How might the United Kingdom become a republic?Why do party's candidature requirements exist in some...
If the railway suggests a 5-min connection window for changing trains in the Netherlands, does that mean it's definitely doable?
Is lack of functional requirements agile?
The monorail explodes before I can get on it
What does "it kind of works out" mean?
How to achieve this rough borders and stippled illustration look?
What species of wasp is this? And how to get rid of them?
Why does the U.S. tolerate foreign influence from Saudi Arabia and Israel on its domestic policies while not tolerating that from China or Russia?
Why does my script create an extra character?
Do you know your 'KVZ's?
Novel where a group of scientists in a spaceship encounter various aliens
Single word for "refusing to move to next activity unless present one is completed."
A pyramid from a square
Why isn't pressure filtration popular compared to vacuum filtration?
Why do people keep referring to Leia as Princess Leia, even after the destruction of Alderaan?
<schwitz>, <zwinker> etc. Does German always use 2nd Person Singular Imperative verbs for emoticons? If so, why?
CentOS 7 -> find: missing Argument for "-exec"
When did the Roman Empire fall according to contemporaries?
Graduate student with abysmal English writing skills, how to help
Are neural networks prone to catastrophic forgetting?
Was the Ford Model T black because of the speed black paint dries?
Why does my String turn into Integers instead of letters after I add characters with +?
Should disabled buttons give feedback when clicked?
Are unclear "take-it or leave-it" contracts interpreted in my favor?
What is this welding tool I found in my attic?
How might the United Kingdom become a republic?
Why do party's candidature requirements exist in some countries?Has the British Monarch ever exercised their right to revoke land “ownership” rights for personal use?Can a monarchy become a US state?How are decisions made by the Cabinet of the UK implemented?Does the United Kingdom, in practice, have other constitutional principles which limit the principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty?Given the principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty in the United Kingdom, how would the UK go about adopting a written constitutional settlement?Can the Queen of the United Kingdom appoint her successor?Can the POTUS be the monarch of the UK at the same time?What is a “confirmatory” referendum in the context of Brexit?Does the UK delegate some immigration control to the Republic of Ireland?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0;
}
If prospective United Kingdom MPs must swear allegiance to the monarch, and if MPs are needed to change laws, how might the UK become a republic, assuming sufficient public support?
united-kingdom monarchy republic oath-of-office member-of-parliament
edited 9 hours ago
Brythan
77k8 gold badges167 silver badges264 bronze badges
asked 9 hours ago
MartinMartin
4451 gold badge4 silver badges11 bronze badges
add a comment |
If prospective United Kingdom MPs must swear allegiance to the monarch, and if MPs are needed to change laws, how might the UK become a republic, assuming sufficient public support?
united-kingdom monarchy republic oath-of-office member-of-parliament
edited 9 hours ago
Brythan
77k8 gold badges167 silver badges264 bronze badges
asked 9 hours ago
MartinMartin
4451 gold badge4 silver badges11 bronze badges
2
The question seems based on the exceedingly odd premise that politicians don't lie....
– Orangesandlemons
4 hours ago
and that you can't desire to replace someone you have sworn alleigence to.
– Caleth
2 hours ago
add a comment |
If prospective United Kingdom MPs must swear allegiance to the monarch, and if MPs are needed to change laws, how might the UK become a republic, assuming sufficient public support?
united-kingdom monarchy republic oath-of-office member-of-parliament
edited 9 hours ago
Brythan
77k8 gold badges167 silver badges264 bronze badges
asked 9 hours ago
MartinMartin
4451 gold badge4 silver badges11 bronze badges
If prospective United Kingdom MPs must swear allegiance to the monarch, and if MPs are needed to change laws, how might the UK become a republic, assuming sufficient public support?
united-kingdom monarchy republic oath-of-office member-of-parliament
united-kingdom monarchy republic oath-of-office member-of-parliament
edited 9 hours ago
Brythan
77k8 gold badges167 silver badges264 bronze badges
asked 9 hours ago
MartinMartin
4451 gold badge4 silver badges11 bronze badges
edited 9 hours ago
Brythan
77k8 gold badges167 silver badges264 bronze badges
asked 9 hours ago
MartinMartin
4451 gold badge4 silver badges11 bronze badges
edited 9 hours ago
Brythan
77k8 gold badges167 silver badges264 bronze badges
edited 9 hours ago
Brythan
77k8 gold badges167 silver badges264 bronze badges
edited 9 hours ago
Brythan
77k8 gold badges167 silver badges264 bronze badges
77k8 gold badges167 silver badges264 bronze badges
asked 9 hours ago
MartinMartin
4451 gold badge4 silver badges11 bronze badges
asked 9 hours ago
MartinMartin
4451 gold badge4 silver badges11 bronze badges
asked 9 hours ago
MartinMartin
4451 gold badge4 silver badges11 bronze badges
4451 gold badge4 silver badges11 bronze badges
2
The question seems based on the exceedingly odd premise that politicians don't lie....
