WTF? Prince Charles offered a veto over 12 government bills since 2005
- Thread starter skyscraper101
- Start date
elbows
Well-Known Member
Oh just noticed this thread is now covering the latest Guardian story. I've been discussing it on the thread in the UK forum, including when the stuff about the Iraq bill was known about - it was known about at the time (and these things will be mention in Hansard), but it doesnt seem to have caused a huge stink back then although Dalyell was quoted by the BBC being unhappy about it. I guess we cant rely on the media to draw proper attention to it in a timely manner.
http://www.urban75.net/forums/threa...-veto-over-legislation-they-dont-like.304951/
http://www.urban75.net/forums/threa...-veto-over-legislation-they-dont-like.304951/
I repeat my post from the "Democracy" thread, cos the answer/issue is the same:
The issue didn't cause a "huge stink" at the time, because it was and is no big deal ! The Iraq war Bill that Tam Dalyell was proposing was merely a" Private Members Bill". Private Members Bills, if not specifically supported by the government of the day - (VERY RARE, but in which rare case it gets the required parliamentary time allocated to it by the Government of the day to allow it to go through its many stages), are at the joke " pure show -off and posturing" end of the Parliamentary process. Dalyell perfectly well knew there was no chance whatsoever of his Bill getting either sufficient parliamentary time allocated, or, equally importantly, the required majority of VOTES at any stage of the multi-stage Parliamentary process from his craven fellow Labour MP colleagues, or Lib Dems, to become an Act of Parliament. ie, law. The Government used the technical non award of the Queen's consent simply to put this no-hoper out of its misery, and avoid wasting everybody's time. (Don't suppose Her Maj even knew about it).The gainer ? Step forward Tam Dalyell, with a bit of cynical anti war posturing to please us Lefties, and presumeably his constituents. "Ooooooh you are just such a rebel Tam !" Meanwhile Tam and his craven Labourite quisling chums carry on as the usual collaborator Labour MP's do, having sworn their fealty to The Crown. Iraq gets the "Heavy collateral damage Imperialist Liberation treatment" - and Tam keep slurping up all those lovely expense claims ! (£18,000 for two bookcases bunged in by Tam the Rebel, just before he retired !)
This thread seems surprised that Prince Charles has been consulted on every possible Bill that might impinge on his Duchy of Cornwall interests. But The British Constitution is very peculiar, not written anywhere as a single document, but instead constantly cobbled together via" historical custom and practice". So our current modern BOURGEOIS Parliamentary Democracy is still heavily influenced by our past non Bourgeois Democratic systems of rule, by various forms of Monarchy and Monarchy/aristocracy partnerships. This has left huge nominal reserve powers in the hands of the Monarch. In most periods this is purely nominal - as ceremonial and irrelevant as the State Opening of Parliament. However, in a real social crisis, for instance in which a radical Left government tried to legislate to nationalise key industries, REALLY tax the rich, introduce controls on capital flows,etc, it is really only the crude balance of class forces outside Parliament which would determine whether the UK's capitalist class would ignore "Democracy" and use all this age old "nominal" set of Monarch's prerogative powers to block radical legislation or even "legalise" a military coup. Remember in the UK we are all "Subjects" of the Monarch, NOT "Citizens", and the armed forces swear loyalty to the Queen, NOT, the "people" or even "Parliament". The Queen is the head honcho of the Ruling Class, NOT our big cuddly, politically neutral, pal !
The entire ramshackle UK Constitution is a potential beartrap to a future radical government trying to change the status quo for the better. The reason the Attlee government got away with its (radical but definately not revolutionery) post 1945 nationalisation programme and the high taxation of the rich, and the establishment of the welfare state was because of the potential threat of millions of demobbed soldiers and their relatives demanding radical change - and the ruling class not feeling strong enough to take em on. Today, the bastards think we're collectively a bunch of spineless wankers - so much so that even though they're robbing us blind through the "austerity programme" they still feel confident enough to slash the police force and cut their wages ! Any future radical UK Government would need to frighten the ruling capitalist class with its extra Parliamentary forces to have any chance of getting round the constitutional status quo-preserving beartrap that the Monarch's prerogative powers actually represent. We might need that Guillotine yet !
The issue didn't cause a "huge stink" at the time, because it was and is no big deal ! The Iraq war Bill that Tam Dalyell was proposing was merely a" Private Members Bill". Private Members Bills, if not specifically supported by the government of the day - (VERY RARE, but in which rare case it gets the required parliamentary time allocated to it by the Government of the day to allow it to go through its many stages), are at the joke " pure show -off and posturing" end of the Parliamentary process. Dalyell perfectly well knew there was no chance whatsoever of his Bill getting either sufficient parliamentary time allocated, or, equally importantly, the required majority of VOTES at any stage of the multi-stage Parliamentary process from his craven fellow Labour MP colleagues, or Lib Dems, to become an Act of Parliament. ie, law. The Government used the technical non award of the Queen's consent simply to put this no-hoper out of its misery, and avoid wasting everybody's time. (Don't suppose Her Maj even knew about it).The gainer ? Step forward Tam Dalyell, with a bit of cynical anti war posturing to please us Lefties, and presumeably his constituents. "Ooooooh you are just such a rebel Tam !" Meanwhile Tam and his craven Labourite quisling chums carry on as the usual collaborator Labour MP's do, having sworn their fealty to The Crown. Iraq gets the "Heavy collateral damage Imperialist Liberation treatment" - and Tam keep slurping up all those lovely expense claims ! (£18,000 for two bookcases bunged in by Tam the Rebel, just before he retired !)
