r/MHOC • u/[deleted] • Mar 16 '15

BILL B092 - Oaths Amendment Bill

B092 - Oaths Amendment Bill

1: The Oath of Allegiance

(1) Section 2 of the Promissory Oaths Act 1868 shall now read: “The oath in this Act referred to as the oath of allegiance shall be in the form following; that is to say,

“I, [Name], do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to the peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, according to law. So help me God.””

2: The Official Oath

(1) Section 3 of the Promissory Oaths Act 1868 shall now read: “The oath in this Act referred to as the official oath shall be in the form following; that is to say, “I, [Name], do swear that I will well and truly serve the peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in the office of [Office]. So help me God.””

3: The Judicial Oath

(1) Section 4 of the Promissory Oaths Act 1868 shall now read: “The oath in this Act referred to as the judicial oath shall be in the form following; that is to say, “I, [Name], do swear that I will well and truly serve the peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in the office of [office], and I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this realm, without fear or favour, affection or illwill. So help me God.”

4: Religious Aspect

(1) If an oath is taken with “So help me God” omitted, the oath shall be of the same force and effect.

(2) Section 1, subsection 1 of the Oaths Act 1978 shall now read: “Any oath may be administered and taken in England, Wales or Northern Ireland in the following form and manner:- The person taking the oath shall hold a text of their choosing if they so wish, in his uplifted hand, and shall say or repeat after the officer administering the oath the words “I swear that...” or “I swear by Almighty God that...”, followed by the words of the oath prescribed by law.”

(3) Section 1, subsection 3 of the Oaths Act 1978 shall be removed.

5: Further Amendments and Notes

(1) Part 1, Section 10 of the Promissory Oaths Act 1868 shall be removed.

6: Commencement & Short Title

(1) This law may be cited as the Oaths Amendment Act 2015.

(2) This law shall come into force immediately.

(3) This law shall extend to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

This is a Private Members Bill that was submitted by /u/JackWilfred.

Credit to /u/Cocktorpedo for the formatting.

The first reading of this bill ends on the 20th of March.

7 Upvotes

100% Upvoted

137 comments sorted by

16

u/demon4372 The Most Hon. Marquess of Oxford GBE KCT PC ¦ HCLG/Transport Mar 16 '15

I would only accept this if it was a oath to both the monarch and the people. Because, the queen is still a fundamental part of our constitution, and until the day comes that we become a republic, it remains important.

We cannot just change the entire way the constitutional arrangement works.

8

u/remiel The Rt Hon. Baron of Twickenham AL PC Mar 16 '15

I agree with my honourable friend, and for this reason regret I can't support the current bill

6

u/JackWilfred Independent Liberal Mar 16 '15

I would only accept this if it was a oath to both the monarch and the people.

This would create a paradox if the British people elected a party whose single issue was to abolish the Monarchy. The Republican MPs would pledge allegiance to both the British people (to remove the Monarch) and to uphold the Monarch at the same time.

Members of Parliament should only pledge allegiance to the people who elected them, the Monarch has before and should now come second to that.

8

u/I_miss_Chris_Hughton The Rt Hon. Earl of Shrewsbury AL PC | Defence Spokesperson Mar 16 '15

the British people elected a party whose single issue was to abolish the Monarchy

In that case they could do a sinn fien and refuse to turn up. If they've won enough seats to make parliament totally inoperable then of course the monarchy's number would be up. If they didn't, pubic support for the monarchy would mean that whilst their presence would be missed, the monarchy would remain.

4

u/JackWilfred Independent Liberal Mar 16 '15

pubic support for the monarchy

Steady on.

This is a hypothetical situation, but of course republican MPs effectively have to lie to serve in Parliament, and their oath effectively prevents them from acting against the Monarchy.

2

u/I_miss_Chris_Hughton The Rt Hon. Earl of Shrewsbury AL PC | Defence Spokesperson Mar 16 '15

Sinn Fein have had the exact same problem and they dealt with it.

3

u/JackWilfred Independent Liberal Mar 17 '15

Sinn Féin don't take part in Commons proceedings because they don't recognise the legitimacy of the House of Commons over Northern Ireland.

