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

Jason118 The European Parliament, but without meaningful debate of the sort that the UK would consider democratic.

Jason118 But the EU's lack of democratic accountability is, fortunately, no longer our problem.

Thanks for the info - so it's still elected representatives that vote on things. Who votes the representatives in?

Jason118 The European Parliament, but without meaningful debate of the sort that the UK would consider democratic.

Thanks again. So are we in the UK the only ones that have proper democracy?

Jason118 I'm sure that individual EU nations are full democracies. The EU is not a democratic structure, nor does it pretend to be. It has some features of a democracy, but is not a complete democracy.

Ok, thanks, I just seem to remember voting for some European election candidates and sort of assumed they were elected to do stuff in European Parliament, seems I was mistaken.

Jason118 That's about right. The democratic input of any EU nation is really quite restricted.

But the thread wasn't about which organisations/countries could be considered to be democracies. It was expressing concern that Raab was saying that if he didn't like a judges opinion he would 'correct' it. Followed by a number of lawyers, one of whom was Jonathan Jones the former head of the Govt's legal service, expressing concern. It appears that later Raab decided that it must involve Parliament - it most certainly wasn't in his Tory Conference speech. Maybe he was rowing back having been criticised for arguments which were muddled.

@Peregrina I know, apologies, it seems like even though member states vote democratically to elect representatives to the EU Parliament, in some peoples minds this doesn't count. I wanted to explore the depth of the delusion.

Jason118 I’m not sure your irony is being appreciated noticed, but aren’t you glad that you’ve been set straight on how the UK has now become a shining beacon of democratic light for the world post Brexit

www.davidputtnam.com/viewNews/n/lord-puttnam-retirement-full-speech/

Peregrina Raab didn't say "that if he didn't like a judges opinion he would 'correct' it." he said that Parliament would change the law (which Parliament already does).

Jason118 MEPs are elected. They don't, however, propose legislation - the unelected Commission does that. MEPs barely get to debate it.

Peregrina Jonathan Jones did not resign over anything Raab said.

Well you all know what the solution is right?

STOP VOTING FOR TORIES WHO DON'T GIVE A FUCK ABOUT YOU.

Is that clear enough? You can keep saying 'but Labour wouldn't be any better', but how do we know? We've had tories since 2010, has anything actually gotten better? No. Might as well try someone else.

Or lose your human rights. That's your choice. If you're happy to vote tory because you don't like Labour, then you're happy to lose your human rights. Can't have it both ways, you either vote for it or against it. By voting tory, you're voting for it.

I think all political parties are shite to be honest. I trust no politician. They are all lying scumbags. Just some aren't as scummy as others.

MEPs are elected. They don't, however, propose legislation - the unelected Commission does that. MEPs barely get to debate it.

I presume there is some sort of vote, like some sort of democratic action, voted by elected representatives. It's just not like our FPTP system where lots of peoples opinions are not taken into account. Much better to know that how you vote has some impact compared to how many people in the uk feel that there vote is meaningless. But we digress.

I can post the same link to what he said at the Tory Party conference. Unless the party has changed it overnight, it will say exactly the same as it did yesterday.

I can well believe that he tried to change his tune later, but his Tory Party Conference speech only managed to mention Parliament once.
Extract:
---
In one case, a drug dealer convicted of beating his ex-partner,
A man who hadn’t paid maintenance for his daughter,
Then successfully claimed the right to family life to avoid deportation.
Conference, it is absolutely perverse that someone guilty of domestic abuse …
Could claim the right to family life to trump the public’s interest in deporting him from this country.
We’ve got to bring this nonsense to an end.
So, today I can tell you that, under this Prime Minister and before the next election,
We will overhaul the Human Rights Act
To end this kind of abuse… and restore some common sense to our justice system.

--

I don't see any words there to say "We will bring this matter to Parliament and seek to amend the Law" or similar wording.

This speech and the examples given has already been dissected by David Allen Green to which I posted a link upthread. At best it looks as though Raab couldn't be bothered to do his homework properly, at worst was dissembling.

No surprise there for a man who was happy to boast that he'd only just found out how important the Dover to Calais crossing was, or as Foreign Sec preferred to stay on the beach while the debacle around the evacuation of Afghanistan was taking place.

Jason118 Very democratic:
www.theguardian.com/media/2019/mar/27/mep-errors-mean-european-copyright-law-may-not-have-passed

Jonathan Jones did not resign over anything Raab said.

Straw man. I never said he did.

Peregrina How exactly do you think the HRA could be overhauled other than by Parliament amending or repealing it?

Peregrina "straw man. I never said he did." Apologies - I mis-read your comment.
However, as a former civil servant, Jonathan Jones really should keep his political views to himself.

My recollection is that Jonathan Jones, holding a Government position, resigned because he was unhappy that the Government was threatening to break international law. I am going out, otherwise I would look it up.

Is obeying international law political? It's a sad day for the UK if obeying laws is deemed to be optional.

Peregrina Yes, it was over the Withdrawal Agreement in relation to Northern Ireland customs regulations. Lord Keen made a very coherent case that the government would not be not breaking the law (see below). Brandon Lewis then famously said in the Commons that Northern Ireland customs rules legislation do “break international law in a very specific and limited way”. This was a rather grubby political move designed to put pressure on Brussels during the negotiations. Lord Keen had no option but to resign - a great loss. Jonathan Jones followed.
www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/e2a4e284-f57f-4d42-9417-a1ca9d7058f4?fbclid=IwAR05HzzgadWHTmX5otYjQw_Ktos5ZkNyfa78yBEeyRdqxqWmQy-758wZHtE

Just so we're clear here, @MadameMaxGoesler

EU Commission membership is voted upon by the European Parliament. Potential members are proposed by their own governments and their appointment is confirmed by the EU Parliament. Other roles of the Parliament wrt the Commission are - rejection or confirmation of the nominee for President of the Commission, forcing resignation of the current Commissioners by means of a motion of censure. This power of the Parliament was used to gain leverage over the Commission in the early 2000s. Since the Lisbon Treaty, the EU Parliament has had equal power with the Commission over the EU Budget, and Parliament can amend and reject legislation emanating from the Commission. Parliament, through its budgetary power, can also influence the direction of the European External Action Service (essentially the EU's foreign affairs service). Parliament can approve or reject all grant proposals for development outside the EU (post war reconstruction in various zones, for example).

The Commission is the Executive Branch of the EU. It is ultimately accountable to the EU Parliament. There are 27 members, one from each member state. The UK used to have one too, although from 1973 to 2004 it had two at a time.

As the EU has developed, each new Treaty has seen the growth of Parliament's remit.

I fear this will get pushed through without people realising!

I feel it will get pushed through too - with the 80 seat majority of people who are toadies of Boris. The test as always should be, what if Corbyn/Blair/Sturgeon/Whoever did this. Would it be acceptable?