A UK Bill of Rights??

[SW01]

What do we think of this?

 

Personally, I think our common law constitution has endured enough assaults in the last few years. The Human Rights Act 1998 already incorporates masses of Human Rights legislation and International Treaties.

 

Is it just Parliament trying to curry favour? Or is it worth the time and effort?

[Darth InSidious]

We already have a Bill of Rights - passed in 1689! Why do we need another? Hasn't the constitution been tinkered with enough?

 

I don't know about anyone else, but I weary of MPs. Give me absolute monarchy over these fools any day. It'd probably be cheaper to run...

[Burnseyy]

We already have a Bill of Rights - passed in 1689! Why do we need another? Hasn't the constitution been tinkered with enough?

 

I don't know about anyone else, but I weary of MPs. Give me absolute monarchy over these fools any day. It'd probably be cheaper to run...

 

Very true...

 

I doubt it would make much of a difference, but let them humour us.

[SW01]

We already have a Bill of Rights - passed in 1689! Why do we need another? Hasn't the constitution been tinkered with enough?

 

I don't know about anyone else, but I weary of MPs. Give me absolute monarchy over these fools any day. It'd probably be cheaper to run...

 

I agree that we don't need another Human Rights bill, but technically our 'Bill of Rights' is the Human Rights Act. I think though that it is comprehensive enough as it is. Those that think it only protects criminals and terrorists ought to try reading the blasted thing. (Just spent two semesters dealing with it - there's a lot to it. Some of it even makes sense!)

 

As for absolute monarchy...:bow:

[Darth_Yuthura]

I think abandoning ANY established constitution/bill or rights is likely impossible to do at once. People who have learned the current bill or rights won't like to just dismiss an already established system. Things are working... maybe not that well, but well enough that people wouldn't go for throwing it all away for something that MIGHT be even worse. Change is slower as there are more interests to serve. Those with power will have greater influence and the common person wouldn't go for that.

 

A new bill of rights would never pass... changing it slowly might.

[Astor]

Give me absolute monarchy over these fools any day. It'd probably be cheaper to run...

 

Time for another civil war, methinks?

 

It would be nice not to have to choose which unremarkable politician to vote in - we'd just be ruled by the King (although, Her Majesty still seems to have a spring in her step).

[SW01]

I think abandoning ANY established constitution/bill or rights is likely impossible to do at once. People who have learned the current bill or rights won't like to just dismiss an already established system. Things are working... maybe not that well, but well enough that people wouldn't go for throwing it all away for something that MIGHT be even worse. Change is slower as there are more interests to serve. Those with power will have greater influence and the common person wouldn't go for that.

 

A new bill of rights would never pass... changing it slowly might.

 

The problem is that the previous system could be scrapped with one bill. The system has been developing for a long time. In that time we have developed the basic rights written in law through the Courts. It would be near impossible to achieve the same detail with one bill. It is totally unnecessary, as any changes that are really needed will be made in due course by the Courts.

[Darth_Yuthura]

The problem is that the previous system could be scrapped with one bill. The system has been developing for a long time. In that time we have developed the basic rights written in law through the Courts. It would be near impossible to achieve the same detail with one bill. It is totally unnecessary, as any changes that are really needed will be made in due course by the Courts.

 

So what exactly does that mean? Is the current bill too elaborate that they can't get anything done because there is too much in conflict with each other?

 

A new bill would just take all that has been accomplished and drop it for something new and unproven. I can't imagine a new bill going through, so why not rewrite the old one and combining similar details into fewer words?

[SW01]

So what exactly does that mean? Is the current bill too elaborate that they can't get anything done because there is too much in conflict with each other?

 

A new bill would just take all that has been accomplished and drop it for something new and unproven. I can't imagine a new bill going through, so why not rewrite the old one and combining similar details into fewer words?

 

Many people think that the current legislation only protects criminals, but have no real idea what it truly does. There is a mass of case law (it's a common law system - it evolves with each court decision) but that will be the case with any bill in our system. It is quite efficient as it is. That is why I think it is just a PR thing by Parliament.

 

There is no single bill to rewrite. Human Rights in the UK come primarily from the European Convention of Human Rights (which the UK Parliament cannot alter by itself.)

 

Thing is, if there is a new Bill of Rights for the UK, and any part of it contradicts European law, the UK gets taken to court! Any new bill will just be the old content with a shiny new face on it.