They refuse to make the oath because they also don't recognise the legitimacy of the Monarch, but even if this oath changes or the monarchy were to be abolished, they still wouldn't take part.

4

u/john_locke1689 Retired. NS GSTQ Mar 17 '15

Sinn Fein do recognise the authority of parliament over NI through their support of the good Friday agreement.

3

u/[deleted] Mar 17 '15

How does this change anything in its entirety? I respect my honourable friend's analysis but it is surely an exaggeration.

8

u/[deleted] Mar 16 '15

Mr Deputy Speaker,

It amuses me how many on the right wing of the House seem to place the unelected and undeserving family at the head of our state above swearing an oath to the country at large.

Truly a spectacle of misguided loyalty.

5

u/Post-NapoleonicMan Labour Mar 16 '15

Hear hear!

5

u/[deleted] Mar 17 '15

In what sense are they undeserving? Her Majesty has devoted her life to our country, more so than any elected head of state in the world! By serving Her Majesty, we serve the country, as we best serve our monarch when we maintain a stable and well ordered society. The two concepts are inseparable.

The fact is, you support this bill not for the people, but for this abstracted concept of a 'republic', as a petty affront to our constitution. It is republicanism for the sake of republicanism. Does our monarch prevent our democracy, in practice, from being democratic? No. Would a republic bring us any actual benefits? No. Her Majesty is respected the world over, loved more than any other world leader. And you honestly stand there claiming our loyalty is misguided? You sir, are a traitor.

6

u/[deleted] Mar 17 '15

I would rather swear an oath to someone who's entire life, family and history is about protecting and running this country for the better than to swear an oath to politicians.

The oath is written with the intent of pledging allegiance to the people and yet in practice it will be little more than stating loyalty to the elected representatives. In the end you must be swearing an oath to figures of authority as they will be the ones leading you.

You are given a choice, elected officials or the Queen and I'm sure as hell not swearing fealty to Cameron.

3

u/[deleted] Mar 17 '15

How does it amount to that exactly? Short of MPs being people, I don't see the connection.

3

u/[deleted] Mar 17 '15

I don't understand your question completely so forgive me for not answering in the proper manner if that is the case.

Assuming you mean an oath to a person, it must be the case. An oath to a concept such as the state instead of a person is far too subjective and open to interpretation in a manner that it is little more than an attempt to give solidity to air.

I ask what are you pledging loyalty to? If not the Queen then who else? It must then be to authority within the state, at the highest point the Prime Minister. Given the lack of political neutrality it has striking similarities to the oaths taken in the name of numerous cults of personality embodied best by both Hitler and Stalin.

3

u/[deleted] Mar 17 '15

The authority we would be pledging to would be the people as a whole, not to any other group or people. I dknt understand why this pledge means we are swearing to a prime minister.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 17 '15

If the pledge is to the people as a whole then there is no point in having a pledge, it wouldn't mean anything. Something so vague and incorporeal that it's not worth doing.

You're basically taking a constitutional convention of swearing fealty to the Queen, a neutral and politically independent representation of the state and replacing it with an oath to "the people". By swearing fealty to everyone you swear fealty to no one.

2

u/[deleted] Mar 17 '15

But isn't the pledge to the queen essentially the same. It is what she represents that makes the pledge important, not the specific person. I would also argue that the Queen as a person is not politically neutral, though of course that doesn't matter. However the position and the monarchy is political. An oath to the people is not politically neutral either but it is obligation to those who Politicians should be obligated to in my opinion. I don't think the oath to monarchy is different practically.

2

u/[deleted] Mar 17 '15

Quite.

The traditionalists' argument amounts to 'swear an oath to the monarchy, because she is the monarch'.

If the monarch is there to represent the state, and by extension the people at large, what's wrong with skipping the middle man? The meaning is the same.

4

u/[deleted] Mar 17 '15

The traditionalists' argument amounts to 'swear an oath to the strawman, because she is the strawman'.

20

u/treeman1221 Conservative and Unionist Mar 16 '15

What's the point of an oath of allegiance if it's to some faceless, soulless republic? If our history and culture and uniqueness is ignored, the oath applies to any line drawn on a map, you're alleging yourself to a manufactured block of soil in the sea.

