For those who are surprised that Norman Baker should have come third in our poll of most-rated Lib Dem shadow cabinet members, much of Stormin’ Norm’s popularity is the result of his championing of causes just like this:
A collection of 22 cross party MPs are launching a campaign to end the tradition of swearing allegiance to the Queen when entering parliament. Led by Liberal Democrat Norman Baker, the MPs are calling for the choice to swear an oath to their constituents and the nation instead.
“This is a matter of democracy,” said Mr Baker. “I’m put here by my constituents and it’s to them I owe my allegiance. Taking the oath to an unelected person is a nonsense.”
For those who want to enjoy the foaming-at-the-mouth fulminations of the Daily Mail and Sun you can click here and here.
My favourite knee-jerk idoticism is Lord Tebbit’s: “They’d rather swear allegiance to Brussels.”
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
West End Ward Tuesday Surgeries #dundeewestend
Is Trump set to get his revenge on Labour?
Meeting the new locality coordinator
Peterborough Cathedral launches £300,000 appeal to allow it to stay open daily
The Government needs its growth *explanation*
The surprising similarity between Tony Blair and Nigel Farage
Daniel Stylianou
Alex Macfie
Mark Pack
David Blake
David Evans
70 Comments
This is a foolish campaign which does him no credit. The Queen remains the head of state and one of the symbols of our country. She is also very popular among Mr Baker’s constituents – he might reflect on that, if nothing else.
It is therefore entirely appropriate and sensible for MPs to swear allegiance to her.
Norman Baker’s a great MP, so perhaps he was ‘badly advised’ on this one. Whatever, it’s another opportunity for LD bashing among the gutter press, so well done Norm!
At last! Some vaguely anti-monarchist sentiment from a Lib Dem MP!
The Bible is pretty popular,a lot of people see it as a symbol of truth. Should we still require oaths in court on that?
Taking such a monolithic view would disenfranchise part of the population, as this disenfranchises those with differing views on the nature of political structures, and both should be opposed.
Norman is great and I agree with his sentiments on this but this isn’t really the time or the issue to be promoting.
He hasn’t started a campaign, he’s got a bit of press coverage, and the two are not the same thing at all.
I guess that most people think the Queen does a difficult job well and wouldn’t swap places with her for all the expense accounts in Westminster.
I would agree that it isn’t exactly the top issue for Norman to be working himself up about. However I do agree with him.
I have given my fair share of oaths of allegiance to the Queen over the years, through being in Scouts, but I do object to having to do it. That is why I also dislike our national anthem. I am loyal to my country and proud (if that is the right word) of being British, but who the head of state happens to be doesn’t come in to it. If anything I feel it reduces the gravity of the oath. If you are just going through the motions in declaring your loyalty to the Queen then you may well be doing the same with the rest of it.
I really don’t think Norman’s views will cause him much harm though, given that I agree with him and I am not even a republican.
Just a question, but in other monarchies around Europe do MPs take an oath of loyalty to the monarchy, the constitution, their constituents, or a combination?
Sadly, Norman Baker falls foul of the modern trend towards “I want my way and I’ll thcream and thcream til I get it, because I’M so very important.”
Britain is a constitutional monarchy and Members of Parliament owe allegiance to the head of state. Baker can be as republican as he likes but it’s tough s*** what HE wants – if he wants to serve in Parliament he must swear allegiance to Her Majesty.
Anonymous, if someone wants constitutional change it is only right that they campaign for it using democratic processes. That is how we came to have the current set-up, and is also how it can be changed. You may view it as very desirable, but acting as if suggesting a different way of doing things is sacrilege doesn’t make any sense in that context.
What’s an “idoticism”?
Are you going for a “google-whack” or something?
There’s some furious, ferocious attacks from comment threads that ALL these MPs are getting (although admittedly on the Daily Mail and ConservativeHome) with many calling them traitors and communists. My point is, who are the MPs serving? Wouldn’t people prefer MPs swear allegiance to the people and be accountable to them? Is it going to shake the foundations of British society if they don’t swear allegiance to the Queen? I’m sorry people but republicans exist, if you don’t want them!
