Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Dreamer screamer

EU (Withdrawal Agreement)Act 2020

30 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Dreamer screamer

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2020/1/section/38/enacted

38Parliamentary sovereignty

(1)It is recognised that the Parliament of the United Kingdom is sovereign.

(2)In particular, its sovereignty subsists notwithstanding—

(a)directly applicable or directly effective EU law continuing to be recognised and available in domestic law by virtue of section 1A or 1B of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (savings of existing law for the implementation period),

(b)section 7A of that Act (other directly applicable or directly effective aspects of the withdrawal agreement),

(c)section 7B of that Act (deemed direct applicability or direct effect in relation to the EEA EFTA separation agreement and the Swiss citizens’ rights agreement), and

(d)section 7C of that Act (interpretation of law relating to the withdrawal agreement (other than the implementation period), the EEA EFTA separation agreement and the Swiss citizens’ rights agreement).

(3)Accordingly, nothing in this Act derogates from the sovereignty of the Parliament of the United Kingdom.

 

Can parliament be sovereign?  

If Parliament has only previously acted with the sovereign authority of the monarch, was the real intention of section 38 to depose QEII?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Setton
2 hours ago, Dreamer screamer said:

Can parliament be sovereign?  

Yes, it has been for 331 years.

Quote

If Parliament has only previously acted with the sovereign authority of the monarch, was the real intention of section 38 to depose QEII?

No, because parliament has been sovereign for 331 years. This is only news to you.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dreamer screamer
22 minutes ago, Setton said:

Yes, it has been for 331 years.

 

Quote

No, because parliament has been sovereign for 331 years. This is only news to you.

Palriament and sovereign are two completely different definitions. 

Sovereign

3. countable noun

A sovereign is a king, queen, or other royal ruler of a country.

parliament in British English

(ˈpɑːləmənt )
noun
1. 
an assembly of the representatives of a political nation or people, often the supreme legislative authority
 
Magna Carta of 1297
Great Charter of 1297: statute

statute  

variable noun

A statute is a rule or law which has been made by a government or other organization and formally written down.
 
a permanent rule made by a body or institution for the government of its internal affairs  
 
 
 

No, because parliament has been sovereign for 331 years. This is only news to you.

YES!! because the EU plan was to destroy, depose, get rid of the monarchy.     The EU a world government took Britain, why would the monarchy want to carry on?  It was all part of the plan.. 

royal assent in British English

noun
(in Britain) the formal signing of an act of Parliament by the sovereign, by which it becomes law
 
Never seen one act signed by the queen or king.    They're not allowed to sign any acts into law, so they got around it with PERSON. 
 
2:9 But if all of you have respect to persons, all of you commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.
 
The queen is a trustee for GOD and who speaks for GOD? The pope?  However she is a queen so swore an OATH to the people of Britain.     Parliament and anyone who works there are representatives chosen by people to speak for them through ballot.   So how can these representatives be sovereign in parliament?   They're trustees the same as the queen with no status of being sovereign when they act in their government trustee roles.  They're all acting as corporations.  

 

trustee (n.)

"person who is responsible for the property of another," 1640s, from trust (v.) + -ee.

They're all acting as PERSON = corporation for PERSONS whom put them into parliament to represent them.  A sovereign doesn't do PERSON!!  A sovereign doesn't need anything to prove who they are.  No driving license.  No passport.  She is queen and her parliament works for her as the CROWN. 

 
Edited by Dreamer screamer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Setton
8 hours ago, Dreamer screamer said:

Palriament and sovereign are two completely different definitions. 