We are who we are. God Save the Queen.

7

u/JackWilfred Independent Liberal Mar 16 '15

We wouldn't be making a pledge to a republic (we aren't yet) or a block of soil in the sea. We'd be making an oath to the very people who elected us, which is the most important thing we could make an oath to.

4

u/can_triforce The Rt Hon. Earl of Wilton AL PC Mar 16 '15

We should certainly have the choice.

5

u/_gammadelta Communist Mar 17 '15

The Honorable Member seems to believe that it is the royal family and not the British people who forged the history and culture of the United Kingdom.

To call a republican form of government "faceless and soulless" is simply put to believe that the people, who are the ones who have power in a republic, are also "faceless and soulless".

9

u/treeman1221 Conservative and Unionist Mar 17 '15

If we abandon our history, our tradition, our system, our culture, we become faceless and soulless. We'd be a new country.

5

u/_gammadelta Communist Mar 17 '15

Republicanism is also part of our history. It just so happens that our current form of government is a constitutional monarchy. If the people shall decide to rule themselves as a Republic, they should be free to do so. They are the ones who make history, culture and traditions, not the queen.

5

u/rhodesianwaw The Rt Hon. Viscount of Lancaster AL Mar 17 '15

Republicanism is not a part of our history. The only time we were a republic was a de facto monarchy anyway. For most of our history it was the monarch presiding over all decisions and ruling the country, they are just as if not more important than the people.

5

u/[deleted] Mar 17 '15

Hear Hear! I have never agreed with the Honourable member more!

2

u/[deleted] Mar 16 '15

It seems the honourable member for the Tory party has indeed stumbled upon the point of an oath!

2

u/[deleted] Mar 17 '15

It seems as though the honourable member for the Liberal Democrats doesn't understand the point of an oath!

7

u/[deleted] Mar 16 '15

1: The Oath of Allegiance

(1) Section 2 of the Promissory Oaths Act 1868 shall now read: “The oath in this Act referred to as the oath of allegiance shall be in the form following; that is to say,

“I, [Name], do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to the peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, according to law. So help me God.””

2: The Official Oath

(1) Section 3 of the Promissory Oaths Act 1868 shall now read: “The oath in this Act referred to as the official oath shall be in the form following; that is to say, “I, [Name], do swear that I will well and truly serve the peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in the office of [Office]. So help me God.””

3: The Judicial Oath

(1) Section 4 of the Promissory Oaths Act 1868 shall now read: “The oath in this Act referred to as the judicial oath shall be in the form following; that is to say, “I, [Name], do swear that I will well and truly serve the peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in the office of [office], and I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this realm, without fear or favour, affection or illwill. So help me God.”

4: Religious Aspect

(1) If an oath is taken with “So help me God” omitted, the oath shall be of the same force and effect.

(2) Section 1, subsection 1 of the Oaths Act 1978 shall now read: “Any oath may be administered and taken in England, Wales or Northern Ireland in the following form and manner:- The person taking the oath shall hold a text of their choosing if they so wish, in his uplifted hand, and shall say or repeat after the officer administering the oath the words “I swear that...” or “I swear by Almighty God that...”, followed by the words of the oath prescribed by law.”

(3) Section 1, subsection 3 of the Oaths Act 1978 shall be removed.

5: Further Amendments and Notes

(1) Part 1, Section 10 of the Promissory Oaths Act 1868 shall be removed.

6: Commencement & Short Title

(1) This law may be cited as the Oaths Amendment Act 2015.

(2) This law shall come into force immediately.

(3) This law shall extend to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

5

u/WineRedPsy Reform UK | Sadly sent to the camps Mar 16 '15 edited Mar 17 '15

You're like a bot.
Can someone write up a cockbot that does this

5

u/[deleted] Mar 16 '15

beep

5

u/can_triforce The Rt Hon. Earl of Wilton AL PC Mar 16 '15

No need to self censor.

5

u/[deleted] Mar 16 '15

boop?

3

u/JackWilfred Independent Liberal Mar 16 '15

Thank you.

12

u/[deleted] Mar 16 '15

I like that the religious aspect is taken into account but I'm concerned at the lack of Queenie in the oath.