– Orangesandlemons
4 hours ago
and that you can't desire to replace someone you have sworn alleigence to.
– Caleth
2 hours ago
add a comment |
2
The question seems based on the exceedingly odd premise that politicians don't lie....
– Orangesandlemons
4 hours ago
and that you can't desire to replace someone you have sworn alleigence to.
– Caleth
2 hours ago
2
2
The question seems based on the exceedingly odd premise that politicians don't lie....
– Orangesandlemons
4 hours ago
The question seems based on the exceedingly odd premise that politicians don't lie....
– Orangesandlemons
4 hours ago
and that you can't desire to replace someone you have sworn alleigence to.
– Caleth
2 hours ago
and that you can't desire to replace someone you have sworn alleigence to.
– Caleth
2 hours ago
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
Another revolution, obviously. They did that in 1688.
Much more likely, they would politely inform the Queen that the people don't seem to want a Queen any more. If that is really the case, and not just a vocal minority, then after some polite back and forth the Queen would probably step down rather than fighting a civil war which she is unlikely to win.
While many Brits will be true to their oath, consider the difference between the individual monarch, the Crown, and the Crown-in-Parliament (which is a polite way of pretending that the monarch is still involved in legislation).
There is the quip what when it comes to dusty, centuries-old rights and prerogatives, the British monarch gets at most one try at overriding the elected government.
answered 9 hours ago
o.m.o.m.
17.5k3 gold badges40 silver badges63 bronze badges
"The crown has a veto, the crown has one veto"
– DonFusili
9 hours ago
"politely inform the Queen that the people don't seem to want a Queen any more" – but how might pro-republic MPs ever exist, if they had to swear allegiance to the monarch? Only by lying? And if the elected representatives didn't take their seats in the House of Commons, how might such a party ever win enough public support, given that the party's representatives would have no power in the HoC?
– Martin
9 hours ago
Is a revolution the only way? If so, how can one justify calling the UK a democracy, if the only way to switch from monarchy to republic is by revolution?
– Martin
9 hours ago
1
@Martin, one can be a loyal servant of the crown and still accurately report the latest polls. In fact, pretending that all is right when all isn't right would be a lie.
– o.m.
8 hours ago
1
@Martin, there are two options, really. Either your stringent reasoning has detected what Her Majesty's subjects fail to grasp or refuse to admit, that the UK is not a democracy. Or your flawed reasoning is missing a factor in the laws and traditions of the kingdom which means that it is a democracy after all (a de-facto constitutional monarchy with all relevant powers held by elected representatives). It isn't always the larger numbers who are right, but the numbers should give a wise man cause for reflection.
– o.m.
7 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
There are lots of republican MPs (probably including the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition). Some of them have taken the Loyal Oath with their fingers crossed behind their backs.
At the moment, it's not worth campaigning for a republic because polls show that the public is overwhelmingly in favour of the monarchy. That could easily change when the Queen dies. At that point (if enough MPs were republican) they'd just invite the King to step down. If he declined, we would have a constitutional crisis (my guess is that he'd be told his "advisors" had advised him to step down, so he had).
answered 8 hours ago
Martin BonnerMartin Bonner
2082 silver badges6 bronze badges
Thanks. I wasn't seeking to campaign for a republic.
– Martin
7 hours ago
add a comment |
In recent years the constitutional settlement seems to be that significant changes to the constitution require a referendum.
Now even supposing that all MPs took the oath of allegiance entirely literally. There would be no breaking of this oath in legislation to enable a referendum on the abolition of the monarchy. The citizens swear no oath of loyalty and could vote in a referendum to create a monarchy without breaking any oath.
