Essay by Eric Worrall
Queen Elizabeth II, beloved by millions, had sadly passed. Climate champion Prince Charles is now King. But Jacob Ress-Mogg wants “every last drop” of oil and gas extracted from the North Sea.
Jacob Rees-Mogg: Climate change concern over new energy policy chief
Jacob Rees-Mogg, who now oversees the UK government department responsible for energy and climate change, recently called to extract “every last drop” of oil and gas from the North Sea
ENVIRONMENT | ANALYSIS 7 September 2022
By Adam VaughanThe new UK prime minister, Liz Truss, has appointed Jacob Rees-Mogg to head the department of Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (BEIS), sparking concern among environmental campaigners over his views on climate change.
With the ongoing energy crisis, Rees-Mogg will play a key role in the new government and, based on his past statements, the appointment appears to be good news for companies extracting fossil fuels and bad for some firms wanting to accelerate the roll-out of renewable energy.
Earlier this year he rejected calls for a windfall tax on oil and gas companies “so they get every last drop out of the North Sea”. Fracking, which is currently under a moratorium imposed in 2019, “seems quite an interesting opportunity”, he said.
…
Read more: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2336860-jacob-rees-mogg-climate-change-concern-over-new-energy-policy-chief/
Jacob Rees-Mogg – New Scientist and the rest of the liberal establishment seem freaked out by his climate views, so he is probably the right man for the job. Jacob Rees-Mogg has a reputation as a low tax small government advocate.
King Charles by contrast is famous for being outspoken about climate change, which is widely seen as a breach of royal protocol.
The Question – will King Charles be able to do his job as king, and stay silent, if Prime Minister Liz Truss starts blatantly dismantling Britain’s Net Zero policies? The appointment of Jacob Rees-Mogg to a sensitive post like the Business and Energy Ministry is a strong indication this might be her intention.
The Royal Protocol, the unspoken historic political settlement which allowed Britain to remain a monarchy, includes the expectation that British monarchs are supposed to stay out of politics.
The best British description of the US Presidency I have seen, is the President wields similar powers to the British monarch of the 18th century. Since the 18th century, British monarchs have moved more into the political background than US Presidents, but they still wield enormous influence. Those powers to intervene, in principle at least, are still available to be used.
Very occasionally we see the power of the British Monarch exercised, even in the modern age – for example, the royal prerogative was used to topple the far left Australian Whitlam Government in 1975, during a constitutional crisis triggered by Whitlam’s apparent lurch towards revolutionary communism.
If ever there was a political crisis in Britain, such as a government which refused to relinquish power after losing an election, a blatantly rigged election, or in Australia’s case, an elected government which appeared to be about to seize dictatorial power, Commonwealth subjects would look to the King or Queen for a resolution, just as the American people would expect the President in such circumstances to fulfil his oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.
It is this unspoken reserve power, this understanding that in times of crisis the monarch might be able to transcend parliament, which triggers fear of political instability whenever King Charles expresses his radical personal opinions about the alleged climate crisis, especially when those opinions diverge from government policy.
Other than the Whitlam sacking, and possibly a handful of other incidents I can’t recall, Charles’ mother Queen Elizabeth II stayed out of politics her entire life, at least in public, and focussed on doing her job of protecting the integrity of the British political process, and the integrity of other nations like Australia which acknowledge the British monarch as head of state. Queen Elizabeth was loved by millions for her tireless dedication to doing her job, and her respect for the boundaries of her role.
Let us hope King Charles finds it in himself to embrace the wisdom of his mother, and starts keeping his climate views to himself.
I hope Charles III heeds history and takes care because he predecessor Charles I lost his head as he bashed heads with parliament.
The British Constitution is not formally documented in the same way as the Constitutions of many of the Commonwealth States, but it certainly does exist. Though there is no single document which defines it, there are many documents and practices which derive from it, and so can be considered to comprise its current physical existence, while there are myriads of commentary papers written ‘about’ it.
