Unionist "shock" at Tory's idea on Sinn Fein pledge

According to this morning's Telegraph, David Lidington MP, Shadow Northern Ireland Secretary, has floated the idea that Sinn Fein's five MPs could be permitted to take an "alternative" oath that would not involve swearing allegiance to the monarch.   Mr Lidington is quoted as saying the following:

"There is already a choice between an oath and an affirmation.  I think that if we were in a situation where mention of the Queen caused a problem to somebody whether they were Sinn Fein or a Labour backbencher, who believed in a republican rather than a monarchist form of governments, the Commons should look at it on an all-party basis."

Mr Lidington suggests that an alternative pledge might require support of UK law and democracy.  The two main version of the current oath/pledge are...

(a) "I [name of MP] swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God."; and
(b) "I [name of MP] do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, according to law."

Instead of promising to be faithful to the Queen, Mr Lidington said republicans could pledge to support law and democracy.

The Ulster Unionist peer Lord Kilclooney of Armagh (previously John Taylor MP) told The Telegraph that he was "shocked" that a shadow cabinet spokesman could make such a suggestion.

Comments

[A H Matlock]

No, No, NO! If they wish to sit in our Parliament, then they must swear an oath to our Queen or they should take up other work.

First it was meddling with the Royal Prerogative, and now one of our own is suggesting that we should offer an alternate Parliamentary oath to placate republicans, who are already bent on destroying the Union, from having to swear an oath to the Crown. Where does this end?

I expect the Conservative Party to be much more forceful and much less compromising in it's support for our Constitutional Monarchy. There should be no concessions to republicans and Irish terrorists.

[Tory T]

Editor - please pass on the comments here to David Lidington. I suspect he may already regret his suggestion but he needs to know just how daft other people think he's been.

Let's not get this matter confused with DC's sensible suggestions relating to the (misnamed) Royal Prerogative. We should oppose David Lidington because making the Oath some kind of relativist mumble, whereby people can insert whatever they feel comfortable with, goes against the whole point of a collective institution like Parliament. As long as we have a constitutional monarchy then that's what MPs are part of. If they don't like it they can campaign for change - not engage in a bizarre post-modern opt out.

Let's not even get into the motivation behind this suggestion - yet another attempt to bend over backwards to appease the criminal conspiracy that is Sinn Fein.

[Howard Stevenson]

The worst Idea I have heard in a very long time. Mr Liddington should hang his head in shame.

Can you imagine Mr Tebbits reaction to this?

[BW]

Appalling idea, there are just some boundaries we must not cross...

[Bucks Tory]

It's a daft idea. Voters really don't like the way that the British political establishment has ben sucking into the logic of continually appeaing the IRA. As a one-off, maybe - but not this endless, humiliating pandering to a bunch of mafioso thugs.

And my earnest advice to David Cameron is that if he or eager-to-please acolytes like Mr Liddington start to mess with the Monarchy the whole thing will blow up in their faces.

[Willie Hamilton]

Hey - I know, let's be REALLY iconoclastic. That way Dave will notice how modern I am and I'll get promoted out of this ghastly Northern Ireland portfolio.

Pass the sick bag. And mark Lidington's card.

[Ronald Lewis]

Sinn Fein/IRA must be rubbing their hands with glee, in any other society the people who want to destroy the soceity are kept on the outside & hunted down, but in the UK we bend over backwards to appease them. Looks like the country is going back to the Chamberlain days instead of looking to the Churchill or Thatcher days.
I was brought up on one Queen, one Crown we will defend it if you try to bring it down.
What a sad state the Torys are in.

[Tory T]

Please let no one confuse modernisation with David Lidington's anti-monarchist proposal.

[Sean Fear]

That would be quite wrong. It is quite standard for Parliamentarians throughout the world to swear allegiance to the Head of State. No exception should be made for Irish Republicans.

[EU Serf]

What everyone else said.

[James Cleverly]

Rather than a knee jerk reaction we should have a well reasoned argument stating our view action to take and why. Here is my position and justificationargument.

Don’t do it. Or else!

[James Cleverly]

Sorry about the above post, when words collide.

[johnC]

With this suggestion Mr Lidlington is betraying the oath he has already sworn.

[Ted]

Doesn't he understand our constitution at all?

It's a Monarchy, the Monarch is the Nation in this context. There is no entity called Law & Democracy
The UK Legislature is Queen, HoC, HoL - the Queen in Parliament.

The problem with Sinn Fein isn't they don't recognise the Monarch, it's that they don't recognise the State.

Do we contort the constitutional settlement for people who don't have loyalty to either our country or constitution?

