From:
"Ap
I am looking for proof (FACTS) actual legislation, or debates in Hansard where the matter has been debated and all have agreed to the change in the Oath to the British Crown regarding a member of the Police, known as a Police Commissioner.
From a debate in Hansard 14th May 2012 it reads "The oath that we (That sit in Parliament) all take at the commencement of each Parliament is a solemn promise made to Parliament to show allegiance to the monarch as part of our constitutional arrangement. It is the product of a constitutional settlement and it already provides a constitutional lock on allegiance to the monarch".
It goes on ="
A summary of "The Parliamentary Oath" research paper produced by the House of Commons in 2000 states that,
"even if the entire country were to vote in a general election for a party whose manifesto pledge was to remove the monarchy, it would be impossible by reason of the present oath, and current acts of parliament, for such elected MPs to take their seats in the House of Commons, or be raised to the House of Lords, without taking this Oath of Allegiance to the ruling monarch, and to her heirs, and successors. However, there would be nothing to prevent a Parliamentary majority debating a republic or from seeking to renegotiate the constitutional settlement since freedom of speech is guaranteed by article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689".
So, as it stands, the lock keeps out those who are not prepared to show allegiance to the Crown. In the oath we already have a constitutional lock in practice, but that raises the issue of challenges to the requirement to take the oath".
We then have the Sinn Fein/McGuinness v United Kingdom case. In one of the cases, Mr Justice Kerr ruled:
"The control of its own internal arrangements has long been recognised as falling uniquely within parliament's domain and superintendence from which the court's intervention is excluded".
McGuinness, defending the interests of the Sinn Fein elected MPs, went to the European Court of Human Rights. The court ruled:
"The requirement that elected representatives take an oath of allegiance to the monarch forms part of the constitutional system of the respondent State, which, it is to be observed, is based on a monarchical model of government. For the Court, the requirement that elected representatives to the House of Commons take an oath of allegiance to the reigning monarch can be reasonably viewed as an affirmation of loyalty to the constitutional principles which support, inter alia, the workings of representative democracy in the respondent State ... In the Court's view it must be open to the respondent State to attach such a condition, which is an integral part of its constitutional order, to membership of Parliament".
McGuinness lost.
Interestingly enough, the Northern Ireland Assembly Members do not take the oath, but they have to sign the Assembly's role of membership and take a pledge
14 May 2012 : Column 191
of office which sets out in detail requirements and obligations on Members to act in good faith, to commit to democracy, to serve all communities, to commit to participate in democratic institutions, to recognise the role of Ministers and to participate in programmes of government. Their responsibilities are clearly defined. That is my proposal. The amended oath would set out an additional requirement to accept the constitutional settlement in addition to pledging allegiance to the Crown. The oath is a solemn promise made to Parliament." End of Quotes
There is another Standard note Constitutional change: timeline from 1911 Standard Note:
SN/PC/06256 Last updated: 15 March 2012 But it does not change the Oath.
As the title contains the word "POLICE" and will have an important job with magnificent PAY, that person must still come within Her Majesty's Police Force. Therefore the Oath of Allegiance must be solemnly be taken even if the impartiality oath follows on from that. All Magistrates , Judges have to be impartial yet the Oath to the Crown is still repeated. Whether born here and it is "as if that person has made that oath for they have the protection of the Crown from that moment, a person STILL has to say once again that Oath. END
From reading that particular debate, once again THIS Goverment wants a written Constitution etc,etc. The debate starts about half way down this page. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201213/ldhansrd/text/120514-0001.htm Anne
From a debate in Hansard 14th May 2012 it reads "The oath that we (That sit in Parliament) all take at the commencement of each Parliament is a solemn promise made to Parliament to show allegiance to the monarch as part of our constitutional arrangement. It is the product of a constitutional settlement and it already provides a constitutional lock on allegiance to the monarch".
It goes on ="
A summary of "The Parliamentary Oath" research paper produced by the House of Commons in 2000 states that,
"even if the entire country were to vote in a general election for a party whose manifesto pledge was to remove the monarchy, it would be impossible by reason of the present oath, and current acts of parliament, for such elected MPs to take their seats in the House of Commons, or be raised to the House of Lords, without taking this Oath of Allegiance to the ruling monarch, and to her heirs, and successors. However, there would be nothing to prevent a Parliamentary majority debating a republic or from seeking to renegotiate the constitutional settlement since freedom of speech is guaranteed by article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689".
So, as it stands, the lock keeps out those who are not prepared to show allegiance to the Crown. In the oath we already have a constitutional lock in practice, but that raises the issue of challenges to the requirement to take the oath".
We then have the Sinn Fein/McGuinness v United Kingdom case. In one of the cases, Mr Justice Kerr ruled:
"The control of its own internal arrangements has long been recognised as falling uniquely within parliament's domain and superintendence from which the court's intervention is excluded".
McGuinness, defending the interests of the Sinn Fein elected MPs, went to the European Court of Human Rights. The court ruled:
"The requirement that elected representatives take an oath of allegiance to the monarch forms part of the constitutional system of the respondent State, which, it is to be observed, is based on a monarchical model of government. For the Court, the requirement that elected representatives to the House of Commons take an oath of allegiance to the reigning monarch can be reasonably viewed as an affirmation of loyalty to the constitutional principles which support, inter alia, the workings of representative democracy in the respondent State ... In the Court's view it must be open to the respondent State to attach such a condition, which is an integral part of its constitutional order, to membership of Parliament".
McGuinness lost.
Interestingly enough, the Northern Ireland Assembly Members do not take the oath, but they have to sign the Assembly's role of membership and take a pledge
14 May 2012 : Column 191
of office which sets out in detail requirements and obligations on Members to act in good faith, to commit to democracy, to serve all communities, to commit to participate in democratic institutions, to recognise the role of Ministers and to participate in programmes of government. Their responsibilities are clearly defined. That is my proposal. The amended oath would set out an additional requirement to accept the constitutional settlement in addition to pledging allegiance to the Crown. The oath is a solemn promise made to Parliament." End of Quotes
There is another Standard note Constitutional change: timeline from 1911 Standard Note:
SN/PC/06256 Last updated: 15 March 2012 But it does not change the Oath.
As the title contains the word "POLICE" and will have an important job with magnificent PAY, that person must still come within Her Majesty's Police Force. Therefore the Oath of Allegiance must be solemnly be taken even if the impartiality oath follows on from that. All Magistrates , Judges have to be impartial yet the Oath to the Crown is still repeated. Whether born here and it is "as if that person has made that oath for they have the protection of the Crown from that moment, a person STILL has to say once again that Oath. END
From reading that particular debate, once again THIS Goverment wants a written Constitution etc,etc. The debate starts about half way down this page. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201213/ldhansrd/text/120514-0001.htm Anne
Posts