This thread seems surprised that Prince Charles has been consulted on every possible Bill that might impinge on his Duchy of Cornwall interests. But The British Constitution is very peculiar, not written anywhere as a single document, but instead constantly cobbled together via" historical custom and practice". So our current modern BOURGEOIS Parliamentary Democracy is still heavily influenced by our past non Bourgeois Democratic systems of rule, by various forms of Monarchy and Monarchy/aristocracy partnerships. This has left huge nominal reserve powers in the hands of the Monarch. In most periods this is purely nominal - as ceremonial and irrelevant as the State Opening of Parliament. However, in a real social crisis, for instance in which a radical Left government tried to legislate to nationalise key industries, REALLY tax the rich, introduce controls on capital flows,etc, it is really only the crude balance of class forces outside Parliament which would determine whether the UK's capitalist class would ignore "Democracy" and use all this age old "nominal" set of Monarch's prerogative powers to block radical legislation or even "legalise" a military coup. Remember in the UK we are all "Subjects" of the Monarch, NOT "Citizens", and the armed forces swear loyalty to the Queen, NOT, the "people" or even "Parliament". The Queen is the head honcho of the Ruling Class, NOT our big cuddly, politically neutral, pal !
The entire ramshackle UK Constitution is a potential beartrap to a future radical government trying to change the status quo for the better. The reason the Attlee government got away with its (radical but definately not revolutionery) post 1945 nationalisation programme and the high taxation of the rich, and the establishment of the welfare state was because of the potential threat of millions of demobbed soldiers and their relatives demanding radical change - and the ruling class not feeling strong enough to take em on. Today, the bastards think we're collectively a bunch of spineless wankers - so much so that even though they're robbing us blind through the "austerity programme" they still feel confident enough to slash the police force and cut their wages ! Any future radical UK Government would need to frighten the ruling capitalist class with its extra Parliamentary forces to have any chance of getting round the constitutional status quo-preserving beartrap that the Monarch's prerogative powers actually represent. We might need that Guillotine yet !
brogdale
Coming to terms with late onset Anarchism
Hey, all you fecking republican scum...check out Che Chuck now....
..or yeah, and some shit about trees and stuff...
..or yeah, and some shit about trees and stuff...
elbows
Well-Known Member
Perhaps the Inclusive Capitalism conference where he spoke deserves its own thread.
http://www.inclusivecapitalism.org
http://www.inclusivecapitalism.org
Probably elbows
I was just reading about the conference in counterpunch. http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/06/25/inclusive-capitalism/
Try to Contain Your Laughter: Prince Charles and Lady de Rothschild Team Up to Talk About ‘Inclusive Capitalism’
What the fuck?
bubblesmcgrath
Well-Known Member
Democracy in action.
Grauniad link
Royal ascent is one thing and pretty much just symbollic (albeit undemocratic but hey). This until-now secret veto of Charles is a bit more troubling though (given his fondness for interferrence in government). If the fact this was kept secret until now isn't worrying enough, the fact his spokesman won't even deny whether he's vetoed anything is more than just a bit concerning too. His recently discovered fawning over Gadaffi doesn't exactly do him any favours either
Bbbbbbbbbbbbut isn't England / UK a constitutional monarchy still?
Doesn't Queenie have her spot in parliament and speechify to the mumblers?
And more...
"The Queen has the right ‘to be consulted, to encourage and to warn’ her ministers via regular audiences with the Prime Minister.
The Sovereign’s assent is required to all bills passed by Parliament in order for them to become law. Royal Assent (consenting to a measure becoming law) has not been refused since 1707.
It is also a long established convention that The Queen is asked by Parliament to provide consent (which is different to assent) for the debating of bills which would affect the prerogative or interests of the Crown. Where Queen’s Consent is given it is signified in each House of Parliament and recorded in Hansard. Consent has not been withheld in modern times, except on the advice of Government."
skyscraper101
0891 50 50 50
But, unlike this everyone knows about the Queen's position as head of state and having a royal ascent. Therefore it's government with a constitutional monarchy by consent of the people. Charles isn't head of state and his veto has been kept secret. It's entirely different.
bubblesmcgrath
Well-Known Member
Ps. Maybe Charlie is being prepped for his future role....
bubblesmcgrath
Well-Known Member
Maybe mummy told him to do it and he jolly well can't tell the queen where to go now can he?
Oaths of allegiance and all...
Plus she might smack his botty and send him to bed without his tea and crumpets. ...
Oaths of allegiance and all...
Plus she might smack his botty and send him to bed without his tea and crumpets. ...
Sasaferrato
Super Refuser!
Democracy in action.
Grauniad link
Royal ascent is one thing and pretty much just symbollic (albeit undemocratic but hey). This until-now secret veto of Charles is a bit more troubling though (given his fondness for interferrence in government). If the fact this was kept secret until now isn't worrying enough, the fact his spokesman won't even deny whether he's vetoed anything is more than just a bit concerning too. His recently discovered fawning over Gadaffi doesn't exactly do him any favours either
Assent!
Fucking blue blood cunts. Choking to death is too good for them. Isn't there a wedding we can invite the cunt to?
ska invita
back on the other side
let them eat Duchy Originals organic original oaten biscuitsHey, all you fecking republican scum...check out Che Chuck now....
..or yeah, and some shit about trees and stuff...
Similar threads
- Locked