As well as traditional rules and activities, the British Constitution depends a great deal on understood practices which govern the relationship between the various parts of the governing establishment. Parts of it depend on understanbding what is ‘done’ and ‘not-done’ – concepts which derive ultimately from the feudal culture of honour from time immemorial. It is almost a ‘sociology of the ruling classes’. A strong reinforcement is applied from the fact that many of them were bred in these structures, and imbibed them during their schooling.
Central to this Establishment structure is the Monarch, and her (now his) Palace Entourage. You will hear many announcements over the coming weeks from ‘The Palace’ – these will be the ruling establishment speaking. Quite what King Charles III will be able to do will depend a lot on the relationship between the new king and the established Palace structures.
Among their central political activities, the Monarch traditionally has the right to ‘be consulted, to advise, and to warn’ (according to Bagehot). This means that the King will be informed at an early stage about political discussions which are taking place, and will be able to offer advice which may take the form of approval or caution.
This interaction is delicate. The advice from Queen Elizabeth II was always carefully considered, since it derived from a lifetime of political experience unmatched by any other current Head of State. By contrast, Prince Charles has form for lobbying for his own particular interests – cf his ‘spider letters’ of 2004-5 – and he sees environmental issues as non-political, a dangerous attitude, since this takes many decisions out of the remit of political discussion and places them into the authoritarian hands of ‘experts’.
Let us hope that he emulates the actions of Prince Hal in the final scene of Henry IV Pt II…..
Now he’s King, Charles must not express a political opinion.
He can say what he want’s. Tradition dictates he shouldn’t meddle in politics or he runs the risk of clashing with the government of the day.
But is the environment and climate a political subject or might it be considered a moral question?
The questions of renewable energy sources and fracking, oil and gas extraction etc. are most certainly political questions, and geopolitical ones at that, so he daren’t take a position on them or risk being accused of being politically partisan.
Politics, more and more, is about the moral case for something or not. The questions about fracking etc can be considered moral if you believe folk should not be left to freeze to death because of a moral objection to CO2 emissions. The people, through Parliament, decide, it’s called democracy. The queen very wisely, for 70 years, expressed no political views publically.
All laws are nothing more than codified morals. Things are either outlawed because the majority feels they are wrong. Other things get mandated or subsidized because a majority feels they are right.
Not working like that these days in The States. Please send your note to the dictator(s) at The White House, so that they can ‘mend their ways’.
The Government and King Charles may have more of an issue with the breakup of the UK than anything else. Ulster’s major political party wants a united Ireland. Scottish sports fans have long booed the National Anthem and at last nights Hearts match in Edinburgh when it was booed before the resart after half time. There will be a lot of people in Scotland who will mourn the death of Elizabeth whose Post Boxes in Scotland are different to those in England, but will they feel the same about Charles III
The question over Scotland’s position in the UK was settled in 2014.
Such questions are never settled permanently. Each generation gets to decide them for themselves.
Then we should definitely wait until it’s the next generations time for a referendum, not before.
There has been one referendum held on Scotland’s place in the Uk since the 1700’s. That’s a lot more than a generation.
Have the people been demanding a referendum? If not, then they have made their decision.
My sole consolation is that Charles was first born and not Andrew.
Agreed. Or Edward – although his one major accomplishment appears to be that he married fairly well.
At least Edward has kept his head down.
At some cost Anne learned in the 70’s/80’s to distance herself from her siblings and the media.
Anne also earned an Olympic medal.
A fine equestrian.
It doesn’t effect me either way, but I’d be much happier with a Queen Anne, a much classier act all round.
“first born”
So what happened to Anne? (The one with the family brain)
Charles was born in 1948, Anne in 1950.
And with the rule of male primogeniture being in effect, succession would have passed over her to the next male heir. I think it was rescinded just after the birth of Princess Charlotte, so she’s out as well.