So Mr Liddington - in the sacred words of the Blessed Margaret - No! No! No!

[Selsdon Man]

The oath should be to swear to serve faithfully the people who elected you and Parliament. I am a free citizen not a subject.

[Ted]

Selsdon - in law in this country you are a subject and then a citizen; that's what a monarchy entails.

[Selsdon Man]

I am a free man and not the subject of anyone. If that makes me a republican, so be it.

[Neil Johnston]

As a NI Tory I like to say two things. One we should discuss what David Lidington said not the poor reporting of it. He said:

"If Sinn Fein said it was the wording of the oath that was the sole obstacle, then I think that it's something any government would have to be willing to re-examine," Mr Lidington said.

"But at the moment Sinn Fein are taking a very firm line and saying it's not the wording of the oath, it goes far beyond that."

The second line is the most important! I think this is a non story.

Secondly on the wider front there may be some merit of revising the oath not to accomodate Sinn Fein but to avoid the situation of MPs like the late Tony Banks making a mockery of the process by crossing his fingers.

[Richard]

This is a disgrace of the highest order. How dare the Conservative and Unionist Party come out with something like this! If IRA/Sinn Fein have a problem swearing an oath of allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen then they have no right being there, it is after all Her Parliament!

IRA/Sinn Fein have been responsible for the murder of countless British subjects and to see us bending over like this for them is sickening. It was bad enough when John Major started negotiating with them, but this is just awful. I am today ashamed to be a member of the Conservative Party.

Lord Tebbit's wife was crippled by the IRA, is it any wonder he has problems with the current direction of the Cameron's Conservatives. If this Party stands for anything it should be for Queen and country!

[malcolm]

I would hope that liidington publicly apologises for his stupidity.Why he should concern himself with doing ANYTHING to make the life of a murdering terrorist like Martin Mcguiness easier is beyond me.
I see today that the comic duo of Hoon and Hain have decided to give Sinn/Fein/ IRA a further £700,000 of 'Short' money.According to todays Times varoius NI politicians including the SDLP complained bitterly .I suggest Liddington concern himself with matters like that rather than making a fool of himself by trying to change the oath.

[James Maskell]

I dont understand the reason why the IRA MPs...ooops, the Sinn Fein MPs wont do the oath like everyone else. Its a farce. If they dont want to do the oath then dont be an MP. I want to be a Councillor and there are certain rules I dont particularly like, but sod it, you have to roll with it anyway because that comes with the job. IRA/Sinn Fein...get over it and do the oath like every other MP.

[James Burdett]

It is amusing how a little kite-flying can get everyone so worked up. It is also instructive to see that so many people here think that some things shouldnt even be looked at. I think that if we are serious about preserving the best of the current constitutional arrangements then we need to examine them to see if there is really no better alternative. We should do this in a calm and considered manner and not shriek hysterically. It may very well be a bad idea, but treating a rationally expressed view with irrational reaction is counter-productive.

[Sean Fear]

Perhaps this is the "new politics?"

[Account Deleted]

I am personally a constitutional monarchist, but I do think that the current oath is biased against republicans (of the Tony Benn not the blowing up innocent people variety).

However, changing it to fit Sinn Fein is wrong. I doubt if they would pledge to uphold democracy and the rule of law in any case.

We can have a rational debate, but at the end of the day the pledge is worth keeping as part of our cultural heritage.

However maybe, just as it has been changed for non-believers, we could also alter it for those who are not believers in the monarchy, so it read something like

"I [name of MP] do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, AND THE COMMON PEOPLE OF THIS LAND, according to law."

OR

"I [name of MP] do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, AND THOSE WHO I HAVE BEEN ELECTED TO SERVE, according to law."

A traditional British compromise/fudge of the kind we do so well. Much more British than some anodyne comment about democracy and the rule of law.

Whether it is good enough for Sinn Feinn is irrelevant. But imagine if we Tories had to sign up to a pledge which only mentioned something like;

"I [name of MP] do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to central government and its power over individual lives, according to law."

and you see why some principled republicans dislike the current model.

[Sean Fear]

Swearing allegiance to a head of state (whether President or Monarch) implies allegiance to something bigger than the government of the day.

[Account Deleted]

Why not make it the monarch and the people? Both of those are bigger than the government of the day.

[Tory T]

"I am a free man and not the subject of anyone."

Wrong, Selsdon Man. You're a free man because you're a subject of Her Majesty.

"It is also instructive to see that so many people here think that some things shouldnt even be looked at."

