Oddities of British Government

Discussion on creating and maintaining Conflicts of Law
User avatar
Site Admin
Posts: 692
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2013 9:24 am

Oddities of British Government

Post by editor » Sun Jun 19, 2016 6:41 am

I just found an article which is very interesting to me. I'm posting it in the Jural Society forum for two reasons:
  1. We don't get as many posts here, so it won't soon get lost, and
  2. Understanding how other governments organize themselves is useful to students of Ecclesias.
The Absurdly Confusing Lands of the British Crown, Explained in 1 Chart
by Max Galka, June 16, 2016

Link to original article: http://affluentinvestor.com/2016/06/abs ... d-1-chart/

Confused about the relationship between the U.K., England, and Great Britain? Want a better understanding of the U.K.’s connection with Ireland, Scotland, and Wales? Curious why so many other countries still have the Queen’s face on their currency? Not quite sure what The Commonwealth is?

The Brexit referendum, set for June 23rd, will determine whether the U.K. stays or leaves the European Union. And all of the places mentioned above have a direct role in the vote.

If you’re unsure what these places are or how they relate to the United Kingdom, keep calm and read on (ouch!).

Or, you can just skip ahead to the last chart, which sums up it all up.

Unraveling the British Isles
british-isles-6.png (49.7 KiB) Viewed 19707 times
Between its highly unusual structure and lots of ambiguously named places, the British Isles are a confusing place.

I think the piece that trips most people up is the idea of a country within a country. The United Kingdom, a country, is made up of four separate countries: England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland.

“Country” is normally used interchangeably with “sovereign state,” and in most cases they are the same, but not always. Sovereign state is an official, well-defined term. It is what most people really mean when they say country. It refers to the highest level of world government, the one that has the final say over what happens within its borders. And though there are some disputes over the sovereignty of particular territories, the U.N. serves as a common point of reference for a list of the world’s sovereign states.

“Country,” on the other hand, is much more vague. The term has no agreed definition, and different governments use it to refer to different things. If the decision were up to another government, England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland might instead be considered provinces or regions, since they do not have sovereignty over their lands (only the United Kingdom does). I suppose because of their distinct cultures and historical independence, the U.K. decided to regard them each as countries.

Beyond the four countries, the U.K. also has sovereignty over the three Crown Dependencies (the Isle of Man, Jersey, and Guernsey). However, as independent jurisdictions they are not part of the United Kingdom. The Queen serves as the islands’ head of state, but not technically as their queen. In the Isle of Man, her title is Lord of Mann and in the Channel Islands, she has no specific title.

To top off the confusion, many of the places are similarly named. Four of the regions have “Britain” or “British” in their name. The British Isles, The British Islands, Great Britain, and Britain all have different meanings (“Britain” is not shown in the diagram, but it is an alternate name for the United Kingdom).

“Ireland” appears three times: Northern Ireland (the country within the U.K.), Ireland (the Republic of Ireland, an entirely separate sovereign nation), and Ireland (the island they both occupy).

The Monarchy of the United Kingdom
2united-kingdom-monarchy-6.png (71.27 KiB) Viewed 19707 times
In the same way that the United States government has sovereignty over Puerto Rico, Guam and other territories beyond the 50 states, the United Kingdom’s sovereignty also extends to other territories beyond its borders.

The 14 Overseas Territories in the diagram are the last remnants of the British Empire, former colonies that never claimed their independence or decided to remain under the umbrella of the U.K. They all belong to the constitutional monarchy of the United Kingdom and recognize the queen as their monarch and head of state.

The Commonwealth Realms
3commonwealth-realms-6.png (83.15 KiB) Viewed 19707 times
Separate from her role as Monarch of the United Kingdom, the Queen is also Queen of Canada, Queen of Australia, Queen of Jamaica, and Queen of the other 12 other sovereign states shown in the chart, known as Commonwealth Realms.

Many of the countries have the Queen’s face on their currencies and several incorporate the Union Jack into their own flags, but the Royal Family has only a minor ceremonial role in their governments. Though the queen is technically head of state for all of the Commonwealth Realms, in practice the head of state functions are carried out by official representatives, who each Realm nominates for itself.

Contrary to any criticisms you may have heard about the royal family soaking their former colonies for taxes, the Commonwealth Realms are not required to pay any money to the U.K. or to its royal family.

The Commonwealth
4the-commonwealth-6.png (91.27 KiB) Viewed 19707 times
The Commonwealth is the last remaining connection between the U.K. and [most of] its former colonies, which together make up about a third of the world’s population.

The concept of the Commonwealth came into being shortly after colonies began declaring independence while retaining the U.K.’s monarch as the head of state. It described the changing British Empire, which now included independent countries. Since then it has gradually evolved into a voluntary intergovernmental organization in which all members are equal. Two of its members (Rwanda and Mozambique) don’t even have any historical ties to the British Empire.

The Queen remains the ceremonial Head of the Commonwealth, but the U.K. no longer has any special role in the organization’s governance.

Who is eligible to vote in the Brexit referendum?

The vote is open to U.K., Commonwealth, and Irish citizens who live in the United Kingdom.
  • U.K. citizenship includes everyone from the Monarchy of the United Kingdom as well as citizens of the Crown Dependencies (even though they are not technically part of the U.K.).
  • Yes, citizens of India, Canada, Namibia, and all the other Commonwealth countries can vote, as long as they live in the U.K.
  • You may be surprised to learn citizens of Ireland (the Republic of Ireland, not Northern Ireland) are eligible to vote. Under British law, Commonwealth and Irish citizens are treated as a special class. They have fewer rights than U.K. citizens, but more than other foreign nationals, such as the right to vote.
This means citizens of all the places shown in the final chart (about one-third of the world’s population) are eligible to vote, so long as they live in the United Kingdom.

