The Freeman Movement and England

[remirol]

The fact that you can't understand the answer does not mean it hasn't been answered. I suggest that you find out what a treaty is.

As the document itself says, the US and the UK entered into a treaty of reciprocity which required an amendment of certain UK social security regulations.

And I have to repeat my question.

What has the Social Security System of the USA got to do with the UK Crown ?

Your question has been answered. Please stop further evasions.

 

[Mashuna]

And I have to repeat my question.

What has the Social Security System of the USA got to do with the UK Crown ?

Just explain it to us please.

They are two separate nations. Each with their own governments. Are you saying that leglislation on Social Security is not in the hands of elected politicians on this subject but is somehow coming from the UNELECTED monarchy issuing orders !

Your inability to understand answers does not mean that they have not been provided.

But please carry on with the comedy goodness!

 

[Mojo]

Are you saying that leglislation on Social Security is not in the hands of elected politicians on this subject but is somehow coming from the UNELECTED monarchy issuing orders !

Nope. Check out the signatories to the agreements. And remember that "The Crown" effectively only enacts the legislation made by Parliament these days.

 

[Mojo]

Well, I know it's a stretch, but you could try reading the document.

Why should he bother reading the document for himself when a video posted on YouTube has told him what it means? He needs to maintain his "sheeple" status.

 

[cwalner]

And I have to repeat my question.

What has the Social Security System of the USA got to do with the UK Crown ?

Just explain it to us please.

They are two separate nations. Each with their own governments. Are you saying that leglislation on Social Security is not in the hands of elected politicians on this subject but is somehow coming from the UNELECTED monarchy issuing orders !

Especially, I have not read your links but have read the responses and they are very clear.

The laws regarding Social Security are entirely in the hands of the elected goverment in the US. However, some time after they were passed, the US and UK voluntarily entered into a treaty pertaining to how each country withholds from workers from the other country. The UK therefore had to ammend UK law in order to comply with its treaty obligations. I am fairly certain that if one looked there are similar laws on the US books ensuring that we uphold our end of the treaty as well.

This is not one country imposing its will on another, but two countries deciding that coordinatiing thier systems is in both of thier best interests, and each passing laws in its own country to accomplish that.

 

[Mashuna]

Why should he bother reading the document for himself when a video posted on YouTube has told him what it means? He needs to maintain his "sheeple" status.

I really should keep up to date with these things. I only just found out that YouTube had recently replaced Hansard.

 

[AvalonXQ]

They are two separate nations. Each with their own governments. Are you saying that leglislation on Social Security is not in the hands of elected politicians on this subject but is somehow coming from the UNELECTED monarchy issuing orders !

If you had bothered to actually READ the document, you would see that this is done under the authority of the legislators, not outside of it:

And Whereas by section 179(1)(a) and (2) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 it is provided that Her Majesty may by Order in Council make provision for modifying or adapting that Act and the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 in their application to cases affected by agreements with other Governments providing for reciprocity in matters specified in the said section:

In other words, Her Majesty doesn't just get to amend legislation willy-nilly. The UK legislators provided for Her to be allowed to make reciprocity agreements. Perfectly sensible, perfectly above-board, and nothing conspiracyish anywhere here.

 

[Dave Rogers]

The laws regarding Social Security are entirely in the hands of the elected goverment in the US. However, some time after they were passed, the US and UK voluntarily entered into a treaty pertaining to how each country withholds from workers from the other country. The UK therefore had to ammend UK law in order to comply with its treaty obligations.

Yes, but apart from that, what has the Social Security System of the USA got to do with the UK Crown ?



Dave

 

[AvalonXQ]

Yes, but apart from that, what has the Social Security System of the USA got to do with the UK Crown ?



Dave

Apart from that? Bollocks.

 

[Paul]

And what is the nature of the agreement on Social Security between the UK and the USA ?

So that you can't claim any further ignorance, here is part of a relevant parliamentary answer from 2002:

The main purpose of such reciprocal agreements is to protect the social security position of workers moving between the two countries during their working lives. They prevent employees, their employers and the self-employed from having to pay social security contributions to both the home state and the state of employment at the same time and ensure that such workers' rights to certain benefits are maintained.

