Thus the very fabric of our objection becomes one of incarceration, that is one set of prisoner’s are denied this right because of their incarceration, yet other former convicts are restored that privilege since they are out and about in the community. This does not sound rational law to me.

For me it is right and proper that all citizens be given the privilige to participate and debate in society, this is healthy for rehabilitaion, society and a general feeling of being part of civl society- incaceration does not have to spell the end of civilisation or persons freedom of expression or indeed participation in society.

Or can the UK just ignore these positive obligation and go on its merry way?

The obligation to abide by the judgment is one under public international law, here in the form of Article 46 of the Convention. Such obligations are not addressed either to Parliament or to the government or to any other institution. They are addressed only to the United Kingdom as a state. (This is known in international law as ‘the principle of the unity of the state’, UN Doc A/56/10, p 85.) Domestic divisions of power, whether they be between Parliament and the executive or between federal and state levels as in the US (and elsewhere), do not matter. The United Kingdom must abide by the judgment in the form explained in the post. How the UK does this is entirely a matter for itself, but the state cannot point to domestic law or practice as a defence for failing to comply. In other words: if Parliament does not change the law with respect to convicted prisoners, it will put the UK in violation of Article 46. If the government fails to act, it will do the same.

It follows that Parliament and all MPs and members of the House of Lords are indirectly obliged to pass new legislation. However, because their very existence does not matter vis-à-vis the international level, they cannot be directly obliged as such. The US Supreme Court once said that for the purposes of international law, the American States did not exist (I’m sorry I can’t find the reference); only the United States of America as a constructively unitary state and single entity does. Likewise, the UK is bound by Article 46 as a single entity, quite regardless of the fact that there is a Parliament and that this has several hundred members. Like the American States, these ‘do not exist’.

While it is true that domestic law cannot bind Parliament to pass new legislation (cf s 10 HRA 1998), and while it is also true that international law is not directly addressed to Parliament, international law can oblige the UK to do something that, domestically, requires new legislation. If this is not done, the UK will be in violation of international law.

Finally, a pedantic remark: it is said in the post that the UK ‘Parliament signed up to the Convention’. Of course, Parliament didn’t really do that. The government and the King did, in 1950-1951, because treaties are made under the royal prerogative. Parliament only made the Convention rights applicable in (or rather: as) domestic law, through the HRA 1998.