Tom Griffin (London, OK): This morning's Daily Mail reports on a campaign by MPs against the parliamentary oath of allegiance to the Queen, which has aroused the ire of Lord Tebbit:
This seems to me to be an attack upon the State itself. The monarch is the one embodiment of the State which is outside the political, partisan process.
The people behind this campaign must either oppose the idea of anyone who is non-partisan having a role in the affairs of state, or they would rather be swearing allegiance to Brussels.'
What has sparked Tebbit's anger is an Early Day Motion put down by Liberal Democrat MP Norman Baker in June, although its dire subversive implications were apparently not recognised until the dog days of August.
That this House recognises that the principal duty of hon. Members is to represent their constituents in Parliament; also recognises that some hon. Members would prefer to swear an oath of allegiance to their constituents and the nation rather than the Monarch; and therefore calls on the Leader of the House to bring forward legislative proposals to introduce an optional alternative Parliamentary oath allowing hon. Members to swear allegiance to their constituents and the nation and to pledge to uphold the law rather than one pledging personal allegiance to the serving Monarch.
The campaign currently has the support of 22 MPs and is backed by the campaign group Republic, which has set up a dedicated website.
While it is a laudable effort, one wonders whether the prospect of MPs dividing into roundheads and cavaliers, with some swearing allegiance to the monarch, and others to a vaguely-defined nation, is a coherent alternative.
Perhaps what we really need is a written constitution, drawn up by a democratic process, so that all MPs could reasonably be asked to swear an oath to uphold it.
