The Freeman Movement and England

[TjW]

So, why are matters related to the Social Security System of the USA an issue for the UNELECTED monarchy of the UK ?

Still no answer !

Some US citizens work in the UK. While there, they are under the authority of the UK. Whether the authority in the UK is elected or not really doesn't matter. Now, being US citizens, they need to pay a portion of their earnings to the US Social Security so they can collect the benefits when they retire.
Now, the UK has a system which is also called Social Security. Two systems.
Both called "Social Security". One in the US, and one in the UK.
Ordinarily, a portion of earnings in the UK is set aside for the UK Social Security.
A US citizen working in the UK would have to pay twice: once under the US Social Security rules, once under the UK Social Security rules. That's not fair.
Both governments have decided that this was not fair, and have agreed to keep their laws coordinated so that US citizens working in the UK and UK citizens working in the US don't have to pay twice.
The US makes the rules for US Social Security, and the UK makes the rules for UK Social Security. So the UK may have a Social Security Act, and the US can have a Social Security Act, and they can be completely separate things.
Because of the agreement, one government may voluntarily change its own rules to more closely align with the rules of the other government.
But the UK government has an interest in the US Social Security because they host US citizens working there, and have UK citizens working in the US. They don't want their citizens to have to pay into a system they won't be using.
But there are two systems. The UK government makes the rules for the UK Social Security, and the US makes the rules for the US Social Security.
The fact that they have the same name does not make them the same system, any more than two guys named John are the same person.

 

[Especially]

Remirol,

Great ! The world will be grateful if you will alphabetize your socks instead of advertising your inability to discuss the subject here.

Great having a 'conversation' with you. Didn't mean to challenge your 'education'.

Bye

 

[remirol]

Great ! The world will be grateful if you will alphabetize your socks instead of advertising your inability to discuss the subject here.

Until you state your point, there is nothing to discuss; just another FOTLer spamming Youtube noise.

Please state your point.

 

[drkitten]

Great.

And what has that to do with this ?

Absolutely nothing.

You see, what he posted was relevant to an actual discussion of a real international issue that has been the subject of discussion by diplomats and later ratified into law.

In broader terms, it's based on reason, evidence, .... and reality.

Whereas this

You see, it's a little bit of Anglo/American history isn't it ? Documenting the fact that British elites funded BOTH SIDES of the American revolutionary war. Which made the new USA subject to the British crown.

Is not based in reason, evidence, reality, or even coherence.

 

[remirol]

And what has that to do with this ? You see, it's a little bit of Anglo/American history isn't it ? Documenting the fact that British elites funded BOTH SIDES of the American revolutionary war. Which made the new USA subject to the British crown.

What has that to do with anything at all? Again, what is your point?

If you are unable to state your point, then I will be forced to conclude that you have no point and are just another FOTLer spamming links without content.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I have better things to do with my time, such as alphabetize my socks.

Are you in the UK? Marks and Spencers are currently selling black socks in colour-coded pairs, in packs of seven pairs, where the coloured parts are inside the shoe when you wear them. It's the ideal way for the obsessive-compulsive among us to make certain that all pairs of socks wear equally. The colour selection is even sufficiently well chosen that my teenage daughter complimented me on my socks the other day, possibly a unique occurrence in the history of the world for a 50-year-old man.

They do ones that are labelled with the days of the week too, but I'm not that obsessive. I've got a set, sure, but all but the Saturday ones are still in the packet, and I make sure I never wear them on a Saturday.

Dave

 

[Especially]

Great !

Are you in the UK? Marks and Spencers are currently selling black socks in colour-coded pairs, in packs of seven pairs, where the coloured parts are inside the shoe when you wear them. It's the ideal way for the obsessive-compulsive among us to make certain that all pairs of socks wear equally. The colour selection is even sufficiently well chosen that my teenage daughter complimented me on my socks the other day, possibly a unique occurrence in the history of the world for a 50-year-old man.

They do ones that are labelled with the days of the week too, but I'm not that obsessive. I've got a set, sure, but all but the Saturday ones are still in the packet, and I make sure I never wear them on a Saturday.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

Great !