This all assumes a fiction: that the oath of allegiance would prevent MPs from doing anything. In reality, the Crown must do as it is instructed by Parliament. If Parliament says "There is no Monarch" then that is the law, there is no question that a republican Parliament would not act based only on the oath of allegiance. Don't forget that many of the founding fathers of the USA had, at one point or another, sworn allegiance to the King. If the politics require it, the oath is pretty meaningless.
answered 2 hours ago
James KJames K
39.5k8 gold badges113 silver badges175 bronze badges
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "475"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f42890%2fhow-might-the-united-kingdom-become-a-republic%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Another revolution, obviously. They did that in 1688.
Much more likely, they would politely inform the Queen that the people don't seem to want a Queen any more. If that is really the case, and not just a vocal minority, then after some polite back and forth the Queen would probably step down rather than fighting a civil war which she is unlikely to win.
While many Brits will be true to their oath, consider the difference between the individual monarch, the Crown, and the Crown-in-Parliament (which is a polite way of pretending that the monarch is still involved in legislation).
There is the quip what when it comes to dusty, centuries-old rights and prerogatives, the British monarch gets at most one try at overriding the elected government.
answered 9 hours ago
o.m.o.m.
17.5k3 gold badges40 silver badges63 bronze badges
"The crown has a veto, the crown has one veto"
– DonFusili
9 hours ago
"politely inform the Queen that the people don't seem to want a Queen any more" – but how might pro-republic MPs ever exist, if they had to swear allegiance to the monarch? Only by lying? And if the elected representatives didn't take their seats in the House of Commons, how might such a party ever win enough public support, given that the party's representatives would have no power in the HoC?
– Martin
9 hours ago
Is a revolution the only way? If so, how can one justify calling the UK a democracy, if the only way to switch from monarchy to republic is by revolution?
– Martin
9 hours ago
1
@Martin, one can be a loyal servant of the crown and still accurately report the latest polls. In fact, pretending that all is right when all isn't right would be a lie.
– o.m.
8 hours ago
1
@Martin, there are two options, really. Either your stringent reasoning has detected what Her Majesty's subjects fail to grasp or refuse to admit, that the UK is not a democracy. Or your flawed reasoning is missing a factor in the laws and traditions of the kingdom which means that it is a democracy after all (a de-facto constitutional monarchy with all relevant powers held by elected representatives). It isn't always the larger numbers who are right, but the numbers should give a wise man cause for reflection.
– o.m.
7 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
Another revolution, obviously. They did that in 1688.
Much more likely, they would politely inform the Queen that the people don't seem to want a Queen any more. If that is really the case, and not just a vocal minority, then after some polite back and forth the Queen would probably step down rather than fighting a civil war which she is unlikely to win.
While many Brits will be true to their oath, consider the difference between the individual monarch, the Crown, and the Crown-in-Parliament (which is a polite way of pretending that the monarch is still involved in legislation).
There is the quip what when it comes to dusty, centuries-old rights and prerogatives, the British monarch gets at most one try at overriding the elected government.
answered 9 hours ago
o.m.o.m.
17.5k3 gold badges40 silver badges63 bronze badges
"The crown has a veto, the crown has one veto"
– DonFusili
9 hours ago
"politely inform the Queen that the people don't seem to want a Queen any more" – but how might pro-republic MPs ever exist, if they had to swear allegiance to the monarch? Only by lying? And if the elected representatives didn't take their seats in the House of Commons, how might such a party ever win enough public support, given that the party's representatives would have no power in the HoC?
– Martin
9 hours ago
Is a revolution the only way? If so, how can one justify calling the UK a democracy, if the only way to switch from monarchy to republic is by revolution?
– Martin
9 hours ago
1
@Martin, one can be a loyal servant of the crown and still accurately report the latest polls. In fact, pretending that all is right when all isn't right would be a lie.
– o.m.
8 hours ago
1
@Martin, there are two options, really. Either your stringent reasoning has detected what Her Majesty's subjects fail to grasp or refuse to admit, that the UK is not a democracy. Or your flawed reasoning is missing a factor in the laws and traditions of the kingdom which means that it is a democracy after all (a de-facto constitutional monarchy with all relevant powers held by elected representatives). It isn't always the larger numbers who are right, but the numbers should give a wise man cause for reflection.
– o.m.
7 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
Another revolution, obviously. They did that in 1688.
Much more likely, they would politely inform the Queen that the people don't seem to want a Queen any more. If that is really the case, and not just a vocal minority, then after some polite back and forth the Queen would probably step down rather than fighting a civil war which she is unlikely to win.