Sovereign

3. countable noun

A sovereign is a king, queen, or other royal ruler of a country.

parliament in British English

(ˈpɑːləmənt )
noun
1. 
an assembly of the representatives of a political nation or people, often the supreme legislative authority
 
Magna Carta of 1297
Great Charter of 1297: statute

 

Quote

Sovereign

(Adjective)

[ before noun ]

having the highest power or being completely independent

https://www.google.com/amp/s/dictionary.cambridge.org/amp/english/sovereign

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dreamer screamer

sovereign noun [C] (RULER)

a king or queen

parliament is the queens crown.  The highest legal authority are the LORDS.   So queen, LORDS, parliament.  imagine it, GOLD, SILVER, BRONZE.

statute
noun
uk
a law that has been formally approved and written down
 
Formally = public or official
 
So there is a choice.   Does the Queen sign any of these with a wet signature making it a contract, or is it all about business on the PERSON!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dreamer screamer

public

10. 

of or pertaining to all humankind; universal
 

official

  Word forms: plural officials
1. adjective [usually ADJECTIVE noun]
Official means approved by the government or by someone in authority.
 
How can anyone in parliament make something official?  How can anyone sign liability making themselves legal representative in government?   That is ABSOLUTE LEGAL FRAUD.  
 

Swearing in and the parliamentary oath

Members of the House of Commons and the House of Lords take an oath of allegiance to the Crown. This is called swearing in. If they object to swearing the oath, they can make a solemn affirmation. They do this before taking their seats in Parliament. This can happen after a general election, by-election or after the death of the monarch.

So how if under an OATH have any power to sign or be above the queen?   These Trustees work for the queen who holds the highest lawful power on the land.    

Public is for everyone, official is for those that choose to be under that authority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
godnodog
12 hours ago, Dreamer screamer said:

YES!! because the EU plan was to destroy, depose, get rid of the monarchy.     The EU a world government took Britain, why would the monarchy want to carry on?  It was all part of the plan.. 

OMG how dare you expose the EU and its secret plan? Have you no shame?! FFS

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dreamer screamer
7 minutes ago, godnodog said:

OMG how dare you expose the EU and its secret plan? Have you no shame?! FFS

Didn't think you were a conspiracy theorist.  :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
godnodog
Just now, Dreamer screamer said:

Didn't think you were a conspiracy theorist.  :blink:

Of course I am, I too have the right to be silly. :P
Besides a good conspiracy thread is always better than any tv show.

Edited by godnodog
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dreamer screamer
14 minutes ago, godnodog said:

Of course I am, I too have the right to be silly. :P
Besides a good conspiracy thread is always better than any tv show.

:unsure2:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Setton
4 hours ago, Dreamer screamer said:

public

10. 

of or pertaining to all humankind; universal
 

official

  Word forms: plural officials
1. adjective [usually ADJECTIVE noun]
Official means approved by the government or by someone in authority.
 
How can anyone in parliament make something official?  How can anyone sign liability making themselves legal representative in government?   That is ABSOLUTE LEGAL FRAUD.  
 

Swearing in and the parliamentary oath

Members of the House of Commons and the House of Lords take an oath of allegiance to the Crown. This is called swearing in. If they object to swearing the oath, they can make a solemn affirmation. They do this before taking their seats in Parliament. This can happen after a general election, by-election or after the death of the monarch.

So how if under an OATH have any power to sign or be above the queen?   These Trustees work for the queen who holds the highest lawful power on the land.    

Public is for everyone, official is for those that choose to be under that authority.

Oh, just go and play with a nut.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dreamer screamer
2 minutes ago, Setton said:

Oh, just go and play with a nut.

Why do you think I am on here.

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Setton
6 minutes ago, Dreamer screamer said:

Why do you think I am on here.

God knows. 

Although actually I'd guess even he's opting out of that one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dreamer screamer
8 minutes ago, Setton said:

God knows. 

Although actually I'd guess even he's opting out of that one.

Well, GOD certainly is alive because he is doing alot of changes; physical changes.:devil:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
keithisco
8 hours ago, Dreamer screamer said:

sovereign noun [C] (RULER)

a king or queen

parliament is the queens crown.  The highest legal authority are the LORDS.   So queen, LORDS, parliament.  imagine it, GOLD, SILVER, BRONZE.

statute
noun
uk
a law that has been formally approved and written down
 
Formally = public or official
 
So there is a choice.   Does the Queen sign any of these with a wet signature making it a contract, or is it all about business on the PERSON!

