The argument over Human Rights in the UK, what's it all about?

What is the argument over Human Rights in the UK all about, and why is Magna Carta being used to justify David Cameron's drive for a "New British Bill of Rights"?

Mike Robinson discusses why it is that getting rid of European Human Rights legislation is a very good thing, and why replacing it with a so-called New British Bill of Rights is a very bad thing.  Watch this:-

 http://www.ukcolumn.org/magna-carta-v-human-rights

“How Britain's 'most dangerous women' just derailed the repeal of the Human Rights Act”

The two women at the eye of this political storm -  Nicola Sturgeon and Shami Chakrabarti. (surprise!)

The government’s briefing- there will be no rush to replace the Human Rights Act with a British Bill of Rights.

Result:- The Queen's Speech 2015: The government has announced that it's no longer rushing to scrap the Human Rights Act and implement a British Bill of Rights.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689

Why does the repeal of the Human Rights Act mean it has to be automatically replaced with some form of new British Bill of Rights?  Why can’t Britain just go back to the way it was before under our traditional and well-established English Bill of Rights that already exists?

This is a perfect example of the Hegelian Dialectic at work – right under our stupid noses and, unless we start to understand how this works, we have had it as a nation!  The outcome is worked out beforehand, the goal – to get rid of the old Constitution and Bill of Rights, then they create something most won’t want (Human Rights Act) and most will reject, so that the compromise reached by getting rid of new creation involves damaging the old but it all seems so reasonable – BUT IS THE OUTCOME THEY WANTED ALL ALONG!

  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-politics/11632976/Queens-Speech-Camerons-Human-Rights-Act-reform-scotched-by-Sturgeon.html