(7) A UK Bill of Rights?

What would a "bill" mean?
1. respect right and freedoms of individuals
2. Defined legal extend of Libertys
3. Entrenches Bill of rights would be "higher Law" - would be basis for Constitutional Judicial Review
Legislative difficulties of a Bill?
1. UK supreme court is subject to the principle of Parliamentary soverinty
2. It is not gudain of the constitution
3. The only court to challenge the authorty of Parliament is the European Court of Justice - this interpets law and applies EU laws and treaties
4. The European Court of Justice is separt from the European Court of Human Rights
What has a "bill" meant for the parties?
1. Conseratives have called for a "British" Bill of Rights to replace the HRA - this is revisited and weakened version
2. Revisited because it would not be based on the European Conention
3. Weakened because it the sense that it may no longer be used to call other legislation into questin
What might the impact of a bill be?
1. Have profound implication
  1. civil liberties
    1. An entrenched bill of rights would end to the current battle between Judges and Ministers over which rights should be upheld and in what cirumstances. Entrenchment would give designated individual rights unchallengeable legal authority
  2. the judiciary
    1. Such a bill of rights would substantailly widen its role and increase its political significance
      1. Judges interpretation of an entrenched bill of rights would be final
  3. the larger political systen
    1. An entrenched bill of rights would alter not only the balance of power between and amgoust the branches of government, but it would also alter the political culture by creating a greater awarness of individual rights and freedoms
Aginsted
1. Rule by Judges
  1. A bil of rights would, as in the USA, turn judges into policy-makers
    1. This would lead to "judicial tyranny" as judges would be able both to make Laws and to interpret them.
  2. Vital checks and balances in the political system would therefore be undermined
  3. An exoanded role for the judiciary is particularly undesirable becasue judges are unelected and also socially unrepresenative
2. Politicization
  1. As judges become more powerful, the political pressure on them will inevitably increase
    1. Systems in which judges apply higher law usally struggle to maintain judicial independence
    2. Judges find it difficult to stand outside the political areana when their rulings have far-reaching policy implications
3. A "rights culture"
  1. A bill of rights would merely strengthen tendencies already fostered by the HRA
    1. Citizens would become increasingly aware of their rights whilst ignoring their civic duties and broader responsibilities
    2. Individual and minority rights would therfore be emphaized at the expense of the wider needs of the community, including the maintenance of public order and social cohesion
4. Artificial rights
  1. Bills of rights are created by legal and constitutional experts, based on abstract principles such as human rights
    1. They do not benefit from the wisdom of history and tradtion, unlike the rigths that are enshrined in common law
    2. Once applied, articifical rights often have implications quite different from the expectations of their creators
For
1. Accountable govt
  1. Entrenched bill ensure government is based on laws, not on wishes of minsters.
  2. An established higher laws is only way that rules will be upheld.
  3. This will improve trust and confidence in government
2. Liberty protected
  1. Bill of Rights provides a clear and final definition of the relationship between individual and state
  2. Civil liberties would no longer be determined by battles between rival branches in govt over which rights are more important
  3. Civil liberty would stand above the executive and Parliament
3. Educational benefits
  1. Strengthen awareness of rights and individual freedoms throughout the political system.
  2. Citizens would have a better understanding of rights that constitutionally "belong" to them
  3. Politicians and public officials would be reminded of the need to act inline with individual rights
4. Consensus on rights
  1. The foundations for a bill of rights already exists within UK (European Convention and HRA).
  2. There is a broad consensus about liberties any Bill of Rights should protect
  3. Therefore, its introduction would be smoother and less controversial
Why is it on the agenda
1. Specify rights and freedoms of individual
2. Issues
  1. Supreme Court is subject to Parliamentary sovereignty
  2. It is not guardian of the constitution
  3. Only court to challenge parliament is the European Court of Justice
All parties willing to support UK bill of right
1. Labour referred to a UK bill of rights and responsibilities. To enhance the HRA - an approach supported by the Lib Dem's
2. Conservative have called for a British bill of Rights to repeal the HRA
  1. Revised because it wouldn't be based on the European Convention
  2. Weakened by not being able to call into question other pieces of legislation

Next up

(7) A UK Bill of Rights?

Description

Resource summary

Similar

	Created by Marcus Danvers over 10 years ago