Blargh. I’d rather swear allegiance to the Queen than a bit of cloth like the Americans do, and republicans really annoy me. Why do you guys have to be so bloody strident? Surely there are more important things to get strident about?
Strident? I’m strident about my place in the eyes of the State; how I’m a subject to an unelected Head. I was born into this; I didn’t, and at the moment, I can’t choose my head of state. And I certainly wouldn’t advocate swearing allegiance to the flag but to the people and safety therefore for our MPs. And who is more strident, republicans like myself or people I mentioned who call people like me traitors?
Although I find Baker annoying at times as he is a little anal he is ruddy effective and gets under the skin of both the govt and the Tories. Respeck !!!
Rather ironic that the gutter newspapers who are so noisily denouncing Norman Baker are the very ones that undermined the standing of the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha dynasty by publicising some of their sexual pecadilloes.
Incidentally, the owner of the “Sun” is a citizen of the United States of America, which is a republic. And he takes his orders from the elected Vice-President of that republic.
MPs should be answerable to their constituents, not an unelected Head of State. The oath is a meaningless gesture and it is time it was scrapped. Well-done, Norman.
Is Peter Kilfoyle supporting this – he said that he thinks that MPs have a contract with the constituency electorate
Just clocked Tebbit’s comment.
That made me laugh and think of the old song title “Still crazy after all these years”
MPs are answerable to their constituents, aren’t they? In as much as they can be under a FPTP system, anyway. The queen is largely symbolic, she’s a figurehead, and electing a symbolic head of state would have exactly the same effect on power structures as the queen does, except we’d have the expense of an election every however many years.
An executive head of state? Yeah, that works REALLY well in all the countries that have THOSE.
In the teeth of a credit crunch, and facing a Tory government whenever the next election is, and with people losing their livelihoods daily, there are MORE IMPORTANT THINGS TO WORRY ABOUT than whether or not Lizz gets to keep her largely symbolic position.
Jennie,
The Queen is not ‘largely symbolic’; this is a comman misconception. A number of powers remain under royal perogrative…for example, is it not true that in order to dissolve Parliament a Prime Minister must formally seek the approval of the Crown??
I agree with Baker but as the constitutional progressives that we are we should also be focusing on the radical abolition of the constitutional monarchy state and its replacement with a fully formed democracy which serves the people…
In fairness to Norman Baker, he himself said:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/08/constitution.monarchy
“I don’t pretend that this is the most significant issue of the day (although it does seem to have caught the attention of the media). I would of course rather the media reported in more detail the many good transport policies I am responsible for promoting for the Lib Dems.”
Putting down an EDM takes very little effort! Those accusing him of lacking the right focus should bear that in mind.
“The Queen is not ‘largely symbolic’; this is a comman misconception. A number of powers remain under royal perogrative…for example, is it not true that in order to dissolve Parliament a Prime Minister must formally seek the approval of the Crown?? ”
Has she ever actually said “No, one does not want you to dissolve parliament, go back and carry on!”? No. See, this is the definition of a largely symbolic power.
Replacing the Queen with a directly elected president would do knack all to further democracy if we still labour (pun intended) under a first past the post electoral system.
Yes, Jennie, because imagine being able to do more than one thing at a time. Its just an early day motion and a little media work, its not like these MP’s have dropped everything to become full time republicans. Its hardly and less important that all the potholes and the like we involve ourselves with in community politics, or many other MP’s side issues- Campaign for Real Ale, say.
I don’t think there is any situation in which you wouldn’t make such calls. You disagree with them, great, talk about that not disingenous cries of time wasting.
Also, they are calling for MP’s not to swear to the queen, not to get rid of her. Attack the point being made, if you will.
Tinter, read the comments in the thread above. The second anyone mentions the queen all the little republicans come crawling out of the woodwork to say that the monarchy should be abolished.
Jennie,
No she hasnt but she could..so in theory the means exist to thrawt the will of the people…also declaring war is reserved to the government of the day under royal perogrative meaning that in theory there need be no recourse to Parliament…you are missing the point…the un-democracy of the House of Lords etc etc all stems from this form of state…
Are we looking to constantly extend democracy or keep it mothballed and moribund…no formal constitution etc etc, we should be the party of radical progress on this issue…not just pick and choose things like PR….
