MP’s With Some Balls At Last.

What balls? All they've done is pass a crowd-pleasing motion on a subject they couldn't even be bothered to debate before the European Court of Human Rights told them to.

Whether we should have signed up to the ECHR is a different debate, but the fact is that we have signed up to the ECHR and we should therefore honour its judgements and rulings. That is until we choose to pull out of it. After all, how long would many of us last if we were to tell a court of law in this country which judgements and rulings we chose to accept, and which we didn't?

On a point of accuracy though Dave, the ECHR doesn't insist that laws should work the same in each country. Lots of signatories to the ECHR have different laws on whether prisoners should vote, as they do on lots of other things. The point of the ECHR's ruling was that the blanket ban on all prisoners in this country (whatever the offence) and without even a proper debate on the matter in Parliament is unreasonable.

As for the issue itself (if not the ruling, which in my view was a dogs breakfast), there are many reasons why prisoners should have vote. First, laws should be made by consent of those who live under them (and no, before anyone pipes up, the ECHR doesn't 'make law'). Whether a person has transgressed an existing law makes no difference to that in my view. Second, what happens should an authoritarian government get power in this country and begin imprisoning its political opponents? I've a feeling such a party or group would find the UK's blanket ban on prisoners voting rather handy. "That would never happen here" is no defence. Third, there are lots of people I don't like having the vote in this country – people I consider to be the thick, the illiterate, the nasty, the illiberal..........yet who am I to say that my right to vote should be worth more than theirs?

I think the outcome would depend on which way those not in prison voted on that one ;D

I'm ok with the other bits!

It was interesting to finally see our parliament actually acting like what it is, the legislature of the country, rather than bending over backwards to suit Europe. That's one of the beneficial effects of a Conservative government, say what you will about them. However it won't ever change anything, enough of the political elite of the country are too wedded to the idea of the EU to ever consider leaving it. Probably the best outcome is that in coming years the EU develops a two tier structure where an inner core of € using countries continue down a process of federalism while those that hold doubts about the EU (UK, Sweden to a degree, Poland, Czech Republic et al) can opt out of much of it, forming an outer less integrated circle of nations.

The time to leave the EU has long gone though. As much as I personally dislike the thing and think that our government should have tried to create an FTZ with North America and AUS/NZ after WW2. Nations that actually are closer to us in culture than Europe will ever be.

I know,it actually predates the EU (or European Coal and Steel Community as it initially was) and Churchill had a large role in setting it up. However it's been rather intermingled with the whole EU project and it's role has been expanded and expanded far beyond it's initial remit. None of the European organs are immune from the Federal European idea that Brussels pushes at every opportunity.