This link is from last week in the Telegraph as I coudn't find anything on the BBC. I've just heard on the Today program that further to the group of MPs mentioned in the article a human rights group have decided to take the matter to court. They had a solicitor who, frankly, needed to be slapped with a wet fish, and a Tory MP who I really liked (names escape me I'm afraid).

1. Religion - a none CofE will be declaring an oath to the head of the church. This has already been dealt with as you can take an affirmation.
2. That it is wrong not that you swear an oath to the Queen, but that you also swear an oath to her heirs and successors and you don't know who they will be (Charles, William?). In my humble little opinion it makes sense to do this as otherwise if she drops down dead today no MP would be able to server until they have re taken the oath.
3. They want MPs to take an oath to the country and not one person. Then she rambled about the Queen being above the law and no one should be. That's a tricky one being that she still is the law (hence her not being able to be called to court). To get round that one you would need to change a lot more than an oath MPs take.

My frustrations are two fold. One is that they are obviously going to use week arguments that contradict bits of other arguments. The second is that our Queen (whether elected or not, or whether you agree with her or not) is our head of state. The head of our country so by swearing allegiance to our Queen you already are swearing allegiance to the country.

The MP was great admitting that in this era of "Human Rights" he had no faith in our courts to make the right decision and he also wondered whether it was the Queen who was above the law or Human Right's lawyers!

I am quite happy for my MP's to swear an oath to the serving and future Monarch. The current one has done a lot more for this country than most of the shambles we put into power.

Rant Over. Yes I'm 28 and yes I'm a firm believer in the monarch.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...-to-Queen.html

__________________
Everyone seems normal until you get to know them!

Join General Chat for free!

Sometimes I wonder who the hell our MP's think they are? The Queen, like her or not, is the official Head of State and also the Head of the Church of England. With each new parliament, following a general election, all members must take the oath of allegiance, or else affirm. Because there are hundreds of MPs, this can take days, although it takes less time in the smaller Scottish parliament and the Welsh assembly. The oath includes the line: "I shall be faithful and bear true allegiance to her Majesty Queen Elizabeth". As with all oaths, they are sworn to God. For the non-religious, there is the option to "solemnly declare and affirm". In all three assemblies, there is a minority of republican members who make it clear they take it under protest, in order to be able to represent their constituents. Now in my book, if they don't wish to acknowledge the Queen as Head of State and swear allegiance to her they shouldn't be in Parliament in the first place.

As far as the Armed Forces are concerned. The Royal Navy is the oldest of the three services, and it was established by the sovereign's prerogative. For that reason, recruits have never been required to swear allegiance, but they do sign an attestation or engagement form on entry. For the rest of the armed forces, including the British Army and the Royal Air Force, the oath includes swearing to God "that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, her heirs and successors and that I will, as in duty bound, honestly and faithfully defend Her Majesty". Those who don't have any religious conviction can duly affirm instead of swearing to God.

Other Organisations and certain Officers, such as Judges, also swear allegiance to the Queen or affirm her as Head of State. If these people, who I think are higher in the overall ranking of useful to the State than MP's, can acknowledge the Queen for what she is then so should all other State Officials.

That is exactly where they should be if they (and therefore their constituents) do not agree with any aspect of the country or its operation. That is surely the whole point of democracy?

The 22 MP's who are complaining about swearing an oath of allegiance to the Queen want to swear allegiance to their constituents as this text from the Telegraph article shows: "The 22 MPs want the Commons and the Lords to be allowed to swear allegiance to their constituents and the nation rather than to the monarch."

Now this is interesting. These MP's want to have allegiance to their constituents and the nation. Fine as far as it goes. Where is the allegiance to their constituents when they are in the Mad House next to the Thames? Not when they are voting like sheep to pass laws which don't do their constituents much good at all. MP's as a body follow the "Party Line" which should be shown to the electorate in the Party Manifesto. The constituents don't come into their decisions at all. For example; we were promised a referendum on the EU Constitution in the Labour Party manifesto. We all know how that was ditched and the same MP's will have helped to pass the necessary legislation to put the Lisbon Treaty/Constitution onto the statute book. Don't talk to me about democracy when we are lied to by the very people who should be looking after our best interests.

Hi Escafeldia, my comment was only intended to point out that differing voices should be heard in the HoC, it did not pass opinion on the effectiveness of the Parliamentary system other than to say it's the best place to effect change. To suggest that a different view about any matter (in this case an oath) should exclude individuals from Parliament seems to be contrary to your statement above regarding sheep. Perhaps I have taken your original statement too literally? Apologies if so.

And if you will indulge me further on the subject of democracy... I found this an interesting site, if accurate it makes interesting reading and actually allows us to examine the work of our MPs, which is preferable to letting the Rupert Murdoch et al do it for us The Public Whip — Counting votes on your behalf

No apologies are needed Jamie. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and have the right to express it. Thanks for the link it makes interesting points and I will be using it.

Just one point about our MP's and the Government. I have never found a job which pays so much in salaries and expenses and at the same time needs so little in the way of qualifications. Provided one can speak publicly with some degree of skill it seems one can become an MP. One obvious example which goes against this is John Prescott. He seems to have difficulty getting his brain into gear before he puts his mouth in motion.

I agree with you there Escafeldia. The quality and integrity of some of our MPs is questionable.

I like to think we could all be MPs but for the fact we are busy doing real and important jobs When I hear of the latest MP related scandal my thoughts always turn to Baldrick standing for Dunny On The Wold in Blackadder, funny because it is more factual than not

Sometimes the truth is stranger than fiction.