You mean the house of lords that has been the one barrier to the government’s ever increasing attacks on our civil liberties? That house of Lords?
Electing everything is not necessarily the best way to further social justice and liberty.
Jennie,
A stopped clock is right once a day….just because the Lords are right on this doesnt make them inherently more democratic or compatiable with a modern democracy….
I think democracy is a means to an end of a more equal and just society, not an end in itself, Darrell. You clearly think that democracy is an end in itself, even if the will of the people is to trample all over minorities in the name of security.
I think we’re going to have to agree to disagree.
Jennie,
Im not saying checks and balances shouldnt exist….but not in the form of the privilege and patronage represented by the Lords…i am an atheist…my rights are trampled over by having unelected bishops having a say in the laws that govern me…..
I’m an atheist too, Darrell, but I accept that there ARE Christians in this country, and I don’t mind them being a minority in the legislature. They deserve a say in how they are governed as much as the rest of us.
Does the fact that the majority of people in this country, and even the majority of readers of this site, want to retain the monarchy not make a dent in your democratic argument?
Well done Norman. About time this outdated practice was stopped – the monarchy have no place in today’s society, and are paricuarly irrelevant in Wales.
Jennie,
Yes there are Christians in this country. If they want to be so represented then let them vote accordingly. It is pure and utter inconsistent democracy to contend that they should have cast-iron imposed representation…if so where is that representation for other faith groups??
Not at all…i have the confidence to go out there and win the battle…something you dont obviously have to argue for civil liberties…if so why rely on the Lords???
“The second anyone mentions the Queen, all the little republicans come crawling out of the woodwork to say that the Monarchy should be abolished.”
Why so pejorative Jennie? Little republicans? Crawling out of the woodwork? Speaking for myself, I am an overweight republican who is more than happy at any time to say that I would like to see the Monarchy abolished. So what if that is presently a minority viewpoint? Libdemery in general is a minority viewpoint.
Jennie, Christians can have representation in any legislature if they want it. Across Europe the Christian Democrats have done quite well, and there are plenty of people who vote the catholic pro-choice line in parliament. Reserved places are totally unjustified.
Tinter makes an excellant point. In respose to your blog Jennie, I am not saying you are *not* a democrat; I am saying you are inconsistent and that is something different. It is something you gleefully admit to on these pages saying ‘democracy is only a means to an end’.
I don’t agree with Baker that this issue is of little consequence. It cuts to the core of how we are governed as a nation; the whole state structure flows from it. Fixed-term Parliaments; PR, only lop the head off the nettle and don’t remove the roots of the problem. Even civil liberties…the constitutional monarchy state is responsible for a culture in which their erosion is made all the more easy and acceptable.
It’s the queen’s fault that the (republican and pro-lords reform) Labour government is eroding our civil liberties?
I might be inconsistent, but at least I have some passing familiarity with reason.
Jennie,
You have yet to answer my substantive points about Royal Perogrative and the Privy Council. In short you have yet to justify your assertion that the monarchy is purely symbolic in hard fact where as the facts i am stating are readily knowable by any A-Level politics student.
And yes btw it is,…..any act of parliament must receive royal assent to be enacted as law….
I didn’t say “purely” symbolic, I said “largely” symbolic. I am not going to defend assertions I didn’t make.
“any act of parliament must receive royal assent to be enacted as law”
And has it ever been withheld?
It could be in theory yes. Just because it hasnt doesnt mean it never will be.
Ok, dont you think that the powers held by the monarch and the privy council are wrong and inherently antithical to liberal democracy?? Is it not the case that the reason the Labour government could go to war in Iraq without recourse to Parliament is precisely because it exercised those powers?? Those powers stem from the monarchy, they are given by the Crown to the executive….if the Crown was abolished those powers would pass to Parliament as they should be….
Um, no. A first past the post electoral system combined with a constitution based on conventions for which the incumbents have little understanding let alone regard for and a media climate egging them on to bang up more terrorists does that.
