Prince Charles letters to be published rules the Supreme Court

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32066554

Prince Charles letters to be released after Supreme Court ruling

The Supreme Court says letters by Prince Charles to the government can be published, after a Guardian campaign.

The UK's highest court was asked to judge whether the Attorney General's office acted unlawfully when it prevented their publication in 2012.

The newspaper sought disclosure of the letters, written to seven government departments between 2004-5.

The prince's office at Clarence House said it was "disappointed the principle of privacy had not been upheld".

A spokeswoman also said the issue was "a matter for the government".

It has been argued that releasing the so-called "black spider memos" - a reference to the prince's handwriting - would undermine his neutral political status.

Politically embarrassing

Prime Minister David Cameron called the ruling "disappointing" and said the government would now consider how best to release the documents.
He added: "This is about the principle that senior members of the royal family are able to express their views to government confidentially. I think most people would agree this is fair enough."

Mr Cameron also hinted that the legislation could need tightening in the wake of the ruling.

"Our FOI (Freedom of Information) laws specifically include the option of a governmental veto, which we exercised in this case for a reason.

"If the legislation does not make Parliament's intentions for the veto clear enough, then we will need to make it clearer."

Campaign for Freedom of Information director Maurice Frankel welcomed the decision to release the letters but expressed concern that any move now to strengthen the veto could see it extended to more politically embarrassing cases.

"That would be very unwelcome," he said.

"It gives ministers the opportunity to overturn the wheelbarrow every time they don't like a decision."

On the ruling to release the letters, he added: "This is a critical decision which strengthens the FOI Act. It says the courts, not ministers, normally have the last word."

Oh this is stupid.

We live under a constitutional monarchy, not a constitutional democracy. The heir to the throne and future King, as well as senior members of the Royal Family ought to be able to write to ministers on matters of state because after all, their role is to - as Bagehot famously wrote of our constitution....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_English_Constitution

While Bagehot's references to parliament have become dated, his observations on the monarchy are seen as central to the understanding of the principles of constitutional monarchy. He defined the rights and role of a monarch vis-à-vis a government as threefold:

• The right to be consulted;
• The right to encourage;
• The right to warn.

I don't agree with the Prince of Wales on everything but I am glad there's somebody there questioning our politicians.

Thoughts?

[The Don]

A bit amusing since every time the monarchy comes up Dan you mention how they are only ceremonial and don't have any political powers yet now you're lobbying for the royal family to have an influence over politics all whilst complaining about the supposed lack of democracy in the European Union. The hypocrisy is rife.

The royal family has no place in modern politics. I'm looking forward to their public image crumbling once Charles takes the reigns.

[-:Undertaker:-]

A bit amusing since every time the monarchy comes up Dan you mention how they are only ceremonial and don't have any political powers yet now you're lobbying for the royal family to have an influence over politics all whilst complaining about the supposed lack of democracy in the European Union. The hypocrisy is rife.

I have said I oppose decisions from the European Union and its institutions even if they are elected for the reason that there's no such thing as a European demos and thus decisions from a European level can never be 'democratic' as there's no demos to back up those elections. Where's the hypocrisy there? Diff things.

And I haven't said the Royal Family is purely ceremonial. I strongly support their constitutional role to advise, warn and guide.

The royal family has no place in modern politics. I'm looking forward to their public image crumbling once Charles takes the reigns.

It has no place in modern politics you say... but an unpopular President is preferable?

My guess is that you and Republic are going to be sorely disappointed when King Charles III comes to the throne. Indeed, I would hazard a guess right now that like the Queen, his approval ratings are already well above what any of our Prime Ministers have ever had or any of our party leaders have right now.

[The Don]

I have said I oppose decisions from the European Union and its institutions even if they are elected for the reason that there's no such thing as a European demos and thus decisions from a European level can never be 'democratic' as there's no demos to back up those elections. Where's the hypocrisy there? Diff things.

Jesus, do I have to spell it out for you? Complaining about the EU commission because it's 'undemocratic' whilst in the same breath wishing the royal family had an influence over politics is perhaps one of the most hypocritical things i've seen.

It has no place in modern politics you say... but an unpopular President is preferable?

If you think the members of one particular family should have a pivotal role in our society simply because of who their ancestors are then more for you. I don't think democracy should be thrown out the window simply because of what's popular.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Jesus, do I have to spell it out for you? Complaining about the EU commission because it's 'undemocratic' whilst in the same breath wishing the royal family had an influence over politics is perhaps one of the most hypocritical things i've seen.

The European Commission exercises power legally, the Royal Family do not.
The European Commission is not under the legal powers of the British Parliament, the Royal Family are.
The European Commission is composed of foreign bureaucrats with no relation to this country, unlike the Royal Family.

I think you are having a hard time understanding what a constitutional monarchy is as well as what makes a country and a democracy.

If you think the members of one particular family should have a pivotal role in our society simply because of who their ancestors are then more for you. I don't think democracy should be thrown out the window simply because of what's popular.

The Queen and the wider Monarchy have approval ratings higher than any of her elected Prime Ministers who tend to be loathed.

And why does something being elected make it automatically good? Tony Blair was elected three times. And you only have to look at the quality of debate and discussion in the unelected House of Lords compared to the elected House of Commons: it doesn't even compare as its on an entirely different level.

