Veto the government? and corporation tax

surfatwork

read recently that
1. Price Charles can veto government decisions, "if they are not in his best interests"
From the Guardian: "Both Clarence House and Buckingham Palace said it was "a long-established convention" that the prince, as Duke of Cornwall, is asked by parliament to provide consent to those bills that parliament has decided would affect Duchy of Cornwall interests. They said the same process is followed with regards to the Queen providing consent to bills that would affect Crown interests."
I find this quite astonishing, since the monarchy is widely portrayed to play a largely ceremonial role. What about other business interests who may be affected by legislation - can they veto as well?

2. The Duchy of Cornwall, worth about £850million, is exempt from corporation tax. This doesnt seem fair, especially at a time when companies like Google and Starbucks are being publicly chastised for "avoiding" corporation tax.

Once could argue that the Guardian has sort of gone after the monarchy in some ways, but if the above are facts, they seem quite disturbing.

AchillesLeftKnee

Can't say it bothers me to be honest, for one simple reason...

Can you imagine the uproar if they actually did step in on those sort of issues? It's a fabulous example of completely pointless power - yeah, it's possible, but it's almost certainly only possible once and at a great cost.

the playing mantis

number 1, its a ceromonial/archaic/traditional concept. everyone (i mean the guardian and those who are aware of its existence) knows it has been and never will be used by the monarch in the modern era. its a nuance of british politics/lawmaking, and has no real terms impact and is just tradition like changing of the guard and the pagenetry of state opening of parliament etc.

yawn just anti monarchy rehash skewing the facts by the gruaniad.

2. not exactly sure where the profits go of the duchy, but i think if you take those revenues away it would just mean increased tax payer funding of the monarchy maybe (no i dont want to get in to a debate of the rights and wrongs of funding the monarchy), so its swings and roundabouts in that sense, and also i thnik the profits may be put to charitable causes.

rick_chasey

Dutchy is basically glorified charity stuff isn't it?

surfatwork

the playing mantis wrote:

it has been and never will be used by the monarch in the modern era.

perhaps so, but in which case, why is the govt. so cagey about disclosing the correspondence that HRH Charles had with the govt? They Attorney general did invoke a rarely used veto to strike down the order of a Tribunal.

Rick Chasey wrote:

Dutchy is basically glorified charity stuff isn't it?

apparently, they own a Holiday Inn, which doesnt sound like charity, imho.

the playing mantis

surfatwork wrote:

the playing mantis wrote:

it has been and never will be used by the monarch in the modern era.

perhaps so, but in which case, why is the govt. so cagey about disclosing the correspondence that HRH Charles had with the govt? They Attorney general did invoke a rarely used veto to strike down the order of a Tribunal.

Rick Chasey wrote:

Dutchy is basically glorified charity stuff isn't it?

apparently, they own a Holiday Inn, which doesnt sound like charity, imho.

they own a travel inn? they own thousands of holiday cottages too. the proceeds of which are used for charityable endeavours.

the disclosure of charlie boys spidery letters are to save him and the country embarrasement. hes a bit of a loon, and he can have opinions on stuff, and will write his letters, but there is no way they have ever influenced decisons. the caginess is purely to save the future monarchs face.

Tom Butcher

The veto should be done away with - it has no place in a modern democracy. The veto has been used in relatively recent times and the fact that royals have been asked to consent to dozens of pieces of legislation does mean that they have an influence they shouldn't have. Why has Charles had 36 meetings with ministers since 2010?

No the Duchy isn't just generating money for charity either.

Daz555

Charlie will have to stop meddling when he's King because it will be given extra focus and he'll be slaughtered for it.

His obsession with water fondling (homeopathy) is particularly problematic.

the playing mantis

Tom Butcher wrote:

The veto should be done away with - it has no place in a modern democracy. The veto has been used in relatively recent times and the fact that royals have been asked to consent to dozens of pieces of legislation does mean that they have an influence they shouldn't have. Why has Charles had 36 meetings with ministers since 2010?

No the Duchy isn't just generating money for charity either.

evidence?

royals consent is in given on any legislation that meets certain criteria i believe, they dont think oh that might p off old queeny, where better check with her...

its a cermonial gesture, pointless, but quaint in its own way.

as for the duchy, i also said if it didnt exist more tax payer money would just go to them, so the lack of corp tax is swings and roundabouts.

