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

[quote MadameMaxGoesler]Statutory Instruments get plenty of scrutiny.
committees.parliament.uk/committee/148/statutory-instruments-joint-committee/[/quote]
The role of the Joint Committee is only to check that the statutory instrument is lawful - made in accordance with the law. Not to check whether the change in the law is a good idea. Raab's plan is to bring in legislation that makes overturning court judgements that the government dislikes lawful. That's the whole point.
From the parliament website, on statutory instruments:
"They are considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments (JCSI). The role of this committee is to scrutinise the SI to ensure it is legal and does not go beyond the powers specified in the parent Act."

SecondRateFrog The crucial bit is "...and does not go beyond the powers specified in the parent Act."
SIs put into effect powers contained in existing legislation which has been passed by parliament with full parliamentary scrutiny. Raab can't to introduce an SI which is independent of existing legislation.

@MadameMaxGoesler

SecondRateFrog The crucial bit is "...and does not go beyond the powers specified in the parent Act." SIs put into effect powers contained in existing legislation which has been passed by parliament with full parliamentary scrutiny. Raab can't to introduce an SI which is independent of existing legislation.

The conservatives have an enormous majority, and they literally expelled their ethical MPs from the party, leaving only the unethical ones - the ones who will do what they're told to safeguard their own jobs. How do you feel about an Act of Parliament which allows a Government minister to come up with any statutory instrument he or she wants? All such statutory instruments would pass the scrutiny of the committee.

SecondRateFrog I think it would be vanishingly unlikely to pass both chambers.
It's worth reading what Raab actually said in the Telegraph:
"Outlining plans to use legislation to "correct" judgments, Mr Raab said: "We're identifying the problems and we're making sure we fix them ... We will get into the habit of legislating on a more periodic basis and thinking about the mechanism for that. 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." "

SecondRateFrog I do find it interesting though that you describe the Tory MPs who were expelled as "ethical". Those were the MPs who did their best to thwart the delivery of Brexit - for which more people voted than for any other single electoral option in British history. Nothing ethical about that.

I think all of it needs a proper review, there have been some dubious actions by judges recently.

I'd like to know what training they get in the areas they work in. I want sentences for cruelty to children looked at, esp forcing children to have contact with violent partners. There was a case where a dad had 20 incidences of violence agaisnt him but a judge made a letter circulate to 38 agencies /people to say when he first shook his child it was all a mistake.
He then went into kill that child.
Who regulates them, who reviews things?

Complaints against judges' ethics are dealt with by the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office, which is overseen by the Lod Chancellor and Lord Chief Justice.

If a Judge makes a decision that a party does not like it can be apppealed. There are guidelines that must be followed, they can't just do what they like. And the governing party should certainly not be directly interfering in judge's decisions.

The usual hate rags have been criticsing judges for properly applying the law eg in respect of the brexit nonsense of eg proroguing parliament.

wewereliars Parliament regularly legislates to overturn (oust) judgements.

Those were the MPs who did their best to thwart the delivery of Brexit

Or felt that it was their duty to act in the best interests of the country. If they sincerely felt that Brexit was wrong it was up to the Brexiters to persuade them other wise - not have those they don't agree with kicked out.

@MadameMaxGoesler

SecondRateFrog I do find it interesting though that you describe the Tory MPs who were expelled as "ethical". Those were the MPs who did their best to thwart the delivery of Brexit - for which more people voted than for any other single electoral option in British history. Nothing ethical about that.

How many people voted for a No Deal Brexit? What they were offered was a Have your Cake and eat it Brexit. It was supposed to be better than what we had when in the EU. "The former international development secretary was one of 21 Conservative MPs who rebelled against the Government in a crunch vote to prevent a no-deal Brexit on Tuesday night, and later had the Tory whip withdrawn."

Peregrina There was no requirement for Brexiters to do any persuading: once the referendum decision had been taken, it was the duty of MPs to put the decision into effect whether they agreed with it or not.

Those were the MPs who did their best to thwart the delivery of Brexit - for which more people voted than for any other single electoral option in British history.

Around 95% of the German population voted to leave the League of Nations in the 1933 referendum.

Referendums are an easily manipulable tool beloved of authoritarian regimes to give them the veneer of democratic process.

SecondRateFrog Having our laws made by people we can get rid of is considerably better than what we had in the EU.

And of course, a few years back, anyone suggesting we were heading for the hardest of hard Brexits would have been shouted down as pure hyperbole. And look at us now.

TatianaBis We didn't hear many complaints about the holding of the referendum when Remain thought they were going to win it.

Lonelycrab Do tell me which of Project Fear's predictions have come true.

for which more people voted than for any other single electoral option in British history

fullfact.org/europe/eu-referendum-not-largest-democratic-exercise/

@Marchingredsoldiers

I find it scary. If I have got it right, there are a few attacks on democrary going on:

• reorganisation of electoral boundaries, so the conversatives can be in forever (MN caveat: exagerating slightly)
• effective removal of the right to protest (not an exageration)
• this

I swear there are others too.

Vaccine passports

SwedishEdith I chose my words carefully (see para. 3):
fullfact.org/online/was-vote-leave-largest-democratic-vote-british-history/

boobot1 Boundaries are being redrawn to balance constituency numbers which for some time have drifted to favour Labour.
The PCSC Bill does not remove the right to protest - it puts static protests on the same footing as marches.

boobot1 Sorry - my comment was for Marchingredsoldiers.

There was no requirement for Brexiters to do any persuading: once the referendum decision had been taken, it was the duty of MPs to put the decision into effect whether they agreed with it or not.

I don't know about your Referendum ballot paper - mine only said Remain or Leave. There was no PTO to say "If Leave which of these options would you prefer." It was the duty of Parliament to try to find the best option for Brexit. Well Johnson got his majority, and the MPs decided that whatever he decided to go for was OK by them with some of them admitting that they didn't read it. Except now, he and Frost don't like the agreement that they signed with the EU. Maybe if the MPs had insisted on having time to read it and having a robust debate, Johnson and Frosty could be spared the difficulty of wanting to rip up an International agreement. Pesky business these International agreements aren't they?

MadameMaxbrexit Yes, parliaments, not the exceutive arm of governments.

Referendums are an easily manipulable tool beloved of authoritarian regimes to give them the veneer of democratic process.

Which is why they are severely limited in Germany, the country having learnt the hard way.

Even in Switzerland, where they are used quite often, Parliament can overturn them if they feel that the result is not in the best interests of the country.

@MadameMaxGoesler none. It's going great. That £350 million has improved things no end. Fishing industry is flourishing and cornwall is getting twice as much as it got off the EU.
Seriously why do people bother contributing if it's just misinformed tosh or deliberately misleading ?