Would Human Rights survive in the UK if the Human Rights Act 1998 were to be repealed by Parliament?

This question requires one to consider how far civil liberties (the common law or ‘residual’ rights of private citizens) protect human rights in the UK and whether the HRA is necessary in upholding these rights. Offering up a, perhaps, more controversial perspective one could suggest that the HRA is no longer any different in nature to the common law rights that we will call ‘civil liberties’. The judiciary, rather than applying the HRA as a typical statute, have taken principles from the Convention (through which the HRA is merely the implementing vessel) and inserted them into the common law. This is really a complex way of saying that the British judiciary no longer have any need for the HRA as they have now supplemented British common law with the convention of human rights. Examples are most clearly seen in ‘right to private life’ cases like that of Douglas v Hello! [2001] or Richards v BBC [2018] which allowed the judges to insert such a right into British law despite a ‘right to privacy’ being entirely foreign to British law. As such, one can see that the HRA is now no more than a political statement, a relic of history. Though once a significant constitutional statute it has since had the life taken from it and has served its purpose. With regards to human rights alone it is difficult to see how the repeal of such an Act would have any major impact on the judiciary effectively upholding human rights in any significant way.