[dbgtz]

I don't really dislike the idea of them writing to politicians and attempting to sway their view in theory, but from what I know it seems to be for his own personal gain and the fact they were even secret is pretty vile. I hope this actually happens and some new legislation or something isn't brought in, and should they prove to be overly intrusive and self-centered, then I would not be overly sad to see the Royal Family go.

[The Don]

I think you are having a hard time understanding what a constitutional monarchy is as well as what makes a country and a democracy.

You really do keep missing the point. You complained about the commission explicitly because of it being unelected and undemocratic. Yes, there are differences between the Commission and the Royal family, well done. That doesn't make it any less hypocritical. You cannot complain about A because of X and then argue that X is good. That's like saying "I hate that car because it's red" and then turning around and saying "You know what, I really like this red bike!" You also always say "We were never asked if we wanted to be in the EU!" so clearly democracy is very close to your heart, yet here you are championing the monarchy and wishing that they get further involved with politics.

And why does something being elected make it automatically good? Tony Blair was elected three times.

It doesn't necessarily make it good. But no good can come from wishing the monarchy gets involved with politics (Which you're doing in this thread). The Queen has done a good job at remaining politically neutral and the self-described 'meddling prince' is more than likely going to ruin all the good she has done in providing the royal family with a favourable public image.

[Inseriousity.]

I'm not really a fan of revealing the letters. The Prime Minister has a meeting with the Queen every week and those conversations are supposed to be private. It might be the only time in the week that an elected representative can just unload all the baggage without any repurcussions or political fallout and have someone there who can offer advice and support.

That being said, I find it a little incredulous that he'd write this stuff down when publicly the face of the monarchy is to be politically neutral. They invented the telephone ages ago.

[-:Undertaker:-]

You really do keep missing the point. You complained about the commission explicitly because of it being unelected and undemocratic. Yes, there are differences between the Commission and the Royal family, well done. That doesn't make it any less hypocritical. You cannot complain about A because of X and then argue that X is good. That's like saying "I hate that car because it's red" and then turning around and saying "You know what, I really like this red bike!" You also always say "We were never asked if we wanted to be in the EU!" so clearly democracy is very close to your heart, yet here you are championing the monarchy

You've completely ignored everything I have just written in the hope that if you keep pretending that the European Commission (a foreign body which exercises power) and the House of Windor (a native institution which does not exercise power) are the same that somehow you'll score some points against me and make me look a fool. The two are completely different: you may aswell compare the House of Lords to the House of Commons and just shout "democrucy!!!!" for all it is worth.

If the Royal Family were actively issuing laws, then sure the comparison with the European Commission would be at least viable. But it's not.

and wishing that they get further involved with politics.

It isn't them getting 'further involved'. Read what Bagehot wrote (above) in the 1800s on the principles of a constitutional monarchy. If the Prince of Wales were writing to ministers demanding they change law then sure you would have a point. But it appears all he is doing is his constitutional role which is to advise + warn.

It doesn't necessarily make it good. But no good can come from wishing the monarchy gets involved with politics (Which you're doing in this thread). The Queen has done a good job at remaining politically neutral and the self-described 'meddling prince' is more than likely going to ruin all the good she has done in providing the royal family with a favourable public image.

How do you know she's politically neutral? All monarchs are 'politically neutral' in that although they may disagree with the Prime Minister or ministers of the day they won't exercise their powers to do otherwise unless in extreme circumstances. The letters Prince Charles has sent are rightly private as are the meetings with Her Majesty the Queen. Do you really think that in her weekly meeting with her Prime Ministers, that she doesn't advise and warn the government of the day? Should those meetings be made public?

Most people, like me, are glad that we have somebody watching over our politicians.

[The Don]

You've completely ignored everything I have just written in the hope that if you keep pretending that the European Commission (a foreign body which exercises power) and the House of Windor (a native institution which does not exercise power) are the same that somehow you'll score some points against me and make me look a fool. The two are completely different: you may aswell compare the House of Lords to the House of Commons and just shout "democrucy!!!!" for all it is worth.

Incredible paranoia. You can keep discussing the differences between the two all you like but the principle of democracy is consistent. You didn't say you didn't like the commission because it's a foreign body or any of the legitimate factors you've just listed. You said it was bad because it was undemocratic. There's the hypocrisy.

It isn't them getting 'further involved'. Read what Bagehot wrote (above) in the 1800s on the principles of a constitutional monarchy. If the Prince of Wales were writing to ministers demanding they change law then sure you would have a point. But it appears all he is doing is his constitutional role which is to advise + warn.

How do you know what he's wrote since the letters haven't been released yet?

How do you know she's politically neutral? All monarchs are 'politically neutral' in that although they may disagree with the Prime Minister or ministers of the day they won't exercise their powers to do otherwise unless in extreme circumstances. The letters Prince Charles has sent are rightly private as are the meetings with Her Majesty the Queen. Do you really think that in her weekly meeting with her Prime Ministers, that she doesn't advise and warn the government of the day? Should those meetings be made public?

It's a well known fact that the queen has behaved in a politically neutral manner. Don't pretend otherwise.