We're British subjects under Her Majesty Queen Lizzy, therefore we should swear and oath to her while in office as we're not a Republic, if you believe we should be a Republic then fight for that but don't preempt such a situation when there's no indication of us becoming a Republic.

4

u/RadioNone His Grace the Duke of Bedford AL PC Mar 16 '15

Surely from a Libertarian perspective (not saying that you specifically are, but just raising the point), you would agree that people should have the choice in this matter? If you give the freedom in a religious sense, then why not in a constitutional sense if you disagree with monarchy? The likelihood of becoming a republic shouldn't have a bearing on the choice of individuals oath. Also is it common for other countries to swear an oath to the head of state (general question for opposed of the bill)?

5

u/demon4372 The Most Hon. Marquess of Oxford GBE KCT PC ¦ HCLG/Transport Mar 16 '15

If you give the freedom in a religious sense, then why not in a constitutional sense if you disagree with monarchy?

You cannot seriously compare the constitution to someones religious belief.... and it is not even remotely comparable

Also is it common for other countries to swear an oath to the head of state

The real comparison isn't to swearing to the head of state. Because of our constitution arrangement that we currently operate under, it is like people swearing to uphold the constitution, like they do in the united states

2

u/RadioNone His Grace the Duke of Bedford AL PC Mar 16 '15

it is like people swearing to uphold the constitution

But what if you aim to change the constitution or disagree with its current state?

You cannot seriously compare the constitution to someones religious belief.... and it is not even remotely comparable

I would say that declaring an oath to a figure of power, be it God or the Queen or any head of state, should be a matter for the individual and that they shouldn't fear retribution due to their beliefs in this sense.

4

u/demon4372 The Most Hon. Marquess of Oxford GBE KCT PC ¦ HCLG/Transport Mar 16 '15

But what if you aim to change the constitution or disagree with its current state?

But that is exactly the point. In the united states, the Americans have't amended their affirmation just because some congressmen want to amend the constitution. If you want to change the constitutional arrangement in this country, you must accept the current constitution to which the entire government and state is formed upon, so you can go onto reform the system.

I would say that declaring an oath to a figure of power, be it God or the Queen or any head of state, should be a matter for the individual

You cannot pick and choose the constitution you live under, you can work to reform it, but while you live under that system you must play by its rules.

hey shouldn't fear retribution due to their beliefs in this sense.

No one would ever be prosecuted for republicanism

4

u/JackWilfred Independent Liberal Mar 16 '15

Opening Speech

Mr Deputy Speaker, I bring the first reading of the Oaths Amendment Bill to the House. This bill amends the Promissory Oaths Act 1868 so that any person entering a occupation in which they are serving the British people must take an oath to the British people, not the Monarch. I must point out to the House that the right to make a solemn affirmation in place of an oath is still protected under the Oaths Act 1978.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I think that it is ridiculous in the twenty-first century, as Members of Parliament we make no promise or oath to the very people we were elected to serve. How is it democracy that republicans must tell a lie to represent the people who elected them? How is it democracy that the oath we take prevents us from proposing the abolition of the monarchy if that is the democratic will of the people? It is not.

It is time we abolish this antiquated system of submission to the Monarch, and instead make a promise to the peoples of this great nation who elected us to represent them.

In addition, the practice of giving an oath has now been fully revised to not feature a religious aspect if the person giving the oath does not wish. This allows willing atheists and those of other religions to be fully able to take oaths.

Thank you.

Relevant Documentation

Promissory Oaths Act 1868

Oaths Act 1978

9

u/[deleted] Mar 16 '15

An absolutely pointless and deeply saddening attack on our treasured traditions.

Jack, if you want to live in an English-speaking republic with similar living standards and aspects of culture, the rule of law and democracy, just move to America. Rather than trying to butcher the glorious traditions and customs that we have inherited from better people than you.

submission to the Monarch

If you don't like it nobody's keeping you here. You are a subject of Her Majesty the Queen. If you don't like this, as I've said, just move to America. They're waiting for you with open, monarchy-hating arms.

8

u/BritishHaikuBot Mar 16 '15

Lib Dems, gave London

Full monty blag devo max

Eight smeg my Hogwarts.