While many Brits will be true to their oath, consider the difference between the individual monarch, the Crown, and the Crown-in-Parliament (which is a polite way of pretending that the monarch is still involved in legislation).
There is the quip what when it comes to dusty, centuries-old rights and prerogatives, the British monarch gets at most one try at overriding the elected government.
answered 9 hours ago
o.m.o.m.
17.5k3 gold badges40 silver badges63 bronze badges
Another revolution, obviously. They did that in 1688.
Much more likely, they would politely inform the Queen that the people don't seem to want a Queen any more. If that is really the case, and not just a vocal minority, then after some polite back and forth the Queen would probably step down rather than fighting a civil war which she is unlikely to win.
While many Brits will be true to their oath, consider the difference between the individual monarch, the Crown, and the Crown-in-Parliament (which is a polite way of pretending that the monarch is still involved in legislation).
There is the quip what when it comes to dusty, centuries-old rights and prerogatives, the British monarch gets at most one try at overriding the elected government.
answered 9 hours ago
o.m.o.m.
17.5k3 gold badges40 silver badges63 bronze badges
answered 9 hours ago
o.m.o.m.
17.5k3 gold badges40 silver badges63 bronze badges
answered 9 hours ago
o.m.o.m.
17.5k3 gold badges40 silver badges63 bronze badges
answered 9 hours ago
o.m.o.m.
17.5k3 gold badges40 silver badges63 bronze badges
17.5k3 gold badges40 silver badges63 bronze badges
"The crown has a veto, the crown has one veto"
– DonFusili
9 hours ago
"politely inform the Queen that the people don't seem to want a Queen any more" – but how might pro-republic MPs ever exist, if they had to swear allegiance to the monarch? Only by lying? And if the elected representatives didn't take their seats in the House of Commons, how might such a party ever win enough public support, given that the party's representatives would have no power in the HoC?
– Martin
9 hours ago
Is a revolution the only way? If so, how can one justify calling the UK a democracy, if the only way to switch from monarchy to republic is by revolution?
– Martin
9 hours ago
1
@Martin, one can be a loyal servant of the crown and still accurately report the latest polls. In fact, pretending that all is right when all isn't right would be a lie.
– o.m.
8 hours ago
1
@Martin, there are two options, really. Either your stringent reasoning has detected what Her Majesty's subjects fail to grasp or refuse to admit, that the UK is not a democracy. Or your flawed reasoning is missing a factor in the laws and traditions of the kingdom which means that it is a democracy after all (a de-facto constitutional monarchy with all relevant powers held by elected representatives). It isn't always the larger numbers who are right, but the numbers should give a wise man cause for reflection.
– o.m.
7 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
"The crown has a veto, the crown has one veto"
– DonFusili
9 hours ago
"politely inform the Queen that the people don't seem to want a Queen any more" – but how might pro-republic MPs ever exist, if they had to swear allegiance to the monarch? Only by lying? And if the elected representatives didn't take their seats in the House of Commons, how might such a party ever win enough public support, given that the party's representatives would have no power in the HoC?
– Martin
9 hours ago
Is a revolution the only way? If so, how can one justify calling the UK a democracy, if the only way to switch from monarchy to republic is by revolution?
– Martin
9 hours ago
1
@Martin, one can be a loyal servant of the crown and still accurately report the latest polls. In fact, pretending that all is right when all isn't right would be a lie.
– o.m.
8 hours ago
1
@Martin, there are two options, really. Either your stringent reasoning has detected what Her Majesty's subjects fail to grasp or refuse to admit, that the UK is not a democracy. Or your flawed reasoning is missing a factor in the laws and traditions of the kingdom which means that it is a democracy after all (a de-facto constitutional monarchy with all relevant powers held by elected representatives). It isn't always the larger numbers who are right, but the numbers should give a wise man cause for reflection.
– o.m.
7 hours ago
"The crown has a veto, the crown has one veto"
– DonFusili
9 hours ago
"The crown has a veto, the crown has one veto"
– DonFusili
9 hours ago
"politely inform the Queen that the people don't seem to want a Queen any more" – but how might pro-republic MPs ever exist, if they had to swear allegiance to the monarch? Only by lying? And if the elected representatives didn't take their seats in the House of Commons, how might such a party ever win enough public support, given that the party's representatives would have no power in the HoC?
– Martin
9 hours ago
"politely inform the Queen that the people don't seem to want a Queen any more" – but how might pro-republic MPs ever exist, if they had to swear allegiance to the monarch? Only by lying? And if the elected representatives didn't take their seats in the House of Commons, how might such a party ever win enough public support, given that the party's representatives would have no power in the HoC?