Do a compare and contrast of constitutional monarchies (with proper constitutional positions) compared to executive presidencies and then ceremonial presidencies. Pay particular attention to Spain, the bit under ‘transition to democracy post-Franco’ and figure out how and why they went with a constitutional monarchy and why it works as well as it does.
There are two systems of government within a modern democracy—parliamentary systems and elected executives. We have the former. If you really want to move to the latter, then go ahead and say it. If you want to keep the former, why try and change the whole system, a ceremonial monarch or a ceremonial president, neither makes much difference, but we’ve already effectively got the former.
As I’ve said before elsewhere, “I’m a strong supporter of the idea of a representative, Parliamentary democracy. Such a system requires a ceremonial head of state. We’ve got a monarch, the insitution itself is popular. So we may as well keep it. But the institution is deeply flawed.”
If we make serious moves towards a republic, too many people will want a directly elected executive system, they’re awful. Let’s fix the current system instead.
Oh—I agree with the principles behind Baker’s idea, it seems utterly daft that many MPs from NI can’t take their seats without lying, and knowing that a number of existing MPs had to go against their conscience and effectively lie doesn’t sit well with me. Let’s not confuse the two and devalue an excellent point by hitching it to an unpopular one shall we?
I think Norman Baker is just plain wrong on this one. its just cost the libDems my vote and any chance I’ll do anything to help them come the general election!
Maybe thats why we never win big.
Mat GB,
I beg to differ primarily because people are born in this country as subjects not citizens with unbending rights…we remain subjects of the Crown and it’s executive. And this point goes back to Jennie…yes the monarchy is to blame for that fact.
There is also the sheer waste of taxpayers money on the monarchy. Ironic when we are all concerned by tightening our belts that we keep this obscene bauble in the form of the royal family.
Um, no, that’s been changed by a number of acts, not least Maastricht and the HRA. We have the rights of citizens, but are subject tot he law of the land as embodied by the crown—we’d still be subjects to a constitution or similar.
What waste? The monarchy is dirt cheap compared to a ceremonial presidency and elections thereof. Yes, I have read detailed studies on this with costings—have you?
You seem to want a piecemeal approach, ticking off a series of boxes to reform, can’t work. Britain has a whole series of governance issues that need resolving, and concentrating on one to the exclusion of others is damaging—party policy is to call for a constitutional convention to discuss all issues, that was one of the reasons I joined, as I’d already said we needed one for a huge number of reasons.
Sort out the prerogative powers and reserved powers of the Crown, define what the role should be, all fine. But abolish and replace with something more expensive, less popular and possibly damaging to governance?
No thanks.
Mat GB,
Well, funny I swear debate was started by a proposal to scrap an oath of alliegence to the throne not the HRA or any other treaty and the proposals for ‘Britishness’ training include the same. Sound horribly like subjects to me…not citizens of a modern democracy.
Any money spent maintaining a family purely because of its lineage is a waste. There are far more deserving cases out there…people in real hardship. Let the royals earn their money off tourism if thats what they want to do but not from our pockets when we didnt even have a say in choosing them.
How could their abolition damage governence??
How could they damage govenrment? Simple, and I know I’ve been posting long comment so I’ll summarise:
The options for replacement are either worse or pointless.
There. What would you do to replace the Head of State with?
I dont think they have to be replaced. The position of de facto hos would pass to the PM….the powers undemocratically held, which we both agree need ‘sorting out’, to a reformed Parliament.
Mat, its worth pointing out that the only constitutional reason they exist is to maintain those powers…and once they are stripped of them the Windsors are nothing more than another family with a interesting history…
My question to Norman is “Who gives a s**t?” Oliver Cromwell, Benjamin Franklin and George Washington all swore oaths of allegiance to British Monarchs.
calling for the abolition of the monarchy is the logical conclusion of any desire to strip them of their powers…sorry hit the wrong button too early. You mentioned Europe but is it not true that as this forges forward the royal familes will lose even more relevance in those countries you mention. They will be nothing more than a slightly odd curiosity…
“Britain has a whole series of governance issues that need resolving, and concentrating on one to the exclusion of others is damaging.”
