, another topic I know, but reinstatement of capital punishment is a case in point.
 
Mercedes build right hand drive cars to extend their market and increase their profit. No other reason.

As for prisoners. Criminals. The dregs of society being allowed to vote... It's no great surprise, but that doesn't make it right. We wonder why law enforcement is so difficult in this country and wonder why we have such a criminal problem. It's because there is no deterrent and this is just one more nail to ensure there's even less. This directly affects every single law abiding citizen through taxation to keep these scum in their holiday parks.

Regards,
 
I think you will find that that judgement is against a blanket ban of voting rights. Strasbourg did state that it is now upto the member countries to decide which offences are determined as losing their voting rights - so I don't see lifers getting the vote. Sometimes the headlines can be over dramatic.
 
I believe 30% of car owning countries drive on the left...Mercedes are doing us no particular favours.

I suppose the real point I was trying to make is that the EU enables OEMs to sell cars easily within Europe. If standards were never harmonises how common would foreign made cars be on our roads? At the very best, they would be more expensive.
 
Understood, but I don't think it should be determined on the sentence of any criminal. In fact I would take it exactly the other way and that is the moment you're found guilty of a criminal offence (note criminal not civil or non criminal such as motoring), no matter what the offence, you lose your voting rights for life. In fact given my way, you'd lose a lot more, but clearly I'm a nasty horrible person that doesn't care about his fellow humans :)
 
There is a "bring back" thread somewhere.

I think Ill go add "Capital Punishment" and yes I'm serious.
 
Let me tell you how screwed up our voting systems are. My wife, which some of you have met, is from Germany. She has lived in the UK for 19 years (yesterday in fact) as is her right within the EU. She has always wanted to maintain her German nationality as is also her right. However, get this... she can't vote in a general election in either country now!!!!

She can't vote in Germany because she isn't resident there and she can't vote here because she's German. Nope. Our government will gladly allow her to pay taxes, count her on the electoral roll, collect her council tax etc. but allow her to vote? No!!!

Europe needs to get it's act together for the law abiding citizens before it even cares one jot about its criminals.
 
Understood, but I don't think it should be determined on the sentence of any criminal. In fact I would take it exactly the other way and that is the moment you're found guilty of a criminal offence (note criminal not civil or non criminal such as motoring), no matter what the offence, you lose your voting rights for life. In fact given my way, you'd lose a lot more, but clearly I'm a nasty horrible person that doesn't care about his fellow humans :)
I understand the sentiment of your post but what 'crimes' would you seperate? You say 'non criminal such as motoring'. What about drink driving? Dangerous driving? Like I say, I do understand where you are coming from but it isn't easy seperating 'criminality'. :)
With regards 'criminals' voting, the situation baffles me, in all honesty. I would hazard a guess that most won't even bother voting because if you can't mobilize the general 'law-abiding public' to vote in any great numbers, how do they expect to get prisoners to?:dk:
 
To deny prisoners a vote is to further alienate them from the society they are paying their debt to. Eventually they are released, and so should have a say in which government will be in power when that time comes.

If a more sinister view is taken, then the current system allows for denying people their vote by mere imprisonment, something that is potentially within a governments power to manipulate.

And to all the Little Englanders - did you prefer Europe the way it used to be? Constantly at war. I'll bet your grandparents prefer it as it currently is.
 
Let me tell you how screwed up our voting systems are. My wife, which some of you have met, is from Germany. She has lived in the UK for 19 years (yesterday in fact) as is her right within the EU. She has always wanted to maintain her German nationality as is also her right. However, get this... she can't vote in a general election in either country now!!!!

She can't vote in Germany because she isn't resident there and she can't vote here because she's German. Nope. Our government will gladly allow her to pay taxes, count her on the electoral roll, collect her council tax etc. but allow her to vote? No!!!

Europe needs to get it's act together for the law abiding citizens before it even cares one jot about its criminals.

Does having dual nationality not allow one to vote?
 
I understand the sentiment of your post but what 'crimes' would you seperate? You say 'non criminal such as motoring'. What about drink driving? Dangerous driving? Like I say, I do understand where you are coming from but it isn't easy seperating 'criminality'. :)
With regards 'criminals' voting, the situation baffles me, in all honesty. I would hazard a guess that most won't even bother voting because if you can't mobilize the general 'law-abiding public' to vote in any great numbers, how do they expect to get prisoners to?:dk:

It's already decided in law which are criminal and which are civil offences. I see no need to change those definitions. I was just pointing out that motoring offences are typically civil, not criminal offences, before someone got hot under the collar about losing their right to vote because they got caught speeding :)
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom