I couldn't do that. I couldn't take an oath while crossing my fingers and believe that gave me an excuse to lie. That's what little children do. It's not proper for adults - certainly not for adults who become MPs and magistrates.
I'm disqualified from being either. Plenty of MPs and magistrates lie when they take the oath, or make a mental reservation that, if they had the chance, they would vote against a monarchy or call for a referendum to let the people decide.
I don't think I'd make a particularly good MP, though once I would have liked to stand for parliament. I briefly thought I could consider being a magistrate but didn't have to investigate further. I'm disqualified. If there were a referendum I would vote for a republic and that means I'm disqualified from a range of positions. I couldn't even join the police although, oddly, the Royal Navy is exempt from the oath of allegiance.
Of course, I can lobby my MP and ask him to vote for the abolition of the monarchy. But my MP was only able to take his seat after swearing allegiance to the Queen and her heirs. Moreover, even if he changed his mind and became an ardent republican, Members of Parliament aren't allowed to pass any laws affecting the Crown without the Queen's express permission.
There's criticism of royal expenses but, on the whole, the Queen is admired. I don't think republicans would win if there were a referendum to abolish the monarchy. Although I would almost certainly vote for abolition, I don't make a great deal of fuss about the matter. I have many more urgent political concerns.
Yet it irks me that I, and other honest republicans, are banned from so many posts simply because we would be unwilling to comence our public service with a public lie. It worries me that, were people to vote for an honest republican in such numbers that he or she were elected, the new MP would be banned from the House of Commons. And I'm really annoyed that MPs aren't allowed to debate this unless they first ask for the Queen's permission.
There's a simple petition on the Downing Street website which urges a change in the law. It asks that MPs and lords should no longer be required to swear allegiance to the Crown. In my opinion, it would be a good first step in making this country a proper democracy and opening public service to all who care about it. It would widen the choice for voters and put honest republicans on equal terms with those who swear dishonest oaths.
The petition closes tomorrow (5th July, 2008). It already has sufficient signatures to gain a response from the government. If you would like to sign the petition and receive that government response when the petition closes, click here. Monarchists can sign as well as republicans. The petition seeks honesty, responsibility in public life, and true democracy - that is, giving all the people the right to choose.
5 comments:
Hallo, you wrote "Members of Parliament aren't allowed to pass any laws affecting the Crown without the Queen's express permission."
How does this square up with the dogma that parliament is "sovereign" and with the Parliament Acts (the Commons can overrule the House of Lords)?
Michael
I&R ~ GB
Citizens' Initiative and Referendum http://www.iniref.org
Proposals and campaign resources for direct democracy such as citizens' initiative, referendum, and recall in Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
info @ iniref.org
I see the link I attempted to embed isn't working. Perhaps access to the journal setting out the law is restricted. I was looking at Cambridge Law Journal 66/1 March 2007 pp. 86-105 (essay by Rodney Brazier, 'Legislating about the Monarchy'), especially pp. 94-5 which set out the parliamentary rules governing this matter. It's quite clear that parliament is not allowed to pass any laws touching the Crown without the monarch's prior consent. Any law passed without the monarch's permission before the law is passed, is automatically null and void. Usually the Queen's consent is sought before the second reading - so there can be preliminarly debate - and sometimes, if the effect on the monarchy is minor, permission is sought only before the third reading. In practice, Ministers acting on behalf of the Queen have occasionally prevented debates by saying that royal consent would be denied - and they have sometimes done that to prevent awkward debates that would embarrass the government. It's not clear how far the Queen would go if the question of abolition of the monarchy were raised and it's suggested in the essay that parliament could dispense with this rule because it was created by parliament. However, the constitutional question is complex and difficult and I suspect it would give rise to complex legal debates if the question of a referendum to abolish the monarchy were raised. The outcome would finally be determined by judges who, like MPs and peers, had sworn allegiance to the monarch and her heirs.
Thanks for the links which I'll follow up.
I'd like to to think that Rodney Brazier (law professor, perhaps recently retired, Manchester University) is right.
By less than coincidence a few years ago one of Rodney's students wrote to me asking questions about direct democracy and referendum. Dhruv Patel. He was preparing his dissertation for law degree and kindly gave me the chance to publish the final product. See Free paper by GUEST AUTHOR. Referenda: Plebiscites or Opinion Polls, via http://www.iniref.org/learn.html
Michael
I didn't mean to cast doubt on Rodney Brazier's legal knowledge and ability and hope it didn't sound like that. I hope he's right too but, as I'm sure you know, this is just the kind of complex case that would cause constitutional lawyers to take opposing sides. My fear is that, whatever the law, the Speaker might decide that a debate abolishing the oath or calling a referendum on the monarchy was inadmissible because the Crown wouldn't permit it - see the precedents in Brazier's article. So debate and change are more difficult than they should be in a democracy.
There's a lot to discuss here. Can only touch on it. It would be possible to hold a referendum on the future of the monarchy but as you imply government (loyal ministers) and sworn in parliament might not agree. For this and other reasons (and many other public issues) we need to establish our right to citizen-initiated referendum. A proposition coming from say, two million electors would be, constitutionally or in any other sense, hard to resist. A plebiscite (meaning here binding referendum) would have the force of law and the monarch would, I suggest, have no effective say. At present in a referendum to abolish the monarchy the republicans would lose. Perhaps a proposition to re-define the monarch's role and limitations would have more chance. Maybe as part of the proposed new bill of rights (early day motion of Charter88/Unlock Democracy) in HoC.
Michael
I&R ~ GB
Citizens' Initiative and Referendum http://www.iniref.org
Post a Comment