I agree with the first half of that statement Mat, but I see no reason at all why people should not apply pressure at one particular point if they feel that is a useful thing to do. The Lib Dem policy document on constitutional reform studiously ignores the monarchy, which is wrong in my view. I really think it should have been subtitled: “Don’t mention the Queen.”
But surely you would at least recognise a moral issue here which nobody has yet raised? How right is it that you should find yourself born into a situation where you are destined to be head of state? Isn’t that antithetical to freedom, and therefore liberalism?
This all came to the fore with the tragic death of Diana. Normally the ex-wife of a president would have attracted only a moderate degree of interest. But Diana was more than just an ex-wife. She was the mother of the future King. That is what raised her status above all reason, created such a market for her image (coupled to the fact that she wasn’t bad looking), and ultimately led to her death.
It really won’t do you know.
I am fed up of public figures being obliged to lie. MPs should swear allegiance to whatever they feel they owe allegiance, and then we will know where they stand. Whether this ought to be the queen, or god, or the voters, is a matter for the voters to then judge.
Same goes for the next king. If he believes in some non-standard version of christianity he should be free to say so at his coronation. This is a matter of civil rights. Did Anne Boleyn die in vain? (I’m watching the Tudors on the BBC again.)
Mat, you make a false dichotomy. Personally I would prefer to simply ditch the system involving a seperate head of state and institute a chancellorship, as per Japan and Germany. This would be perfectly easy to implement along with a move to a proportional system. Since we are happy having the executive power in the government, lets formalise it that way and chuck out the rest.
I agree with you that this is all outside the point of what Norman is advocating. However, while a couple of posts did say the like republicanism the debate around it was started by those against this proposal rushing to declare constitutional monarchy great as their position against this proposal.
Dynastic monarchy or not our Head of State is not merely symbolic, but the embodiment and representative of our sovereignty and freedom. And he/she is the final defence against tyrrany.
I don’t believe in oaths or swearing, but if you’ve got to announce your primary and overriding intention then I’m sure everyone here will agree we believe in defending our freedom, the liberties secured by our state and in using the tools of our state to maximise our individual and collective potentials.
In terrorising our Head of State (as this proposal does) we demonstrate we are able to prevent the state terrorising us, and we would miss that ability if it were lost.
So I will happily defend Norman Baker’s right to support the overthrow of our Monarchy, but I won’t support him in this campaign.
Um, Japan has a monarch (the Emperor acts as symbolic head of state) and Germany has a President.
For a number of different reasons, countries need a head of state of some description. Giving that role to a separate, non-partizan ceremonial figurehead is useful and countries that do this in some way are overwhelmingly the most successful democracies.
I’m not sure what Tinter means by a Chancellorship given his two examples are erroneous, and I’m not personally aware of any countries that don’t have a head of state in some way.
Laurence—yours is the only point thus made that I can’t really dispute, it is unfair on those in the family to be expected to live their entire lives in a certain way, but each has the power to abdicate and/or remove themselves from succession if they so wish. That the current monarch has held the office for as long as she has has probably stultified the institution, change, reform and update used to be mantras of the position, ah well.
“Each has the power to abdicate and/or remove themselves from succession if they so wish.”
Yes but it’s not exactly like resigning your job at the office, is it? The problem with the Monarchy is that its defining characteristic (heredity) is also its greatest weakness. In the past, Monarchs have been completely mad, but these days it would be difficult to get away with it. My hunch is that there will be a lot of instability under Charles. I doubt William will ever be King. His children definitely won’t be. Times are changing. I must say that you and Jennie are the most unlikely monarchists I have ever come across!
Laurence, times always change and they don’t always change in the same direction.
My hunch is that we will continue to have a monarch, but a reformed House of Lords will confirm his/her election, which may mean any future members of the House of Windsor could continue to hold the crown.
Unless there is some kind of major war which breaks our constitution.
Oranjepan wrote:
“Dynastic monarchy or not our Head of State is not merely symbolic, but the embodiment and representative of our sovereignty and freedom. And he/she is the final defence against tyrrany.”
