King Charles vetting freezing of rents law

[antelopevalley]

Who said they have no real power?

"King Charles has been allowed to vet and potentially lobby for changes to emergency legislation to freeze rents in Scotland because the measures could affect tenants on his private Highland estate at Balmoral.

A bill to stop landlords unjustifiably raising rents for the next six months because of the cost of living crisis is being rushed through the Scottish parliament this week."

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/oct/04/king-charles-allowed-to-vet-proposed-scottish-rent-freeze-law

OK but whose to say he will object to it? And don't they approve all laws? Isn't that what the red boxes are all about?

This is standard right? Looks like the guardian as usual trying to make a mountain out of a molehill

We are not legally allowed to know if he objects. I do not know if we will know if any exemptions will be made for his properties.
We do know the Queen had laws changed to benefit her.

His spokespeople do say he won’t though. I’m hoping this will be another of the archaic conventions that he’ll modernise.

@Anniefrenchfry It is standard. The Queen or King get laws changed to benefit them.
www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/queen-lobbied-for-changes-to-three-more-laws-documents-reveal

BBC reported how Queen got changes to new laws as well in case you think only the Guardian reported on this.
Charles is simply following her example.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-58005875

Standard practice I thought - and one which I hope dies out with many practices within the RF with Charles and William. At least, if they want support to remain they will need to get their act together.

may have lobbied, potentially lobbied.
Ie, no one knows,what he's done and he has probably done nothing at all.

has been allowed to vet
He hasn't vetted anything as far as we now. He's read it.

It shouldn't be, and no it is not a mountain out of a molehill. He has even less right to vet and lobby for changes to law than you do. We are a constitutional monarchy and the monarch has no right to vet, approve, disapprove or lobby for anything. They have no political or executive role. The restoration did not give back any political powers to the monarchy. They do not vote either, and are supposed to be politically neutral.

We have quite enough entitled rich people influencing governments as it is without archaic institutions getting in on the act.

Cromwell wasn't perfect, but he did have a few really good ideas.

@MarshaMelrose we do not know because the Ministers refuse to tell us. I think? they are not allowed to.

Ministers were asked if the King asked for changes to the rent freeze bill and they refused to answer. Not a yes or no, just we will not tell you.

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/oct/05/scottish-ministers-refuse-to-confirm-if-king-asked-for-rent-freeze-bill-changes

He may improve things for tenants, who knows?
Wouldn’t necessarily assume the worst.

And don't they approve all laws? Isn't that what the red boxes are all about?

No, this is different.

The monarch signs all laws but has no input on them and no right to say no; it's a purely formal, public process.

However when a law might impact the crown or duchy estates (they are billionaire land owners so many, many laws do) the Monarch and/or the PoW get the right to suggest changes before the bill goes to parliament. This happens in total secret.

I believe the queen lobbied around 1000 UK laws, no idea how many Scottish ones. There is no information released about what changes she made but we do find out (at the end) that she was consulted.

So, for example, in this case the King will lose money if tenant's rights are increased so the Scottish government have to ask him before putting the bill forward.

Charles will have done this hundreds of times already on bills affecting the Duchy of Cornwall, this is just the first one as king.

However when a law might impact the crown or duchy estates (they are billionaire land owners so many, many laws do) the Monarch and/or the PoW get the right to suggest changes before the bill goes to parliament. This happens in total secret.

The interesting part about king's consent is that it isn't actually a "right". There's no legal requirement for the government to ask the monarch if they want any changes. It's just something that the government started doing, and now does out of habit. They could just not do it.

Have a look at this for more: davidallengreen.com/2021/02/the-queens-consent-a-strange-and-obscure-feature-of-the-constitution-of-the-united-kingdom-and-why-it-should-be-abolished/

We do not know because the Ministers refuse to tell us. I think? They are not allowed to.

That's the Scottish Govt's decision, though, not to tell us. They wrote the law not to allow themselves to tell us. Nothing to do with Charles. But it's the Guardian that's writing as if he has done something nefarious while saying they don't know that he's,done anything.
And also maybe it's in the scottish govts interest not to tell us because the money they get from the Scottish Crown Estates goes straight into the Scottish govt coffers. So if they change anything to benefit Charles, they benefit themselves so much more. Surely that's something more that you'd want to complain about?!

