Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

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

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Places » United Kingdom Donate to DU
 
muriel_volestrangler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-30-11 05:19 PM
Original message
Prince Charles has been offered a veto over 12 government bills since 2005
Ministers sought prince's consent under secretive constitutional loophole on bills covering issues from gambling to the Olympics

Ministers have been forced to seek permission from Prince Charles to pass at least a dozen government bills, according to a Guardian investigation into a secretive constitutional loophole that gives him the right to veto legislation that might impact his private interests.

Since 2005, ministers from six departments have sought the Prince of Wales' consent to draft bills on everything from road safety to gambling and the London Olympics, in an arrangement described by constitutional lawyers as a royal "nuclear deterrent" over public policy. Unlike royal assent to bills, which is exercised by the Queen as a matter of constitutional law, the prince's power applies when a new bill might affect his own interests, in particular the Duchy of Cornwall, a private 700m property empire that last year provided him with an 18m income.

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.

Correspondence seen by the Guardian reveals that one minister wrote to the prince's office requesting his consent to a new bill about planning reform because it was "capable of applying to ... (the) Prince of Wales' private interests".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/oct/30/prince-charles...


Seems like we're still tugging our forelocks to the over-privileged. Ideal solution would be to remove the "Prince of Wales' private interests" by nationalising them.
Refresh | +1 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
oldironside Donating Member (835 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-30-11 11:31 PM
Response to Original message
1. Unbelievable.
In a supposedly modern democracy this is beyond satire.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
LeftishBrit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-31-11 07:20 AM
Response to Original message
2. What amazes me here...
is that the bonnie Prince would have so much influence when he's only the *heir* to the throne.

Wouldn't be a model of democracy if it were Lizzie either, but at least she's *officially* the Monarch; he isn't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
dipsydoodle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-31-11 02:13 PM
Response to Original message
3. Refers to 2008 ?
Edited on Mon Oct-31-11 02:46 PM by dipsydoodle
Lady Andrews, a Labour communities minister, wrote to Sir Michael Peat, Charles's private secretary, in 2008 seeking the prince's consent to law changes that would "affect the interests of the Duchy of Cornwall" and were "capable of applying ... Prince of Wales' private interests".

The draft local democracy, economic development and construction bill proposed to change laws about handling disputes and payments in building contracts and to introduce a new regional strategy for planning permissions.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/oct/31/prince-charles...

I still have yet to see anthing to confirm that he did in fact interject.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Anarcho-Socialist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-01-11 03:16 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. "to see anything to confirm"
And we won't. Correspondence between the PoW and Ministers can't be disclosed by Freedom of Information requests.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
dipsydoodle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-04-11 03:41 AM
Response to Original message
5. Prince of Wales told to reveal duchy's environmental impact
Edited on Fri Nov-04-11 03:50 AM by dipsydoodle
Prince Charles's attempts to keep the activities of the Duchy of Cornwall confidential have been hit by a judge's ruling that the 700m estate should be considered a public authority and not a private estate.

The information tribunal ordered that the duchy must release information about its activities as they affect the environment.

The prince's lawyers had fought attempts to access files concerning a controversial non-native oyster farm in a special area of conservation by claiming it was a private estate.

The decision means that the duchy, which provides the prince with his income, will be exposed to significant public scrutiny for the first time and its decisions could now be subject to judicial review under environmental information regulations.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/nov/03/prince-charles...

Article was published on guardian.co.uk at 17.29 GMT on Thursday 3 November 2011. A version appeared on p21 of the Main section section of the Guardian on Friday 4 November 2011. It was last modified at 00.10 GMT on Friday 4 November 2011

Would seem this may be the case which started this issue. :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
dipsydoodle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-04-11 06:10 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. and more here
A tribunal ruled that the Duchy, which provided the Prince with an income of 17.8 million last year, was no longer exempt from freedom of information laws.

Since 1337 the Duchy, which owns 132,000 acres of land in 23 counties, has been the private domain of the heir to the throne.

But after a three-year legal battle by a local environmental campaigner, a judge decided that the Duchy is, in fact a public authority.

The decision means the Duchy, and by implication other royal assets such as the Duchy of Lancaster, owned by the Queen, must abide by some of the same rules of disclosure as local councils.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/8...
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Sep 22nd 2014, 10:11 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Places » United Kingdom Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC