Last week, British members of Parliament in the House of Commons voted overwhelmingly by 212 votes to reject a European Court of Human Rights demand that Britain give prisoners the vote.

David Cameron had previously declared that the very thought of prisoners receiving the vote made him feel physically sick, thus giving the lead to his MPs that they could vote with their conscience and reject the European court’s ruling.

However, the Council of Europe, which enforces the court’s judgments, immediately retaliated in a strong statement Friday saying that it was “deeply disappointed by last night’s defiance of the ruling by this European Court of Human Rights on prisoner voting.”

MP Priti Patel responded angrily to the Council’s statement with: “This is a shameful attempt by Europe to censure the democratic will of the House of Commons.”

Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg said the government was now caught in a dilemma: “Parliament … has clearly expressed its distaste for granting votes to prisoners. The court has made it very clear that we are now in breach of law ….”

But other senior politicians are now calling for a showdown. London Mayor Boris Johnson urged Mr. Cameron to make a stand against the meddling court at Strasbourg: “I think we’ve come to a real crunch point. There is absolutely no way that we can allow Parliament to be overruled in this matter. … This is not a matter for Strasbourg, it is a matter for the sovereign Parliament of this country …. I hope … the prime minister … forces a showdown.”

Since its creation in 1959, the European court has passed judgement on 418 British rulings, 80 percent of which (334) Britain has lost and then meekly complied with. But it now faces a growing revolt by MPs keen to assert the country’s sovereignty, as well as a judicial backlash.

Dominic Raab, the MP who initiated Thursday’s parliamentary vote on prisoner votes, said in early February the European court had overstepped its remit by overruling the British courts on so many issues ranging from police negligence to the discipline of children in the home.

Certainly the feeling here in the UK is that the European court has been creeping balefully into every area of British lives.

“The fundamental problem is that they are making laws in Strasbourg and are not accountable,” MP Raab said. Lord Hoffman, a former law lord, said the Strasbourg judges were trying to lay down a “federal law of Europe.”

Award-winning author and respected Telegraph columnist Peter Oborne comments that the vote made two massive political statements. The first is that Parliament, after decades of submissively ceding power to Brussels, has taken the first bold step of reasserting its strength and independence. Second, that Britain has in effect declared war on a foreign court that has ruled consistently against Britain’s interests.

“[T]his act of defiance will … be very dangerous,” he cautions. “This is because, without meaning to, Cameron has unleashed a new … potent phenomenon: 21st-century Euroskepticism” (February 11; emphasis mine throughout).

He continues, “Yesterday … a new generation of Euro-firebrands was born. It is now clear that the shape of the Conservative Party at Westminster, following last year’s general election, is more Euroskeptic than anyone had calculated.”

But the question now is whether Cameron has the stomach for a major fight with the European court which would lead to Britain opting out of its jurisdiction.

One of the most incisive statements on this burning issue was made by Alasdair Palmer, the Sunday Telegraph’s public policy editor. In an article unequivocally titled “Let’s Say Goodbye to Strasbourg and Its Daft Decisions,” he said: “The only way Britain can avoid being flattened by the Strasbourg steamroller is to opt out of its jurisdiction. [T]he UK Supreme Court would once again be the highest court in Britain. Just about everyone thinks that would be better than allowing foreign judges—who have no understanding of our legal traditions, or respect for the sovereignty of Parliament—to decide what our law should be.

“What would happen if we opted out of Strasbourg’s jurisdiction? We would avoid its silly decisions. There would be a lot of shouting from Europe’s lawyers and politicians, but short of military invasion, they can’t force us to submit.”

“Military invasion” is a very interesting turn of phrase to use. This is especially so in light of Bible prophecies relating to the outcome of Britain’s membership of this imperialist European institution, a veritable resurrection of the old Holy Roman Empire!

Where this tussle for power with a foreign European court will eventually lead has already been foretold in Bible prophecy and subsequently made crystal clear in Herbert W. Armstrong’s truly astounding book The United States and Britain in Prophecy.

To fully understand where this confrontation between the British Parliament and the European court is leading, you need to study this eye-opening book. Not only will it reveal the outcome of Westminster’s challenge to Strasbourg, it will reveal a startling vision of Britain’s future beyond its current membership of the European Union.