The vote is also open to Commonwealth Citizens living in Gibraltar and U.K. nationals who live abroad (full description of voter eligibility).

If you were at all confused about Great Britain, England, the U.K., Scotland, Ireland, Wales, the Commonwealth, or any associated territories, dependencies, monarchies, realms, jurisdictions, or former colonies, hopefully these charts helped clear it up.

If not, try to keep a stiff upper lip (ouch!).

Credit to TWCarlson for his Euler diagram on which the ones here are based.
User avatar
Posts: 773
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 1:16 pm

Re: Oddities of British Government

Post by notmartha » Mon Jun 20, 2016 2:10 pm

Sure can get confusing, eh?

Words are used incorrectly all the time, to the point that people don't even know where they live. They use words such as "state", "county", "country," "nation," etc. for the land on which they stand, not understanding the fictional nature of these entities.

Some terms that have been covered:





Here are some more definitions from Bouvier's 1856:
PLACE, pleading, evidence.

1. A particular portion of space; locality.

2. In local actions, the plaintiff must lay his venue in the county in which the action arose. It is a general rule, that the place of every traversable fact, stated in the pleading, must be distinctly alleged; Com. Dig. Pleader, c. 20; Cro. Eliz. 78, 98; Lawes' Pl. 57; Bac. Ab. Venue, B; Co. Litt. 303 a; and some place must be alleged for every such fact; this is done by designating the city, town, village, parish or district, together with the county in which the fact is alleged to have occurred; and the place thus designated, is called the venue. (q. v.)

3. In transitory actions, the place laid in the declaration, need not be the place where the cause of action arose, unless when required by statute. In local actions, the plaintiff will be confined in his proof to the county laid in the declaration.

4. In criminal cases the facts must be laid and proved to have been committed within the jurisdiction of the court, or the defendant must be acquitted. 2 Hawk. c. 25, s. 84; Arcb. Cr. Pl. 40, 95. Vide, generally, Gould on Pl. c. 3, 102-104; Arcb. Civ. Pl. 366; Hamm. N. P. 462; 1 Saund. 347, n. 1; 2 Saund. 5 n.
VENUE, pleading.

1. The venue is the county from which the jury are to come, who are to try the issue. Gould, Pl. c. 3, §102; Archb. Civ. Pl. 86.

2. As it is a general rule, that the place of every traversable fact stated in the pleadings must be distinctly alleged, or at least that some certain place must be alleged for every such fact, it follows that a venue must be stated in every declaration.

3. In local actions, in which the subject or thing to be recovered is local, the true venue must be laid; that is, the action must be brought in that county where the cause of action arose: among these are all real actions, and actions which arise out of some local subject, or the violation of some local rights or interest; as the common law action of waste, trespass quare clausum fregit, trespass for nuisances to houses or lands disturbance of right of way, obstruction or diversion of ancient water courses, &c. Com. Dig. Action, N 4; Bac. Abr. Actions Local, A a.

4. In a transitory action, the plaintiff may lay the venue in any county he pleases; that is, he may bring suit wherever he may find the defendant and lay his cause of action to have arisen there even though the cause of action arose in a foreign jurisdiction. Cowp. 161; Cro. Car. 444; 9 Johns. R. 67; Steph. Pl. 306; 1 Chitty, Pl. 273; Archb. Civ. Pl. 86. Vide, generally, Chit. Pl. Index, h. t.; Steph. Pl. Index, h. t.; Tidd's Pr. Index, h. t.; Graham's Practice, Index, h. t.; Com. Dig. Abatement, H 13; Id. Action, N 13; Id. Amendment, H 1 Id. Pleader, S 9; 21 Vin. Ab. 85 to 169 1 Vern. 178; Yelv. 12 a; Bac. Ab. Actions, Local and Transitory, B; Local Actions; Transitory Actions.

1. By country is meant the state of which one is a member.

2. Every man's country is in general the state in which he happens to have been born, though there are some exceptions. See Domicil; Inhabitant. But a man has the natural right to expatriate himself, i. e. to abandon his country, or his right of citizenship acquired by means of naturalization in any country in which he may have taken up his residence. See Allegiance; Citizen; Expatriation. in another sense, country is the same as pais. (q. v.)

1. A district into which a state is divided.

2. The United States are generally divided into counties; counties are divided into townships or towns.

3. In Pennsylvania the division of the province into three Counties, viz. Philadelphia, Bucks and Chester, was one of the earliest acts of William Penn, the original proprietary. There is no printed record of this division, or of the original boundaries of these counties. Proud says it was made about the year 1682. Proud's Hist. vol. 1) p. 234 vol. 2, p. 258.

4. In some states, as Illinois; 1 Breese, R. 115; a county is considered as a corporation, in others it is only a quasi corporation. 16 Mass. R. 87; 2 Mass. R. 644 7 Mass. R. 461; 1 Greenl. R. 125; 3 Greenl. R. 131; 9 Greenl. R. 88; 8 John. R. 385; 3 Munf. R. 102. Frequent difficulties arise on the division of a county. On this subject, see 16 Mass. R. 86 6 J. J. Marsh. 147; 4 Halst. R. 357; 5 Watts, R. 87 1 Cowen, R. 550; 6 Cowen, R. 642; Cowen, R. 640; 4 Yeates, R. 399 10 Mass. Rep. 290; 11 Mass. Rep. 339.

5. In the English law this word signifies the same as shire, county being derived from the French and shire from the Saxon. Both these words signify a circuit or portion of the realm, into which the whole land is divided, for the better government thereof, and the more easy administration of justice. There is no part of England that is not within some county, and the shire reve, (sheriff) originally a yearly officer, was the governor of the county. Four of the counties of England, viz. Lancaster, Chester, Durham and Ely, were called counties Palatine, which were jurisdictions of a peculiar nature, and held by, especial charter from the king. See stat. 27 H. VIII. c. 25.
STATE, government.

