Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Except they are

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Yet I cited with both requests examples of them happening in real life, and this motion seems to only exist to emulate real life, so therefore these should be perfectly acceptable.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Kay_Winters)
    Yet I cited with both requests examples of them happening in real life, and this motion seems to only exist to emulate real life, so therefore these should be perfectly acceptable.
    I would argue that the members who do such things should be excluded from the RL house until such a time as they can be grown up enough not to resort to such childish acts, bit given they're left wing and MPs I expect that would kill them, I wouldn't be surprised if it were literally so.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    I would argue that the members who do such things should be excluded from the RL house until such a time as they can be grown up enough not to resort to such childish acts, bit given they're left wing and MPs I expect that would kill them, I wouldn't be surprised if it were literally so.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    That may be your view, but nevertheless if this amendment seeks to replicate rl Parliament, and if that isn't the basis for this amendment then I see no basis for it, then we should allow members to replicate the actions of rl MPs who make such declarations such as Benn did, or cross fingers such as Tony Banks use to, otherwise we cheapen the amendment by not making it a reflection of the rl Parliament, like a forgery of a great artwork, but it's missing some of the small detail in the corner of the piece.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Kay_Winters)
    That may be your view, but nevertheless if this amendment seeks to replicate rl Parliament, and if that isn't the basis for this amendment then I see no basis for it, then we should allow members to replicate the actions of rl MPs who make such declarations such as Benn did, or cross fingers such as Tony Banks use to, otherwise we cheapen the amendment by not making it a reflection of the rl Parliament, like a forgery of a great artwork, but it's missing some of the small detail in the corner of the piece.
    We aren't the EU, does it explicitly say you can't do that? No? Well then...
    And don't pretend you care about doing things properly

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    We aren't the EU, does it explicitly say you can't do that? No? Well then...
    And don't pretend you care about doing things properly

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    It leaves it open for speaker interpretation, which leaves that danger that while a left wing or centre speaker may allow such actions a speaker on the right, such as yourself as an example, may not. It is better to put it in the writing, than leave it open to that interpretation.

    As for pretending to care about doing things properly. I'm happy to admit I think this is a pointless waste of time, however I would like to see if it does happen that the views held by some members are respected even if others in the house disagree with those views.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Kay_Winters)
    It leaves it open for speaker interpretation, which leaves that danger that while a left wing or centre speaker may allow such actions a speaker on the right, such as yourself as an example, may not. It is better to put it in the writing, than leave it open to that interpretation.

    As for pretending to care about doing things properly. I'm happy to admit I think this is a pointless waste of time, however I would like to see if it does happen that the views held by some members are respected even if others in the house disagree with those views.
    You've got the joys of a speaker likely to set a stupid precedent

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I get the idea, but I have concerns that it could hinder turnout where we need for instance proxy MPs who may be unfamiliar with the process to get started quickly. Moreover, I just don't get the point really of forcing people to makes oaths we are all fully aware they don't believe them; if you are of the opinion that loyalty to the Queen is a basic requirement of being an MP, make that case to the electorate. Having people cross fingers, make the oath in protest or what have you just discredits it for those who do actually take pride in it. Whilst I'd be happy to have the thread opened with posting optional, and of course the Tories would be free to compell their MPs to make one if they wished, I don't on the whole think it's the best idea. Nay.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Saoirse:3)
    I get the idea, but I have concerns that it could hinder turnout where we need for instance proxy MPs who may be unfamiliar with the process to get started quickly. Moreover, I just don't get the point really of forcing people to makes oaths we are all fully aware they don't believe them; if you are of the opinion that loyalty to the Queen is a basic requirement of being an MP, make that case to the electorate. Having people cross fingers, make the oath in protest or what have you just discredits it for those who do actually take pride in it. Whilst I'd be happy to have the thread opened with posting optional, and of course the Tories would be free to compell their MPs to make one if they wished, I don't on the whole think it's the best idea. Nay.
    Hear, hear. I hadn't thought of that point but that is another major reason for this amendment not to pass.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    We should also remember that is it constituents who elect MPs, not the Queen nor the Royal Family. If anyone should be sworn an oath to it should be the very people who elect MPs. Even though I agree with Burke on so many things I don't agree with his Burkean view of government, the idea that MPs should sometimes act independently of their constituents interests because overall it is the constituents whom we serve and not the Queen. I see no reason to swear loyalty (besides tradition) to a constitutional figure and I think we owe it to those who elect us as MPs (Of course not how its done on this forum) to swear loyalty to them. Otherwise we are representing people that we do not have any loyalty towards, only swearing it towards a figure who most likely disapproves of 85% of the things we do and secondly, she/he is rarely if ever impacted upon by our decisions.