AchillesLeftKnee

Tom Butcher wrote:

The veto has been used in relatively recent times.

Interesting. Got any examples? Must admit, I'm very surprised that government policy has been changed by the use of said veto without it causing a significant stir.

surfatwork

the playing mantis wrote:

as for the duchy, i also said if it didnt exist more tax payer money would just go to them, so the lack of corp tax is swings and roundabouts.

ummm...not quite how it works. The Duchy of Cornwall is a corporation which makes profits. Some of those profits are re-invested for expanding its asset base, and some of the profits are paid to Charles. Taxing the Duchy would not necessarily mean that there will be less for HRH.

the playing mantis wrote:

they own a travel inn? they own thousands of holiday cottages too. the proceeds of which are used for charityable endeavours.

Unfortunately, not true. Quoting from their 2013 Annual accounts: During the course of the year the Duchy made charitable donations amounting to £400,000 (2012: £522,000)
fyi, they are worth about £800 million.

the playing mantis

AchillesLeftKnee wrote:

Tom Butcher wrote:

The veto has been used in relatively recent times.

Interesting. Got any examples? Must admit, I'm very surprised that government policy has been changed by the use of said veto without it causing a significant stir.

i suspect its republican BS.

bianchimoon

the playing mantis wrote:

surfatwork wrote:

the playing mantis wrote:

it has been and never will be used by the monarch in the modern era.

perhaps so, but in which case, why is the govt. so cagey about disclosing the correspondence that HRH Charles had with the govt? They Attorney general did invoke a rarely used veto to strike down the order of a Tribunal.

Rick Chasey wrote:

Dutchy is basically glorified charity stuff isn't it?

apparently, they own a Holiday Inn, which doesnt sound like charity, imho.

they own a travel inn? they own thousands of holiday cottages too. the proceeds of which are used for charityable endeavours.

the disclosure of charlie boys spidery letters are to save him and the country embarrasement. hes a bit of a loon, and he can have opinions on stuff, and will write his letters, but there is no way they have ever influenced decisons. the caginess is purely to save the future monarchs face.

you're as far into cloud cuckoo land as charlie is.. he IS lobbying, he DOES have influence, if you're an out and out monachist, fine - that's your choice, but if you seriously think his lobbying doesn't get some results and he doesn't have influence dream on.

the playing mantis

do you know that for a FACT? (yes lets use caps to emphasise a point, it really helps)

sure his letters are lobbying, but how does anyone know they have any more influence than the crackpot old woman who write to their MP about not having enough cats.

id hazard a guess that you don't and thats its conjecture. as is my hazarding a guess conjecture on my part.

so unless your a civil servant in one of the ministries he has written to, or indeed one of the politicos responsible for coming up with policy, i dont think you can be so convinced.

show me any evidence to suggest his letters have influenced policy and i will fall into line.

btw im no monarchist as such, i would rather have them than not though.

bianchimoon

the playing mantis wrote:

do you know that for a FACT? (yes lets use caps to emphasise a point, it really helps)

sure his letters are lobbying, but how does anyone know they have any more influence than the crackpot old woman who write to their MP about not having enough cats.

id hazard a guess that you don't and thats its conjecture. as is my hazarding a guess conjecture on my part.

so unless your a civil servant in one of the ministries he has written to, or indeed one of the politicos responsible for coming up with policy, i dont think you can be so convinced.

show me any evidence to suggest his letters have influenced policy and i will fall into line.
.

that is the whole point, they won't release the details of the meetings!

surfatwork

If the police charged someone with unlicensed possession of a gun, I really dont think an acceptable defense would be "I have never used it, nor do I intend to, but I would still like to retain it".....the gun would be confiscated. If you shouldn't use it, it will be taken away, and the police wont rely on your goodness in making the right decision.

Why then should the owner of a £800million profit-making enterprise, whose primary publicly-stated purpose is to generate funds for himself, continue to have veto power over government legislation? even if the veto hasnt been used in modern times. of course, we cant find out if the threat of veto has been used to influence, because the govt. wont tell us.
I dont recall the govt. ever making a definitive statement that HRH has "not" influenced legislation and policy. And that makes me think that they "cant" make a statement like that without lying. or they would have.

I am not particularly for or against the monarchy, but I find it quite astonishing that we still tolerate things like this in 21st century Britain.