Right, James Burdett. There are indeed some things that shouldn't even be looked at - unless you believe that everything should be up for discussion all the time. That kind of more-freethinking-than-thou approach is usually the mantra of people who have an intense dislike of the status quo.

Mr Lidington proved that his attachment to the Monarchy is a highly contingent one and that he's happy to contemplate its gradual erosion and descent into meaninglessness. He probably thought he was being oh-so tactically clever by puting the Shinners on the spot. I wonder what his next clever idea will be?

[Richard Allen]

I have always quite liked David Lidington but he should hang his head in shame that he could even contemplate something so disgusting.

Then again such shabby oppurtunism will probably serve him well in Cameron's conservatives.

[Alexander Drake]

I like David Lidington very much - I find him a congenial guy - but I think he is wrong. If the SF MPs want to salve their consciences why not cross their fingers when they say the bit in the oath about the Queen? That way everyone is happy.

Personally I think this is a non-issue though.

Off topic - Editor do you think a thread on the YouGov poll on the LD leadership is worthwhile? Surely it's got to make Question Time tonight (your time) that much more interesting?

Also off topic - Editor (in particular) you might be interested to know for your news headlines on the front page that our Senate had a vote on a Private Members Bill that would strip Health Minister Tony Abbott (a former trainee Catholic priest) of his exclusive control over the drug, RU486. More can be found here:

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,18090368-2,00.html

[spagbob]

This is absolutely outrageous. Any person who doesn't swear allegaince to the queen shouldn't be in parliament, or even in our country for that matter.

"The oath should be to swear to serve faithfully the people who elected you and Parliament. I am a free citizen not a subject. "

you are a subject. you have a queen.

[RobertDonnell]

As a Conservative who was born and educated in Northern Ireland, into a Unionist family, I believe Liddington to be the best Conservative spokesman / minister for over 30 years.

With his comments he has gone to the heart of the issue. SF/IRA need to abide to the rule of law and the authority of parliament. We have to expose them as the thugs they are. We cannot let them hide behind the excuse that they could not swear to the queen.

Although I am a loyal subject of the Queen who supports a Constitutional monarch as the head of state. We need to create an environment in this country that supports all people to feel that their first loyalty is to Britian. That may involve changes to some oaths / customs that are close to our hearts. Lets look forward not back. Lets practice the politics of AND.

[Sean Fear]

There objection though is to British rule; not to the monarchy per se.

[Cllr Graham Smith]

This idea was originally put forward not by David Liddington but by Douglas Hogg during a debate in February 2000 when he said:

"I do not myself believe that the Oath in its present form should be used as the defining test for anything. It does not fully or properly reflect the obligations that we as Members of Parliament owe to the House of Commons or to the country."

"The time is coming when we should reassess the nature of the Oath so that it does fully and properly reflect those obligations. It does not at the moment, and therefore I do not wish to see it used as a precondition for the making available of public moneys."

Surely if the oath of allegiance is preventing some MPs from taking their seats, it should be changed or done away with altogether? This would be consistent with David Cameron's proposals for replacing the Royal prerogative with a Parliamentary vote.

The precedent for changing the oath already exists with the Northampton MP whose refusal to swear by Almighty God resulted in an alternative affirmation being allowed.

[Mark Fulford]

"I have always quite liked David Lidington but he should hang his head in shame that he could even contemplate something so disgusting."

I’ve never given it much thought, but what is disgusting about not swearing allegiance to the Queen? It’s numb-skulled to suggest that, because we want to serve Britain, we should blindly swear allegiance to a particular person.

There are sticking points with Sinn Feinn, but to create one out of an unnecessary oath to the Queen is daft from both parts - but more so from the part that is demanding the oath.

[Sean Fear]

There is in fact, nothing to prevent Sinn Fein from taking their seats, save their objection to British rule.

I see the oath in the same light as the oath of a police constable. It's an oath to something more than the government of the day.

[A H Matlock]

Where do you stand on the Monarchy then, Mark? I don't understand how someone can claim to be both a Conservative and a republican in the British context.

[michael]

"Secondly on the wider front there may be some merit of revising the oath not to accomodate Sinn Fein but to avoid the situation of MPs like the late Tony Banks making a mockery of the process by crossing his fingers."

Neil, I think that's a good point. I think on this point (NI politics to one side) there is a debate to be had. The merits of an alternative oath would be:

1. It would prevent republican MPs from mocking the process thus increasing the validity of the oath for those who want to swear allegiance.
2. It would expose MPs who are anti- monarchy while allowing them to be true to their beliefs.
3. An alternative oath would demonstrate the relaxed, strong, open, confident democracy we have.