An Order is an 'Order', isn't it ?

No

Who is actually giving the Order?

It's not that kind of order, it's a Statutory Instrument.

The text says it's an Order made by the UK Crown, doesn't it ?

The text says it's an agreement:

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, being duly authorised thereto by their respective Governments, have signed this Supplementary Agreement.


DONE in duplicate at London on 6th June 1996.

FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND:

William Marsden,
(Americas Director, FCO)


FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:


Timothy E. Deal,
(Minister, Embassy of the United States of America)

And it's Crown Copyright, isn't it ?

So? All works produced by the British government are crown copyright, it refers to the office and not the specific sovereign.

An order is not an agreement. It's an Order. Isn't it ? There IS a difference between an agreement and an order, isn't there ? And what is the UK Crown doing issuing Orders on US Social Security ?

A little reading before ranting would provide all the information you require.

 

[Mashuna]

And what is the nature of the agreement on Social Security between the UK and the USA ?

So that you can't claim any further ignorance, here is part of a relevant parliamentary answer from 2002:

The main purpose of such reciprocal agreements is to protect the social security position of workers moving between the two countries during their working lives. They prevent employees, their employers and the self-employed from having to pay social security contributions to both the home state and the state of employment at the same time and ensure that such workers' rights to certain benefits are maintained.

An Order is an 'Order', isn't it ?

No

Who is actually giving the Order?

It's not that kind of order, it's a Statutory Instrument.

The text says it's an Order made by the UK Crown, doesn't it ?

The text says it's an agreement:

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, being duly authorised thereto by their respective Governments, have signed this Supplementary Agreement.


DONE in duplicate at London on 6th June 1996.

FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND:

William Marsden,
(Americas Director, FCO)


FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:


Timothy E. Deal,
(Minister, Embassy of the United States of America)

And it's Crown Copyright, isn't it ?

So? All works produced by the British government are crown copyright, it refers to the office and not the specific sovereign.

An order is not an agreement. It's an Order. Isn't it ? There IS a difference between an agreement and an order, isn't there ? And what is the UK Crown doing issuing Orders on US Social Security ?

A little reading before ranting would provide all the information you require.

I'm sorry, but until you produce all this information as a YouTube clip, it is not valid as evidence. Probably.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Apart from that? Bollocks.

So you're saying that the USA has the UK by the bollocks?

Not disagreeing, just asking.

Dave

 

[Mojo]

So you're saying that the USA has the UK by the bollocks?

Have you seen the extradition treaty?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Have you seen the extradition treaty?

Like I said, not disagreeing.

Dave

 

[Especially]

You ask me to 'remember' ?

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.

So too is the Monarchy. Ever read the oath of the Queen ?

Parliaments make STATUTES. Acts of Parliament. These are all subject to THE LAW OF THIS LAND. They are NOT the law of this land.

There is a big difference.

Statutes go on the 'Statute Book'. Acts of Parliament are NOT laws.

Nope. Check out the signatories to the agreements. And remember that "The Crown" effectively only enacts the legislation made by Parliament these days.

 

[Especially]

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 !

 

[drkitten]

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.

Still no answer !

Still no content. No exclamation point, because it's not surprising. FOTL never has content, just ignorance and outrage.

 

[Especially]

A treaty to do what, exactly ?

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.




Still no content. No exclamation point, because it's not surprising. FOTL never has content, just ignorance and outrage.

 

[cwalner]

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 !

Fine, your persistance paid off and I can't evade any further. The TRUTH is that Barack Obama was actually born in Kenya, which at the time was part of the British Commonwealth. Therefore President Obama was, and still is, a subject of the British Crown and is 100% loyal to the monarchy. Therefore, all US legislation is must pass royal approval before the president signs it into law.

Because they are also both part of the NWO and time travelling reptilians, this also applies to all legislation passed even prior to Obama's appointment as president.

 

[remirol]

If you have a point to make, please just state it. I'm not watching any Youtube crap bolted together by a bunch of barking nutters and spammed repeatedly by an FOTLer who spends all his time evading questions; I have better things to do with my time, such as alphabetize my socks.