Other than a few hopefuls currently peering down from lamp posts, I don’t imagine many readers will have July 9 circled in their diaries, unless that’s the day you have decided to flee the Twelfth for the glories of Bundoran, Benidorm or Bordeaux.
The ninth is when the British parliament reassembles after the coming election. While old enough to know that foregone conclusions are anything but that, it seems likely the Labour Party will be occupying the government benches.
There is not much comfort to be had in the prospect of a Starmer government. He is all too willing to sacrifice principle to the outcome of the latest focus group. But pretty well anyone would be better than the right-wing rabble currently in office. That they haven’t done more damage to the peace process is nothing short of a miracle.
Hilary Benn, if he becomes Secretary of State, will have no difficulty outperforming his predecessors. The north has always been the dumping ground for useless politicians – of the 24 to hold the office, less than a handful have brought distinction to it.
The one who did the least damage was Shailesh Vara – remember him – who lasted just two months in 2022. There will be no tears shed for Chris Heaton-Harris, a politician (and I use that word advisedly) who has redefined the word ineffectual.
I suspect he leaves office knowing less about the affairs of this island than he did when he arrived.
When the newly-minted MPs arrive at Westminster, the first thing on the agenda will be swearing the oath of loyalty to the king. Brace yourself: “I swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles, his heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God.” There is a version for non-believers too.
But there is no alternative for those who do not believe in hereditary flunkydum and who reject the notion that we should pay obeisance to someone who owes his job as head of state to an accident of birth.
No offence meant to the monarch, but Sammy Wilson has more credibility than King Charles – and that’s saying something – because he, at least, has been chosen by the electorate.
Some MPs have found a way around it. Hilary’s dad, Tony Benn, said he lied when taking it. Tony Banks (remember him?) was caught crossing his fingers as he took it. Denis Skinner added to the oath: “I will bear true and faithful allegiance to the Queen when she pays her income tax.”
Nationalist MPs, and their counterparts in the Scottish National Party, Plaid Cymru and Labour, have taken a pragmatic approach, seeing the oath as a hollow means to an end. John Hume’s Irishness was not compromised by taking it. But it is a scandal that he and others were put in that position – and it is even more of a scandal that it remains.
Anyone elected to any parliament should have the right to represent their constituents unhindered.
The requirement for the oath is a feudal hang-over that disrespects the electorate, and is deliberately aimed at undermining those who believe that the United Kingdom will never be a democracy while it has a monarch.
- SDLP leader Colum Eastwood protests against swearing allegiance to Queen ElizabethOpens in new window
- On This Day in 1923: Teachers required to take oath of allegiance to King and government of 'Northern' IrelandOpens in new window
- Would you trust the world to a ‘baby with a toupee’? - Tom CollinsOpens in new window
The argument that, in reality, the king has no power is a nonsense. Charles and his late mother have a track record in covertly interfering in legislation when it affects them; and many of the monarch’s feudal powers – the so-called Royal Prerogative and Orders in Council – are used by governments to circumvent parliament. The Conservatives were serial abusers of this hangover from medieval times.
No offence meant to the monarch, but Sammy Wilson has more credibility than King Charles – and that’s saying something – because he, at least, has been chosen by the electorate
The demand for an oath to the crown conveniently ensures that MPs do not have to rub shoulders with Irish republicans, for whom taking it would be repugnant.
Abstentionism is almost an article of faith for Sinn Féin. And I get it. The electorate know what they are voting for, and Sinn Féin MPs are able to represent their constituents. But it also gets the British off the hook.
One of the first acts of the next parliament must be to replace the oath with one that reflects MPs’ fealty to the electorate rather than a monarch. In such circumstances Sinn Féin should reflect on whether or not their constituents would be better served by taking the argument for a reunified Ireland to the floor of the house.