[Mark Fulford]

In which case, why not make it an oath to the country, rather than to the Queen? It has just as much meaning, but without being unnecessarily inflammatory.

[Sean Fear]

Well, I imagine Sinn Fein would be even less happy with that one Mark.

I don't see it as an oath to Queen Elizabeth in her personaly capacity, but rather to the Head of State for the time being (and that would be the same if we had an elected President). Conversely, if we were a Republic, I wouldn't see any reason to permit monarchists not to take an oath of allegiance to the President.

[Jaz]

This is a disgraceful move and wholey republican. If you cannot and will not support an oath to the monarchy why bother living in this country at all.

Britain was founded on monarchy and if you refuse to swear oath to it, then you are frankly refusing to swear an oath on the nation.

The queen appoints and dismisses parliament. If an MP refuses oath to queen, then what does this mean for our constitution?

[Mark Fulford]

"Where do you stand on the Monarchy then, Mark?"

I’m not infatuated with the monarchy but, on balance, I’d keep it rather than lose it. I wouldn’t swear allegiance to a particular person (be they King, Queen or president) but I would swear allegiance to a flag. Personally, I think that anyone who answers much differently is speaking emotionally rather than rationally.

[spagbob]

"In which case, why not make it an oath to the country, rather than to the Queen? It has just as much meaning, but without being unnecessarily inflammatory."

why is it inflammatory? I dont think republicans and especially not Sinn Fein would want to swear allegiance to the country, after all they don't want to be part of great britain, they want NI to be part of EIRE. Swearing allegiance to the country, would be just as "inflammatory" to Sinn Fein.

[Richard]

Some things are just not up for debate and this is one of them.

[Mark Fulford]

All anyone should be asked to swear is loyalty to their constituency.

[A H Matlock]

I take quite a different view, Mark. I've been a supporter of David Cameron from the beginning because I think he has what it takes to bring the Conservative Party back into power, but I am a Monarchist to the core, and I was given to believe that he is too. I see it as, more than any of our institutions, woven into the basic fabric of our national life. It cannot be removed or tampered with any further without fundamental changes in the character and governance of the country. Is that a sentimental and emotional view? Yes, it probably is, and I make no apologies for that.

If there are many more of these subtle ideas put about which are effectively soft-pedalling republican sentiment within the Conservative Party, then I will have to reconsider my support. The Conservative Party exists to preserve the British Constitution, not to junk it.

[Mark Fulford]

why is it inflammatory?

If you are a republican, it is "inflamatory" to be forced to swear on something that you don't believe. Or is the republican viewpoint so invalid that it's not allowed to enter parliament?

[Mark Fulford]

A H Matlock, are you truly saying that you couldn't be in the same room as me because I am both Conservative but, while being a mild monarchist, also respectful of republicans?

[A H Matlock]

Republicans also have an obligation to respect the laws, customs and traditions of the country. They know an oath to the Monarch is required in order to sit in Parliament. If that is unpalatable to then, then they should save themselves the time and effort.

[True Blue]

I’m not infatuated with the monarchy but, on balance, I’d keep it rather than lose it. I wouldn’t swear allegiance to a particular person (be they King, Queen or president) but I would swear allegiance to a flag. Personally, I think that anyone who answers much differently is speaking emotionally rather than rationally.

Rubbish. It's rational to uphold our institutions and not cave in to the likes of Gerry Adams.

This country is a monarchy. The monarch is the Head of State, and MPs swear the oath not to the person of the Queen, but to her roll (the other half of the royal "we"). MPs who lie or cross their fingers when swearing the oath is in contempt of parliament, the people who elected them and the law.

If you are Republican, you should stick by your oath and work within our law to change the system. If you don't stick by the oath, you are a foreswearer and should be ejected from Parliament.

Pussy-footing around Sinn Fein will not help. They'll just want more and more concessions - perhaps they could swear to the tricolour? We shouldn't even consider changing our most cherised institutions for a bunch of criminals.

That reminds me - the IRA weapons dumps are an ideal location for nuclear waste. That would really put them beyond use.

[A H Matlock]

No, Mark. I have no problem with you being a closet republican, if that is what you are as an individual member. But I would have if you were leader of the Conservative Party, or in another position therein which empowered you to speak on behalf of and represent my views.

'Respect' for republicans is not the issue. They are free to advocate their views as they like, but they are also obliged to follow the same laws and customs as the rest of us, and that includes an oath to the Crown to sit in Parliament. Why should we have to forswear that to placate a minority of malcontents and other extremists?

[michael]

"That reminds me - the IRA weapons dumps are an ideal location for nuclear waste."

And then we could leave lots of tinder outside a spark factory.

[ToryLoyal]

Proposals of the kind floated by Mr Liddington reward IRA/Sinn Fein for 30 years of murder and mayhem, and vindicate their methods. They are an insult to law abiding citizens everywhere, and particularly in Northern Ireland, where the overwhelming majority of people vote for parties which have always used exclusively peaceful means.

IRA/Sinn Fein is a fascist, racist party, set up as a front organisation for one of the most successful organised crime gangs in the world.

If they were democrats, they would take their seats in an elected parliament. They do not, because they are not.

[Tory T]

"I wouldn’t swear allegiance to a particular person (be they King, Queen or president) but I would swear allegiance to a flag."

Nothing rational about that, Mark. And, in a British context, nothing Conservative about it either.

[Richard]

Toryism has always included as one of its primary pillars a defence of the Monarchy. While the Conservatives may have to change some principles to get into power, this one should remain untouched.

[Mark Fulford]

"They know an oath to the Monarch is required in order to sit in Parliament." -- A H Matlock

"If you are Republican, you should stick by your oath and work within our law to change the system. If you don't stick by the oath, you are a foreswearer and should be ejected from Parliament." -- True Blue

Democracy and monarchy are not easy bed-fellows. On this one, I'm going to side with democracy. Republicans must be allowed to be MPs (without being forced to swear a lie on day one) and they must be allowed to argue their case - from within Parliament. I happen to think that they'll loose the argument, but I don't want to be part of a Party that would deny them the privilege.

[Sean Fear]

Mark, if we were a republic, would it be wrong to ask monarchists to swear an oath of allegiance to an elected Head of State?

[Richard]

"IRA/Sinn Fein is a fascist, racist party, set up as a front organisation for one of the most successful organised crime gangs in the world."

Apologies for being a pedant but their political ideology is closer to Marxism. Not that that makes them any better of course.

[michael]

I thought Conservatives were pragmatic. If an alternative oath could actually increase the validity and relevance of the oath of allegiance to the Monarch, then it might be worth considering.

[Mark Fulford]

Sean, yes.

[michael]

If not, then I think something should be done about MPs who deliberately mock the process and the oath.

[Richard]

This is a very straight forward issue. MPs have to swear an oath of allegiance, those MPs who do so mockingly or those who refuse to take the oath should be barred from sitting in Parliament for a certain period and if after a certain period they still fail to take the oath then they removed as an MP and a by-election should be held.

This is a serious issue and goes to heart of how this country is run and managed. We cannot pick and mix everything just so that no one is offended or to make sure that everyone can take part.

If people feel that they cannot take the oath then they should not stand for Parliament.

[True Blue]

Republicans must be allowed to be MPs (without being forced to swear a lie on day one) and they must be allowed to argue their case - from within Parliament.

They should be loyal to the existing system unless the system is changed. They can work within the system to change. It's simply the rule of law. The ability to agree to uphold something because it is the law, regardless of your own feelings is a prerequisite of being a lawmaker.

Mark, I always find that listening to a bit of Elgar when I post helps - you should try it. That, and Rolf's picture of the Queen.

[Tory T]

Tip to anti-Monarchists: Given that the public is hostile to republicanism, the clever trick would be to abolish the Monarchy in increments. Starting by making the Royal element of the MPs Oath voluntary. Even cleverer to find some useful idiot Tories to suggest it.

Step forward Mark Fumford, michael and James Burdett.

[Matthew Oxley]

I am very unhappy our party would make his suggested.
Tim, please make sure the comments of conservativehome viewers, who in a huge majority are opposed to such an idea, are passed on to this MP.

[Alan T]

The oath should be changed, not for any one political party, but because it's not the best one that we could have. I'm not much of an enthusiast for the Monarchy.Supporting that institution should not be a prerequisite for supporting the Tory party. The debate above, about wheteher we are subjects or citizens is a pointless one. I consider and call my self a citizen and I'd like to see anyone try and stop me. You can't, there's nothing- nor should there be- anything in the law that allows you to do so- so shush! And please stop these ridiculous visceral attacks on David Lidington. It's embarassing- truly cringe-worthy! If you're against something argue your case don't just say 'I'm right so there, and isn't he horrible'.

[Gareth]

Personally, I would alter the oath to refer to 'The Sovereign'. This would ensure that vile republicans (of all hues) have to perjure themselves, whilst ensuring that Jacobites could once again sit in parliament.

[Gareth]

"MPs swear the oath not to the person of the Queen, but to her roll"

I love the idea of 'True Blue' swearing allegiance to Brenda's ham and cheese roll.

[Gareth]

How could one even begin to parody this? Priceless.

