The Concise Oxford Dictionary: Oath; a solemn declaration or undertaking as to the truth of something or a commitment to future action.
On 6th July Edward Spalton had a letter published in the Derby Telegraph, prompted by the "Bombardier"* incident, of which part read:
"So Bombardier is in a long line of British companies and workers who have been consistently rejected by British governments in the name of “EU rules”. We may well ask “Whose side are they on?” From the beginning of the very idea of the EU, British politicians were willing to sacrifice British jobs and industry. Mutual confidence between members of society and their government depends upon good faith. To mark particularly important commitments, people make oaths and solemn declarations - from the Brownies and the Cub Scouts upwards. Policemen and Judges swear to uphold the law impartially, jury men and women to deliver a true verdict, witnesses to tell the truth. Whilst it doesn't always happen that way, we all depend upon the general triumph of good faith for a reasonably civilised, secure life.
On Armed Forces Day, we honoured the willingness of service men and women to fight on our behalf, even at risk of their lives. Soldiers swear an oath “....I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen.... and defend her against all enemies and will obey all orders of Her Majesty...and of the generals and other officers set over me”. Over 350 people have recently died, keeping that oath in Afghanistan. An oath is administered to cabinet ministers when they become Privy Counsellors. It starts in a similar way and concludes “....You will to your utmost bear faith and allegiance to the Queen's Majesty; and will assist and defend all civil and temporal jurisdictions... granted to Her Majesty and annexed to the Crown.....against all foreign princes, persons, prelates, states or potentates and generally in all things you will do as a faithful and true servant ought to do to Her Majesty. So help you God”.
Ministers, who took this oath, made the Queen and all of us into subjects of the European Union, bound to obey dictates of its officials whom we did not elect and cannot dismiss. This is the rottenness at the heart of the state which betrayed the workers at Bombardier and many other firms.The soldiers kept their oaths to defend the sovereignty of the Crown, and so of the country, against all comers. Yet the ministers who give them orders in the Queen's name do not keep theirs."
Of the many quotations used by Eurosceptics to make their case it is worth repeating one, used by Edward Spalton in his letter, from a Conservative Party politician:
"No government dependent on a democratic vote could possibly agree in advance to the sacrifice that any adequate plan must involve. The British people must be led slowly and unconsciously into the abandonment of their traditional economic defences...."Peter Thorneycroft, later Chancellor of the Exchequer, in “Design for Europe” 1947
That statement has, it would seem, formed the basis for deceit after deceit practised by our political elite on the people of our nation - and not just in the 'European' context. The "mutual confidence" to which Edward Spalton refers in his letter can be also described as "trust"; and for decades politicians have betrayed that trust given them by the British people. In any 'marriage' - and it can be argued that the relationship of politicians and the people is such a 'marriage' - by now, the wronged party would have instigated divorce proceedings, receiving substantial 'damages'.
In fact where the relationship of politician and people is concerned, we are continually asked by our politicians: "Trust in me"; which reminds me of the following from Jungle Book - and it needs no prompting on my part for readers to judge which is the politician and which is the people!
Which brings me back to my post preceding this one - Why do we allow this situation to continue? If our politicians are unable to keep a solemn oath to their monarch, how can we expect them to keep any oath made to the common people?
In which case, why the hell don't we issue each and every one of them with the equivalent of a P45?
* On this subject, it is interesting that Christopher Booker, in his usual Sunday Telegraph column, today includes further examples of how the loss of British manufacturing capability came about.