Prince Charles gets to veto government bills

murfitUK · 31-10-2011, 11:21

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/oc...to-legislation

Why is this allowed to happened in a democracy? There is lots of legislation that affects me so why I am not able to reject or change laws?

Welshchris · 31-10-2011, 11:24

because we elect those to make the choices for us apparently.

It would be impossible to have a referendum on every single law change or change to legeslation in the country.

danielf · 31-10-2011, 11:35

I think the point is that someone who isn't elected appears to be able to make some choices for us.

And everyone is keeping stumm about why this is allowed. Quite shocking to be honest.

BenMcr · 31-10-2011, 11:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by danielf

And everyone is keeping stumm about why this is allowed. Quite shocking to be honest.

Actually, why they have to do it is explained here http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/oc...ent?intcmp=239

**Maggy** · 31-10-2011, 11:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by murfitUK

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/oc...to-legislation

Why is this allowed to happened in a democracy? There is lots of legislation that affects me so why I am not able to reject or change laws?

Quote:

Prince Charles has been asked by ministers to give his consent to government bills that may apply to his interests

denphone · 31-10-2011, 11:44

Again Prince Charles sticking his nose into things that to be perfectly honest he should not be sticking his nose into.

danielf · 31-10-2011, 11:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by BenMcr

Actually, why they have to do it is explained here http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/oc...ent?intcmp=239

Ah. Cheers. I was wondering why the reason didn't feature more prominently.

Either way, it's a shocking anachronism.

**Maggy** · 31-10-2011, 11:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by BenMcr

Actually, why they have to do it is explained here http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/oc...ent?intcmp=239

Quote:

Royal assent is a feature of constitutional law rather than merely parliamentary procedure: it is the method by which a bill that has passed through parliament becomes an act, and it amounts to a formal assent given by the sovereign.
Apart from the special position of property belonging to the Duchy of Cornwall, the Duke of Cornwall has no special constitutional position; he is a subject of the crown like any other. The sovereign and the Prince of Wales are the only members of the royal family whose consent is required for bills that affect their private interests.

So we can be clear that there is no underhand business going on.

---------- Post added at 11:46 ---------- Previous post was at 11:46 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by denphone

Again Prince Charles sticking his nose into things that to be perfectly honest he should not be sticking his nose into.

Try reading the articles before posting.

denphone · 31-10-2011, 12:02

Mmmm l read the Guardian online every morning.

**Hugh** · 31-10-2011, 12:05

You obviously missed the bit in Ben's link when you read it yesterday..

**Chris** · 31-10-2011, 12:05

"gets a veto" and "must give consent" are two rather different propositions and it pays to notice which of those terms is actually used in the article under discussion.

danielf · 31-10-2011, 12:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris

"gets a veto" and "must give consent" are two rather different propositions and it pays to notice which of those terms is actually used in the article under discussion.

Headline:

Quote:

Prince Charles has been offered a veto over 12 government bills since 2005

Also:

Quote:

Neither the government nor Clarence House will reveal what, if any, alterations to legislation Charles has requested, or exactly why he was asked to grant consent to such a wide range of laws.

No information is forthcoming over whether this is a simple formality, or if the Prince has actually requested changes to planned legislation.

**Chris** · 31-10-2011, 12:15

Headlines are never a good guide to the facts. Believe me, I know.

That said, when both Grauniad articles linked in this thread are read together, the one thing that is clear is that the Grauniad hasn't got a clue whether these powers of consent are ever actually used, or if they amount to a formality, i.e. consent must be sought, but consent is never withheld.

danielf · 31-10-2011, 12:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris

Headlines are never a good guide to the facts. Believe me, I know.

That said, when both Grauniad articles linked in this thread are read together, the one thing that is clear is that the Grauniad hasn't got a clue whether these powers of consent are ever actually used, or if they amount to a formality, i.e. consent must be sought, but consent is never withheld.

Yes, and that's the rub. This being a formality with proposed legislation never being contested is one thing. If the Prince does contest legislation, it's something that needs sorting straightaway, in a system where the powers of the monarchy are supposedly ceremonial.

But nobody will tell which it is.

**Damien** · 31-10-2011, 12:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris

Headlines are never a good guide to the facts. Believe me, I know.

That said, when both Grauniad articles linked in this thread are read together, the one thing that is clear is that the Grauniad hasn't got a clue whether these powers of consent are ever actually used, or if they amount to a formality, i.e. consent must be sought, but consent is never withheld.

From my reading it's clear they do not know if he was sought concessions to the bills in order to provide consent. However I think the story is that he would need to provide consent in the first place, as far as I was aware there was only Royal assent which was automatically granted to every bill that made it to that stage.