"This is a disgrace of the highest order. How dare the Conservative and Unionist Party come out with something like this! If IRA/Sinn Fein have a problem swearing an oath of allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen then they have no right being there, it is after all Her Parliament!

IRA/Sinn Fein have been responsible for the murder of countless British subjects and to see us bending over like this for them is sickening. It was bad enough when John Major started negotiating with them, but this is just awful. I am today ashamed to be a member of the Conservative Party.

If this Party stands for anything it should be for Queen and country!"

[Mark Fulford]

"who in a huge majority are opposed to such an idea"

There's certainly a vocal group here, but nobody has put together an argument that even vaguely challenges my position that it's undemocratic to prevent challenges to the monarchy by preventing republicans from becoming MPs.

I've never thought I had need to argue with monarchists before, but I am astonished that you would cripple democracy in this way. The monarchist position seems to be that, that to protect a tradition you're not even going to let it be questioned. To me, that has echoes of religions that won't allow their faith to be questioned.

True Blue, I'm sorry to say that I don't have any Elgar in my office. I do, however, have a Rolf print signed "to two little boys..."

[Goodness Gracious]

If Charles or Harry, (maybe less so William)ever become King, I am quite sure many people will feel a bit uncomfortable swearing allegiance to them. They have not kept their dignity Elizabeth.

The Monarchy is not what it was 500, 200 or even 100 years ago. Why cling to it as if it were? Why wait until an unelected King with an unpleasant demeanour dismisses an elected popular Prime Minister?

The Conservative Party exists to preserve the British Constitution, not to junk it.

Posted by: A H Matlock | February 09, 2006 at 12:55
Comments above show quite clearly the ignorance of many people posting on this board.
There's no such thing as a British Constitution, and the Conservative Party exists to better the lives of all British People, not to preserve a non-existent "constitution" come what may.

In light of this above quote from A H Matlock, it is difficult to take Matthew Oxley's comments that the Editor should please make sure the comments of conservativehome viewers, who in a huge majority are opposed to such an idea, are passed on to this MP. seriously.

You can't speak for the viewers, but only for the comments of a handful of posters.
We get thousands of hits a day, but there are probably a core group of 20 posters, many of whom are more likely to leave their criticism than their praise, even when they do find something laudable happening.

If Lidington is interested in what people have to say, he can come here and read comments himself. There is no need for a pressure group to speak for thousands of readers who may or may not support the comments posted here, most of which are the angry rants of the uninformed.

[Chris Palmer]

This would be the Sinn Fein who claim to be Nationalist... and Socialist... Where have we heard that one before..?

If Sinn Fein don't want to swear such an oath, then don't let them sit in Parliament. We play by our rules - not theirs.

[ToryLoyal]

["IRA/Sinn Fein is a fascist, racist party, set up as a front organisation for one of the most successful organised crime gangs in the world."

Apologies for being a pedant but their political ideology is closer to Marxism. Not that that makes them any better of course.]

Richard, the whole point is that the similarities between fascists and Marxists are far greater than their differences.

Both support the primacy of the state over the individual. Both reject free markets and free enterprise in favour of state intervention in economic matters. And both have a long history of racism and anti-Semitism.

[Matthew Oxley]

Tim, I was quite sleepy when I typed my last comment. Please make sure such nonsense isn't passed on to anybody who understands the English language,

Cheers
Matt

[William Norton]

I think Lidington was trying to say: "Let's call Sinn Fein's bluff and see if they can act by the same standards as democrats." Possibly not in a very tactful way - and perhaps not reported fairly (see earliest posts - any info, Editor?). So much for cunning tactical moves. Perhaps we will soon enjoy the sight of Blair condemning Cameron for flip-flopping on the monarchy: vote Labour to save the Hanoverian Succession?

Cllr Graham Smith is quite correct. The oath was changed to cater for the fact that Bradlaugh refused to swear by Almighty God and kept getting re-elected when the Commons would not admit him. I think about the same time one of the Rothschilds had a long-running camapign to get elected to establish the point that Jewish MPs should be admitted, too. And of course, you could once only hold public office if you received Anglican communion once a year.

The sovereign's coronation oath has varied quite a lot over the years. I think as late as Edward VII the King was still required to vow to hang the Pope (or something like that). George III considered his oath forced him to veto Catholic Emancipation at the time of the Union with Ireland (and a brilliant strategy that proved to be). If the country voted for a republic, though, I don't think anyone would expect a Windsor to stand in its way. We can expect a major re-write of the oath the next time it's used.

