So the MP's want to have more power and not recognise our head of state is that not rebellion?

Question

Some MP's are suggesting that we no longer swear allegiance to King and country. They want a state where they can dictate without any form of break or check of authority. You know, something like voting themselves pay rises and fraudulent second homes etc. Do you think the Closed Dictatorship of the three mainstream parties will turn into a bunch of n***s supported by new organisations like the 'Euro Cop' set up to quell unrest over entry into Europe

ATB Red

Answer 1

I agree, this is treason.

I do not buy the whole 'they should swear allegiance to their constituents, they voted them in' line.

For one thing, this is assuming the constituents spoke with one voice - when in fact almost no MP has even an absolute majority of the vote.  So who does he swear allegiance to?  The people who voted for him?  Or those who voted in general?  Or everyone?  Or is it just hollow fuzzy-thinking nonsense?

Second, it politicises the oath.  The MP can declare at all times that they're following the oath by doing whatever they wish as it's the people's will, through them.  We Brits are cynical enough not to buy this, and I don't see why they think an oath to their constituents would change it.

Swearing allegiance to the Sovereign, however, is a swearing of allegiance to the Constitution, and to Britain as a whole - which is *precisely* the purpose of an MP.  Consider Edmund Burke's quote:

"‘Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion … Parliament is not a congress of ambassadors from different and hostile interests, which interests each must maintain, as an agent and advocate, against other agents and advocates; but Parliament is a deliberative assembly of one nation, with one interest, that of the whole; where, not local purposes, not local prejudices ought to guide, but the general good, resulting from the general reason of the whole. You choose a member indeed; but when you have chosen him, he is not member of Bristol, but he is a member of Parliament."

Taking this in light, we should appreciate that an MP is there to work for the nation as a whole, as embodied in the almost universally loved Sovereign Queen, and should avoid any change of emphasis to flattering the 'people' a nebulous notion at best.

We have scrutiny below (elections) and within (Lords) government and Parliament.  We must also have it above - the Monarch.  The Queen performs essential scrutinising functions within the Government which no other public leader could ever hope to do, and Her position as the descendant of a thousand year line which is still overwhelmingly popular (a fact republicans hate) ensures state symbology is kept out of the hands of the politicians.

Answer 2

Having a monarchy is an undemocratic anachronism, and should be abolished, as should the oath of allegiance.

When immigrants take the citizenship test they are required to swear an oath of allegiance, that many people I know could not belittle, and demean their values by doing so.

Answer 3

A lot of our 'Common' laws have come from 'Codes of practise', ie: if people took a short cut across a grassy area for a long time, and no one objected, then it became law because it's what the people wanted, these tipes of laws built up over hundreds of years, these and the Magna Carta, give us a great justus system, so good infact America copied it and wrote it down as their 'Constitution' and Bill of rights.  On top of this is our Sovereign Queen, who must take an Coronation Oath to abide and safeguard the Magna Carta and uphold the rights of her subjects, she acts as our 'checks & balances', and must give Royal assent to every law passed by her government.

Answer 4

Seems like the Bilderberg n**i's are winning... New Labour scum though should face the noose. Though I'm anti-racist, I can see my vote going to the BNP.  The future for humanity looks very bleak, unless common sense can be mobilised. Ironically the credit crunch/recession could be a blessing or a curse....but to be honest....I'm almost past caring!  Decency and virtue are spat upon by New Labour and instead the seven Deadly sins (and the active promotion of homosexuality) seem to be the agenda.  To be honest, if there was a viable chance for revolution, I'd happily take to the streets.

Answer 5

Actually, the throne has had no power in the UK for about 300 years, so your concerns are a little on the late side.

As for the question of unaccountable power and the wielding thereof...I would suggest you worry more about multi-national business and the arms trade in particular.  An MP calling in 'Everest' to do his windows is small fry in comparison.

Answer 6

In her relationship with parliament I regard the Queen as representing the people of the UK. By swearing allegiance to the Queen the MPs are not swearing allegiance to to the Queen as an individual but as Head of State and by implication the nation as a whole.

That ritual of the State Opening of parliament may be symbolic but it should serve to remind the MPs that their authority is given to them by the state and can be removed by the state.

Answer 7

instead of swearing allegiance to the Queen the MPs want to swear to serve their constituents, who voted them into Parliament. I think if they want to do that they should remain in local politics/councils.

Answer 8

It's just more tinkering by guardianistas to usurp centuries of this country's proud history - did they get voted in to do that - no way!

Answer 9

The old Soviet Boys and Girls Brigade are at it again. From phony international "Global Reach" to abolishing The Acts of Treason. Such a parcel of rogues in the nation. They are all treachurous old Soviet Snakes. Send them back to  East of the Urals where they came from.

Answer 10

It is in fact an Act of Treason. Map's can ot abide the fact that an unelected Sovereign cam dissolve Parliament at any time. The anti-Monarchist must realise that a president is in total control and it is almost impossible to get him out of office. The chief Executive of government (the Prime Minister) must someone one to who he is directly answerable to. A political President can not do this job. I mention two words President Mugabe. It amuses me when I think of people who want a republic on the grounds of expense. it won't be cheaper. On the grounds of democracy. It will not enhance it. So far as hangers on are concerned MP's  are the worst and we can't get rid of them either