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

Raab is unlikely to be aware of the difference between the Council of Europe and the EU. I say this because he seemed not to have a clue that the United Kingdom is a set of island.

I agree the gov should do more but to do more is to raise taxes and to raise taxes at a time when heating bills are going higher and higher (and we haven't had any cold weather yet), petrol prices will no doubt alwo go up. I think that there would be screaming headlines (or more screaming headlines) about food banks and children in poverty and working families in dire straits.

Raising taxes would not be such a problem if housing costs were reined in and steady, decently paid work was available - not this zero hours rubbish.

@mellongoose

As I said earlier, but no one picked up on it. Any secondary legislation IS debated in Parliament. At the very least it would be introduced as statutory instruments.

If I don't agree with the government and a new government which I don't agree with is elected, I respect that because it was democratically elected.

Don't forget, a big reason for the brexit vote was to be able make our own laws and not be bound by the Strasbourg courts. This is why we can no longer be part of the single market. A hard brexit, if you will.

We are still prominent and active members of the Council of Europe and work with the Strasbourg judges (kind of) to ensure human rights judgements are followed in all member states. Not all member states are EU members.

It isn't true that "any secondary legislation is debated in Parliament". And it 's very difficult and rare to stop secondary legislation. See here: www.parliament.uk/about/how/laws/secondary-legislation/statutory-instruments-commons/

Which Boris Johnson apparently wants to see - a high waged, high skilled economy, although mouthing 3 word slogans won't bring it about.

We are hurtling towards a totalitarian state with the support of right wing media, whilst they demonise anything they don't like from legal asylum seekers to our right to protest.

As there should be, MamsellMarie. Yet there is still money in this country. One hell of a lot of it. The issue is its distribution: and the values that are simultaneously encouraging huge wealth growth for a few, and violence everywhere.

@MamsellMarie

I agree the gov should do more but to do more is to raise taxes and to raise taxes at a time when heating bills are going higher and higher (and we haven't had any cold weather yet), petrol prices will no doubt alwo go up. I think that there would be screaming headlines (or more screaming headlines) about food banks and children in poverty and working families in dire straits.

There are other ways to raise taxes aside from those which hit salaries.

Inheritance tax, capital gains tax etc.

However those in charge are the ones more likely to pay those taxes so they resist them strongly.

Most of won’t pay capital gains or inheritance tax so have little to worry about. (For example I’m sure it’s less than 5% of inheritances end up taxed. Those that do have a high average bill but that tells you just how large the inheritance was in the first place!)

No doubt the government would love to leave the ECHR. It's bound into it by the Brexit agreement. That doesn't stop them from being disruptive about it.

The Brexit agreement was made to be broken as far as the loony right are concerned. See also NI.

No doubt the government would love to leave the ECHR

And it's a waste of time telling Brexiters that this isn't EU legislation, and that a previous generation of UK lawyers led its drawing up, after the horrors of WW2.

[quote Theredjellybean]@Viviennemary
I'll put it in simple analogy for you..

Dominic raab's best friend knocks down and kills a small child because he is driving while drunk.
He goes to court and is found guilty.
Judge gives him a five Yr prison sentence.
But Dominic is unhappy with this and so with his shiny new ministerial power he overturns it, as he thinks the judge was wrong.
Happy with that are you?
Think that's OK?

What if that child was your son or daughter??

Still think it's mad that unelected judges get to decide how to interpret the law?[/quote]
Nah, lets really put it in terms that even the pp might understand.

Imagine the next government is lead by Jeremy Corbyn or similar, with the power to unilaterally overrule the law whenever it suits them.

Are you equally happy with that as having the current government given the power to be above the law?

Er....the current leader of the opposition (Sir) Keir Starmer
is a former lawyer.

I guess that means he knows his way around the law, and has more than a certain amount of respect for it.

Also, my understanding is, he grew up in a council house, so probably has a fair idea what it is like to grow up as a working family on a low income.

How is that not going to be a better alternative to what we have now?

Pray do explain...

[quote goinggently]@Reallyimeanreally2022 I'm not too sure how to answer this, as it's unclear from your question whether you understand very little about checks and balances on power, or you know a great deal about our uncodified constitution and you're picking me up on a technicality...[/quote]
Neither
It was a question

@goose1964

We are hurtling towards a totalitarian state with the support of right wing media, whilst they demonise anything they don't like from legal asylum seekers to our right to protest.

Oh the hyperbole makes me chuckle

Debate is dead in the water

Your question is vague.

"Hyperbole" seems to be the Bot word of the week

When was it hyperbole to say that Hitler and his black shirts were a threat I wonder?

When the Reichstag was in flames?
Kristallnacht?
When the first gas chamber was built?

Everything can be called hyperbole until it has happened

Secondary legislation is debated in Parliament in the form of statutory instruments, I believe. I may be wrong.

@mellongoose - whether Statutory Instruments are debated in Parliament depends on the vires (powers) under which the regulations were made.

If a statutory instrument is made under the affirmative procedure then there will be a debate.

It the SI is made under the negative procedure there won't be a debate. A debate may be triggered if Parliamentarians pray against the SI.

@wewereliars

"Hyperbole" seems to be the Bot word of the week

When was it hyperbole to say that Hitler and his black shirts were a threat I wonder?

When the Reichstag was in flames?
Kristallnacht?
When the first gas chamber was built?

Everything can be called hyperbole until it has happened

Well no That wasn’t hyperbolic

Saying we heading to a totalitarian state is hyperbolic

Hyperbole is an extreme exaggeration. It's a matter of opinion as to whether we are heading for a totalitarian state.

Since Nazi Germany has been raised, it could be said that those who were issuing warnings about the Nazis in 1931 were thought by many to be indulging in hyperbole. It was a different matter by 1942 when the Final Solution was in full swing.

Except the Tory government are using tools used over and over again by those who have built totalitarian states.

Why are they doing that?

@beigebrownblue

Er....the current leader of the opposition (Sir) Keir Starmer is a former lawyer.

I guess that means he knows his way around the law, and has more than a certain amount of respect for it.

Also, my understanding is, he grew up in a council house, so probably has a fair idea what it is like to grow up as a working family on a low income.

How is that not going to be a better alternative to what we have now?

Pray do explain...

I couldn't give a ferret if the currently elected party leader was a cross between Mandela, Ghandi and Fawcet.

The point stands - when you put people in power above the law you remove all the protections of law and that applies to politicians and governments you loathe as much as those you love.

If you read the comments here you'll see how solicitors are greeting this news. Dictatorship and North Korea are mentioned. It's also clear from this article that Raab effectively wants out of the European Court of Human Rights, as he doesn't want its judgements to affect UK rulings.
www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/hr-reform-raab-plans-mechanism-to-correct-incorrect-judgments-/5110196.article?

Statutory Instruments get plenty of scrutiny.
committees.parliament.uk/committee/148/statutory-instruments-joint-committee/

Raab is deliberatly conflating parliament with the government in that article, as he well knows the executive and legislative arms of the state are distinct.

Parliament is sovereign, so if a court hands down a judgement the government of the day does not like, thet can put a law before parliament to atttempt to change the law which the judges have interpreted. .

There is nothing new in any of that.

Our laws are made by judges as well as by parliament. and this is known as common law, as oppoed to the statute law created by parliament.

They do this all the time when they interpret the meaning and intention of statue law to cases before them and often have to infer the intentions of a piece of parliamentary legislation.

This is how it is supposed to work in a democracy.

I am a solicitor myself, and they tend to be a conservative bunch, the fact that there is a universal revulsion at this suggestion among the lawyers just underlines how fundamentally wrong, and dangerous, it is.