HeadingNorth Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 If he ever refuses assent on a bill the PM gives him what will be the result? The PM will go back to the House, and tell them. There will be a debate on the Monarchy, and the Monarchy will be dissolved. Result, a Republic. Which is why, for the last three hundred years, no monarch ever has refused assent on a bill, and no monarch ever will. The only time any monarch would actually exercise their power over Parliament, is if a government intended to abolish general elections. The monarch would call one over their heads. (Which is the most important reason why we should still have one.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 Balpin is wrong, of course- because such 'dissolution' would need an Act of Parliament. No Assent, you see! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyofborg Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 Typical right wing attempt to close down debate. The monarchy a have no place in any modern society - they are expensive, undemocratic, and totally unaccountable. after all, our democratically elected politicians do such a wonderful job of running things don't they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyofborg Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 As a Labour hack aren't you a bit embarrassed that an unelected heir is vetoing Labour policy? What's the point in voting Labour if they have to run everything past Charles? there is no evidence that he has vetoed anything or would do and even if he did it only applies to anything which would affect the duchy of cornwall, and given that there hasn't been an effective opposition to any government for the last 30 years perhaps it's good that there is at least someone who can clip the wings of government. And who are his advisers? He talks to plants a lot so perhaps they guide him. good, sounds a lot better than the special advisors the government get http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2011/10/27/analysis-the-cummings-and-goings-of-michael-goves-special-advisers/ http://www.prweek.com/news/1058054/David-Cameron-rebuked-Gus-ODonnell-special-advisers/ and the alternative to the Royal Family? Tony Blair for President!!!:clap::banana::partyhat: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janie48 Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 The person who runs this country is the Prime Minister. The PM will go back to the House, and tell them. There will be a debate on the Monarchy, and the Monarchy will be dissolved. Result, a Republic. there will never be a Republic in you life time and i think you know it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeMaquis Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 after all, our democratically elected politicians do such a wonderful job of running things don't they? Quite right. That's why we should go back to absolute monarchism. there is no evidence that he has vetoed anything or would do and even if he did it only applies to anything which would affect the duchy of cornwall, and given that there hasn't been an effective opposition to any government for the last 30 years perhaps it's good that there is at least someone who can clip the wings of government. No evidence? See http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/oct/30/prince-charles-offered-veto-legislation What affects the Duchy of Cornwall also affects other parts of the economy. The bloke earns £18 million a year. He could afford to let go of a few privileges. It's not as if the money has made him a well-rounded human being. As for clipping the wings of government, like andyofborg you think vested privilege is a safeguard against the abuse of power when in fact people like Charlie don't care about anything but their own privileges and are an abuse of power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeMaquis Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 and the alternative to the Royal Family? Tony Blair for President!!!:clap::banana::partyhat: You don't have to have any alternative to the royals. The PM could be head of state. You don't even have to have a nominal president like Ireland, Germany and Italy do. And if you think I have any time for Blair you're well deluded. He'd be up against the wall before the royals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGuy Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 Most of Prince Charles's opinions on things are quite sound. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 Most of Prince Charles's opinions on things are quite sound. Be that true or false, it's irrelevant to the matter of the Prince of Wales being consulted on legislation. They aren't asking Charles's personal opinions; it's a constitutional formality, nothing more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moosey Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 The Prince of Wales in his own capacity does not have a veto. As Duke of Cornwall or as Prince of Wales, he is consulted- but that's all. Stop peddling other agendas; instead, focus on the law (and don't believe all you read in some newspapers!). As usual, the facts don't get a response. You're entirely right of course - the media just like to use a non-fact to make a story The last stage in enacting any bill into law is Royal Assent, but it's merely a formality. The Queen doesn't actually veto anything, and neither does Charles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.