– Martin
9 hours ago
Is a revolution the only way? If so, how can one justify calling the UK a democracy, if the only way to switch from monarchy to republic is by revolution?
– Martin
9 hours ago
Is a revolution the only way? If so, how can one justify calling the UK a democracy, if the only way to switch from monarchy to republic is by revolution?
– Martin
9 hours ago
1
1
@Martin, one can be a loyal servant of the crown and still accurately report the latest polls. In fact, pretending that all is right when all isn't right would be a lie.
– o.m.
8 hours ago
@Martin, one can be a loyal servant of the crown and still accurately report the latest polls. In fact, pretending that all is right when all isn't right would be a lie.
– o.m.
8 hours ago
1
1
@Martin, there are two options, really. Either your stringent reasoning has detected what Her Majesty's subjects fail to grasp or refuse to admit, that the UK is not a democracy. Or your flawed reasoning is missing a factor in the laws and traditions of the kingdom which means that it is a democracy after all (a de-facto constitutional monarchy with all relevant powers held by elected representatives). It isn't always the larger numbers who are right, but the numbers should give a wise man cause for reflection.
– o.m.
7 hours ago
@Martin, there are two options, really. Either your stringent reasoning has detected what Her Majesty's subjects fail to grasp or refuse to admit, that the UK is not a democracy. Or your flawed reasoning is missing a factor in the laws and traditions of the kingdom which means that it is a democracy after all (a de-facto constitutional monarchy with all relevant powers held by elected representatives). It isn't always the larger numbers who are right, but the numbers should give a wise man cause for reflection.
– o.m.
7 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
There are lots of republican MPs (probably including the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition). Some of them have taken the Loyal Oath with their fingers crossed behind their backs.
At the moment, it's not worth campaigning for a republic because polls show that the public is overwhelmingly in favour of the monarchy. That could easily change when the Queen dies. At that point (if enough MPs were republican) they'd just invite the King to step down. If he declined, we would have a constitutional crisis (my guess is that he'd be told his "advisors" had advised him to step down, so he had).
answered 8 hours ago
Martin BonnerMartin Bonner
2082 silver badges6 bronze badges
Thanks. I wasn't seeking to campaign for a republic.
– Martin
7 hours ago
add a comment |
There are lots of republican MPs (probably including the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition). Some of them have taken the Loyal Oath with their fingers crossed behind their backs.
At the moment, it's not worth campaigning for a republic because polls show that the public is overwhelmingly in favour of the monarchy. That could easily change when the Queen dies. At that point (if enough MPs were republican) they'd just invite the King to step down. If he declined, we would have a constitutional crisis (my guess is that he'd be told his "advisors" had advised him to step down, so he had).
answered 8 hours ago
Martin BonnerMartin Bonner
2082 silver badges6 bronze badges
Thanks. I wasn't seeking to campaign for a republic.
– Martin
7 hours ago
add a comment |
There are lots of republican MPs (probably including the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition). Some of them have taken the Loyal Oath with their fingers crossed behind their backs.
At the moment, it's not worth campaigning for a republic because polls show that the public is overwhelmingly in favour of the monarchy. That could easily change when the Queen dies. At that point (if enough MPs were republican) they'd just invite the King to step down. If he declined, we would have a constitutional crisis (my guess is that he'd be told his "advisors" had advised him to step down, so he had).
answered 8 hours ago
Martin BonnerMartin Bonner
2082 silver badges6 bronze badges
There are lots of republican MPs (probably including the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition). Some of them have taken the Loyal Oath with their fingers crossed behind their backs.
At the moment, it's not worth campaigning for a republic because polls show that the public is overwhelmingly in favour of the monarchy. That could easily change when the Queen dies. At that point (if enough MPs were republican) they'd just invite the King to step down. If he declined, we would have a constitutional crisis (my guess is that he'd be told his "advisors" had advised him to step down, so he had).
answered 8 hours ago
Martin BonnerMartin Bonner
2082 silver badges6 bronze badges
answered 8 hours ago
Martin BonnerMartin Bonner
2082 silver badges6 bronze badges
answered 8 hours ago
Martin BonnerMartin Bonner
2082 silver badges6 bronze badges
answered 8 hours ago
Martin BonnerMartin Bonner
2082 silver badges6 bronze badges
2082 silver badges6 bronze badges
Thanks. I wasn't seeking to campaign for a republic.
