V1461 – Monarchy (Secularism) Bill 2019 (Amended First Reading) Watch

Poll: Should this bill be passed into law?
As many as are of the opinion, aye (37)
77.08%
Of the contrary, no (8)
16.67%
Abstain (3)
6.25%
This discussion is closed.
Saracen's Fez
  • Community Assistant
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 4 weeks ago
#1
V1461 – Monarchy (Secularism) Bill 2019 (Amended First Reading), TSR Labour Party

Monarchy (Secularism) Bill 2019

An Act to make the UK more secular by allowing the monarch to be any religon they wish, allowing the monarch or CoE to decline the post of Supreme Governor of the Church of England and remove the Lords Spiritual from their seats in the House of Lords when they retire.

BE IT ENACTED by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—

1. Royal religious freedoms.
(1) That there shall be no restrictions on what religion the monarch or any of the royal family choose to be.

2. Supreme Governor of the Church of England
(1) The monarch hold the title of Supreme Governor of the Church of England; unless
iiii(a) The monarch refuses the role; or
iiii(b) The Archbishop of Canterbury declines to offer the title to the monarch.
(2) If the monarch does not hold the title the role will be fulfilled by the Archbishop of Canterbury.

3. Lords Spiritual
(1) Where a vacancy arises among the Lords Spiritual in the House of Lords that vacancy is not able to be replaced.

4. Commencement, Short Title and Extent
(1) This bill shall come into force on 6th April 2022.
(2) This bill may be cited as the Monarchy (Secularism) Act 2019.
(3) This bill extends to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

NotesMr Speaker, The TSR Labour Party recognises the contribution that our Monarchy makes to the UK, while also accepting that legislation concerning the monarchy has failed to keep up with the role that the royal family play in modern Britain. While the argument that if you were designing a democracy from scratch you would not create a monarchy is true, TSR Labour recognises that History shows how hard it is to create a democracy from scratch and recognise the stability our tradition gives to our democracy.

Mr Speaker, today we bring forth this bill with the hopes of modernising parts of the British Monarchy to allow it to continue to be compatible with the role it will play in the 21st century.

2. This is partly just to make us more secular (as it's a ceremonial role anyway), however, it also helps avoid a potential minor constitutional crisis in the future. As the Succession to the Crown Act 2013 allows for Catholics to take the thrown, the current situation could result in a Catholic monarch being forced to become Governor of the Church of England. The status quo would be able to continue, as long as both the monarch and the CoE agreed.


Second ReadingMr Speaker, this Bill represents the third part of our original Monarchy bill. We have already explained our reasons for splitting this during the second reading of that bill, so we will not go over that again.

As was pointed out by JD when this was debated last, the monarch cannot currently be a Catholic, the Succession Act 2015 merely allows for the monarch to marry a royal. For the reasons explained below the TSR Labour party feels that this is perhaps even worse than the previous rule, and thus we have added a section to amend that.

1. The TSR Labour party believes in a secular Britain, and thus that the requirement for a monarch to not be Catholic to be against our national ideas. Further, the allowance for a monarch to marry a Catholic creates further problems due to a Catholics religious obligation to raise their children Catholic. We believe that the easiest way to avoid problems is to simply remove the role of religion from the process.


DivisonFor division, section 2 has been rewritten. The monarch and CoE can still decline to give that role to the monarch, however the deafult position is still for the monarch to fill that role. It also makes the role be filled by the Archbishop of Canterbury if that section is activated, to provide clarity to members of this house, even if I would rather this was left up to the CoE.

Section 3 has also been added. This would slowly remove the CoEs representation in the HoL as they would not be replaced as the seats became vacant. This is mostly to make a more secular governement in line with the aims of this bill, however this takes on a bigger importance under this bill. This is because this bill opens up the governership of the CoE to someone other than the monarch, who appoints these positions on the advice of the PM. To provent this being done without the input of the UK government could lead to problems, so we feel that removing the 26 seats allocated to the CoE in the HoL is the best course of action.
0
ns_2
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#2
Report 4 weeks ago
#2
Nice to see comments being taken on board surrounding defining the Leader of the Church.
0
CatusStarbright
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#3
Report 4 weeks ago
#3
I can support this.
0
JMR2019.
  • Community Assistant
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#4
Report 4 weeks ago
#4
Aye
1
DayneD89
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#5
Report 4 weeks ago
#5
(Original post by ns_2)
Nice to see comments being taken on board surrounding defining the Leader of the Church.
Always happy to take on board genuine suggestions I may be on the extreme end of politics, but I'm also pragmatic.

After all, id cut out the monarchy altogether
1
CatusStarbright
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#6
Report 4 weeks ago
#6
(Original post by DayneD89)
After all, id cut out the monarchy altogether
Boo hiss.
0
DayneD89
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#7
Report 4 weeks ago
#7
(Original post by CatusStarbright)
Boo hiss.
XD Don't worry, this is our official policy, modernisation rather than removal.

... That can wait till the revolution
0
CatusStarbright
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#8
Report 4 weeks ago
#8
(Original post by DayneD89)
XD Don't worry, this is our official policy, modernisation rather than removal.

... That can wait till the revolution
*prepares bunker*
0
SoggyCabbages
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#9
Report 4 weeks ago
#9
Aye, another glorious bill from the Labour Party!
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#10
Report 4 weeks ago
#10
(Original post by CatusStarbright)
Boo hiss.
You boo and hiss and yet are basically doing the same
0
CatusStarbright
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#11
Report 4 weeks ago
#11
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
You boo and hiss and yet are basically doing the same
Well not really.
0
04MR17
  • Community Assistant
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#12
Report 4 weeks ago
#12
It is excellent to see the author making use of Division changes, and second readings to result in change that the house can and will support. Let this practice be a lesson to those in the house who seek to force through items without listening to the house.
0
Saracen's Fez
  • Community Assistant
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#13
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#13
Two Ayes have been removed due to ineligible votes by kazzykat95 and keepholtingon.

One No has been removed due to an ineligible vote by Parliament.
1
Saracen's Fez
  • Community Assistant
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#14
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#14
The Ayes to the right: 37
The Noes to the left: 8
Abstentions: 3

The Ayes have it! The Ayes have it! Unlock!

Turnout: 96%
0
X
new posts
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise

Where do you need more help?

Which Uni should I go to? (89)
16.57%
How successful will I become if I take my planned subjects? (55)
10.24%
How happy will I be if I take this career? (96)
17.88%
How do I achieve my dream Uni placement? (81)
15.08%
What should I study to achieve my dream career? (54)
10.06%
How can I be the best version of myself? (162)
30.17%

Watched Threads

View All