NO. The House of Lords only have revisionary powers to add amendments to a Bill that is sent to them by the House of Commons. The HoC is not obliged to accept such amendments and the Government can strike them down as they wish. The Supreme Court has Executive Powers and can decree that any HoC Act is unlawful and require the HoC to amend accordingly (based on Historical Precedent and Case Law).

It goes like this: House of Commons, House of Lords (but only to offer Amendments), The Queen is required to sign into Law ANY AND ALL Acts from the House of Commons. If he or she should refuse to do so then a Statutory Instrument would be introduced into the House of Commons that would override this requirement. This has never happened, and neither does the Monarch (any more) have the right to dissolve Parliament

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
keithisco
8 hours ago, Dreamer screamer said:

public

10. 

of or pertaining to all humankind; universal
 

official

  Word forms: plural officials
1. adjective [usually ADJECTIVE noun]
Official means approved by the government or by someone in authority.
 
How can anyone in parliament make something official?  How can anyone sign liability making themselves legal representative in government?   That is ABSOLUTE LEGAL FRAUD.  
 

Swearing in and the parliamentary oath

Members of the House of Commons and the House of Lords take an oath of allegiance to the Crown. This is called swearing in. If they object to swearing the oath, they can make a solemn affirmation. They do this before taking their seats in Parliament. This can happen after a general election, by-election or after the death of the monarch.

So how if under an OATH have any power to sign or be above the queen?   These Trustees work for the queen who holds the highest lawful power on the land.    

Public is for everyone, official is for those that choose to be under that authority.

The UK is a CONSTITUTIONAL Monarchy. Power is reserved to the House of Commons

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dreamer screamer

NO. The House of Lords only have revisionary powers to add amendments to a Bill that is sent to them by the House of Commons.

I agree too that...

 

Quote

The HoC is not obliged to accept such amendments and the Government can strike them down as they wish. The Supreme Court has Executive Powers and can decree that any HoC Act is unlawful and require the HoC to amend accordingly (based on Historical Precedent and Case Law).

Yes, I agree.

Quote

It goes like this: House of Commons, House of Lords (but only to offer Amendments), The Queen is required to sign into Law ANY AND ALL Acts from the House of Commons. If he or she should refuse to do so then a Statutory Instrument would be introduced into the House of Commons that would override this requirement. This has never happened, and neither does the Monarch (any more) have the right to dissolve Parliament

Required means she doesn't have to sign because it also means request.  I have never seen the queen sign any acts into law because all rules are on PERSON!   She just gives her royal nod as her royal assent.

Required and request are synonymous.  Because you always have a choice, but they trick you with words.

 
.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dreamer screamer
Quote

If he or she should refuse to do so then a Statutory Instrument would be introduced into the House of Commons that would override this requirement. This has never happened, and neither does the Monarch (any more) have the right to dissolve Parliament

Parliament and Crown

Along with the House of Commons and the House of Lords, the Crown is an integral part of the institution of Parliament. The Queen plays a constitutional role in opening and dissolving Parliament and approving Bills before they become law.

Approving where a VERB doesn't exist.    So she gives a royal head a shake; nods and that is it. 

I will argue that the EU so desperate to get Britian into the EU was to get rid of the royal family, and because of Brexit this was why they wanted to put government as the sovereign.    I recon the only way to get rid of parliament is with the people, for if the people said no more parliament, then it is gone because we are the highest power on the land.

Dissolve, verb

When an organization or institution is dissolved, it is officially ended or broken up.
 
I do love this word dissolve because it gives eveidence that parliament is an organization,
 
Organization: 1. countable noun [oft in names]
An organization is an official group of people, for example a political party, a business, a charity, or a club.
 
