THE Labour MP Clive Lewis has said that he would like to see progress on outlining democratic routes to a UK republic and an independent Scotland.
The backbencher made headlines last week after he was forced to swear into the Commons for a second time after being threatened with legal action if he did not pledge allegiance to “King Charles’s heirs and successors”.
During his first attempt at swearing-in, Lewis made clear that he was taking the oath under protest and said he hoped that “one day my fellow citizens will democratically decide to live in a republic".
However, his omission of the words “heirs and successors” led to him having to repeat the process.
“I didn’t do it lightly,” he told the Sunday National.
“I don’t like being told to leave the country or to die but I am a republican.
“I did it partly to highlight the fact that our democracy does have problems and that some of those problems stem from the institution that the monarchy is and all that it represents.
“It’s not the main cause [of those problems] but it is a cause and I think the reactionary nature of the response tells you something.”
A law dating back to 1866 essentially prohibits MPs from carrying out their duties unless they swear allegiance to the serving monarch.
Indeed, Lewis faced losing his seat and a fine of £500 if he refused to repeat the swearing-in process.
“Tens of thousands of people voted to elect me as their Member of Parliament,” he said.
“Yet it didn’t make a difference. People like to think we live a mature democracy yet I only get to sit in parliament if I swear an oath to the king.
“Not an oath to my constituents but to someone who has done nothing except be born into wealth, power and privilege.”
Lewis said he was saddened though not shocked by the response of many ardent monarchists to his protest, which stretched from sweary insults to demands he be deported.
“I’ve had this kind of stuff before but it always takes you back,” he said.
“You look at the sheer scale of anger and hatred and it is worrying.
“Do I look over my shoulder a bit more? Of course I do.
“And I don’t like that feeling, the concern that I could be out with my daughter and somebody will say something.
“The language used, people calling me scum, traitor, to leave the country, it’s full of potential violence and it does make me worry about the future of our democracy.
“But history shows us that power concedes nothing without a demand and by making that argument perhaps you lay the groundwork for potential change that may be coming in ten, fifteen, fifty or a hundred years.
“I’m in a privileged position with a platform on national telly – I’ve got to take the opportunity to raise the issue and perhaps make other people ask questions”.
Still, Lewis was realistic about the prospect of the UK becoming a republic anytime soon.
“Look, it’s entirely likely that the monarchy will be around for a long time yet,” he said.
“But if I think if you begin to ask genuinely valid questions then you open the door to change.
“For example, if we live in a genuine constitutional monarchy then why can’t I swear allegiance to the values of a written constitution rather than the monarchy?
“Healthy, vibrant democracies aren’t afraid to look themselves in the mirror.”
The right of Scots to have a path to independence
Lewis added that he would like to see UK citizens asked whether they are in favour of keeping the monarchy as such a question has never been posed in an official referendum.
It aligned, he said, with his feelings about Scottish independence.
“I’d like to see Scotland remain part of the UK in some kind of federated structure,” he said.
“But the notion that our democracy is best served by keeping one of your constituent partners in a relationship against their will just doesn’t make sense.
“Much of the current polling suggests that more Scots would choose to remain in the UK.
“But there should be mechanisms for people to be able to change the nature of our constitutional relationships if they so wish.
“People may choose to keep the monarchy or stay in the UK but you have to give them that choice.
“That’s what genuine democracy is.”
On meaningful reform of the House of Lords
The reform of the UK’s democracy was included in Keir Starmer’s opening legislative programme albeit in a far less ambitious form than many had hoped.
A manifesto commitment to introduce a mandatory retirement age of 80 for peers in the House of Lords was not included in the King’s Speech.
However, the new Labour government did pledge to remove the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the chamber.
Lewis made clear that his own beliefs on House of Lords reform were far more radical than many within his own party.
“A few years ago, Morgan McSweeney [Keir Starmer’s director of communications] contacted me to ask if I wanted to sit on the frontbench,” he said.
“I told him that I had a feeling that I was going to disagree on some of the positions you’re going to take but that I still wanted to contribute.
“I said I’d love to work with you guys on a new political and constitutional settlement for the UK ranging from the voting system to the Lords and more devolution for the nations and regions.
“We had a couple of meetings and I put forward my proposal that there should be a federated structure where the nations and regions would have tax-raising powers and send representatives to a confederacy council.
“It wouldn’t be a second chamber in the sense we think of it but it would involve replacing the House of Lords with elected officials.
“After sending that, there was a period of radio silence. In fact, that radio silence has been indefinite.
“About six months later, Gordon Brown popped up doing what I was going to be doing.”
Although evidently on the left of the mainstream within the Labour Party, Lewis is hopeful that drawing attention to the democratic issues facing the UK will eventually lead to progress.
“The socio-political-economic establishment of this country has a purview of what is permissible and what isn’t,” he said.
“You saw it with Labour watering down the £28 billion [green investment] pledge, watering down workers’ rights promises.
“All of these things were done to show some very powerful vested interests that while a Labour government would be very different to the Conservatives, it would still operate within the parameters of acceptability.
“There’s been a nod from the media establishment that Labour get their chance but there are limitations of what can be changed.
“The monarchy is a no-go area, as is the level of wealth taxes and who owns much of the land in this country.
“So, for me, as a backbench MP, part of my job is to work with civil society and push the boundaries of what’s acceptable.
“If we’re going to deal with the climate crisis, with the rise of authoritarianism, with the multiple crises heading our way in the 21st century, then these things are increasingly going to have to be on the table.”