1. This word is used in various senses. In its most enlarged sense, it signifies a self sufficient body of persons united together in one community for the defence of their rights, and to do right and justice to foreigners. In this sense, the state means the whole people united into one body politic; (q. v.) and the state, and the people of the state, are equivalent expressions. 1 Pet. Cond. Rep. 37 to 39; 3 Dall. 93; 2 Dall. 425; 2 Wilson's Lect. 120; Dane's Appx. §50, p. 63 1 Story, Const. §361. In a more limited sense, the word `state' expresses merely the positive or actual organization of the legislative, or judicial powers; thus the actual government of the state is designated by the name of the state; hence the expression, the state has passed such a law, or prohibited such an act. State also means the section of territory occupied by a state, as the state of Pennsylvania.

2. By the word state is also meant, more particularly, one of the commonwealths which form the United States of America. The constitution of the United States makes the following provisions in relation to the states.

3. Art. 1, s. 9, §5. No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state. No preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or re venue to the ports of one state over those of another, nor shall vessels bound to or from one state be obliged to enter, clear, or pay duties in another.

4. §6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of the receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time.

5. §7. No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States, and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them shall, without the consent of congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title of any kind whatever, from, any king, prince, or foreign state.

6. Art. 1, s. 10, §1. No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payments of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto, or law impairing the obligation of contracts; or grant any title of nobility.

7. §2. No state shall, without the consent of congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection laws; and the net produce of all duties and imposts laid by any state on imports or exports shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States, and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of congress. No state, shall, without the consent of congress, lay any duty on tonnage, keep troops or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.

8. The district of Columbia and the territorial districts of the United States, are not states within the meaning of the constitution and of the judiciary act, so as to enable a citizen thereof to sue a citizen of one of the states in the federal courts. 2 Cranch, 445; 1 Wheat. 91.

9. The several states composing the United States are sovereign and independent, in all things not surrendered to the national government by the constitution, and are considered, on general principles, by each other as foreign states, yet their mutual relations are rather those of domestic independence, than of foreign alienation. 7 Cranch, 481; 3 Wheat. 324; 1 Greenl. Ev. §489, 504. Vide, generally, Mr. Madison's report in the legislature of Virginia, January, 1800; 1 Story's Com. on Const. §208; 1 Kent, Com. 189, note b; Grotius, B. 1, c. 1, s. 14; Id. B. 3, c. 3, s. 2; Burlamaqui, vol. 2, pt. 1, c. 4, s. 9; Vattel, B. 1, c. 1; 1 Toull. n. 202, note 1 Nation; Cicer. de Repub. 1. 1, s. 25.

Place is a portion of space. Venue is the place that occupies the space. Space is a portion of a plane. Plane is attribute of place and space.

While the U.S. government was never permitted to erect a state within a state, it could erect "districts" or "areas" that acted like states and/or be given the name "state". This is why there are so many variables, such as:

The United States of America
United States of America
United states of America
United States
united States


The State of Tennessee
State of Tennessee
Tennessee State
state of Tennessee
this State
the State

(I'd use the planes near me, except it gets even more confusing when you introduce the term "commonwealth.")

Maybe someone should make a Venn Diagram showing all the planes of the "United States" and how they relate to each other.

I prefer the KISS method...

God owns and is the Sovereign King over all the Earth. All of the paper planes are nothing more than man's pathetic attempt to usurp God's power, and should be avoided at all costs.
Last edited by notmartha on Sat Jun 25, 2016 11:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Site Admin
Posts: 692
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2013 9:24 am

Re: Oddities of British Government

Post by editor » Mon Jun 20, 2016 5:02 pm

This was a very relevant follow-up notmartha, thank you.
User avatar
Posts: 773
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 1:16 pm

Re: Oddities of British Government

Post by notmartha » Wed Jun 29, 2016 11:24 am

The following two articles explain the legal personality of a “state” and the vulnerable position that “political unions” leave people in, including but not limited to subjection to a “common destiny” and a “common set of values,” of which “common law” is formed around. You don’t have to dig very deeply to conclude that their values are anti-Christ, their destiny looks bleak, and their law is the antithesis to God’s Law.

Lisbon Treaty turned the EU into a superstate that could become a 'prison of nations'
http://www.express.co.uk/comment/expres ... referendum

SPEAKING from his own extensive experience, the last USSR President Mikhail Gorbachev famously proclaimed that “the EU was the old Soviet Union dressed in Western clothes”.

By Przemek de Skuba Skwirczynski

PUBLISHED: 14:12, Tue, Jun 21, 2016 | UPDATED: 16:00, Tue, Jun 21, 2016
Unlike Russia and the majority of former Soviet Union’s constituent states, Western European nations are way too attached to democracy and liberal values to allow dubious revolutions or dictatorship takeovers. For that reason communists never managed to stage a successful change of power westwards of the former Soviet Union and only took Central Europe by way of the Second World War-ending Yalta agreements.

Similarly, all the Western European dictators with their imperialist tendencies got contained and never lasted long; even the most prolific ones like Hitler. And that might just be what Gorbachev had in mind – Western Europe is simply too advanced and evolved to accept a local version of Stalin.

That is exactly why the EU, which was designed with evolution into a super-state in mind, had to be packaged appropriately to deceive the European consumer… Or as Gorbachev put it: “dressed in Western clothes”.

The erosion of democracy and sovereignty has therefore been gradual and incremental, hardly visible to the masses. Nothing has been done by force, whilst false pretences of consultations and acting in the public’s “best interests” have been maintained during power-grabs at times of crisis such as recessions, acts of terrorism or mass migrations.