You obviously have not read how Charles treats his tenants.

www.leaseholdknowledge.com/scilly-isles-leaseholders-rebel-against-feudal-prince-charless-duchy-of-cornwall-in-law-commission-evidence/

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/sep/11/duchy-of-cornwall-residents-fight-freehold-ban-prince-charles

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/09/prince-charles-vetted-laws-that-stop-his-tenants-buying-their-homes

The interesting part about king's consent is that it isn't actually a "right". There's no legal requirement for the government to ask the monarch if they want any changes.

That's sort of true but also true of the entire UK 'constitution' such as it is.

In law our executive is completely undemocratic, all powers belong to the King. Additionally no law can be passed without the King's consent.

In practice, for the Queen's reign, bills passed by parliament were never overruled and interference with executive powers was fairly small but the Queen did expect parliament to listen when laws might cost the RF money.

So, in practice, Kings Consent is as much a part of the 'constitution' as parliamentary sovereignty, except that it would be less disruptive to overturn it.

it's the Guardian that's writing as if he has done something nefarious while saying they don't know that he's,done anything.

The King secretly shaping legislation in the first place is the nefarious bit, whether he did so for this particular bill or not.

(If you think the UK should become a full democracy, I'm not saying we should, just explaining the objection).

But you don't know that he's shaped anything. Or that he will. And it's the Scottish Govt, an elected body, that's not allowing that information to be released. Not Charles.

We know the Queen got changes made to legislation that benefitted her. I have already posted links to newspaper articles about this.

But you don't know that he's shaped anything. Or that he will.

Yes, as I said above, that's the point. People who object to this don't want that to be the case.

it's the Scottish Govt, an elected body, that's not allowing that information to be released.

The UK doesn't elect governments, we elect parliamentary members and they suggest an FM or PM to the King who then suggests a cabinet to the King.

The King always says yes but Kings Consent is in place to ensure he still has the ability to influence laws which might affect his financial interests.

This isn't something the SNP have proposed as a policy which has been voted on via a manifesto, it's a long standing part of our 'constitution' to allow the monarch to shape some legislation with minimal public scrutiny.

It’s always the Guardian playing republican. Owned by a Saudi prince, is it not?

Easy to try and attack the ball and not the player.

Number one whataboutery rule - attack the messenger.

It’s always the Guardian playing republican. Owned by a Saudi prince, is it not?

No. It's owned by a Trust set up by the bloke who founded the paper (the Manchester Guardian as was).

The UK doesn't elect governments, we elect parliamentary members and they suggest an FM or PM to the King who then suggests a cabinet to the King.

And back in the real world, of course we elect govts. How many times have you read on here that people don't like or don't know their MP but vote gir them vecayse they're Labour etc. Or they won't vote for their Labour MP because of teans ussues, regardless of what their individual MP says. I'm sure there are some people,who vote fir their MP because they like them personally, but the overwhelming majority of people vote fir a party to govern.

This isn't something the SNP have proposed as a policy which has been voted on via a manifesto

The Scottish govt have changed the rules. They can change the rules re letting the public know what the monarch's response was too if they wanted. This is down to the govt, not the monarch.

The King’s involvement, under rules known in Scotland as crown consent, can be revealed after the rules at Holyrood were changed. Holyrood’s presiding officer, Alison Johnstone, told the Scottish government it now had to inform parliament as soon as a new bill was tabled whether the monarch had been allowed to see it first. What the government does not say is whether any changes were made to the draft bill at the King’s request and, if so, what those were.

And back in the real world, of course we elect govts. How many times have you read on here that people don't like or don't know their MP but vote gir them vecayse they're Labour etc. Or they won't vote for their Labour MP because of teans ussues, regardless of what their individual MP says. I'm sure there are some people,who vote fir their MP because they like them personally, but the overwhelming majority of people vote fir a party to govern.

That's all perfectly true but nothing to do with my posts. I was describing the reasons and legal basis for King's consent, not why people vote. King's consent has never been tested at an election.

This is down to the govt, not the monarch.

I agree that the government can change the rules (I posted about that upthread) but the idea that King's Consent is just some random thing and nothing to do with the King is silly.

The system is hundred of years old and was brought in explicitly to avoid the King needing to withold Assent by allowing early input from the crown. It exists in other Commonwealth countries in the same way as here. Even in Australia where there is no formal mechanism for written Consent the Queen always held that she has the right to Consent and has lobbied in the same way.

The SNP are not going to remove the secrecy elements because they don't want to be seen to be acting at the whim of the monarchy but equally don't want to fights with the monarchy in public. The idea that Charles might not use these powers or will seek to remove them is silly.