http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/oct/30/prince-of-wales-veto-legislation?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487

😕

its good to see that someone can run a profitable business in todays harsh economic enviroment perhaps we should let him look after the schools or the nhs

It beggars belief but the UK is a constitutional monarchy, not a democratic republic. There is much to do and reform before these islands can call themselves a modern nation.

its good to see that someone can run a profitable business in todays harsh economic enviroment perhaps we should let him look after the schools or the nhs

Makes it a bit easier when you get to veto laws that don’t suit you though eh?

It beggars belief but the UK is a constitutional monarchy, not a democratic republic. There is much to do and reform before these islands can call themselves a modern nation.

I know, I was honestly shocked by this – I realised we were fairly backward but not this backward….

For those too lazy to read the link

From the London Olympics and gambling to children’s rights and shipwrecks, the list of draft bills scrutinised by the Prince of Wales and his officials reads like the busiest Whitehall portfolio imaginable.

The 62-year-old prince isn’t a minister, an MP or even a lord; in constitutional terms, he is a subject of the crown like any other. But it has emerged that he has a far more formal role in shaping our laws than many people – legislators and civil servants included – ever knew.

Prince Charles is routinely asked to give his consent to pieces of new legislation in what is effectively a power of veto. Since 2005, ministers from six departments have sought his approval for a dozen bills.

Rupert Murdoch probably has probably had more influence on legislation in this country in the same period.

So consider all the bills that he and his mother have waved through these last few decades…

Rupert Murdoch probably has probably had more influence on legislation in this country in the same period.

Probably, but his influence is already fairly well known – doesn’t make it ok of course.

The Irish Republic elect their head of state. Why can’t we?

http://www.republic.org.uk/

I’m a republican, but it makes sense if we are going to have monarchy for the future king to be involved in public affairs.

The fact that his duchy is being run profitably suggests he would do a better job than Cameron et al. 🙂

But to echo ohnohesback “The Irish Republic elect their head of state. Why can’t we?”

I’m a republican, but it makes sense if we are going to have monarchy for the future king to be involved in public affairs.

Hmmm…. but not secretly vetoing legislation that doesn’t suit his business interests surely? It’s hardly very democratic is it.

secretly vetoing

if it were a secret we wouldn’t know, surely?

“The Irish Republic elect their head of state. Why can’t we?”

Why do we need a head of state? Just seems to be tradition, why not just have the two houses but with the second house elected, first house able to overrule the second house on third attempt as current, but second house able to slow down and bring greater attention to legislation being passed.
All we need to do is remove the current royal powers, no need to replace them with another head of state.

secretly vetoing

if it were a secret we wouldn’t know, surely?

Well it’s been secret up until now, and:

When asked about the consultation with the duchy on the children’s rights bill, the education minister, Sarah Teather, confirmed it had happened, but said: “We do not disclose the contents of correspondence with members of the royal family.” When George asked if the duchy made any amendments to the Coroners and Justice Act, justice minister Crispin Blunt repeated the line.

Brilliant, what a shining example of transparency and accountability.

if it were a secret we wouldn’t know, surely?

Sometimes secrets slip out, again its just another example of the “cosy club” that rules the country.

What century are we in? The 20th! I asked John Terry and he’s adamant its 1973

There are many models of constitutional reform the UK can consider, in fact having a written constitution would be a start! Either a more powerful, fully-elected second chamber or an executive president who would be enpowered to prevent the sort of legislative abuse seen under NuLab would be fine by me, but at the moment we have neither option…

People weren’t as racist as JT in the seventies binners.

As for the OP, it beggars belief to be honest. Along with a plethora of problems with the very principle of consulting with the guy by merit of the fact that he entered the world through the queen’s fanny, it’s been kept secret! 😐

Why can’t we?

Look at the government you’ve currently got!

grum – Member
Hmmm…. but not secretly vetoing legislation that doesn’t suit his business interests surely? It’s hardly very democratic is it.

I didn’t say I approved of it. Just it makes sense for the monarchy to have the next in line trained and ready to go.

I think the best position for an unelected head of state is on a pike at the city gates.

the cabinet earlier

People weren’t as racist as JT in the seventies binners.

Really?

We’re definitely heading back to the Dark Ages.

We’re definitely heading back to the Dark Ages.

yes, it was pitch black at 5pm last night.

We’re definitely heading back to the Dark Ages.

That’s why its handy living in’t sticks, oop north. We never left them in’t first place 😀

*doffs cap to his royal biscuitmaker-ness*

OK with the way things are going, government policies, never-ending wars, global warming etc, we could all go right back to the Stone Age. I know some great hillforts (actually I think they’re a bit advanced for then, ok caves), and some comfy round barrows.