– Martin
7 hours ago
add a comment |
Thanks. I wasn't seeking to campaign for a republic.
– Martin
7 hours ago
Thanks. I wasn't seeking to campaign for a republic.
– Martin
7 hours ago
Thanks. I wasn't seeking to campaign for a republic.
– Martin
7 hours ago
add a comment |
In recent years the constitutional settlement seems to be that significant changes to the constitution require a referendum.
Now even supposing that all MPs took the oath of allegiance entirely literally. There would be no breaking of this oath in legislation to enable a referendum on the abolition of the monarchy. The citizens swear no oath of loyalty and could vote in a referendum to create a monarchy without breaking any oath.
This all assumes a fiction: that the oath of allegiance would prevent MPs from doing anything. In reality, the Crown must do as it is instructed by Parliament. If Parliament says "There is no Monarch" then that is the law, there is no question that a republican Parliament would not act based only on the oath of allegiance. Don't forget that many of the founding fathers of the USA had, at one point or another, sworn allegiance to the King. If the politics require it, the oath is pretty meaningless.
answered 2 hours ago
James KJames K
39.5k8 gold badges113 silver badges175 bronze badges
add a comment |
In recent years the constitutional settlement seems to be that significant changes to the constitution require a referendum.
Now even supposing that all MPs took the oath of allegiance entirely literally. There would be no breaking of this oath in legislation to enable a referendum on the abolition of the monarchy. The citizens swear no oath of loyalty and could vote in a referendum to create a monarchy without breaking any oath.
This all assumes a fiction: that the oath of allegiance would prevent MPs from doing anything. In reality, the Crown must do as it is instructed by Parliament. If Parliament says "There is no Monarch" then that is the law, there is no question that a republican Parliament would not act based only on the oath of allegiance. Don't forget that many of the founding fathers of the USA had, at one point or another, sworn allegiance to the King. If the politics require it, the oath is pretty meaningless.
answered 2 hours ago
James KJames K
39.5k8 gold badges113 silver badges175 bronze badges
add a comment |
In recent years the constitutional settlement seems to be that significant changes to the constitution require a referendum.
Now even supposing that all MPs took the oath of allegiance entirely literally. There would be no breaking of this oath in legislation to enable a referendum on the abolition of the monarchy. The citizens swear no oath of loyalty and could vote in a referendum to create a monarchy without breaking any oath.
This all assumes a fiction: that the oath of allegiance would prevent MPs from doing anything. In reality, the Crown must do as it is instructed by Parliament. If Parliament says "There is no Monarch" then that is the law, there is no question that a republican Parliament would not act based only on the oath of allegiance. Don't forget that many of the founding fathers of the USA had, at one point or another, sworn allegiance to the King. If the politics require it, the oath is pretty meaningless.
answered 2 hours ago
James KJames K
39.5k8 gold badges113 silver badges175 bronze badges
In recent years the constitutional settlement seems to be that significant changes to the constitution require a referendum.
Now even supposing that all MPs took the oath of allegiance entirely literally. There would be no breaking of this oath in legislation to enable a referendum on the abolition of the monarchy. The citizens swear no oath of loyalty and could vote in a referendum to create a monarchy without breaking any oath.
This all assumes a fiction: that the oath of allegiance would prevent MPs from doing anything. In reality, the Crown must do as it is instructed by Parliament. If Parliament says "There is no Monarch" then that is the law, there is no question that a republican Parliament would not act based only on the oath of allegiance. Don't forget that many of the founding fathers of the USA had, at one point or another, sworn allegiance to the King. If the politics require it, the oath is pretty meaningless.
answered 2 hours ago
James KJames K
39.5k8 gold badges113 silver badges175 bronze badges
answered 2 hours ago
James KJames K
39.5k8 gold badges113 silver badges175 bronze badges
answered 2 hours ago
James KJames K
39.5k8 gold badges113 silver badges175 bronze badges
answered 2 hours ago
James KJames K
39.5k8 gold badges113 silver badges175 bronze badges
39.5k8 gold badges113 silver badges175 bronze badges
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Politics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f42890%2fhow-might-the-united-kingdom-become-a-republic%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
2
The question seems based on the exceedingly odd premise that politicians don't lie....
– Orangesandlemons
4 hours ago
and that you can't desire to replace someone you have sworn alleigence to.
– Caleth
2 hours ago