Roger Smith considers what might happen to the Human Rights Act
Let us consider the alternatives for the future of the Human Rights Act (HRA 1998) in this final article in the series. Opponents of HRA 1998 say that it shackles Parliament, setting constitutional standards on government based on universal, not national, values and dependent on judicial interpretation. The Act’s defenders say that it shackles Parliament, setting constitutional standards etc. So, although they don’t always like to say so, both sides broadly agree on its effect: they disagree on its desirability. So, what is to be done?
Culture shock
Culturally, the British are deeply prejudiced against threats to the supremacy of Parliament. After all, our ancestors fought for centuries against the divine right of kings, the feudal rights of landed interests and the overbearing rights of men. As a consequence, the British value Parliament. That is why the proven venality of MPs has been so shocking. Someone from almost any other country would be baffled, however, by our collective unease about written constitutions. Americans, for example, absorb the principles of