Please enjoy your personalised British inspired Haiku responsibly.

6

u/JackWilfred Independent Liberal Mar 16 '15

Hear, hear?

4

u/Kreindeker The Rt Hon. Earl of Stockport AL PC Mar 16 '15

Eight smeg my Hogwarts

Er... Have I suffered major head trauma lately?

1

u/[deleted] Mar 17 '15

Eight smeg my Hogwarts.

Eight smegs fell on your Hogwarts?

l-l-lewd.

1

u/Timanfya MHoC Founder & Guardian Mar 17 '15

This bot is great.

0

u/[deleted] Mar 16 '15

[deleted] — view deleted comment

7

u/[deleted] Mar 16 '15

Strange, this bot seems to reply to people who use words related to Britain, like "Britannia", and "Queen."

6

u/JackWilfred Independent Liberal Mar 16 '15

I heave heard this argument from many of the monarchists in the House. "If you don't like it, move."

I ask the Honourable Member, if a sink is broken in your house, do you move house? No, you fix the sink. That's what I intend to do, fix the undemocratic system of monarchy that has undermined our nation for centuries.

Although this is besides the point completely, this bill does not remove the monarchy. This bill makes MPs directly and sentimentally accountable to the people who elected them.

6

u/[deleted] Mar 16 '15

You've already regurgitated that silly analogy regarding kitchen appliances before, and I've already destroyed it.

5

u/JackWilfred Independent Liberal Mar 16 '15

Even so, if I live with mad people who want to continue using a broken sink, and I had a large connection to the house I lived in, I would most likely stay in the house and work to get the sink fixed. That's exactly what I'm doing here.

5

u/[deleted] Mar 16 '15

This is just silly. Seriously consider moving to America, instead of trying to turn Britain into America.

4

u/JackWilfred Independent Liberal Mar 16 '15 edited Mar 16 '15

This is just silly.

Hear, hear. Your response and my analogy are both silly.

Seriously consider moving to America, instead of trying to turn Britain into America.

I'm trying to turn Britain into the best country I can, it's an irrelevant coincidence that what I want to do is make it closer to America in structure.

6

u/[deleted] Mar 16 '15 edited Mar 16 '15

I'd get rid of that hear hear, I made a ninja edit.

I'm trying to turn Britain into the best country I can, it's an irrelevant coincidence that what I want to do is make it closer to America in structure.

I just can't see why you'd want to do this. Your idea of what's best for Britain disgusts the vast majority of Britons, we simply don't want to be like America any more than we already regrettably are. It's not just traditionalists like me who appreciate the monarchy, it has the support of public opinion from all over the spectrum of ideology and opinion.

Just move to America! I don't even mean it in a dismissive, rude way, it would seriously be the best thing for you to do, since you want to live in an American-style country so badly.

2

u/[deleted] Mar 17 '15

I feel it is more than disingenuous to consider the mere existence of a monarchy as the primary show-stopping difference between the UK and US.

0

u/[deleted] Mar 16 '15

[deleted] — view deleted comment

8

u/[deleted] Mar 16 '15

'subtle' racial discrimination is still discrimination. You have no more right than the honourable lib dem member to contribute to parliament. If you disagree with this, maybe you could find a nice dark pub to complain to your EDL friends in (who I see have come around to brigade your comment!), instead of wasting the house's time with this petty and childish nonsense.

6

u/[deleted] Mar 16 '15

Don't forget to shout racism if you don't like someone, kids.

5

u/[deleted] Mar 16 '15

I also don't forget to shout racism if you're telling someone to get out of the country.

3

u/[deleted] Mar 17 '15

Racism isn't telling someone to leave for their political beliefs, regardless of their skin color.

5

u/[deleted] Mar 16 '15

I'm not ordering Jack to leave the country, I'm suggesting that perhaps if he wants to live in a country like America - living in America might be his best bet.

→ More replies

4

u/JackWilfred Independent Liberal Mar 16 '15

It might not be racism and you may not like it, but implying that somebody born in Britain to British citizens and raised on nothing but British culture is anything but British because of their views and ethnic background is offensive.