Parliament is a business!!   It's all and only business where it has no liability to who ever is put into leadership.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dreamer screamer
1 hour ago, keithisco said:

The UK is a CONSTITUTIONAL Monarchy. Power is reserved to the House of Commons

The queen is under a constitution (mob rule), agreed.   The trust law (feudal) was set up 1794 where it was stated that all kings and queens would be put under an OATH so 16th century would never happen again with a civil war. 

Government again is a business as I have shown above, so this is where consent of the governed comes into play, and it's all due to consent.  when stopped by the police unless a crime has happened where they don't want to arrest you, you then are being placed into a business deal with then getting consent for them to tresspass on your legal name and putting you into a legal jurisdiction.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Setton
16 hours ago, Dreamer screamer said:

NO. The House of Lords only have revisionary powers to add amendments to a Bill that is sent to them by the House of Commons.

I agree too that...

 

Yes, I agree.

Required means she doesn't have to sign because it also means request.  I have never seen the queen sign any acts into law because all rules are on PERSON!   She just gives her royal nod as her royal assent.

Required and request are synonymous.  Because you always have a choice, but they trick you with words.

 
.

Required and request are not synonymous. With one you have a choice. As @keithisco already explained to you, if the monarch ever chose not to sign, the law allows Parliament to bypass her entirely.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Setton
15 hours ago, Dreamer screamer said:

The queen is under a constitution (mob rule), agreed.   The trust law (feudal) was set up 1794 where it was stated that all kings and queens would be put under an OATH so 16th century would never happen again with a civil war. 

The Civil War was in the 17th century.

Really inspiring confidence in your knowledge base there.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dreamer screamer
39 minutes ago, Setton said:

The Civil War was in the 17th century.

Really inspiring confidence in your knowledge base there.

:lol:  I'm only human...  you're correct!

Edited by Dreamer screamer
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dreamer screamer
18 minutes ago, Setton said:

Required and request are not synonymous. With one you have a choice. As @keithisco already explained to you, if the monarch ever chose not to sign, the law allows Parliament to bypass her entirely.

from blacks law 4th

REQUEST, n. An asking or petition; the ex-pression of a desire to some person for somethingto be granted or done; particularly for the pay-ment of a debt or performance of a contract;also direction or command in law of wills. Beak-ey v. Knutson, 90 Or. 574, 174 P. 1149, 1150; Hur-ley-Tobin Co. v. White, 84 N.J.Eq. 60, 188, 94A. 52, 53. For "Express Request," see that title.The two words, "request" and "require," as used in no-tices to creditors to present claims against an estate, areof the same origin, and virtually synonymous. Prentice v.Whitney, 8 Hun, N.Y., 300

if the monarch ever chose not to sign, the law allows Parliament to bypass her entirely.

Which means then government becomes trustees, and means we are all on the same playing field.   What gives them any more power over me? 

We are still living under a feudal system.

Edited by Dreamer screamer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RAyMO
31 minutes ago, Setton said:

The Civil War was in the 17th century.

Really inspiring confidence in your knowledge base there.

this may require a double think - but i thought you'd have known better. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Setton
3 hours ago, Dreamer screamer said:

from blacks law 4th

REQUEST, n. An asking or petition; the ex-pression of a desire to some person for somethingto be granted or done; particularly for the pay-ment of a debt or performance of a contract;also direction or command in law of wills. Beak-ey v. Knutson, 90 Or. 574, 174 P. 1149, 1150; Hur-ley-Tobin Co. v. White, 84 N.J.Eq. 60, 188, 94A. 52, 53. For "Express Request," see that title.The two words, "request" and "require," as used in no-tices to creditors to present claims against an estate, areof the same origin, and virtually synonymous. Prentice v.Whitney, 8 Hun, N.Y., 300

Not relevant - different area of law.

Quote

if the monarch ever chose not to sign, the law allows Parliament to bypass her entirely.

 

Which means then government becomes trustees, and means we are all on the same playing field.   What gives them any more power over me? 

We do by electing them.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.