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

You are assuming that people don't get wiser as they get older.

I’m assuming they die. To be replaced with the growing section of the population that is most anti-Brexit and has the most to lose from it.

TatianaBis Young people become more conservative as they age.

Depends on the generation.

We’re talking 0.38% per year affording to one study.

They will die eventually nonetheless.

TatianaBis So you will have no difficulty with your campaign for a referendum to re-join (with a super-majority requirement). Good luck.

TatianaBis "Replace with whatever right wing rag floats your boat."
That's a corking example of an ad hominem (feminam). Play the ball not the woman.

@MadameMaxGoesler

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.

Except the vote was a yes or no question with no detail. The negotiators were to come up with a deal that was best for Britain. A no deal Brexit was definitely not best for Britain and if an mp feels something is detrimental it is his/ her duty to vote against it. A majority of U.K. MP’s consistently voted against the deal put forward by the government although some did it because they felt the deal didn’t go far enough.

@MamsellMarie

The scottish government have removed the word 'mother' from all gov policies - they didn't need a change in powers for that. I find that more scary.

That could yet be reviewed.

What the Tories have in mind is an end to all judicial review, no more test cases on constitutional matters, on human rights, on workers' rights, on women's rights, on the rights of children, refugees, unions, the right to free speech, privacy, to gather, to profess a religion, to wear certain clothing for reasons you find compelling, to home educate, and much more.

What is this about - being able to return immigrant criminals to their country of birth? Stopping someone gluing themselves to the motorway ? Or what?
Returning immigrant criminals and protests that cause traffic jams are tough cases.
Tough cases make really bad laws.

"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."
"I appreciate that is unlikely"

Swap that for NHS data on women aged 16 to 56 held by some data crunching company owned by a friend of Dominic Raab's, which is approached by some foreign actor with shedloads of cash.

What will happen to the data? Your data, I should say.

Also, we have made international obligations, there's a limit to how much we can curtail them unilaterally.

Keep your eye on the Good Friday Agreement and also the Northern Ireland Protocol.

@AnneElliott

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?

Such a wide ranging Act would need to get through the Lords. Which is most unlikely. Anyone who's taken legislation through Parliament (I have) knows that the Lords scrutinise the secondary legislation powers and often table amendments to restrict them. There is no way the Lords (where the current Gov do not have a majority) will pass open ended legislation enabling Ministers to table SIs that amend primary legislation in order to change the law without a parliamentary vote.

But the Gov has always been able to table primary legislation to change the law (or usually be more specific about the intention of parliament) if a court judgement is handed down which is seen as unhelpful.

This should be the leading post on this thread. Someone who knows what they’re talking about

@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.

I think you will find if you do a little counting that more people voted against it than for any other electoral option in British history too.

I think you will also find that the definition of the term 'Brexit' eluded the majority of the Conservative, Labour, and LibDem Members of Parliament, the entire electorate, and the media. See for example the woolly phrase used by the PM, Theresa May - 'Brexit means Brexit'.

Maybe go and read Edmund Burke on the topic of MPs' individual judgement.

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

@MadameMaxGoesler

You clearly don't know much about how the EU works (or the UK either).

Such a wide ranging Act would need to get through the Lords. Which is most unlikely. Anyone who's taken legislation through Parliament (I have) knows that the Lords scrutinise the secondary legislation powers and often table amendments to restrict them. There is no way the Lords (where the current Gov do not have a majority) will pass open ended legislation enabling Ministers to table SIs that amend primary legislation in order to change the law without a parliamentary vote.

@AnneElliott, next up for the chopping block - the House of Lords.

@MadameMaxGoesler

Apparently you missed the point that the EU will not readmit the U.K. until Brexitism dies a death.

The ‘ball’ is the right wing political agenda.

This doesnt bother me at all.

Judges are an unelected, unrepresentative tiny group of people. It's a profession known to be populated by the wealthy privately educated.

They should be legal experts ruling on how the existing law as it stands is applicable to the uncertainties of a specific case. I'm happy for their to be challenges made by the judiciary, but of course if court cases result in legal decisions that dont reflect government policies/intentions the government are going to want to amend the law to ensure their intentions can be enforced.

I would like the government to be the primary drivers of new legislation - they are democratically elected on our behalf to make decisions.

As Raab hasn't explained in any great detail what he's going to do and we won't know details until a white paper has been produced, why get so exercised about it. It might not be anything like you think. You're not going to be able to change anything until you know what it is you're changing.

By the way it's highly unlikely this will mean overturning judgements.

That would mean enacting retroactive legislation, which is unusual in the west where our entire economies are underpinned by certainty.

The government can already create new laws. This is simply a mechanism to speed things up so that, for example, if a series of say, tax cases, highlight that an existing piece of legislation is allowing large corporates to minimise their tax in a way the government did not anticipate, new regulations can be introduced much more quickly to close a loophole.

@Viviennemary

I agree. Why do a few judges have the right to overturn the government. It's mad.

Ah..because judges know the law better than our ministers do and because we live in a democracy ruled by laws that our ministers are also meant to follow.

Judges are an unelected, unrepresentative tiny group of people

Did you or anyone vote for Lord Frost?

This thread is so interesting and revealing.

Or Cummings? or Carrie?

Unelected figures are fine apparently as long as they are British and pro-Brexit.

I think you will also find that the definition of the term 'Brexit' eluded the majority of the Conservative, Labour, and LibDem Members of Parliament, the entire electorate, and the media. See for example the woolly phrase used by the PM, Theresa May - 'Brexit means Brexit'.

Hansard
House of Commons Wednesday 15 June 2016:

Nigel Adams
(Selby and Ainsty) (Con)

Q14. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on honouring our manifesto pledge and delivering this historic referendum. Unfortunately, however, we have heard some hysterical scaremongering during the debate, and there are those in this House and the other place who believe that if the British people decide to leave the EU, there should be a second referendum. Will he assure the House and the country that, whatever the result on 24 June, his Government will carry out the wishes of the British people—if the vote is to remain, we remain, but if it is to leave, which I hope it is, we leave?

The Prime Minister (David Cameron)

I am very happy to agree with my hon. Friend. “In” means we remain in a reformed EU; “out” means we come out. As the leave campaigners and others have said, “out” means out of the EU, out of the European single market, out of the Council of Ministers—out of all those things...

I agree. Why do a few judges have the right to overturn the government. It's mad

I've heard the UK governance described as a triangle, parliament, the monarchy, the courts. Each corner keeping the other two in check and this triangle keeping stability in the country (because it's a triangle) and preventing no one badly to become to powerful.

I'm sure we've all heard the phrase Tyranny of the majority

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority#:~:text=The%20tyranny%20of%20the%20majority,those%20of%20the%20minority%20factions.

Don't know why you are quoting Cameron, Clavinova - he may have been PM but he was still only expressing an opinion. It should have been for Parliament to decide what the vote meant. A vote which they had refused to accept amendments to to say add a super majority because it was only advisory. He was then going to stay on to implement the result, which wouldn't have needed implementing if it was the status quo, so it was a strange remark to make. He wasn't in a position to comment on a 'reformed EU'. The best he could have promised was that he would press for reforms. He then scarpered within twelve hours of the results being declared. What a hero! He will go down in history, but I don't think it will be the chapter on Great PMs.

For those thinking this proposal is wonderful, or at least can't see anything wrong with it, swap the name Raab for Corbyn, or Abbott and then see how well you like it.