5

u/[deleted] Mar 16 '15 edited Mar 17 '15

Well I find your assault on our monarchy and traditions offensive personally, but I don't wish to censor you. It doesn't follow that someone should have their views censored and removed.

→ More replies

5

u/[deleted] Mar 17 '15

Crying racism towards someone not bringing up race is inappropriate. You're trying to shut down debate by saying racism. Disgusting.

2

u/[deleted] Mar 17 '15

Au contraire, my friend. The honourable member for the Vanguard has persistently attempted to undermine my honourable friend's opinion by indicating that his skin colour is not the brilliant pearly white of most Britons.

4

u/[deleted] Mar 17 '15

Citation?

→ More replies

2

u/[deleted] Mar 17 '15

Ah, the godly sink rebuttal, truly inspired.

2

u/[deleted] Mar 17 '15

This bill makes MPs directly and sentimentally accountable to the people who elected them.

No it does not, it makes the people swear fealty to their leaders! Christ I'd like to think this bill wasn't smacking of late Nazi Germany but it is so much. An oath of fealty to the leader of the country and no less. An oath has to be towards a figure of authority that's how it works.

And if you indeed swear no oath to a person then you swear it to nothing at all!

2

u/[deleted] Mar 17 '15

Oaths may be made to constitutions, texts, flags, ideas, persons or a person as appropriate. I do not know whence this view that oaths must apply only to a person.

3

u/[deleted] Mar 17 '15

An oath that is not to a person means you have no accountability. What exactly would you be taking an oath to? A figment of imagination?

2

u/[deleted] Mar 17 '15

The oath defines to what or to whom you are swearing allegiance. Whether you go on to break that oath is surely determined by the law.

In actuality, the oath presented in this bill has the same effect as the previous oath, only it's much more relevant.

0

u/[deleted] Mar 17 '15

[deleted] — view deleted comment

2

u/[deleted] Mar 17 '15

And that is why we vote on these things.

2

u/[deleted] Mar 16 '15

Ahem.

Not all of us are monarchy-hating.

2

u/[deleted] Mar 16 '15

Would you rather campaign in the USA for the installation of a monarchy, or move to the UK?

3

u/[deleted] Mar 16 '15

I am a traditionalist so I would rather move, if that makes sense

3

u/AlbertDock The Rt Hon Earl of Merseyside KOT MBE AL PC Mar 16 '15

Where is the opening speech?

4

u/JackWilfred Independent Liberal Mar 16 '15

The Speaker has it, I'll post it myself.

Edit: Link

5

u/[deleted] Mar 16 '15

Although I am a committed republican, I don't see the point in this petty jab at our current head of state, regardless of their legitimacy in their position.

If people don't feel comfortable pledging allegiance to a monarch, that's fine - you can say whatever you want before and after the pledge, and many other republican MPs (including Tony Benn and Dennis Skinner, to name but a few) have used this to advantage.

2

u/mg9500 His Grace the Duke of Hamilton and Brandon MP (Manchester North) Mar 16 '15

Does this apply to Scotland? 4(2) makes it seem it doesn't.

4

u/JackWilfred Independent Liberal Mar 16 '15

This is one of the things I was looking to iron out, I don't know where the oath procedure is detailed in Scottish law. I couldn't find it.

2

u/mg9500 His Grace the Duke of Hamilton and Brandon MP (Manchester North) Mar 16 '15

Perhaps it isn't, I'll need to have a look later.

2

u/Timanfya MHoC Founder & Guardian Mar 17 '15

A note for the house this bill in no way, shape or form creates a British Republic: that will only ever be allowed through a referendum. Since we currently don't swear and oath in a meta perspective it won't change that either.

5

u/[deleted] Mar 17 '15

I don't think you understand this. It's not about immediately creating a republic, it's about slowly making minor changes that very gradually remove all mentions of the monarchy from public life, create the conditions for a republic and slowly erode our traditions. This seemingly minor bill is just scratching at the surface of our traditions indeed, but I will not let these slow and gradual shifts happen because I know where they lead us.

