The government is made up of knowledgeable individuals that will be able to make the correct decisions in order to run the country effectively. Interference by the general populace would only hinder the decision making policies that our government has the knowledge and ability to create.
Yes but even if they are knowledgeable individuals that doesn't mean they can be completely trusted. If they have complete power to do as they wish, eventuality they will start doing things for their own gain. Nothing will be able to stop those in power from doing as they wish with the country, and that will not only negatively affect the people of the country but also how other countries see the said country as a whole
You say that the individuals that run the country aren't trustworthy, however you forget that these people have been voted in by the population. If we had no legal rights, we would have no right to vote, so the people that were voted in would have no authority to rule our country. Whoever replaces those currently in power may in fact be better for our country than the democratically elected parties, as there would be no need for the government to placate their voters, which allows them to focus more on their vision of our country.
However if we lose our rights we will then not have the right to vote in people to run this country. If this is the case we will end up with people running the country that haven't been voted in by the people. This means that, although we could get someone better than current in power we could as easily have someone in power how is much worse. Because of this we might end up with someone in power that cares more for themselves than 'their vision of our country' as the vision for someone like that would involve them being in power perpetually and using that power to their own gain
You say that the country's new leaders would be much worse, but do you know that that would be the case? There is the possibility that the new leaders could greatly improve our country. It many be that the only reason that they weren't in power before is that their extremist views were shot down by the more popular democratic parties. Even if we have a leader that primarily wishes to further their own power, there won't be much that they can do in a modern society. Monarchs of old relied on the feudal system to keep themselves in power, which is effectively an extinct form of government. Modern despots rely on their total control of the army to ensure their rule. This hypothetical dictator would require the support of the majority of the army, navy and air-force, along with the support of the police force if they want to remain in power after using their power for massive personal gain. That is simply not viable in modern Britain.