.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Tuesday, October 16, 2012

To be a King

The controversy over Prince Charles' private correspondence to UK Government Ministers so as to influence policy seems likely to rumble on after the Attorney General overturned a decision made by three judges to publish his letters to seven different government departments.

The Independent reports that Dominic Grieve believes that the letters reflect the Prince of Wales “most deeply held personal view and beliefs” and “are in many cases particularly frank.” As such he said that publication of the letters, written between September 1st 2004 and April 1st 2005, and believed to primarily concern environmental matters on which the Prince is particularly interested, could “damage … the Prince of Wales’ political neutrality, and “seriously undermine the Prince’s ability to fulfil his duties when he becomes King.”

He said: “The Sovereign cannot be seen to favour one political party above another, or to engage in political controversy. This is an exceptional case meriting use of the Ministerial veto to prevent disclosure and to safeguard the public interest.”

Perhaps the Prince should have thought about that before he wrote the letters. Dominic Grieve concluded: “in my view it is of very considerable practical benefit to the Prince of Wales' preparations for kingship that he should engage in correspondence and engage in dialogue with ministers about matters falling within the business of their departments.

“Discussing matters of policy with ministers and urging views upon them falls within the ambit of 'advising' or 'warning' about the government's actions.”

Whether this decision becomes the subject of judicial review has yet to be seen.
I can't see the Lib Dems in government agreeing with this veto. Could you find out whether the Deputy Prime Minister was consulted on this veto?
Strange, isn't it, that in a so-called democracy, we can't find out if the future unelected head of state is fit to govern.

How is it that the LiBDems have agreed to this veto?
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?