Nevertheless, with each passing day we are all becoming a little less British and that little bit more “European”. It is widely accepted and enshrined in international legislation that any state possesses a defined territory, permanent population, own government and foreign policy.

The concept of an “ever closer union among the peoples of Europe” dates back to the 1957 Treaty of Rome which also ensures freedom of movement, hence effectively bringing down the European borders between the member states whilst maintaining the external EU frontier i.e. defining the Union’s territory.

Next, since the Maastricht Treaty in 1992 all member states’ nationals have automatically become EU citizens, which took care of defining the Union’s population. That same treaty further stipulated that the European Commission “shall exercise coordinating, executive and management functions”, effectively providing the EU with a government.

The Lisbon Treaty of 2009 is still relatively fresh in our memories. It completes the EU’s moulding into a country by ensuring the Union has a “Common Foreign and Security Policy” with a “High Representative” acting in the capacity of a Foreign Minister.
Following the Lisbon Treaty the EU at present negotiates agreements globally and maintains a worldwide network of embassies. Decisions previously requiring unanimity of the Council of Ministers can now be taken by a qualified majority, which resembles the way countries operate and is contrary to what one would expect of a union.

Clearly, the EU already bears all the characteristics of a country and therefore is a super-state. And so the EU flag and anthem are neither purely symbolic nor are they a joke. As is the common currency, from which the UK has miraculously secured an opt-out.

What is however more sinister is that the Lisbon Treaty is open to further amendments, because the powers to change the EU’s competencies have been ceded by the member states to the Brussels Eurocrats. That prerogative is guaranteed by Article 48 of Lisbon Treaty, to which the constituent countries have signed up.

Therefore, the EU already has the legal personality of a state, its own citizens, increased judicial, security and foreign policy, and of course a guarantee to “self-amend” the legislation, which by now has a format of a constitution. That is exactly why certain countries such as Ireland and Czech Republic opposed signing this treaty whilst many others attempted to secure various opt-outs (all failed except for the UK who won justice and home affairs opt-outs).

Post Lisbon Treaty the EU has a President, in fact five of them, and is further bound together as a military alliance. Yes, your eyes are not deceiving you, there now is a “Common Security and Defence Policy” and it is within the European Council’s power to wage war as the EU.

Lastly, just because the Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, which covers EU member states’ leave procedure, is there at the moment does not guarantee the exit clause will remain as an option forever. Remember, the EU constitution can now be “self-amended” without consultation with member states!

It no longer is an exaggeration to say that, as Western Europe, we might just be a step away from becoming a prison of nations akin to the USSR.

European SUPERSTATE to be unveiled: EU nations 'to be morphed into one' post-Brexit
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/ ... ate-Brexit

EUROPEAN political chiefs are to take advantage of Brexit by unveiling their long-held plan to morph the continent’s countries into one GIANT SUPERSTATE, it has emerged today.

By Nick Gutteridge
PUBLISHED: 11:01, Mon, Jun 27, 2016 | UPDATED: 17:20, Mon, Jun 27, 2016
The foreign ministers of France and Germany are due to reveal a blueprint to effectively do away with individual member states in what is being described as an “ultimatum”.

Under the radical proposals EU countries will lose the right to have their own army, criminal law, taxation system or central bank, with all those powers being transferred to Brussels.

Controversially member states would also lose what few controls they have left over their own borders, including the procedure for admitting and relocating refugees.

The plot has sparked fury and panic in Poland - a traditional ally of Britain in the fight against federalism - after being leaked to Polish news channel TVP Info.

The public broadcaster reports that the bombshell proposal will be presented to a meeting of the Visegrad group of countries - made up of Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovakia - by German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier later today.

Excerpts of the nine-page report were published today as the leaders of Germany, France and Italy met in Berlin for Brexit crisis talks.

In the preamble to the text the two ministers write: "Our countries share a common destiny and a common set of values that give rise to an even closer union between our citizens. We will therefore strive for a political union in Europe and invite the next Europeans to participate in this venture."

The revelations come just days after Britain shook the Brussels establishment by voting to leave the European Union in a move some have predicted could leave to the break-up of the EU.

A number of member states are deeply unhappy about the creeping federalism of the European project with anti-EU sentiments running high in eastern Europe, Scandinavia and France.

Responding to the plot Polish Foreign Minister Witold Waszczykowski raged: "This is not a good solution, of course, because from the time the EU was invented a lot has changed.

“The mood in European societies is different. Europe and our voters do not want to give the Union over into the hands of technocrats.

“Therefore, I want to talk about this, whether this really is the right recipe right now in the context of a Brexit."

There are deep divides at the heart of the EU at the moment over how to proceed with the project in light of the Brexit vote.

Some figures have cautioned against trying to force through further political integration, warning that to do so against the wishes of the European people will only fuel further Eurosceptic feeling.

A few weeks before the Brexit vote European Council president Donald Tusk warned that European citizens did not share the enthusiasm of some of their leaders for “a utopia of Europe without conflicting interests and ambitions, a utopia of Europe imposing its own values on the external world, a utopia of Euro-Asian unity”.

He added: “Increasingly louder are those who question the very principle of a united Europe. The spectre of a break-up is haunting Europe and a vision of a federation doesn’t seem to me to be the best answer to it.”

His view was backed up by the leader of the eurozone countries, Dutch politician Jerome Dijsselbloem, who added: “In the eurozone some are pushing for a completion of the monetary union by creating a full political union, a euro area economic government or even a euro budget… to me it is obvious.
“We need to strengthen what we have and finish it, but let’s not build more extensions to the European house while it is so unstable.”

Meanwhile Lorenzo Condign, the former director general of Italy’s treasury, has said it is nearly impossible to see Europe opting for more integration at such a time of upheaval.

He said: “It seems difficult to imagine that the rest of the EU will close ranks and move in the direction of greater integration quickly. Simply, there is no political will.