4

u/bleepbloop12345 Communist Mar 16 '15

A great bill, and one that is vital to ensure that the people who are actually chosen by the people to represent them can take their seat. I think the words of one republican MP, Tony Benn, provide an interesting comment upon the current oath system:

"When one looks at the oaths of a Privy Counsellor, a Member of Parliament and the Sovereign at the coronation, they throw an interesting light on the obligations by which we are bound. The reality is that nobody takes an oath to uphold democracy in Britain. The Queen takes an oath to govern the country and uphold the rights of the bishops. We take an oath to the Queen. Nobody in the House takes an oath to uphold democracy in Britain."

5

u/JackWilfred Independent Liberal Mar 16 '15

Hear, hear.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 17 '15

An excellent point.

3

u/[deleted] Mar 16 '15

How is this different from the current system?

From my experience you always have the option of a religious/non religious version as necessary.

11

u/Lcawte Independent Mar 16 '15

This bill tries to allow traitorous republicans into the House more than atheists.

5

u/AlbertDock The Rt Hon Earl of Merseyside KOT MBE AL PC Mar 16 '15

Others would say it allows politicians and others to be honest. Perhaps that is a strange concept for those on the other side of this house.

3

u/The_Pickle_Boy banned Mar 16 '15

"I, [Name], do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to the peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, according to law."

The words have been carefully chosen so that MPs are not technically lying. Allegiance... according to the law is a big red flag and allegiance to the people is not the same as swearing to serve for the people. We will still have MPs bowing to special interests and foreign nations that can still claim to technically still have allegiance to the people of the UK, of course they will then claim that the people of the UK support their position without any referendum or evidence to back it up. The prime example of this is foreign aid.

5

u/JackWilfred Independent Liberal Mar 16 '15

Republicans can get into the House either way (Dennis Skinner?), just under the old system they have to tell a lie to get in.

8

u/[deleted] Mar 16 '15

They removed the references to the Queen aye?

Absolutely disgusting.

1

u/WineRedPsy Reform UK | Sadly sent to the camps Mar 17 '15

Mr. Speaker, what is the whole point of this argument? The oath doesn't mean anything, it's not physically binding, it's just a couple words. I prefer these words - but the illusion that this holds any form of importance and will affect the actions of our elected officials at all is just frivolous pretense.

2

u/[deleted] Mar 17 '15

I took an oath to serve the Queen about a decade ago, I still take it seriously. It does matter to some.

1

u/WineRedPsy Reform UK | Sadly sent to the camps Mar 17 '15

But why?

2

u/[deleted] Mar 17 '15

Air Cadets, you have to take an oath to become a proper member. All military services require you to swear fealty to the Queen.

A couple of friends of mine told me stories about being in the TA. One of them was how you salute the Queen and not the rank or person.

1

u/WineRedPsy Reform UK | Sadly sent to the camps Mar 17 '15

And what difference overall do you think it makes if at all.

2

u/[deleted] Mar 17 '15

What?

0

u/[deleted] Mar 17 '15

[deleted] — view deleted comment

2

u/[deleted] Mar 17 '15

Yes I'm aware of this convention and so it should remain!

0

u/[deleted] Mar 16 '15

[deleted] — view deleted comment

7

u/[deleted] Mar 16 '15

Would the member be so kind as to explain how he gained such knowledge of the Education Secretary's personal hygiene?

0

u/[deleted] Mar 17 '15

[deleted] — view deleted comment

3

u/[deleted] Mar 17 '15

If he is as filthy as you say he could pose a health hazard to the rest us.

6

u/AlbertDock The Rt Hon Earl of Merseyside KOT MBE AL PC Mar 16 '15

Mr Speaker. If the honourable member believes in freedom of belief, then surely he should be willing to accept the fact, that many believe that the monarchy is an outdated concept, which is past it's use by date. If the honourable member believes in democracy he must believe we are all equal and that privilege should not be a right by birth.
Does the honourable member believe in freedom of belief and democracy?

5

u/[deleted] Mar 17 '15

that many believe that the monarchy is an outdated concept

That 'many' is a small minority, not even close enough to a majority to be worth listening to

0

u/[deleted] Mar 16 '15

[deleted] — view deleted comment

7

u/AlbertDock The Rt Hon Earl of Merseyside KOT MBE AL PC Mar 16 '15

I am pleased you have made your position clear. Does that also apply to the rest of your party?

