European ruling due on prisoners’ right to vote

October 6 A senior adviser to the European Union’s top court recommended on Tuesday that it dismiss a case against Britain brought by the EU executive, which had complained that restrictions on welfare payments discriminated against non-British EU citizens. In Britain, politicians have argued the ruling could challenge the country’s blanket ban on prisoners’ voting rights. Prisoners shouldn’t get the vote.

Ten years ago the European Court of Human Rights said the UK’s blanket ban on prisoners voting was unlawful – but we ignored them.

UK Independence Party Justice and Home Affairs spokeswoman Diane James MEP said, ” A blanket ban on votes for prisoners is the expressed will of the British parliament.

The European Union’s highest court on Tuesday ruled that a member state can ban prisoners guilty of serious offenses from voting in EU elections in a decision which was keenly awaited in Britain.

Meanwhile the Government has welcomed a recommendation by the ECJ’s advocate general that the court rejects a case brought by the European Commission challenging the UK’s “right to reside” test which EU migrants must pass if they are to claim a few benefits.

The unexpected ruling by the European court of justice upholds a ban on a French convicted murderer who was serving a sentence of more than five years from taking part in the European elections.

Alex Hewson, spokesman for the Prison Reform Trust, told Metro.co.uk the situation in France and England was different because we ban ALL prisoners automatically but France looks at what crime they committed.

It has always been open to the British government to end the blanket ban and replace it with a selective ban on certain categories of prisoners, such as the most serious criminals.

Mr Cameron has said the issue of prisoner voting makes him “physically sick” and has threatened to quit the European Court of Human Rights – a body entirely separate to the EU – over the issue.

“The ECJ ruling comes down to the fact we should not be answerable to a foreign court!”

Cruz Villalon argued that while the test could be seen as a case of “indirect discrimination” it was nevertheless justified by “the necessity of protecting the host member state’s public finances”.

The advocate general said the United Kingdom residency checks on EU migrants do not impose any condition additional to what is inscribed in EU law, but simply examines the lawfulness of that residence according to European rules.

The ECJ will now consider Mr Villalon’s opinion before ruling on the Commission’s objection to Britain’s laws.

Today he said: “I haven’t changed my view at all”. Nothing is going to change.

‘Now, one of the ways we want to address that is to make sure that people can’t immediately come here and access our generous in-work benefits system – I think that’s been an additional draw to our country’.