“Indeed, the risk is exactly the opposite - namely that centrifugal forces will prevail and make integration even more difficult.”

But others see the Brexit vote as an opportunity to push ahead with the European elite’s long-cherished dream of creating a United States of Europe.

Spain’s foreign minister Jose Manuel Garcia-Margallo has called for “more Europe” whilst Italy’s finance minister, Carlo Padoan, is advocating a common budget for the eurozone states.

And Emmanuel Macron, France’s economy minister, wants to go even further and set up a common eurozone treasury which would oversee the permanent transfer of funds from wealthier northern Europe to shore up Mediterranean economies.
As Solomon wrote in Ecclesiastes “there is no new thing under the sun.” As you read the above articles, students of history will recognize the similarities between Britain’s attempted exit of the EU super-state and what has taken place on American soil, with the so-called Civil War. The question that the Ecclesia should be asking is not whether or not Britain (or any other “state”) should leave the Union, but rather whether or not they should have ever joined. Or, if there should be “Unions” at all. Will people ever learn from history? Will they ever heed the warnings found in Isaiah 8:9-13?

Associate yourselves, O ye people, and ye shall be broken in pieces; and give ear, all ye of far countries: gird yourselves, and ye shall be broken in pieces; gird yourselves, and ye shall be broken in pieces. Take counsel together, and it shall come to nought; speak the word, and it shall not stand: for God is with us. For the LORD spake thus to me with a strong hand, and instructed me that I should not walk in the way of this people, saying, Say ye not, A confederacy, to all them to whom this people shall say, A confederacy; neither fear ye their fear, nor be afraid. Sanctify the LORD of hosts himself; and let him be your fear, and let him be your dread.
User avatar
Posts: 1562
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 3:02 pm

Re: Oddities of British Government

Post by Firestarter » Thu Jun 30, 2016 3:32 pm

For some time I’ve wondered what the connection is between England and its colonies (or sovereign states?) of the Common wealth, I (finally) looked into the matter
I hope I’m not too far of the original topic, because I’ll start with some information on the Netherlands. There are similarities between both Kingdoms: ruled by ruthless Royal families, while both import large amounts of immigrants to prevent the depopulation agenda21 from showing and in 2016 the populations in both voted against the European Union in referendums. Arguably England is the only real colonial power left in the world, although there’s no real difference between colonies (by law) or “sovereign” states are plundered by multinationals.
For the sake of brevity I will not explain how the Crown of London, is not ruled by the British Royals, but by Rothschild, or information on the “secret” societies that control the world: Sovereign Military Order of Malta, Committee of 300 (Chairman Queen Elizabeth II), Bilderberg, Trilateral Commission, 1001 Club, Club of Rome, freemasons, Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIAA), etc.

First a little something on the Kingdom of the Netherlands; “laws” can also be a onetime choice or some policy (instead of what most people think about when they hear law). Practically everything a “legislative” force decides is “laws” (per definition).
According to the (Dutch) constitution the King proposes laws. If the majority of the (democratically elected) “tweede kamer” approves the law, and if the “eerste kamer” also approves it, and only after the King approves the law, it is accepted. The “eerste kamer” is chosen by the (democratically elected) “Provinciale Staten”. The “Provinciale Staten” rule over “provincies” (the 12 provinces of the Netherlands), while the “gemeenten” (cities) are ruled by the “College van B & W”. The heads of “Provinciale Staten” and “College van B & W” are chosen by the King.
This is not an absolute dictatorship, because the “tweede kamer”, “eerste kamer” and “Provinciale Staten” can still reject laws proposed by the King. But then again: the King can also disband the “tweede kamer” and “eerste kamer”, while he can prosecute its members (and on the other hand can pardon anybody he likes). What makes it so very just and democratic is that the King cannot be held responsible for his crimes!
In the European Union only the European Parliament is democratically elected, while it’s the European Commission that proposes laws. It’s the European Parliament together with the European Council (made up of 1 representative for every state) that decides if proposed laws are accepted.

I have investigated the constitution of Canada; when Canada is a colony of the British Royals, that’s all the proof I need that none of the “sovereign” states of the Common Wealth are democracies (or sovereign).
In the following is all the evidence you need to know that Canada is part of the dictatorship of Queen Elizabeth II: http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/just/05.html
You only have to understand words like “constitutional convention”, to know who calls the shots. According to the state propaganda the fact that the Queen has “executive power” (just like the King in the Netherlands), doesn’t mean that it’s a dictatorship. Of course we all know from history that dictators won’t abuse their power?!
Canada was created by an act of the Parliament of Great Britain called the British North America Act, 1867 (the Constitution Act, 1867). This has never been repealed, so – by law – Canada is a colony of Great Britain, you can read it here (including the Constitution Act, 1982): http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/FullText.html
It’s the Governor General (chosen by the Queen) that proposes laws; laws only come into effect if they are “assented” by the Queen. The House of Commons of Canada (1 for each of the 4 provinces) is democratically elected, but can only reject laws proposed by the Governor General. If I understand correctly the House of Commons is comparable to the “tweede kamer”, while the Senate is like the “eerste kamer”. The Governor General summons qualified Senators; so Great Britain is even less democratic than the Netherlands.
Also interesting is that only since 1949 Canada has its own Supreme Court (before that the English Courts ruled supreme over Canada).
User avatar
Posts: 773
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 1:16 pm

Re: Oddities of British Government

Post by notmartha » Sat Jul 02, 2016 1:30 pm

Firestarter wrote:I have investigated the constitution of Canada; when Canada is a colony of the British Royals, that’s all the proof I need that none of the “sovereign” states of the Common Wealth are democracies (or sovereign).In the following is all the evidence you need to know that Canada is part of the dictatorship of Queen Elizabeth II: http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/just/05.html

If the above is true (I have not researched the info in links), it makes the following even more interesting in light of Brexit:

The United States, Canada and Mexico agreed to establish the North American Caucus.

http://sputniknews.com/politics/2016062 ... ation.html
WASHINGTON (Sputnik) —

The United States, Canada and Mexico agreed to establish the North American Caucus to facilitate more regular meetings among the leaders of the three nations, US President Barack Obama said on Wednesday.

