Jubilee've it ?

                                 http://www.republic.org.uk/index.php

Royal Wedding - Do you give a damn?

Royal Wedding - Do you give a damn? - I share Peter Tatchell's view (below), * "An ICM poll poll published in March, found that 79% of the British people are largely indifferent or don't care about the Royal Wedding. One-third of councils have no applications for Royal Wedding street parties and two-thirds have five or fewer applications. There is no great public enthusiasm for William's and Kate's nuptials. Monarchy is losing its lustre. It's becoming just another strand of celebrity culture and soap opera," said human rights campaigner, Peter Tatchell. * "We should start thinking about the post-Elizabeth II era. It's time there was a serious public debate about the alternative to the monarchy - an elected head of state, chosen by the people and accountable to the people. * "This is an issue of democracy and human rights. The monarch is our head of state. The monarchical system is anti-Catholic, sexist and, by default, racist. Catholics are barred. For the foreseeable future, no black or Asian person can be our head of state. First-born girls are passed over in favour of younger male children. These discriminations are out of step with the values of modern, liberal Britain. * "I would prefer a democratically-elected, low-cost and purely ceremonial president, with no political powers and with any citizen being eligible to stand for the post, regardless of their race, gender, class, faith or sexuality. * "Our head of state ought to be chosen based on merit and public endorsement, not on the grounds of privileged parentage and inheritance. They should be subject to periodic election, so they can be replaced if they fail to fulfill their duties as expected. * "Monarchy is incompatible with democracy. It's a relic of feudalism and of a bygone aristocratic, imperial era. The time has come to consign royalism to history," said Mr Tatchell.

Oath of allegiance to the Queen: MPs and others should have the option of swearing allegiance to their constituents instead!!

According to today's Mail Online:

' A group of MPs are campaigning to scrap their traditional oath of allegiance to the Queen, the Mail can reveal. The declaration has been sworn by those joining or returning to Parliament for more than 500 years. But 22 MPs from all three main parties say their 'principal duty' should be to represent the people who voted for them - not the monarch. They want the Commons and the Lords to be allowed to swear allegiance to their 'constituents and the nation' instead...'

Good luck to them! MP's, Lords and anyone else who currently is required to swear this: 'I swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God.' (unless they are atheists in which case they leave out the God stuff and substitute 'solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm') should be given the option of an oath that does not involve monarchy and does involve the people they represent. We are supposed to be a democracy after all, including those who are republicans.