Tom Butcher

the playing mantis wrote:

AchillesLeftKnee wrote:

Tom Butcher wrote:

The veto has been used in relatively recent times.

Interesting. Got any examples? Must admit, I'm very surprised that government policy has been changed by the use of said veto without it causing a significant stir.

i suspect its republican BS.

I suspect you've not bothered to try googling it to find out.

From memory (it was in the paper the other day) late 90s legislation to remove the monarchs consent as necessary to declare war - admittedly acting on govt advice but the power was still used.

Don't think anyone is claiming Prince Charles is the power behind the PM but there is no case for royality having this influence whether realised or potential. If it's not used then there is no reason to keep it - if it is then there is a good reason to scrap it.

sungod

aside from the bloodletting, the french got it right...

now they have all the wine, cheese, crusty bread, sun, frites, beaches, mountains, good roads, nicer drivers, mad films etc.

if napoleon had won, all that would have been ours

instead we have, soggy chips, tesco meat injected with sugar water, ownership by the rich, no protection from corporate rape - who's still got a final salary pension?, grim weather, crap roads, bad drivers, proven cowardly cheat as king in waiting, american media, etc.

bianchimoon

sungod wrote:

aside from the bloodletting, the french got it right...

now they have all the wine, cheese, crusty bread, sun, frites, beaches, mountains, good roads, nicer drivers, mad films etc.

if napoleon had won, all that would have been ours

instead we have, soggy chips, tesco meat injected with sugar water, ownership by the rich, no protection from corporate rape - who's still got a final salary pension?, grim weather, crap roads, bad drivers, proven cowardly cheat as king in waiting, american media, etc.

Nail, head, hit!

2Phat4Rapha

Wuhey. President Blair to the rescue. And when she's had her two terms she can pass it on to her husband, nice honest chap. :P

the playing mantis

sungod wrote:

aside from the bloodletting, the french got it right...

now they have all the wine, cheese, crusty bread, sun, frites, beaches, mountains, good roads, nicer drivers, mad films etc.

if napoleon had won, all that would have been ours

instead we have, soggy chips, tesco meat injected with sugar water, ownership by the rich, no protection from corporate rape - who's still got a final salary pension?, grim weather, crap roads, bad drivers, proven cowardly cheat as king in waiting, american media, etc.

but we might all be speaking german....! (yes yes i know a napoeleon victory would have changed the history of europe and the uniting of the prussina/germanic states may never have happened etc etc)

the playing mantis

agains the consent thing is a just a traditional quirk. its irrelevant to be honest and has no impact on you or me. i dont give a toss about the succession of monarchs.

i dont know the extent of it, neither do you, its all guesswork, imo if there really was such influecne from the crown, the media would be making a song and dnace about it. your opinion is different. we will never know.

bianchimoon

the playing mantis wrote:

i dont know the extent of it, neither do you, its all guesswork, imo if there really was such influecne from the crown, the media would be making a song and dnace about it. your opinion is different. we will never know.

i'll say it again, slowly this time, that's the point, people/news organisations/ some politicians etc. want the information about what was said at the meetings between charlie and government ministers released but the 'palace' won't. Remember they are all paid out of the public purse! we have a right to know

surfatwork

bianchimoon wrote:

Remember they are all paid out of the public purse! we have a right to know

Charlie is not paid from the public tax money. The Duchy of Cornwall exists for precisely this purpose - to make sure that the Prince in waiting has an independent income. He pays income tax on this income - ~£19Mn last year.
You could of course argue that he is subsidized to an extent because the Duchy is exempt from corporation tax.

bompington

the playing mantis wrote:

sungod wrote:

aside from the bloodletting, the french got it right...

now they have all the wine, cheese, crusty bread, sun, frites, beaches, mountains, good roads, nicer drivers, mad films etc.

if napoleon had won, all that would have been ours

instead we have, soggy chips, tesco meat injected with sugar water, ownership by the rich, no protection from corporate rape - who's still got a final salary pension?, grim weather, crap roads, bad drivers, proven cowardly cheat as king in waiting, american media, etc.

but we might all be speaking german....! (yes yes i know a napoeleon victory would have changed the history of europe and the uniting of the prussina/germanic states may never have happened etc etc)

Of course the modern French idyll is largely funded by the Germans. And anyone who prefers it can always vote with their feet: like, for instance, the 400,000 French people in London have done.