"We are creating what we call the North American Caucus, which means our three governments will meet on a more regular basis… and in short, we are going to do more to speak with one united North American voice on the world stage," Obama said during a press conference at the north American Leaders’ Summit in Ottawa, Canada.

Earlier on Wednesday, the White House reported that the new caucus will hold semi-annual ministerial level meetings to address regional and global issues.
They are just moving right along with their plans of borderless paper planes.

This map is from the UN. Notice the "goal" doesn't include U.S. and Mexico in same region. Also note there are 10 regions.
wTdpIG.png (384.46 KiB) Viewed 19493 times
Revelation 17:12-13 (KJV)
And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast. These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast.
User avatar
Posts: 1562
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 3:02 pm

Re: Oddities of British Government

Post by Firestarter » Wed Jul 20, 2016 3:23 pm

Firestarter wrote:I have investigated the constitution of Canada; when Canada is a colony of the British Royals, that’s all the proof I need that none of the “sovereign” states of the Common Wealth are democracies (or sovereign).
I was wrong on this assumption. Only the countries of the Commonwealth ruled by a Governor-General are colonies under the reign of Queen Elizabeth II. Only the following, besides Canada, have a Governor-General (in between brackets the year they were established with Governor-General): Antigua and Barbuda (since 1981), Australia (1901), Bahamas (1973), Barbados (1966), Belize (1981), Grenada (1974), Jamaica (1962), New Zealand (1917), Papua New Guinea (1975), Saint Kitts and Nevis (1983), Saint Lucia (1979), Saint Vincent and the Grenadines (1979), Solomon Islands (1978), Tuvalu (1978).
The following is from the Canada CONSTITUTION ACT, 1867 (pay close attention to art. 54).
24. The Governor General shall from Time to Time, in the Queen’s Name, by Instrument under the Great Seal of Canada, summon qualified Persons to the Senate; and, subject to the Provisions of this Act, every Person so summoned shall become and be a Member of the Senate and a Senator.
54. It shall not be lawful for the House of Commons to adopt or pass any Vote, Resolution, Address, or Bill for the Appropriation of any Part of the Public Revenue, or of any Tax or Impost, to any Purpose that has not been first recommended to that House by Message of the Governor General in the Session in which such Vote, Resolution, Address, or Bill is proposed.
55. Where a Bill passed by the Houses of the Parliament is presented to the Governor General for the Queen’s Assent, he shall declare, according to his Discretion, but subject to the Provisions of this Act and to Her Majesty’s Instructions, either that he assents thereto in the Queen’s Name, or that he withholds the Queen’s Assent, or that he reserves the Bill for the Signification of the Queen’s Pleasure.

I wanted to read the British Constitution, but there is not 1 constitution but a number of “Acts” that together can be considered the constitution (so I gave up reading the original text for now). I did read Wikipedia (and some other websites) to get an idea on the “constitution” of Great Britain: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitut ... ed_Kingdom
The Bill of Rights of 1689 has never been repealed, so this is already a strong indication that we cannot expect Britain to be too democratic. Here are some of the powers of Queen Elizabeth, she can: 1) dismiss and appoint a Prime Minister, 2) dismiss and appoint other ministers, 3) summon and prorogue Parliament, 4) grant or refuse Royal Assent to bills, 5) commission officers in the army, 6) command the army, 7) appoint members to the Privy Council, 8) issue and withdraw passports, 9) grant prerogative of mercy, 10) grant honours, 11) create corporations by Royal Charter, 12) appoint bishops and archbishops of the Church of England, 13) ratify and make treaties, 14) declare war and peace, 15) recognise states, 16) accredit and receive diplomats, 17) fill vacancies in the Supreme Court.
The only conclusion can be that British Queen, like the Dutch King, has enormous powers and is nothing else than a dictator. To make dictatorship even easier in Britain there is no “separation of powers”, the ministers of the Queen can also vote (usually) as part of the House of Commons). Please note that it’s Elizabeth that appointed Prime Minister Theresa May and dismissed the other ministers and secretaries over Brexit.
The Queen can make new laws by “Orders in Council” that either come in effect immediately as sort of a decree (Royal Prerogatives), but can be repealed by the Parliament, or with an act of Parliament. There is only one other institute in Britain that can propose laws, this is not the democratically elected House of Commons, but the Queen’s Privy Council that can propose Orders of Council without the Queen´s approval. Although I doubt if this is possible for all types of laws.
The Privy Council isn’t only used to “advise” the Queen, but can also be used to schedule private, secret meetings between a Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition. To make things even worse than in the Netherlands, there’s the House of Lords (peers) that get appointed by the Queen. There used to be more “hereditary peers” in the House of Lords, but this has been restricted to 92 (of a grand total of 798), to give the Queen even more freedom to choose whomever she wants. Formally the House of Lords since 1911 cannot prevent Bills from coming into effect (a veto), but in reality it has done so regularly.
Only since 2011 the Queen doesn´t have the power to dissolve parliament anymore (in the Netherlands the King does have this power still).