Hi, Eric. I believe you may be partly mistaken, in that I believe the late Queen used her reserve powers to good effect on at least 1, and possibly 2 occasions.
Following the 2010 UK general election, Gordon Brown (Labour) was curiously reluctant to leave no. 10 Downing St., with only the slimmest of chances of heading an unwieldy multi-party “rag-tag” government (or “coalition of losers”). Whereas David Cameron (Conservative), with significantly more seats than Labour, needed only 1 other party to form a simple coalition government (with the LibDems), with a robust majority in parliament.
On the 6th day (IIRC), David Cameron was spotted entering and leaving a back entrance to Buckingham Palace. We may surmise that Her Majesty popped the question: “Would you be ready to form government, Mr. Cameron?”, to which we may surmise that he replied: “Yes, Ma’am”.
The following morning (day 7 IIRC), Gordon Brown was summoned to Buckingham Palace (through the front door), and presumably invited/asked to resign as PM. In any case he went back to no. 10 and announced his resignation.
David Cameron went to Buckingham Palace a 2nd time (through the front door this time), kissed the royal hands, and was appointed PM.
The late Queen had the gift of discretion in these things (as do her staff), and the episode was not trumpeted in the media (though it was spotted).
I believe that the Queen may also have played a not dissimilar role in getting Edward Heath (Conservative) to stand down after the February 1974 UK general election (which also produced a hung parliament) – though my recollection of that episode is far from clear.
Hope that helps.
King Charles III has no role in setting governmental policy, or in seating a government, other than the ceremonial role of inviting the leader of the majority party in Parliament to form a government. The monarchs are not supposed to inject themselves into any policy debates, as their job is to unite the nation. If Charles departs from that constitutional system, that itself would create a governing crisis, and it is likely that he would be forced to abdicate. Charles knows all of that, of course – he sat side by side with his mother particularly since the passing of his father.
Prince William is also a believer in human induced climate change, so even if he replaced Charles his heart would be basically in the same place. For all we knew, indeed, it’s quite likely that Elizabeth may have been a warmunist too – but doing her duty as sovereign, kept her mouth shut about it.
As far as I can see, none of the Royal Family (with the possible exception of Princess Anne) is particularly bright, which means they easily fall prey to superficially plausible narratives like anthropogenic global warming. If you want to see more of such narratives, many extremely banal, look no further than the WEF website under the Agenda tab. There you will find a collection of gormless opinions which form the ideology of the WEF. As we know from early members of the Young Global Leaders programme, the WEF brooks no scepticism or critical thought so all the more recent graduates have swallowed this stuff whole.
Monarchial Mnemonic
Charles I – beheaded
Charles II – much bedded
Charles III – bed wetter
You wish you could have lived the life of Charles II – who by the way was very well regarded, loved indeed, by the Brits – which is why they restored him to rule at the overwhelming demand of Parliament.
Charles I was executed following the English Civil War, bringing to an end rule by autocratic monarchy.
Charles II was restored to the throne after 10 or so years of Cromwell’s Republican theocracy, ushering in a new period of artistic, intellectual and economic freedoms leading eventually to the Industrial Revolution and the long road to a modern democracy.
Charles III – ?
Charles has lots of names to choose from. Off the top of my head his name is something like Charles William Arthur George and rumour had it that after a lifetime as Charles he will probably opt for George.
I like Rees Mogg, have to hope he is given a long leash.
He’s being called Charles III for the moment but not sure if that will be the name he chooses to reign as. We probably won’t find that out until nearer to the coronation.
The word going around is the Queen held on to keep Charles out.
King Charles is acting quite rationally for the sake of the monarchy, much like the Pope, in recognizing the loss of older traditionalists and the need to keep in tune with the younger generation, even if it means doing questionable things with advocacy groups, agenda science, and bad public policy. It’s someone else’s problem in the end that can be summarized in the venerable refrain from then Rep. Edward Markey–“Who could have known?”