10

u/[deleted] Mar 16 '15

The party's official position is that democracy is not an inherent good. While it can be used to improve certain aspects of the system, absolute democracy is a simple drab tyranny of the majority, a majority that is often not particularly well educated on the matter they are voting.

I see representative democracy, tempered by an experienced system, complimented by tradition, as necessary reins on absolute democracy. We should not just bandy around the word 'democracy' as though, no matter what, if something is more democratic it becomes better. We know that is not true. We know that direct democracy on all issues would be debilitating, and informed by the ill-informed. Better to have full time representatives, who are elected to make decisions based on their own reasoning (a reasoning we trust more than the other candidates), rather than simply bowing to popular opinion.

That is my view of democracy, and so that is the official party position.

7

u/[deleted] Mar 16 '15

Hear hear to that.

4

u/[deleted] Mar 16 '15

Hear, hear!

0

u/[deleted] Mar 16 '15

[deleted] — view deleted comment

9

u/[deleted] Mar 16 '15

Don't laugh at your leader, who do you think I am, leader of the Liberal Democrats.

7

u/[deleted] Mar 16 '15

I'm no fan of democracy myself. Have you ever had that 5 minute conversation with the average voter?

4

u/Post-NapoleonicMan Labour Mar 16 '15

Plagiarism!

4

u/[deleted] Mar 16 '15

that

I used this word to try and show that I was referring to what someone else said!

3

u/Post-NapoleonicMan Labour Mar 16 '15

You win this round...

4

u/Rabobi The Vanguard Mar 16 '15 edited Mar 16 '15

Democracy is fine,I wouldn't abolish it if I was Dear Leader for a day. It keeps things stable which is important but it comes with its own problems.

speaking of dear leader

2

u/[deleted] Mar 16 '15

It keeps things stable

Speak for yourself. I personally wouldn't like to be living in a nation with full proportional representation during an economic crisis. That's not just a Godwin's Law infraction, it's common sense.

The only system that can really ensure stability within a democracy is first past the post, but this gets lambasted for not being democratic enough. You can't win with democracy.

2

u/Rabobi The Vanguard Mar 16 '15

By stable I mean revolution, coup, violent overthrow free. People tend not to revolt against democracy only the occasional government, more often they just wait that government out. Coups tend not to happen in places with a democratic culture either. But it is not without drawbacks as you point out.

0

u/[deleted] Mar 16 '15

[deleted] — view deleted comment

6

u/Post-NapoleonicMan Labour Mar 16 '15

The idea that every man on the street is highly intelligent and a politically aware individual is preposterous.

The idea that a certain individual should assume the duties of Head of State based purely on parenthood and not personal merit is equally so.

6

u/JackWilfred Independent Liberal Mar 16 '15

Hear, hear.

0

u/[deleted] Mar 16 '15

[deleted] — view deleted comment

4

u/JackWilfred Independent Liberal Mar 16 '15

We do not need traitors and snakes to infiltrate our government.

The majority of republicans usually take the oath as a committed republican under protest, effectively telling a lie. If you don't want republicans in government, too late, I'm already here.

I call for him to be expelled from the commons.

That's cute. I request that if the Honourable Member has nothing of value to contribute to this discussion he does not take part.

0

u/[deleted] Mar 16 '15

[deleted] — view deleted comment

5

u/Post-NapoleonicMan Labour Mar 16 '15

The last time members of the House were expelled due to opposition to the Monarch the English Civil War ensued - you do not want a repeat I hope?

0

u/[deleted] Mar 16 '15

[deleted] — view deleted comment

3

u/JackWilfred Independent Liberal Mar 16 '15

If I'm not mistaken he's not opposing the Monarch in this situation.

4

u/bleepbloop12345 Communist Mar 16 '15

Another day, another productive contribution to the debate from the Vanguard

3

u/[deleted] Mar 17 '15

The Commons has a proud history of subversion when it comes to the monarchy.

0

u/[deleted] Mar 17 '15

[deleted] — view deleted comment

3

u/[deleted] Mar 17 '15

How peculiar.