I checked out the constitution of India; part of the Commonwealth and not a colony (anymore) but not a democracy either. It is no democracy because of the caste system, which is discrimination by law. In the caste system, Indians get a status based on birth (with Brahmins the highest): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caste_system_in_India
The caste system wasn’t new, but was “perfected” by the British from 1757 (when they invaded) till 1947 (when India got its sovereignity back). “Caste” is not an Indian word, it’s probably derived from the Portuguese “casta” (race, lineage, breed,pure or unmixed). Also interesting to note is that the Aryan master race of the Nazis, were named after Indian Aryans.This is related to a myth that “superior” Aryan Germans invaded India at around 1500 BC.
The British perfected the caste system in which jobs were given according to caste, while from 1900 on lower castes couldn’t own land. The British even from the early 19th century on enforced that criminal castesgroups were presumed guilty by birth, children taken from their parents, and held in penal colonies or quarantined. By 1931 India had 237 criminal castes and tribes.
After India achieved independence, the policy of caste-based reservation of jobs was formalised. The names for the lowest caste are Scheduled Caste, Dalit or Untouchable. The Indian government, while on the one side formalising the caste system, has introduced affirmative action policies to improve the conditions for the lower castes (including job opportunities). I don’t see how to see the difference between lower or higher caste, if this is correct it would be faster to achieve equality for all by simply abolishing the caste system.
What is also strange about this caste system is that the amount of people over the various castes is almost evenly distributed. In 2006 the Scheduled Caste and Tribes were 28% of the total while the highest, Forward Caste 31% of the total population. To put this in perspective: the lowest castes in highest payingjobs increased from 1.2% of all jobs in 1959 to 10.1% in 1995.
In 2009 the United Nations decided that the caste system is not racism, with the legal argument that “caste” is not the same as “race”: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home ... 449716.cms

There used to be a time that if a country decided to become a republic it was automatically excluded from the Commonwealth. This has changed since the days that India became a republic in 1947 (remaining in the Commonwealth), there are even countries that want to join the Commonwealth. Mozambique and Rwanda have joined the Commonwealth without a link to the British Empire.
The main decision-making forum of the Commonwealth is the Heads of Government Meeting, headed by the Queen; I don’t know what it decides on. In a nice example of doublethink the Commonwealth lists its areas of work as: Democracy, Economics, Education, Gender, Governance, Human Rights, Law, Small States, Sport, Sustainability, and Youth.

Just last Friday (7/14) a citizen of the Netherlands got sentenced to 30 days in jail for insulting King Willem-Alexander (art. 111 Sr). This man called our King on his Facebook page: murderer, rapist, oppressor and thief. I only had to read the verdict to notice that the attorney in question didn’t even defend the “criminal” that said such horrible things about Willem-Alexander.
There is convincing evidence that the great, great (biological) grandfather of King Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands wasn´t Willem III but some sperm donor (Willem III was already in his 60s and presumed infertile when he married Queen Emma): http://vivanepotista.com/post/508648823 ... l-house-of
The story about King Willem III unable to be the biological father of Wilhelmina is very convincing. I don´t know if the similar story that Elizabeth has stolen the British throne is real: https://gettingreadyfor2015.wordpress.c ... en-a-fake/
If these sources are correct the Royals of the Netherlands and Britain have committed high treason to steal the throne from its rightful owners.
User avatar
Posts: 1562
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 3:02 pm

Re: Oddities of British Government

Post by Firestarter » Sun Jul 31, 2016 4:01 pm

It is well-known that both Queen Elizabeth and King Willem-Alexander have a weekly talk with the puppet they selected for Prime Minister. The state media tells us that this is some kind of social visit because the Queen/King is interested in politrics – YEAH RIGHT!

Some letters of Prince Charles where made public in which he discussed political topics with members of cabinet. It is clear that when Charles advices ministers on politics, his mother does the same but with more power. Here’s the story on these letters (including a link “You can read them in full here” where you can search with “prince of Wales”): http://uk.businessinsider.com/prince-ch ... ext-2015-5
I think the most interesting of these letters are to the (then) Prime Minister Tony Blair of September 8, 2004 and February 24, 2005 (and the replies from Blair) that address the topics British agriculture, investments in the military and the global warming problem (that´s depopulation Agenda21): https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... etters.pdf
When you read these in connection with letters about “health care”, and you know that as part of Agenda21 the main objective of health care is reduction of the population, you will get sick (quite literally).

Also interesting is that Premier Mark Rutte studied at the same university (Rijksuniversiteit Leiden from 1985-1992) and even the same faculty (Geschiedenis) as King Willem-Alexander (from 1987-1993).
The amount of former students of the Rijksuniversiteit Leiden and the fraternity (Minerva) of the Dutch Royals in cabinet is really amazing. In the first cabinet Rutte (installed in 2010 by then Queen Beatrix): 6 of the 12 ministers studied in Leiden with 4 members of Minerva. In the second cabinet Rutte (installed in 2012): “only” 4 ministers studied in Leiden. Also former minister and secretary/general of NATO Jaap de Hoop Scheffer was a member of Minerva.
It would be good if some of my fellow Dutchmen realise what it means that members of the Raad van State have been made minister. The members of the Raad van State are elected by the King (or Queen), for life.
Willem Scholten was selected for the Raad van State in 1976 and became a minister from 1978 to 1980, and from 1980 – 1997 was vice-president of the Raad van State.
Piet Hein Donner was selected for the Raad van State in 1998. In 2002 he was chosen by Beatrix as Minister van Justitie (that’s Newspeak for Justice); he was minister until December 2011, when he became vice-president of the Raad van State. His grandfather had been a minister and president of the Hoge Raad. His father was a member of the European Court of Justice and part of the Commissie van drie that covered up the bribes Prince Bernhard took from Lockheed and Northrop.
Some 100 years ago there was already Mr. P.W.A. Cort van der Linden, a member of Minerva, that was a minister from 1897 – 1901, from 1902 on member of the Raad van State and from 1913 – 1918 also a minister. His father was a member of the “tweede kamer”, his brother in law a minister and member of “eerste kamer” and “tweede kamer” and his son a member of the Raad van State.