I’m quite convinced the queen hung around for so long because she knew what buffoons her son and grandsons are..
Yes, and I am glad she did. I am also not enthused about seeing her son’s mugshot on new coins any time soon.
A minor quibble, Charles is King but has not yet been crowned, that will occur at the coronation.
Doesn’t really matter – the important bit is sometime today with his Accession Council ceremony – then he will formally become the King. The coronation is just a bit of pageantry for general consumption.
“Whitlam’s apparent lurch towards revolutionary communism”
and
“or in Australia’s case, an elected government which appeared to be about to seize dictatorial power”
I’ve spent half an hour googling and can find not even a hint of dictatorial ambition for Whitlam. The worst I can find is legislation for free tuition, universal health care, and ending conscription.
Can someone enlighten without the inflamed rhetoric? Hyperbole like this makes me doubt the objectivity of everything else.
Pretty much as is the case with the US government, the UK royalty/bureaucracy has no idea of what they mean by their attempts to “fight climate change™”.
To wit:
— “Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in the UK are provisionally estimated to have increased by 6.3% in 2021 from 2020, to 341.5 million tonnes (Mt)”
source: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1064923/2021-provisional-emissions-statistics-report.pdf
— Meanwhile, according to the IEA, global energy-related carbon dioxide emissions rose by 6% in 2021 to 36.3 billion metric tons.
Therefore, if the UK stopped ALL CO2 emissions from ALL sources, it would account for only 0.34/36.6 = .009 = less than 1% of global CO2 emissions into the atmospheric. There you have it, 1% tops.
Now, put that 1% reduction—accomplished at the expense of devastating the economy of the UK—against the above-stated fact that worldwide CO2 emissions rose 6% in 2021 alone.
Having a new king will not change the above facts by one pence.
Charles gave a speech this evening (his first as King) which hinted at a bit more of a hands off attitude to some of his charitable and other interests
Most, if not all, of his patronages will likely be passed on to William or one of the other active, working Royals.
“working Royals” . . . is that an oxymoron or what?
The Queen did not sack the Whitlam government and there is no evidence of her involvement in such an action.
The powers employed – were employed by her ‘representative’, as appointed by Whitlam himself.
Whitlam was sacked because he could not fund the operation of government – having been refused his budget by the then opposition (that held the majority in Aus’s Senate).
This crisis of ‘confidence’ lead the Whitlam appointed representative to cancel Whitlam’s commission and declare an new election. An Election Whitlam lost in a landslide.
Just to repeat, the Queen had no active participation or demonstrably involvement in Whitlam’s downfall.
Basically, Whitlam effed about and then found out.
I wonder if Charles’ links to the WEF go further and encompass the whole royal family. I heard a snippet from someone talking about the Queen saying that at one point she supported an initiative to identify young people with potential across the Commonwealth as potential future leaders of their countries. I wonder where they were schooled once identified – the Young Leaders programme? It might explain the strong WEF affiliations of Canada and NZ, plus whatever others that are not so obvious.
He won’t be able to…he’s ‘full-woke’…he’s a believer on a mission. He’ll wait awhile but then slowly but surely he’ll ease back into the fear-mongering. I’d bet my next pay check on it.
You’d bet your next pay-check that sometime between now and his death he’ll say something about climate change? Who’d take THAT bet?
This article is mistaken about the role of the Queen in the sacking of the Australian Prime Minister. This occured by the action of Sir John Kerr, the Governor General, who was technically the Queen’s representative. It is unlikely that the Queen would have approved of such drastic action
Unfortunately Charles is not too bright , the evidence for this is overwhelming . Therefore, he will inevitably do the wrong thing . It’s a law of nature !
“the appointment appears to be good news for companies extracting fossil fuels and bad for some firms wanting to accelerate the roll-out of renewable energy.”
How is it bad for firms wanting to roll-out renewable energy? It doesn’t stop them from doing that. What it will do is stop some folks from freezing this winter.