Not to want to lose my human rights on the whim of a government minister?

[SecondRateFrog]

Dominic Raab says he wants to bring in a system which allows the Government to legislate against UK court judgements in human rights cases if it doesn't like them. Without going through a debate or a vote in Parliament.
Is this the end of the role of the courts in our democracy?
"Raab threat to ‘correct’ court judgments is ‘deeply troubling’, warn legal experts"
It's in The Telegraph too.
uk.yahoo.com/news/raab-threat-correct-court-judgments-144345935.html

MadameMaxGoesler - you tell me. Much of what Raab says is empty blah. But you highlight to "correct" judgments.

Who is to decide what is "correct"? Judges look at the law and decide how it is to be interpreted. They don't always agree but at least they have the training and experience to understand the law. You appear to be telling us that if the current Government don't like how the judges interpret it, they should be allowed to change it. There is absolutely nothing wrong with saying that a law, perhaps because it was poorly drafted, is not working as intended and needs to be amended. But we already have Parliament to do that. And that is not what Raab said.

He is known not to like the HRA and wants to get rid of it. It will also play well with the hanging and flogging brigade in the Tory Party.

Peregrina "You tell me, you are the one who is claiming the expertise."
You are the one asserting that the 2016 Referendum could have been made binding. I say it couldn't. Prove me wrong. A good place to start would be the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011.

Peregrina "You appear to be telling us that if the current Government don't like how the judges interpret it, they should be allowed to change it."
No, I am saying that Parliament already has the powers to change the law following a judgement and indeed does so. Raab is proposing to investigate how that Parliamentary process could be improved.

Peregrina "There is absolutely nothing wrong with saying that a law, perhaps because it was poorly drafted, is not working as intended and needs to be amended. But we already have Parliament to do that. And that is not what Raab said."
It's exactly what Raab said: "Where there have been judgments that, albeit properly and duly delivered by the courts, we think are wrong, the right thing is for Parliament to legislate to correct them."

That's the reality if it goes through.

Sorry it was meant as a reply to a much earlier post saying it would spell the end of the rule of law...

A good place to start would be the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011.

And this could not be amended if Parliament chose to do so?

Nowhere in the speech delivered to the Tory Party Conference does it say the words "we think are wrong" without the next clause in the sentence. He mentions the word wrong twice.

Parliament only gets one mention: "So, right now, we’re passing a new law through Parliament,"
"For violent and sexual offenders… we’re ending the automatic half-way release from prison."

Whether the second sentence runs on from the first, is not clear.

So subsequently he writes an article in the Telegraph and decides that he said something else.

Even so, who is to decide what better lawyers than him decide the law means is interpreted wrongly? I can stand by the statement that some laws are badly drafted and need amending. But he didn't say that.

Peregrina Here, by the way, is the legislation presently before Parliament, which will do what Raab proposes on limiting judicial review (Part 1). Second Reading on Tuesday 26th - you can watch it on BBC Parliament or Parliament TV.
publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-02/0152/210152.pdf
Raab's proposals for simplifying Parliamentary procedure for amending the law after a judgement with which it considers wrong (which Parliament, being sovereign already has powers to do) will likely be a third session Bill.

Peregrina "Even so, who is to decide what better lawyers than him decide the law means is interpreted wrongly?" Parliament.

Madame if you’re as close to the centre of government as you say you are (you spoke of meeting and congratulating Frost iirc) is it appropriate that you are arguing on a parenting forum? You sound like a party political broadcast and you’re drowning the thread with blah.

look it’s up to 91% now^^

That’s just my opinion, I’m not particularly interested what you think tbh. What is proposed is obviously slow creeping steps into an authoritarian govt, and that’s what people fear and don’t want

Lonelycrab I came onto the thread to correct some severe misunderstandings about secondary legislation. That brought a bunch of embittered Remainers with very little understanding of primary and secondary legislation or parliamentary sovereignty and process out of the woodwork.
I didn't say I was close to the centre of government - I'm not.

Except that you are now telling us that Raab said something, which he most certainly did not at the party conference. He may have moderated his views when writing a Telegraph article which reaches a wider audience than the party faithful.

You have obviously made a judgement that people who disagree with you are embittered Remainers - we might just be people who want the best for the country, and do not see Johnson's Government delivering on this.

Lonelycrab The OP said: "Dominic Raab says he wants to bring in a system which allows the Government to legislate against UK court judgements in human rights cases if it doesn't like them. Without going through a debate or a vote in Parliament."
He said nothing of the sort and nothing of the sort is planned.

@MadameMaxGoesler

Lonelycrab I came onto the thread to correct some severe misunderstandings about secondary legislation. That brought a bunch of embittered Remainers with very little understanding of primary and secondary legislation or parliamentary sovereignty and process out of the woodwork. I didn't say I was close to the centre of government - I'm not.

Oh. You seemed to be here to demonstrate your political naivety.

That will be the same Parliamentary sovereignty that the hard right campaigned to regain and then admitted in the Brexit white paper that we’d never lost: “Parliament has remained sovereign throughout our membership of the EU”.

Peregrina I think you may be confusing Raab's comments on the HRA (which will be a third session Bill if at all) with legislation presently before Parliament (the JR&C Bill) and his comments in the Telegraph about investigating a mechanism to make Parliamentary debate on amending legislation following a judgement the government considers wrong easier. If Parliament as a whole considers amending legislation is the wrong way to proceed, then the government will not succeed in passing amending legislation.
If there are enough people who agree with you about Johnson's government then it will be voted out at the next election. Would you like to put a bottle of cava on that?

I am confusing nothing - I am taking Raab's Conference words as printed on the Tory Party website. If he said something else then they need to put up a correction.

TatianaBis That reflects the distinction between technical and substantive sovereignty. Technically, Parliament was sovereign because laws (directives) enacted in Brussels had to be passed into UK law. But the UK had no substantive choice. EU regulations of course had direct effect in UK law, so no choice at all!

@MadameMaxGoesler

No it doesn’t, it reflects the manipulations of the Leave campaign.
Which, one law professor memorably described as: “lies on an industrial scale”.

You (intentionally?) omit the U.K’s contribution to those very laws, as one of the “big 3” in the EU.

TatianaBis How exactly does it reflect the "manipulations of the Leave campaign"?
It's a matter of fact that while EU directives had to be passed into UK law by Parliament it was a condition of EU membership that we did that. It's also a matter of fact that EU regulations had direct effect in UK law.

What do you understand of the workings of the EU, its various institutions, and their composition, and the ECHR and ECJ, @MadameMaxGoesler?

What do you know of the UK's participation and role in EU institutions?

mathanxiety Quite a bit. Why do you ask?

It's a matter of fact that while EU directives had to be passed into UK law by Parliament it was a condition of EU membership that we did that.

This is the EU in which the UK was never represented and never proposed any laws. Was just a passive observer? This became more of the case with Cameron, but it need never have been so. It obviously suits you to think that was the case MadameMaxGoesler.

Peregrina Sole right of proposing laws has been the Commission's since c2000. Can you give me an example of a single law that the UK proposed and secured?
You are also forgetting Qualified Majority Voting and the ratchet effect.

Peregrina In fact the last time a member nation proposed a law was the French before 2000. They didn't get it through - but the Commission hijacked it as Brussels 2a.

And who gets to vote on these things? Is it the commission that votes them through?