Eh? Charles Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glück-Beck (the heir to the throne) has expressed his support for child-beating and military conscription. So how is he going to defend us from tyranny when he has stated that he wishes to subejct us to it?
You are right Mat, I can’t believe I said Japan didn’t have an emperor! I don’t know what I was doing in that post.
However, while Germany does have a president, theirs along with Switzerland, Greece, Estonia and others is selected by the legislature. This means they are cheap, not requiring expensive elections or the stately expenses of a monarch. This system also removes soft and hard power from the position, creating the miminimum figurehead.
So basically I am advocating that a ceremonial President can be far easier to implement than you have made out, being just a parliamentary appointment and far cheaper than the current set-up.
Far from being the ‘last line of defence’ against tyranny the monarchy is there to act as the first line of it’s imposition….the powers it holds could clearly be used in that way….
Far from being the ‘last line of defence’ against tyranny the monarchy is there to act as the first line of it’s imposition….the powers it holds could clearly be used in that way….
Tinter:
Ah, now I comprehend. Honestly, I’d have no problem with that, and feel it’s the best way of selecting a ceremonial president, however specifically that’s a) not what Republic are campaigning for, and they’re the biggest pressure group on the issue and b) still going to annoy the monarchists and royalists in a pointless manner.
I favour having a constitutional convention to cover all aspects of Government, and then put the results in a series of preferenda to the people—one of the issues should probably the head of state.
Personally I favour a compromise solution of giving most of the reserved powers to the Speaker of the House of Commons (and/or Lords) and clarifying everything else—have a true ceremonial figurehead and leave it at that, it’s just not an issue worth a big fight over and it’ll annoy too many people.
I don’t like the current set up, but complete abolishment just isn’t really a politically viable option, I’d rather fight the fights that do matter, such as STV.
It’s about time we had a proper debate about the monarchy. Their whole existence is sustained by myths, e.g…
they cost less than elected heads of state (not true: Ireland £3m, Germany £10m, monarchy £37m)
they boost tourism (not true: Palace of Versailles (ex-home of French royals) – 10m tourists each year, Buckingham Palace 400k tourists each year, Legoland Windsor gets more tourists than Windsor Castle… and the top paying tourist attraction in 2006 was the Tower of London – think about it!)
they keep the Union together (not true: it is under huge pressure already without monarchy even coming into the debate!)
they ensure political stability (not true: the fortune of being on an island has done more for stability over the years than the monarchy, and anyway, we have had what could be called a civil war going on (N.Ireland) until relatively recently! If monarchy equaled stability, then how do you explain Thailand’s 17 coups since WWII?)
etc, etc…
No good argument for keeping the monarchy, just excuses.
Well Mat, I’m only debating on the internet. Its certainly not an issue I am going to go to the trenches over- I agree that improving governance is more important. I’m happy to advocate it where it is discussed, but its nowhere near the top of my list of priorities.
William, I agree that there are no truly good arguments for keeping the monarchy. However, there is simply no popular will for change. Even the SNP can’t agree on being republican, never mind the general public.
Let’s look a few years down the road and we will, perhaps, be able to see the social progress we have made as a nation over the last 100 years:
King: William V (old Etonian)
PM: David Cameron (old Etonian)
Mayor of London: Boris Johnson (old Etonian)
I want to reiterate the argument that our constitution as represented by our Head of State is the last line of defence against absolute tyrrany. That the monarchy might also be the first step in it’s partial imposition is neither here nor there because there is always a trade off to be made between concepts of autonomy and authority in our common interest.
The statements that the current heir has made which are at odds with public opinion are what raises a question mark over his personal suitability for the role, as they indicate he could br responsible for provoking a constitutional crisis once crowned.
But still I think it is far better that we tailor our institutions around the personality or range of personalities which occupy them than to construct them anew in the abstract with every fact that can be added.
Oranjepan, you are falling into the very American way of thinking. It is not the constitution as it has historically come to be that is so important. It is the commitment of civil society to constitutional governance- that is after all from whence all the power of the constitution stems, not the prescence or lack of a monarch.
