Oath of Allegiance

David Lidington, the Conservative Northern Ireland spokesman, has suggested that The Oath of Allegiance to the Queen sworn by MPs should be reviewed to encourage Sinn Fein to take up their seats in the House of Commons.

This might encourage them to do so but it is doubtful because they do not want Westminster as the seat of government for Northern Ireland but Dublin.

All MPs and peers are required to “swear by Almighty God to be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth” or make a solemn affirmation of loyalty to the Crown.

This is not just an oath but a legally binding undertaking not to work against the crown of Britian, not to undermine the state, thus it is part of the security of the state and part of the protection against the destruction of our constitution, any member who breaks that oath is committing treason.

Not that this has concerned our so called leaders, who have been doing just that for years, they must understand this because several have been reported for committing treason under the 1795 act of treason. Which is perhaps why one of the first things Tony Blair did when he gained office was to remove the offending act of treason from the statue books.

This from Hansard

Lord Tebbit asked Her Majesty’s Government:
Why they have been unable to inform members of the public who have inquired the reason for the repeal of the Treason Act 1795 during the passage of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, neither the records of the relevant debates in Hansard during the passage of the Crime and Disorder Bill nor Bill papers held in the Home Office explain fully why the 1795 Act was repealed in its entirety. It is, however, evident from the Hansard records that the repeal was considered to be a necessary consequence of the decision to repeal the death penalty for treason.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I suppose that this could not possibly have anything to do with the fact that European Union Commissioners affirm an oath of allegiance to the European Union. If they do so, they swear allegiance to somebody other than Her Majesty the Queen, which I understand would in itself be treasonable.

The fact that treason has been committed by our leaders was confirmed this week when Blair made his speech in Oxford he said; The British problem with our membership of the EU may derive from the curious and tortured circumstances of its birth. But long since, it has taken on a unique life of its own. The dilemma of a British Prime Minister over Europe is acute to the point of the ridiculous. Basically you have a choice: co-operate in Europe and you betray Britain; be unreasonable in Europe, be praised back home, and be utterly without influence in Europe. It’s sort of: isolation or treason.

One is also tempted to wonder if the Conservatives, although they are making noises about the constitution needing reform and have set up their Democracy Task Force whether they in fact mean to really look at the problem of the British constitution, or if this is just window dressing. As the task force is to be fronted by the Tories arch Euphile Kenneth Clarke, I suspect the latter is the case.

If David Lidington suggestion is anything to go by then it would seem clear that neither the public, or our elected representatives have a clear and comprehensive understanding of what the terms of our constitution actually are.

This is becoming increasingly apparent as almost every week we find that our elected representatives have agreed amongst themselves to change the status of the citizen in relation to the state. I mean who has even heard of the Regulatory Reform Act 2001,

Under the provisions of the Regulatory Reform Act 2001, the Government can propose regulatory reform orders, which allow statute law to be amended by delegated rather than primary legislation. The Government has acknowledged that the Act was “constitutionally ground breaking”.

In a letter to the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, Lord Holme, the chairman of the Constitution Committee in the House of Lords, expressed his Committee`s concern about the nature of the powers contained in the Bill:

we are concerned by the potential of the Bill`s proposals, if enacted, markedly
to alter the respective and long-established roles of Ministers and Parliament in
the legislative process. This is because Part 1 of the Bill seeks to confer
unprecedentedly wide powers on Ministers to make Orders to amend, repeal and
replace any legislation (and to grant powers in respect of rules of the common
law in relation to Law Commission recommendations), with only a very restricted
role for Parliament in the process. The reforms thus have the potential to be so
far reaching that especial consideration will need to be given by the Committee to
the risk of inadvertent and ill considered constitutional change.

Similar Posts:

• The Crime that dare not speak it`s name
• The Saga of Treason Act 1795
• The Saga of the Treason Act 1795
• Demeaning the Lords
• The Anglo Saxon Chronicle
• A Solemn Oath
• The British Constitution under threat
• Civil Contingencies Bill