Prince Charles told by U.K. leaders to stop meddling in politics amid immigration comment backlash

[onthedarkside]

 

 

The British government wants Prince Charles to steer clear of politics after comments he made about a new policy for asylum seekers drew backlash, according to a report.

 

After Charles, 73, renewed criticism for a policy that sends asylum seekers to Rwanda by calling it "appalling," Downing Street responded by saying such a comment would "present serious constitutional issues" once he assumes the throne, the Sunday Times reported.

 

"Prince Charles is an adornment to our public life, but that will cease to be charming if he attempts to behave the same way when he is king. That will present serious constitutional issues," an unidentified senior cabinet member said to the outlet.

 

According to the official, disagreements between the British Royals and the Commonwealth should happen behind closed doors.

 

(more)

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/prince-charles-told-by-uk-leaders-to-stop-meddling-in-politics-amid-immigration-comment-backlash/ar-AAYmZz5

 

 

[ozimoron]

Charles will be the last British king. the revulsion will be palpable once he assumes the throne. Australia will be the next Republic.

[Chomper Higgot]

His private comments were leaked, they do not constitute meddling in anything.

 

 

[SunnyinBangrak]

Prince Charles is way out of line. Does he not realize(or care at all) that the British public are sick to death of economic migrants coming across the channel from a safe country for various reasons but none to do with ensuring safety from persecution as per conventional refugee status. If he wants to end the monarchy in one fell swoop, just keep talking.

 

 Any people genuinely fleeing from persecution and in fear of their lives, who end up crossing the channel in a dingy, will be eternally grateful for a new safe life in Rwanda. I wonder whether the culture in Rwanda would be more appropriate for them also, don't most of these channel crossers not come from North Africa and the Middle east? Anyway seems like a great plan, well done generous UK taxpayers for keeping the refugees safe.

[ozimoron]

2 hours ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

Prince Charles is way out of line. Does he not realize(or care at all) that the British public are sick to death of economic migrants coming across the channel from a safe country for various reasons but none to do with ensuring safety from persecution as per conventional refugee status. If he wants to end the monarchy in one fell swoop, just keep talking.

 

 Any people genuinely fleeing from persecution and in fear of their lives, who end up crossing the channel in a dingy, will be eternally grateful for a new safe life in Rwanda. I wonder whether the culture in Rwanda would be more appropriate for them also, don't most of these channel crossers not come from North Africa and the Middle east? Anyway seems like a great plan, well done generous UK taxpayers for keeping the refugees safe.

Why should Rwanda have to take them? The logical extension of your fallacy is that no country need take refugees.

[Caldera]

Maybe he should lead by example and house some of those asylum seekers in his palace instead of sending them to Rwanda.

 

Didn't think so.

[Doctor Tom]

27 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Why should Rwanda have to take them? The logical extension of your fallacy is that no country need take refugees.

Because they are being paid millions to do it. 

[Doctor Tom]

3 minutes ago, Caldera said:

Maybe he should lead by example and house some of those asylum seekers in his palace instead of sending them to Rwanda.

The Royal Family has reportedly opened several of their properties to Ukrainian refugees. There is no need for anyone to open their properties to 'economic migrants' who arrive illegally in the UK. 

[Bluespunk]

Thus the johnson spoke from mount sinai and declared

 

Thou shalt not have an opinion that criticises our  policies, no matter how appalling they are. 

[SunnyinBangrak]

1 hour ago, ozimoron said:

Why should Rwanda have to take them? The logical extension of your fallacy is that no country need take refugees.

Why should the UK have to take them? They travelled far crossing many many "safe" countries to get to the English channel. 

 Rwanda wants to take them because the UK government will pay them a pretty penny to do so.

 

"The logical extension of your fallacy is that no country need take refugees."

a nonsensical comment if ever I saw one.

[ozimoron]

38 minutes ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

Why should the UK have to take them? They travelled far crossing many many "safe" countries to get to the English channel. 

 Rwanda wants to take them because the UK government will pay them a pretty penny to do so.

 

"The logical extension of your fallacy is that no country need take refugees."

a nonsensical comment if ever I saw one.

the next logical extension of this comment is that only the first country they cross into which is safe should have to take them.

 

are you starting to see a pattern here? "get off our lawn"?

[Mr Meeseeks]

10 hours ago, ozimoron said:

Charles will be the last British king. the revulsion will be palpable once he assumes the throne. Australia will be the next Republic.

Australia is owned by the Chinese and protected by the US and UK so will do what it is told. 

[Mr Meeseeks]

Just now, ozimoron said:

the next logical extension of this comment is that only the first country they cross into which is safe should have to take them.

 

are you starting to see a pattern here? "get off our lawn"?

Why does Australia process illegal immigrants in offshore detention centres?

 

Why does Australia have dedicated RAN patrol vessels for picking up illegal immigrants in its waters?

 

Why does Australia have a policy to never grant a visa or permission to stay for anyone that is caught attempting to illegally enter the country?

 

Answers on a postcard. 

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, Mr Meeseeks said:

Why does Australia process illegal immigrants in offshore detention centres?

 

Why does Australia have dedicated RAN patrol vessels for picking up illegal immigrants in its waters?

 

Why does Australia have a policy to never grant a visa or permission to stay for anyone that is caught attempting to illegally enter the country?

 

Answers on a postcard. 

almost all are now in Australia. But try to address what I posted instead of deflection. The topic isn't about Australia.

