Prince Charles gets to veto government bills

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

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.

Trust is good I suppose, but at the same time you acknowledge that this issue could bring the constitution to its knees.

I realise that the UK constitution is a somewhat cobbled together string of historical accidents, so some of these issues are unavoidable. What worries me however is that no-one appears to be willing to give the public any assurances that these powers aren't acted upon. As I said before, I think we have a right to know what the deal is here. Brushing it under the carpet makes a mockery of our democracy.

[chris9991]

If they're got nothing to hide then why don't the publish all the details? If any policies were changed what have they got to be frightened of?

Originally Posted by chris9991

If they're got nothing to hide then why don't the publish all the details? If any policies were changed what have they got to be frightened of?

Because the operating principle of the Civil Service is not to divulge anything you don't have to.

"if you're not hiding something then you would publish it" doesn't cut any ice with them, and nor should it - as an argument it's flawed anyway, because it suggests that covering something up is the only reason not to submit it to scrutiny.

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by Chris

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.

sorry if thats how you understood it, the way I meant it was asking you if you found it suspicous. If you dont then thats fine, everyone has their own view.