According to the following story Elizabeth has a number of cartoonish powers (but I don’t think it’s funny). The Queen has her personal cash printing machine. She doesn’t have to pay taxes (but does so voluntarily, YEAH RIGHT). Elizabeth is immune from prosecution (like King Willem-Alexander). In 1975 Queen Elizabeth ordered the Governor-General to fire the Prime Minister of Australia: http://uk.businessinsider.com/weirdest- ... ins-2015-5
It was also made public in 2013 that Queen Elizabeth and Prince Charles in 39 occasions used their power to block bills (while we are made to believe that the last time the Royal assent was used to block a law was in 1708). In one occasion Elizabeth torpedoed the transfer of powers to authorise military intervention in Iraq from the Queen to the parliament: https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jan ... veto-bills

Another interesting story about the abuse of powers is that in 1966 the Queen’s Privy Council decided to evict the 2,000 inhabitants of the 65 islands of the Chagos Archipelago, so that the USA could station a military base on Diego Garcia. In 2000 in a judicial review claim by Olivier Bancoult the Court of Appeal ruled the 1971 Immigration Ordinance preventing resettlement unlawful. In 2004 the Privy Council simply changed the procedure under which the eviction was ordered, by Order in Council to overturn the ruling. In 2006 the High Court of Justice decided the 2004 order was unlawful. On October 22, 2008 the House of Lords decided to uphold the order of 2004 (let’s call it democracy):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Secre ... ult_(No_2)

Of course when a subject needs to be silenced the Royals have their legal or illegal ways.
The Turkish Kurd Huseyin Baybasın was “helped” by his attorney Mr. D. Moszkowicz to refuse to defend himself in the court case. After Donner became Minster van justitie on July 22, already on July 30, 2002 Baybasin was sentenced to life in prison, based on falsified tapes. On October 21, 2003 the Supreme Court (Hoge Raad) confirmed the sentence to life in prison, because the government agency Nederlands Forensisch Instituut (NFI), that investigated the reliability of the tapes, is beyond doubt. On July 6, 2006 the ECHR decided that the human rights of Baybasin were violated: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{"fulltext":["baybasin netherlands"],"itemid":["001-76262"]}
After Erwin Lensink threw a small object to the Gouden koets of Queen Beatrix he was declared insane and tortured in a psychiatric hospital (he was also imprisoned). Lensink has an interesting web site (mostly in Dutch) – topics include: anti-psychiatry, Bilderberg and paedophilia: http://erwinlensinkvrij.nl
The murder of Lady Diana in 1997 got a lot of attention, how could anybody believe that the chauffeur of a multimillionaire Dodi Al Fayed would cause a fatal traffic accident? This was not some cheap car, that wouldn’t keep the people in the car safe. Diana and Al Fayed where clearly happy with all of the attention in the media, so why would they run from the paparazzi? I’ve seen a lot or rumours that the “accident” was caused by first blinding the driver with a bright flash of light and blocking the breaks of the car (see the book by former British agent Richard Tomlinson). The photo’s of the car after the crash indicate that the bodyguard that survived on the front seat would have been more injured than Diana and Al Fayed in the back seat.
The following story seems too good to be true. In the documentary "Diana: The Witnesses In The Tunnel" Doctor Frederic Mailliez (that was coincidentally in the tunnel) testified that Diana was only slightly injured directly after the crash: http://princess-diana-murder.blogspot.nl/

In my court cases to defend myself against state terrorism, in June 2015 the Judge presiding, Mr. C.H.M. van Altena, was a member of the Raad van State. While in March 2013 I was faced with Judge Mr. Th.S. Roëll, a personal assistant (kamerheer) of Princess Beatrix.
I almost feel like a part the family. In 2005 they locked me up in a psychiatric hospital, because I’m oh so dangerous, where I befriended the niece of Klaas Bruinsma. Drug lord Bruinsma had an affair with Mabel Wisse Smit, before she joined the Open Society Foundation (OSF) of Rothschild agent George Soros and married Prince Friso.
User avatar
Posts: 1562
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 3:02 pm

Re: Oddities of British Government

Post by Firestarter » Mon Aug 01, 2016 2:22 pm

Firestarter wrote:The following story seems too good to be true. In the documentary "Diana: The Witnesses In The Tunnel" Doctor Frederic Mailliez (that was coincidentally in the tunnel) testified that Diana was only slightly injured directly after the crash: http://princess-diana-murder.blogspot.nl/
The photographs on this site were removed from internet.
The following photograph shows Diana alive and only slightly injured after the crash (with a photo of the crashed car).
Lady Di – alive in tunnel.gif
Lady Di – alive in tunnel.gif (115.94 KiB) Viewed 19118 times
User avatar
Posts: 1562
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 3:02 pm

Re: Oddities of British Government

Post by Firestarter » Thu Aug 04, 2016 2:11 pm

Most people have never even heard of David Icke, but for millions he’s the number 1 conspiracy theorist. To illustrate Icke’s popularity his forum boasts: “Most users ever online was 30,561, 14-09-2012 at 06:27 PM”.
There are a lot of easily impressionable people that believe conspiracy theories, just because Icke says so, for example: the earth is ruled by reptilians/ET’s and there is no moon.

When I posted on the forum eerstehulpbijrecht.nl (of state network KRO) earlier in 2016, after several weeks I got an additional anti-spam filter for every post I made (after I had already logged in with username/password). After I put some less than flattering information about the Dutch and British Monarchies on davidicke.com, yesterday I got exactly the same filter. See the screenprint of yesterday.
Dutch anti-spam on davidicke.com.gif
Dutch anti-spam on davidicke.com.gif (70.68 KiB) Viewed 19109 times
Last edited by Firestarter on Sun Jun 24, 2018 3:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply