Quote:
Originally Posted by Kymmy
I don't understand the argument purely based on the fact that he is currently not our Monarch so can involve himself in politics to his hearts content. After he becomes our King then this thread would be valid but in the mean time all the OP's doing is grasping at straws
|
You are missing the point. If, as a constitutional monarch in waiting, he was politically neutral and did not interfere in decisions that affected his vested or pet interests the you would have a point.
There are no straws to be grasped at here:
Quote:
Paul Flynn, a member of the Commons public administration and constitutional affairs committee, said Charles’s access to cabinet papers was “a considerable surprise” and called for a parliamentary investigation.
“He is not just a figurehead, he has become a participant in national debate and there is no control over his lobbying,” Flynn said. “This means that he is not only the most influential lobbyist, but the best informed and he is lobbying for his own interests, which are not always benign or sensible.”
Cabinet papers contain sensitive draft legislation at the stage when it is shared between secretaries of state for the first time and the papers of cabinet committees, such as those that currently examine issues including constitutional reform, economic affairs, Europe, home affairs, public expenditure and national security.
It means Charles has access to more top-level information about his pet topics, whether organic agriculture, complementary medicine or town planning, than elected ministers of state with responsibilities in those areas.
|
The criticism is valid ..