Hansard 7 Jun 2005 : Column 1128
Norman Baker: Does the Leader of the House agree that, in the 21st century, it is somewhat anachronistic, not to say objectionable, that Members of Parliament who arrive here with a proper democratic mandate, having been elected, are not allowed to take their seats unless they have sworn an Oath of Allegiance to an unelected institution? Would not it be more appropriate in these days for an oath to be taken to follow the law, to uphold democracy and to serve one's constituents?
I decline to publish my original letter or his response, as I feel the essence of the exchange will be summed up in my answer to his vacuous note to me on Thursday of this week:
Norman Baker MP
Lib Dem MP for Lewes
Dear Mr Baker
Thank you for taken time to respond to my e-mail. Yes, indeed your note has been helpful, It has demonstrated that, not only are you prepared to lie to attain office but your arguments are mendacious, misleading and duplicitous.
For example and I quote "I have no intention to subvert the state! Indeed I would argue that those who hold the notion that power should be vested in the hands of the un-elected are more open to that charge"
Well, Mr Baker, in what you term our parliamentary sovereign system, over 50% of our laws are now made by an un-elected foreign institution. An Institution to which individuals who are appointed swear an oath of allegiance to subvert the British State. If I am not mistaken, you are a supporter and promoter of this undemocratic process, yet I do not hear you condemn the provisions of Article 213 (2) (ex157(2)) of the treaty establishing the European Community.
Let me remind you, that these un-elected law makers swear an oath before the Court of Justice of the European Union "To perform my duties in complete independence, in the general interests of the communities; in carrying out my duties, neither to seek nor to take instruction from any government or any other body; to refrain from any action incompatible with my duties."
Oh, you may argue that submission to these undemocratic provisions have been made by an elected democratic parliament and are a solemn treaty obligation. You suggest in your note "that we require a "thoroughgoing" reform of the constitutional arrangements in Britain so that the sovereignty of the people is recognised" But let me remind you, the Bill of Rights 1689 is a treaty, a treaty which already recognises the sovereignty of the British people. An act for declaring the rights and liberties of the subject and settling the succession of the crown. The provisions of which require you, before taking your seat, to swear an oath of allegiance.
I ………. swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors,
Under the Treason Felony Act 1848, it is treason if "any person whatsoever [shall, within the United Kingdom or without] devise or intend to deprive our most gracious Lady the Queen from the style, honour or Royal Name of the Imperial Crown of the United Kingdom".
It also states that it is treason if "any person whatsoever shall, within the United Kingdom or without devise or intend to put any force or constraint upon both Houses or either House of Parliament".
Juramentum est indivisibile, et non est admittendum in parte verum et in parte falsam. (An oath is indivisible; it cannot be in part true and in part false).