A further important reason why the Bill of Rights should be introduced is because a Bill of Rights would impose restrictions on the Government’s actions which currently often guided only by convention and are therefore effectively above and beyond the law and without the approval of the UK population. For example, the Iraq War. When the initial vote for who was for and against the Iraq War, more than 50% of the UK population were opposed to the intervention. Tony Blair took the United Kingdom to war with Iraq nevertheless, showing an infringement of the UK Citizens’ trust and support.
The third important reason why the Bill of Rights, which I believe is at equal importance to my second reason, should be introduced is that, as written in ‘The Economist’, ‘the balance between individual rights and public safety has gone out of whack’. Recently, there have been cases in which criminals, such as terrorists and murderers, have claimed that the Human Rights Act protects them again deportation. In one case, a criminal claimed that his family that he was close to lived in England, and he would be psychologically affected had he been forced to move back to Italy to stay with his other family.
The fourth and final reason of importance as to why the Bill of Rights should be introduced is that ‘the rule of law’ demands a clear statement of citizens rights and duties, which Britain is yet to gain. The population of England, Scotland and Wales do not have anywhere they can go to find their rights if they wish to, as the Americans can. There are no rules or rights given to UK Citizens that are set in stone, which is crucial for a population to have full faith In their Government.
The most important reason why the Bill of Rights should not be introduced is because the law within Britain is contradictive of itself and in many cases loopholes are found in the Governments favour, if a Bill of Rights was written, it would be entrenched, concise and precise. Who would decide what rights were to be documented and established? Once a Bill of Rights is written it is incredibly difficult to change It and cannot simply be re-written or amended whenever the Government and country change. Although in some cases individuals could find this to be an advantage of the Bill of Rights as it would keep reigns on the Government, over all the country is ever changing and a Bill of Rights would restrain development in certain areas.
A further important reason why the Bill of Rights should not be introduced is because it could cause conflict within society. Left-wingers are suspicious of a Bill of Rights, suspecting it to possibly entrench ‘liberal’ principles such as property rights and undermine ‘socialist’ principles such as trade union rights. No two people are the same, and therefore an agreement as to which rights to entrench would become a huge problem for the Government and state.
A third reason as to why the Bill of rights should not be established is because many existing laws will conflict with the Bill, causing further work for the Government and state. For example. The Police Act, Prevention of Terrorism Acts, Criminal Justice Acts etc will not be allowed to be enforced. This, in some cases, Is seen as an advantage towards the Bill of Rights. The issue of privacy versus freedom is largely considered by those supporting the Bill and is especially oppressed.
The fourth and again final reason for the Bill of Rights to not be introduced is that the Governments are reluctant to increase constraints against themselves and against the state. The UK is known across the world for being a state where freedom is a priority. However, if a Bill of Rights was ensued, these freedoms would be largely restrained as the rights of the population were regulated and defined.
Overall, the argument for a Bill of Rights is far stronger than that against, however the case against a Bill of Rights also has a number of highly valid points which are to be considered. For example, the fact that the rights to be entrenched would be decided by someone currently unknown to the public. Would the Government decide as a whole which rights to embed within the legal system? There would be major disagreements within Government if this were to be the case as the final outcome of these decisions would affect the UK for the rest of the country’s existence. The Bill of Rights does seem to be, however, currently a resolution to many problems being faced by the Government and the state. If the safety of the people really is coming to be less important than the rights of an individual as written in the Human Rights Act, the UK are well on their way to self-destruction.