    For these reasons, I do not believe we should swear an oath to the Queen nor the King; it should be sworn to the public. After all, are we not here to serve in their interests?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by barnetlad)
    This oath does not recognise other faiths (perhaps use those included in the 2001 and 2011 census) nor the Welsh language. So before I would support it, I wish to see changes.
    (Original post by Tommy1boy)
    Provisional Abstain. I agree that we need to swear an oath to the monarch, they are our head of state whether we like it or not. Other religious options should be available. Any UK language should be available.
    In real life, they don't need to specifically recognise other faiths. They could put their hand on a Bible or a Quran or whatever when taking their oath. Also, when they swear by almighty God, it works for theistic religions (e.g. for Islam, Allah is the Arabic word for God, and God just means the deity in the religion, so it works). For atheistic religions, they could just make a solemn affirmation.

    Also, we do not need to go out of our way to include other native languages of the UK. In real life, MPs can take their oath again in another language after doing it in English, so if MPs here want to do that, they may.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by TitanCream)
    We should also remember that is it constituents who elect MPs, not the Queen nor the Royal Family. If anyone should be sworn an oath to it should be the very people who elect MPs. Even though I agree with Burke on so many things I don't agree with his Burkean view of government, the idea that MPs should sometimes act independently of their constituents interests because overall it is the constituents whom we serve and not the Queen. I see no reason to swear loyalty (besides tradition) to a constitutional figure and I think we owe it to those who elect us as MPs (Of course not how its done on this forum) to swear loyalty to them. Otherwise we are representing people that we do not have any loyalty towards, only swearing it towards a figure who most likely disapproves of 85% of the things we do and secondly, she/he is rarely if ever impacted upon by our decisions.

    For these reasons, I do not believe we should swear an oath to the Queen nor the King; it should be sworn to the public. After all, are we not here to serve in their interests?
    Absolutely and that is the official oath of TSR by law anyway.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kay_Winters)
    I'll vote for this with one of two minor adjustments.

    First is that we are allowed to echo the words of Tony Benn and say before the oath or affirmation "As a committed republican, under protest, I take the oath required of me by law"

    Second is if we are allowed to post before the oath of affirmation that we are crossing our fingers while saying it, such as Tony Banks use to

    I don' feel these are unreasonable
    There is no need for the amendment to specify that you could do that. As long as you use the full text of the oath or solemn amendment, you can add whatever you like before or after it and you are still eligible.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saoirse:3)
    I get the idea, but I have concerns that it could hinder turnout where we need for instance proxy MPs who may be unfamiliar with the process to get started quickly. Moreover, I just don't get the point really of forcing people to makes oaths we are all fully aware they don't believe them; if you are of the opinion that loyalty to the Queen is a basic requirement of being an MP, make that case to the electorate. Having people cross fingers, make the oath in protest or what have you just discredits it for those who do actually take pride in it. Whilst I'd be happy to have the thread opened with posting optional, and of course the Tories would be free to compell their MPs to make one if they wished, I don't on the whole think it's the best idea. Nay.
    Then it is the responsibility of the appointer of the proxy to inform the proxy that he/she needs to do this.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unown Uzer)
    Then it is the responsibility of the appointer of the proxy to inform the proxy that he/she needs to do this.
    It's just more bureaucracy and whilst that isn't a major concern, I really don't see much gain either. Those who wish to make an oath may, those who don't would only be detracting from those who sincerely believe it by doing so under protest.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    You've got the joys of a speaker likely to set a stupid precedent

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Precedent can be ignored

    (Original post by Unown Uzer)
    There is no need for the amendment to specify that you could do that. As long as you use the full text of the oath or solemn amendment, you can add whatever you like before or after it and you are still eligible.
    Cheers for clearing that up UU
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Nay. Next to no positive outcomes and a number of negative ones.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    This amendment is in cessation.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Division! Clear the lobbies!
 
 
 
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: July 13, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.