Tom Griffin (London, OK): The Government this week published its response to an epetition from Republic's Challenge the Oath Campaign. It makes for an interesting commentary on our constitution:
No oath of allegiance is required of most public officials, including civil servants and local government officers. In relation to those groups of whom an oath is required, the oath is constitutionally important because it is a declaration relating to the supremacy of the Sovereign, which is fundamental to our system of government by the Crown-in-Parliament. Oaths of allegiance to the Crown, or affirmations for those who do not wish to swear to God, are sworn by members of certain professions on taking office, as well as by new British citizens. The Government believes the Monarchy is a vital element in our constitution, personifying both national and Commonwealth unity. The Government has no plans to change the wording of the oath. It's clear that the Government regards the oath as no mere ornamental anachronism but of enduring significance. It is not simply a pledge of personal loyalty to the Queen, but neither is it a straightforward proxy for loyalty to the nation as a whole.
It is, in effect, an oath to the Crown-in-Parliament, the sovereign combination of the Queen, Lords and Commons, of which one element is hereditary, one now largely appointed and one elected in a manner largely prescribed by itself, the slender thread on which our whole democracy depends.
The expenses scandal has perhaps revealed the extent to which that position shapes our day-to-day politics. If MPs behave like members of an exclusive gentleman's club, it is because that is what they are. They are members of the sovereign body, the rest of us are not, and to that extent still mere subjects.
The ultimate symbol of that is that when MPs join, they swear allegiance to the club, and not to the 'strangers' who sent them there.
