Prince Charles gets to veto government bills

[chris9991]

If it was just a box ticking exercise, then the Government could asy that no bill were changed after consulting the Prince of Wales. As they are not saying that, I would conclude that bills have been changed after consulting Prince Charles

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 actually reading it

[Chrysalis]

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.

they havent got a clue because the information was withheld, you dont see that as suspicous?

Don't I?

[Chrysalis]

you answered a question with a question, should become a MP

you dont know if you find it suspicous?

I know what I think, I'm just fascinated by your oratorical style. Your question is constructed in such a way as to require either agreement or denial. If you think I should be an MP perhaps you should be a tabloid hack.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Chris

I know what I think, I'm just fascinated by your oratorical style. Your question is constructed in such a way as to require either agreement or denial. If you think I should be an MP perhaps you should be a tabloid hack.

So what do you think? Personally, I think it's suspicious that nobody will say if Charles has used the powers he has to request changes to proposed legislation. I think we have a right to know. It seems to me that it's pretty fundamental to the way the UK operates as a democracy.

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by Chris

I know what I think, I'm just fascinated by your oratorical style. Your question is constructed in such a way as to require either agreement or denial. If you think I should be an MP perhaps you should be a tabloid hack.

I simply asked you if you thought it was suspicous, then that made you go all defensive for some reason. You still havent answered it of course.

Originally Posted by danielf

So what do you think? Personally, I think it's suspicious that nobody will say if Charles has used the powers he has to request changes to proposed legislation. I think we have a right to know. It seems to me that it's pretty fundamental to the way the UK operates as a democracy.

I suspect that when you do find out it won't have made any difference to you,me and the rest of the universe...

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

I suspect that when you do find out it won't have made any difference to you,me and the rest of the universe...

Which would be fine. I have no problem with this being the equivalent of Royal assent where it's just a formality and bills get approved automatically. I do have a problem with not being told or given any assurances regarding what the deal exactly is here. This goes right to the heart of our democracy, it isn't 'just one of those things'.

Frankly, I'm a little surprised how you can get all passionate about the right to protest, and brush aside potential interference of one of the royals in the legislative process without question.

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

I simply asked you if you thought it was suspicous, then that made you go all defensive for some reason. You still havent answered it of course.

Actually you didn't ask me if I thought it was suspicious. You constructed your post to suggest you already think I find it suspicious and to challenge me to deny it. Forcing a premise on the person you're asking a question of is a tactic beloved of Paxman and the like. In an open discussion of ideas, neutral, open questions are much more preferable, e.g. "do you think it's suspicious?" is neutral; "you don't find it suspicious that ... ?" is not. The former asks for information; the latter implies disapproval of one possible answer.

And I know I haven't answered the question yet. Unlike your good self, when confronted with an entirely new scenario I previously knew absolutely nothing about, I prefer to conduct an open-minded search for additional information before forming a view. One blatantly muddled article in the Grauniad is not enough for me to form suspicions about anyone's motives.

Don't see what the fuss is about ,surely the same Princes perogative would have applied to previous Dukes of Cornwall and why shouldn't the land owner of such a large area be consulted on matters that directly affect him or his tennants

[danielf]

Originally Posted by martyh

Don't see what the fuss is about ,surely the same Princes perogative would have applied to previous Dukes of Cornwall and why shouldn't the land owner of such a large area be consulted on matters that directly affect him or his tennants

Because our system of government is supposed to be a parliamentary democracy rather than a feudal system.

Originally Posted by danielf

Which would be fine. I have no problem with this being the equivalent of Royal assent where it's just a formality and bills get approved automatically. I do have a problem with not being told or given any assurances regarding what the deal exactly is here. This goes right to the heart of our democracy, it isn't 'just one of those things'.

Frankly, I'm a little surprised how you can get all passionate about the right to protest, and brush aside potential interference of one of the royals in the legislative process without question.

Because we have lived with this system for a very long time and I very much doubt that Charles would do anything to bring the constitution he is a part of to it's knees over anything venal.I trust the man,can't see what he has ever done to make him seem an untrustworthy member of the royal family.Frankly I trust him more than I do the entire houses of Parliament.

Originally Posted by danielf

Because our system of government is supposed to be a parliamentary democracy rather than a feudal system.

It has been for a few hundred years ,but i'm sure that his predecessors had the same privilege and no-one kicked up a fuss .