An article fron The BBC about the ongoing issue of voting rights for prisoners has a couple of very interesting lines (emphasis mine) :

MPs have overwhelmingly voted to keep the ban on prisoners voting, in defiance of a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights.

The House of Commons’ decision is not binding, but could put pressure on ministers to go against the Strasbourg court’s decision.

MPs backed a motion opposing the move by a 234 to 22 – a majority of 212.

The government says it has to end the ban on inmates voting, or face being sued for tens of millions of pounds.

Senior Tory backbencher David Davis and former Labour Home Secretary Jack Straw tabled the motion, urging ministers to defy the European Court of Human Rights ruling that a blanket ban on prisoners voting was illegal.

During a Commons, Mr Davis said Parliament must “assert” itself on an issue of “great democratic importance”.

Ministers say they have no choice but to comply with the ruling, but they will do the “minimum necessary” under European law, restricting the right to inmates serving less than four years or even shorter sentences. They have until April to say how they will respond to the court ruling.

…

Government ministers, and Labour shadow cabinet members, were ordered to abstain in the Commons vote, which is not binding on the government. Backbench MPs were given a free vote.

So, if the decision by the peoples representatives in a (supposedly) sovereign parliament is not binding on either the government or the European Court, what use is there in either voting or having MPs in the firstplace?

More to the point, why do we even pussy foot around with statements like the following (emphasis mine again) :

For the government, Attorney General Dominic Grieve said he was “frustrated” by the current situation, but the judgement was an “international obligation” since the UK was a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights.

“How can we find a way in which we may be able to persuade the court to respect the views of the legislature... without ending up, for example, with having to withdraw from the Convention… which, I have to say, would not come without cost or consequence for this country?”

What a rediculous situation to find ourselves in, akin to admitting that our parliament is a meaningless rubber stamping institution beholden to the unelected EU commission and European Court.

Even Jack Straw managed to make a valid point (whilst not admitting to being part of the problem we find ourselves in of course) :

Mr Straw told MPs that convicted prisoners had been deprived of the vote since 1870 and there had been a consensus in Parliament since then that this should remain the case. “It [the ban] is part of the mix of penal policy and the subject of wide consent by the public,” he said.

I can only hope that the government shows some evidence of backbone on this issue because if we can’t tell Europe to go fuck itself on this very simple matter then what hope is there?