I'm not so sure. How come these Marks and Spencers socks use all seven names of the days of the week, and get them all right? Who told Marks and Spencers what the names of the days of the week were? Unless you can come up with that crucial piece of evidence, I'll have to conclude that Marks and Spencers are part of an international conspiracy to rule the world, because there's no other way that they could know what names I use for the seven days of the week.

At this point a sane person would recognise the analogy between this piece of stupidity and something they just said, give an embarrassed laugh, and admit that they made a bit of a fool of themself. Somehow, I don't think this is going to happen.

Dave

 

[drkitten]

Wow ! That seems to be contradicted by documentary evidence, doesn't it ?

No, it doesn't. Your youtube videos are neither documentaries, nor, frankly, are they evidence.

 

[Especially]

Of course they're not evidence. They are only historical documents. How could anyone possibly think that historical documents are evidence worthy of your education ?

Forgive me.

Take me to your leader.

LOL !!!!

No, it doesn't. Your youtube videos are neither documentaries, nor, frankly, are they evidence.

 

[Agatha]

It's like déjà vu, all over again.

Youtube videos, apart from being useless to people at work, or who are deaf, are not documents.

If you have a point, please make it.

 

[Mojo]

I wonder if you remember that the Rule of Law in this country is superior to the monarchy and to parliamentary statutes. Didn't know that, right ? Statutes are statutes and are ALL subject to the Law of this land.

Please define "the Rule of Law" and "the Law of this land". It obviously isn't common law, since that can be over-ridden by statute law, and it obviously isn't the constitution, since that consists of documents that are themselves statutes.

What is this "Rule of Law" you are invoking?

 

[Mojo]

Acts of Parliament are NOT laws.

Yes, they are, by definition.

 

[remirol]

This is sad. One day you wake up and you stop believing the nonsense.

Here is documentary evidence.

We can only hope that one day you will. Again, Youtube videos are neither documentary nor evidence. I refuse to waste my time watching them. Do you have any real evidence to provide?

 

[Agatha]

I can't listen to youtube videos. If you have a point, for the love of strawberries and cream, please make it.

 

[Mojo]

So, why are matters related to the Social Security System of the USA an issue for the UNELECTED monarchy of the UK ?

Because treaties between the elected parliament of the UK and other states are negotiated in the name of the unelected monarchy.

Because a treaty exists on the subject of retirement planning between the United States and the UK.

And because Parliament has, by provisions of the Social Security Administration Act 1992, delegated power to the Crown to amend legislation for the express purpose of implementing changes that are necessary as a result of such negotiated agreements.

 

[Toke]

I don't have the bandwidth here for video.
If a point can not be made without, it is likely not very good.

 

[Agatha]

You know, Especially, we get that the monarchy is unelected in this country. We already understand that. Most of us here in the UK also fully understand the principle of Royal Assent.

What is the point you are trying to make? Instead of posting all caps bullet points of things we already know, and youtube videos, how about attempting to lay out your argument clearly and concisely? At least then we'd have a chance of a discussion.

 

[remirol]

Since the people have the power of consent to them. They are not laws.

This is both factually untrue and does not ever actually work in practice.

Laws do not require consent. I understand that this is a central tenet of FOTL woo, but it has never been supported by either documentation or any actual examples of it working. It appears that it would be time to abandon FOTL and return to reality, yes?

 

[Agatha]

Agatha,

The unelected monarchy, all members of Parliament, all governments, all rulers, and all men and women in this country are SUBJECT to the same Law. The Rule of Law.

The same is true of all Acts of Parliament. Since the people have the power of consent to them. They are not laws. They are Acts of Parliament. Subject to the Law of this land. So too is the monarchy. And the politicians.

Parliaments do not make laws. They make Statutes. A big difference. And, as a stone may sharpen a knife (but not the other way round) so also all power is subject to the Rule of Law.

The Common Law.

Not the legal industry. But the Common Law. The Rule of Law, in fact.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9gTjvcK8to

I just told you I can't listen to youtube videos. I do you the courtesy of reading your posts, it would be nice if you did me the same courtesy.

You have not shown that laws require consent. Assertion is not evidence.