I'm not a republican, but within limits (i.e. I'd like to see the new wording) I'd be relaxed about changing the oath. Better to have an oath people genuinely mean than another case of Tony Banks taking the oath with his fingers crossed behind his back.

Incidentally, freemen of the City of London have to swear allegiance to the Lord Mayor. Do the budding feudalists on this thread think we should lock up all of them for plotting sedition and treason?

[Goldie]

This guy should be sacked immediately.

[True Blue]

You can't speak for the viewers, but only for the comments of a handful of posters.

Check your facts before making comments such as this. The respondees may not always reflect mainstream conservative opinion - I don't know, I haven't checked. But you were so obviously wrong, I thought I'd check. First result Mori poll in 2004:

Q1 Do you favour Britain electing its Head of State or do you favour Britain retaining the monarchy?
%
Elect Head of State 20
Retain the monarchy 71
Would not vote 2
Neither of these 4
Don't know 4

What proportion of those voter do you think are Tories?

[Goldie]

This guy should be sacked immediately.

[Editor]

To Alexander Drake: I've now added a post on the YouGov/ LibDem survey.

To Matthew Oxley: Yes, I will forward this thread to David Lidington.

Cheers, Tim

[Mark Fulford]

True Blue, I want to retain the monarchy but ditch the oath. What of your 71% now?

[Mark Fulford]

I hope David Lidington has a good laugh!

[True Blue]

True Blue, I want to retain the monarchy but ditch the oath. What of your 71% now?

Would you swear to that?

That's fine. And you are welcome to fight for ditching the oath inside parliament - as long as you swear the Oath first. But if you are against the monarchy you will have to take the crown from my cold, dead hands.

It's fairly clear that a large majority of Tory MPs are in favour of keeping the Oath of Allegiance - certainly, it was Tory MPs who were vocally irritated when Sinn Fein would not take the Oath. I'd be very suprised if more than a handful were against it.

[Goodness Gracious]

True Blue's comments at 14:53 highlight my point exactly.
My comment: Many people view this website, but don't leave comments. The majority may or may not approve of Lidington's suggestion to changing the MPs oath. Editor should not use this as evidence of strenght of party member's opinion.

True Blue's response?
A poll of random people, about a completely different issue (i.e. Monarchs as head of state, not MPs swearing allegiance to monarchs), no indication of whether pollsters are tories or not,
and conclusion: I am obviously wrong.

There is a dearth of thinkers in this party.
Too many people with free time and internet at their disposal.

[johnC]

At least the Sinn Fein MPs are sticking to their principle. How can Peter Mandelson who as a Privy Counsellor has sworn an oath of allegiance to the Queen then go to Brussels and as a EU Commissioner swear a new oath that he will owe his allegiance to the Commission and be independent of any government ? Not that I ever credited him with any principle at all...

[Peter]

Why should we want terrorist thugs like Adams and McGuinness in the House of Commons in the first place? If Abu Hamza got elected to parliament would we start making concessions to him because we view his contribution as in some way valuable?

[Burkean]

Did Goodness Gracious really write that there is no such thing as a British Constitution? Goodness gracious...

While we may not have a single, concise, written constitution any more (I actually quite like the one we once had), chaps like Walter Bagehot have quite ably summarized the one we do have (see here for a starting guide). And if you want to learn what Tony Blair has done to it, I recommend Keith Sutherland's "The Rape of the Constitution," available from Amazon.

[CDM]

It's bad enough that the Unionists have been betrayed with the Good Friday agreement and the invitation of IRA terrorists to Downing Street, but now this? It really does make you wonder why they still feel so loyal to Britain.

[True Blue]

True Blue's response?
A poll of random people, about a completely different issue (i.e. Monarchs as head of state, not MPs swearing allegiance to monarchs), no indication of whether pollsters are tories or not,
and conclusion: I am obviously wrong.

I've presented some evidence with at least tangential relevance. You were just spouting off with no evidence at all. "A random poll" - of course it's random - that's what opinion polls are supposed to be.

Where's your evidence that the comments on the list are out of kilter with the current Tory views? The reason that this whole issue was featured is because it flies in the face of current Tory thinking.

Show me your evidence, and cease the ad hominem nonsense.

Let's see what another conservative thinks:

David Cameron:
New citizens are required to swear an oath of allegiance to the Queen.

[other requirements snipped]

I warmly welcome these new requirements, but we need to go further.

...and that is an Oath for all new citizens, not just MPs. Or perhaps Cameron is an old-school right-winger? I think not.

[Richard]

"How could one even begin to parody this? Priceless."

Why is the idea of not making concessions to a group linked to a terrorist organisation responsible for the deaths of innocent Britons amusing?