[brommers]

Prince Charles is "an adornment to public life" seems to be a rather interesting statement to come from a senior cabinet minister. I forsee his future knighthood at the end of his period in office being no longer granted.

[flossie35]

7 hours ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

Prince Charles is way out of line. Does he not realize(or care at all) that the British public are sick to death of economic migrants coming across the channel from a safe country for various reasons but none to do with ensuring safety from persecution as per conventional refugee status. If he wants to end the monarchy in one fell swoop, just keep talking.

 

 Any people genuinely fleeing from persecution and in fear of their lives, who end up crossing the channel in a dingy, will be eternally grateful for a new safe life in Rwanda. I wonder whether the culture in Rwanda would be more appropriate for them also, don't most of these channel crossers not come from North Africa and the Middle east? Anyway seems like a great plan, well done generous UK taxpayers for keeping the refugees safe.

They are refugees, not economic migrants. Refugees have a legal right to choose where to seek refuge. Those choosing UK usually have friends or family here already, or they speak English but not French. 70% or so of arrivals are granted asylum by the Home Office. Charles is right about Rwanda. 

 

[Doctor Tom]

3 hours ago, Mr Meeseeks said:

Answers on a postcard. 

Do they still have postcards? I haven't seen one, sent one,  or received one,  for around 30 years. 

 

It needs to be:  'answers on an e mail' 

[JonnyF]

He should stay out of politics.

 

His virtue signaling on climate change is particlularly irritating given his and his families carbon footprint. 

[RayC]

Charles is, of course, entitled to an opinion like anyone else however, the problem is that, as heir to the throne, his opinion is widely publicised and the government have to address it. 

 

I remember in the '80s and '90s, ministers complaining about the volume of letters he was sending on trivial matters e.g. his view from Buckingham Palace would be spoiled if a building was erected. Joe Public would receive a cursory 'The Minister thanks you for your letter ...' type reply but because it was Charles, a fully researched reply would have to be sent.

 

He should refrain from commenting on matters if there is a chance that his views are made public.

[TropicalGuy]

10 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

His private comments were leaked, they do not constitute meddling in anything.

 

 

Of course they do. He knew full well his comments would get out. He is supposed to be neutral so should keep quiet on politics.he especially should not be siding with illegal immigrants against opinion of 90% + British subjects. What a goon????

[mikeymike100]

Charles should keep his big mouth shut on anything to do with politics, I though he understood this?

[RichardColeman]

I'd like to think of myself a a fairly loyal Brit to the monarchy. The queen is great !

 

That said , Charles is a complete arxx ( rhymes with pass )

 

But, I like William and his wife, I think he has a lot of his mother and the queen in him. So, get charlie to turn it down save the monarchy.

 

Charles will destroy the monarchy, not make it better in any way.

[RichardColeman]

Maybe next time parliament can refuse him entry ? 

[DaddyWarbucks]

5 hours ago, Caldera said:

Maybe he should lead by example and house some of those asylum seekers in his palace instead of sending them to Rwanda.

 

Didn't think so.

Didn't the Royal Family recently take in one from Compton?

But I don't think it worked out too well.

[Doctor Tom]

3 minutes ago, mikeymike100 said:

Charles should keep his big mouth shut on anything to do with politics, I though he understood this?

Not sure that he understands much.  He's not exactly the sharpest tool in the box. 

[Doctor Tom]

2 minutes ago, RichardColeman said:

I'd like to think of myself a a fairly loyal Brit to the monarchy. The queen is great !

 

That said , Charles is a complete arxx ( rhymes with pass )

 

But, I like William and his wife, I think he has a lot of his mother and the queen in him. So, get charlie to turn it down save the monarchy.

 

Charles will destroy the monarchy, not make it better in any way.

Agree with all of that. 

[Doctor Tom]

Anyone who reputably has 2 valets to dress him in the morning, and up to 5 times during the day as he changers his clothes, and ties his shoe laces for him, after pressing them flat with an iron, is a very, very, very, odd person indeed, Royal or not.   Sounds like a second rate 1890s period drama.  I learnt to dress myself at 3 years old, he apparently did not. 

[mikeymike100]

30 minutes ago, RayC said:

Charles is, of course, entitled to an opinion like anyone else however, the problem is that, as heir to the throne, his opinion is widely publicised and the government have to address it. 

 

I remember in the '80s and '90s, ministers complaining about the volume of letters he was sending on trivial matters e.g. his view from Buckingham Palace would be spoiled if a building was erected. Joe Public would receive a cursory 'The Minister thanks you for your letter ...' type reply but because it was Charles, a fully researched reply would have to be sent.

 

He should refrain from commenting on matters if there is a chance that his views are made public.

I agree,  it has always been an unwritten rule that "Royals" do not comment on anything political, or could be considered political, for obvious reasons.

 

[shackleton]

The way things are going with the Royal Family Prince Andrew,  Harry ect 

Prince Charles when he becomes King won't have much of a Commonwealth to rule over

As quite a few will have broken away doing their own thing 

[GroveHillWanderer]

8 hours ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

Anyway seems like a great plan, well done generous UK taxpayers for keeping the refugees safe.

Keep them safe by sending them to a country with a well-documented record of human rights abuses in recent years, specifically in relation to the treatment of refugees there?

 

A record that the UK government itself condemned just months earlier.

 

UK condemned Rwanda for human rights abuses months before signing deal to send asylum seekers there