A small group of republican MPs are objecting to being obliged to swear [or affirm] allegiance to the Queen--who last time I checked remains at the legal center of Britain's constitution, whether these sniveling petulant traitors like it or not. What worries me is not so much this republican minority, but the potentially greater number of spineless moderates like former "Conservative" Transport Minister Peter Bottomley who are not exactly republicans themselves but would cater to the tender sensibilities of such scum by making the oath optional. Far more truly Conservative is the attitude of Tory MP Geoffrey Cox, who has no tolerance for what he rightly denounces as "constitutional vandalism." The oath must remain mandatory--if leftists don't like it, no one is forcing them to serve in Parliament.
Controversies like this always make me wonder if there is a single republican legislature in the world that would even tolerate the presence of monarchist members openly contemptuous of the constitutional foundation of the government they purport to serve, let alone actually consider changing parliamentary procedure to accommodate them. I don't think so. So which system is it that is more conducive to permitting the "freedom," "tolerance," and "diversity" republicans claim to love so much: republicanism or constitutional monarchy?