"Richard, the whole point is that the similarities between fascists and Marxists are far greater than their differences.

Both support the primacy of the state over the individual. Both reject free markets and free enterprise in favour of state intervention in economic matters. And both have a long history of racism and anti-Semitism."

Very true if you're speaking from a libertarian perspective and taking into account the practice rather than the theory of such ideologies.

[True Blue]

Here's another one, Goodness. Take a look at this proposed amendment on the oath of allegiance, and see if you can spot anything about the party allegiances of the Aye and No voters.

Every Conservative and Ulster Unionist voted Aye, everyone else No.

If you need any more evidence, I am sure you can find it yourself.

[A H Matlock]

Goodness Gracious:

There most certainly is a British Constitution. For you to say there is not either demonstrates the ignorance you accuse me of, or you are being disingenuous.

The British Constitution is unwritten, or 'uncodified' as a lawyer might say, but it certainly exists and has been functioning in this country in a fluid state for centuries. The Monarchy has always been one of it's main pillars, accompanied today by Parliament and the Rule of Law.

Instead of dispensing schoolboy insults, why don't you do as Burkean suggests and go away and read your Bagehot.

[Gareth]

Richard,

What is beyond parody is all this 'The great Conservative & Unionist party blah, blah, Our Sovereign Lady The Queen, blah, blah, this is a disgrace of the highest order blah, blah, I will consider my position' etc. etc ad nauseum.

Frankly, it's enough to turn me into a republican.

[Goodness Gracious]

There are certain documents which we know for a fact are in our constitution, e.g. Magna Carta.

Others are in dispute. If we cannot point to a clear cut list of documents which make up our constitution, but instead have to refer to lawyers and constitutional experts often to clarify,

If they layman on the street has to first read Bagehot, and look up what the constitutional documents are before finding otu what is and what isn't, then we don't haev a constitution as other countries define it.

Wecan continue to kid ourselves that we have one so we can sleep better at night. Until our constitution is codified, we might as well not have one.

The whole point of it being uncodified is so we can make changes to it and be flexible on suggestions such as Lidington's.
and until it is codified, we must entertain such suggestions.

[Burkean]

Why should we worry how other countries define their constitution?

As John Richard Green says of Burke, "[The British] constitution was no artificial scheme of government, but an exquisite balance of social forces which was itself a natural outcome of its history and development. ... To touch even an anomaly seemed to Burke to be risking the ruin of a complex structure of national order which it had cost centuries to build up."

Couldn't agree more.

[Mark Fulford]

Burkean, you're whole argument is that our constitution is a living, evolving thing.

What's happing now is part of that evolution. What's the penalty for an MP swearing allegiance to the Queen when they don't really believe it? What's the penalty for swearing belief in a god when you're quietly confident there's none? The answer is that there's no penalty, and that makes the whole thing meaningless. Why cling to a defunct, dubious tradition? To preserve a constitution (that is deliberately fluid) is not enough.

[Jaz]

The penalty should be treason, willfully lying to the queen and her country.

This country is based around the monarchy, parliament works for our Queen. Therefore, in my eyes all MP's AND Lords have a requirement of full commitment to our monarchy.

If they don't believe in this commitment then I would have serious doubts in trust.

[Burkean]

Mark,

To innovate is not to reform, as Burke said. The very basis of the British constitution is the contract between the Monarch and her People. The Monarch takes an Oath on coronation to uphold her part of the contract. Her people's representatives are accordingly required to return an oath signifying their acceptance of the contract upon taking office. If the people's representatives no longer uphold their part of the contract, why should the Monarch uphold her end? This suggestion strikes even more at the prescriptive constitution than the foolish attempt to curtail the royal prerogative in the area where it is most needed (national security). Abolition of the oath of allegiance (for that is what the suggestion amounts to) would be a truly revolutionary act.

[houndtang]

Is it possible to be a Conservative and a republican? It seems a bit strange that having right of centre views on economics, crime, Europe, etc also means you have to love the monarchy.

[Burkean]

I'd say a Conservative loves and defends the Constitution, of which the Monarchy is an integral part, and also recognizes the delicate balance it represents.

One can also be a conservative and despise/detest/pity whoever holds the office of Monarch, without despising/detesting/pitying the office itself.

[Mark Fulford]

I am not a republican, but please don't be under any illusion that our Queen has any real political power. She is mostly for diplomacy and the tourists.

How does expressing that realistic viewpoint have any bearing on my beliefs about education, healthcare, industry, the environment, law and order, defense, etc?

[Mark Fulford]

Jaz - you jest - don't you?