There is no particular reason why a change in constitution would change this commitment. Or do you really believe that if Australia had voted to become a republic that it would now be more prey to the forces of tyranny than it was previously? I do not think this is very realistic.
Really, you last line just says its better not to change things than to change as a sweeping statement, showing your arguments conservative basis.
Tinter, I think that’s unfair.
I don’t propose that the constitution is a piece of paper, but the established framework of relationships between actual people in their official capacities.
In other words we admit essentially the same thing with only slight difference in emphasis.
What is missing from thie discussion is the understanding that many of our definitions overlap in their conceptualisation of the situation.
For example the US Presidency bears many of the hallmarks of monarchic state, including executive power over an institutional heirarchy, aspects of hereditary inheritance and a seat which echoes a cheaper version of Buckingham Palace. And yet there are plenty of extreme views to be heard which claim their republic behaves tyrannically!
As a liberal I don’t agree that republican dogma is necessarily consequent to current circumstances and I disagree that opposing dogma is a conservative trait.
Disagreeing with repulicanism is one thing. However, the arguments that you advance were that a change in agreements necessarily carries an increased risk of tyranny. I do not think it is unfair to call this a conservative assertion.
I don’t think its quite the same. I am emphasising nothing to do with the current hierachy, or even the general hierachy.
Rather, I am refering to society as a wholes will that there be such a system whatsoever, not its attachment to a current one.
So long as constitutional means are used to advance any constitutional change with public support, there is no increased risk of tyranny just because of the change having occured, as society will remain commited to constitutional democracy as a concept.
Since I don’t support an executive presidency I’m going to leave your analogy aside. I am not suggesting a republic will give us greater proof against tyranny- I just disagree with you that there would be an increase in risk.
Tinter, you’re making inferences which aren’t there.
I think we both oppose tyrrany and dogma and we both seek any changes to be made on an agreed basis.
It is possible that the only difference between us is the perspective we choose to emphasise, ie whether any form of limited tyrrany is acceptable or how to minimise any existing tyrrany. Is there more than a hair’s bredth between the two?
I was trying to advance the idea that obsolete definitions condition our perception of our arguments in a way which isn’t always helpful to the causes we promote.
In some senses our UK constitutionalism already engenders many republican ideals of democratic accountability and shows how republicanism can successfully be integrated within a monarchic system, however I think we both agree that nothing is perfect and improvements will be possible.
So your idea of ‘civic commitment’ to ‘constitutional governance’ is entirely in-keeping with the need to adapt government to constituent membership of the polity or nation, albeit through legitimated consent.
The question we face, therefore, is how to prove legitimate consent in some demonstrable form: if free and fair elections confer legitimacy on the body of representatives who provide consent on our behalf, how do the representatives prove their prior commitment to that body without some form of ritual oath to a ceremonial figure of authority? And; if there is no other way, is it better that any such figure is a dull and grey human being or a dead and unresponsive iconic symbol?
As above, it is surely possible to argue that our current Queen is the closest we can get to having both at the same time.
Rather too much hot air in these columns. As I understand it, NOrman Baker was not calling for the abolition of the monarchy, as such. What we do need in Britain is a written constitution and any legislator would be required to swear allegiance to that constitution (whatever form the head of state) as well, perhaps, as his/her constituents. On the question of whether a constitutional monarchy provides protection against tyranny, there is evidence both ways. In Spain, the post-FRanco monarchy in the person of Juan Carlos was undoubtedly importantin the early days in fending off threats to the still fragile democracy. This no doubt stemmed from Juan Carlos’s personality and his life experience, not least the example of his feeble cousin , the King of Greece, who bowed to the colonels and lost his throne. It would be interesting to know the nature of the oath that parliamentarians in the Scandinavian and Dutch monarchies are required to swear. This is an interesting topic and one which requires some common sense, some constitutional knowledge and a little less raving.
Its been said that people born in this country are subjects of the Queen. That may be the case but I wasn’t born here and when I became British I received a certificate saying that I was a “British Citizen” not a British Subject. That was before Maastricht and the HRA as well.