US to join the Commonwealth?

[FoxMammaWisdom]

Maybe we are already there since the Queen has been signing off on American legislation for... how long? Or maybe someone can explain WHY the Queen is regulating US legislation regarding the IRS, like the example below. Some interesting stuff out there regarding this corporation of America.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1997 ... ction/made" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Robin Hood]

Maybe we are already there since the Queen has been signing off on American legislation for... how long? Or maybe someone can explain WHY the Queen is regulating US legislation regarding the IRS, like the example below. Some interesting stuff out there regarding this corporation of America.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1997 ... ction/made" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You probably should read it.
It is an Act of the British parliament to have a reciprocal arrangement between the UK and the US regarding certain social security issues. These kind of bilateral arrangements are common. For example, if I was to move to Canada I would receive social security payments based on my contributions while living in the UK. Canada would honour the credit I had built up here. They would, of course, bill the UK.
The same would apply to a Canadian citizen coming to live in the UK.

The Act you have highlighted is simply an example of one of these arrangements; nothing more.

[Dave62]

Would this mean that the USA would repent and learn how to play cricket? :p

[Robin Hood]

Would this mean that the USA would repent and learn how to play cricket? :p

Goes without saying. ;)

[FoxMammaWisdom]

Maybe we are already there since the Queen has been signing off on American legislation for... how long? Or maybe someone can explain WHY the Queen is regulating US legislation regarding the IRS, like the example below. Some interesting stuff out there regarding this corporation of America.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1997 ... ction/made" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You probably should read it.
It is an Act of the British parliament to have a reciprocal arrangement between the UK and the US regarding certain social security issues. These kind of bilateral arrangements are common. For example, if I was to move to Canada I would receive social security payments based on my contributions while living in the UK. Canada would honour the credit I had built up here. They would, of course, bill the UK.
The same would apply to a Canadian citizen coming to live in the UK.

The Act you have highlighted is simply an example of one of these arrangements; nothing more.

I disagree and just provided that link to inspire others to start doing their due diligence. I did mine - this goes much deeper than what you explain above. But don't take my word for it... ;)

[Robin Hood]

Maybe we are already there since the Queen has been signing off on American legislation for... how long? Or maybe someone can explain WHY the Queen is regulating US legislation regarding the IRS, like the example below. Some interesting stuff out there regarding this corporation of America.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1997 ... ction/made" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You probably should read it.
It is an Act of the British parliament to have a reciprocal arrangement between the UK and the US regarding certain social security issues. These kind of bilateral arrangements are common. For example, if I was to move to Canada I would receive social security payments based on my contributions while living in the UK. Canada would honour the credit I had built up here. They would, of course, bill the UK.
The same would apply to a Canadian citizen coming to live in the UK.

The Act you have highlighted is simply an example of one of these arrangements; nothing more.

I disagree and just provided that link to inspire others to start doing their due diligence. I did mine - this goes much deeper than what you explain above. But don't take my word for it... ;)

You can disagree if you like, but I'm correct.
If you're so convinced that the US is still run by the Crown, then give me another example. The one you have posted has been used by conspiracy theorists for years and is constantly doing the rounds on the internet. Just that one, mind you. They can't find another. The reason for this is that my explanation is the correct one.

[gclayjr]

Robin Hood,

You can disagree if you like, but I'm correct.
If you're so convinced that the US is still run by the Crown, then give me another example. The one you have posted has been used by conspiracy theorists for years and is constantly doing the rounds on the internet. Just that one, mind you. They can't find another. The reason for this is that my explanation is the correct one.

This is a new one for me. I have been pointing out the insanity of many conspiracy theories for years, and thought I know most of the kookie ones, but I never heard of this one before.

That being said, I wouldn't want us to join the Commonwealth. While I know the queen doesn't rule or sign off on Commonwealth legislation or laws, I do believe that she is a symbolic head of the commonwealth. And while we are not ruled by symbols, they are important.

Question: Why did most (if not all) commonwealth nations go to war in WW2 when England was attacked, (or did they go to war when Britain went to war?) but we didn't go to war until after Pearl harbor? Also, were their troops under the command of that pompous idiot Bernard Montgomery?

Regards,

George Clay

[Robin Hood]

Robin Hood,

You can disagree if you like, but I'm correct.
If you're so convinced that the US is still run by the Crown, then give me another example. The one you have posted has been used by conspiracy theorists for years and is constantly doing the rounds on the internet. Just that one, mind you. They can't find another. The reason for this is that my explanation is the correct one.

This is a new one for me. I have been pointing out the insanity of many conspiracy theories for years, and thought I know most of the kookie ones, but I never heard of this one before.

That being said, I wouldn't want us to join the Commonwealth. While I know the queen doesn't rule or sign off on Commonwealth legislation or laws, I do believe that she is a symbolic head of the commonwealth. And while we are not ruled by symbols, they are important.

Question: Why did most (if not all) commonwealth nations go to war in WW2 when England was attacked, (or did they go to war when Britain went to war?) but we didn't go to war until after Pearl harbor? Also, were their troops under the command of that pompous idiot Bernard Montgomery?

Regards,

George Clay

At the time WW2 broke out we still had an empire. Therefore when Britain declared war the whole empire was at war.
The British Commonwealth was established after the war to replace the empire, and then that was replaced (in effect) by the organization now simply called the Commonwealth.
There is no obligation for Commonwealth members to engage militarily to assist each other. In fact, you will note that the only country to assist us in any way during the Falklands War was the US; and that was for re-fueling our task force.
You will probably also know that following the US entry into WW2, all allied forces were placed under the command of General Eisenhower.

[gclayjr]

Robin Hood,

Thanks fo the history Lesson. I didn't realize that the Commonwealth didn't exist in WW2. But did the Aussies simply report to Eisenhower as supreme Allied commander, or did they report to a British commander of a larger unit that then reported to Eisenhower? In other words were the Units of empire nations incorporated into British units, or did they stand on their own? And if they did would that still hold under the commonwealth?

Regards,

George Clay

[gkearney]

A couple of points.

Australian troops always report to Australian command officers. This was implemented in Australian law following the events of landing of ANZAC troops under the incompetent command of British offices in the first world war. They had to be evacuated under orders from the Australian and New Zealand prime misters and navies. From that moment Australians only answer to Australian officers and commanders who, in turn answer to the allied command structures. The events at ANZAC Cove mark the moment when Australians started to think of themselves as a separate people and not as Englishmen who happened to live in Australia. ANZAC Day is the most solum holiday in the Australian calendar.

Royal consent. It is my experience having lived in both Commonwealth Realms (Australia and Canada) as well as in Commonwealth Republics (South Africa) and Commonwealth Monarchies (Mtaylasia) that very few people understand the role that the Queen plays with in the Realms. This is even more true for people in the United States.

First off the Queen is not simply a figurehead. This is a common belief and is really not correct. She is also not a absolute ruler and hasn't been since the signing of the Magna Carta. Rather she is in some ways a living constitution if you will. Unable to take part in politics in any form, indeed she and members of her household can not even vote, she is there to act as a final break on a runaway government who might abuse the rights of her subjects or be unable to govern. Because she so seldom has to act in this way, it has only happened once in Australian history for example, when she does act it is viewed as a extremely serious matter indeed. So she does have a few very limited but very real powers. She must give consent to acts of parliament, a last stop of abuse of that body. Think of it as if the U.S. Supreme Court had to sign off on any legislation before it became law. The other main power she has is the ability to dismiss the government and to call new elections. While this is generally done at the request of the government this is not always the case. She is charged with insuring a functioning government, it is referred to as "her government" after all. She also has the power to refuse to dismiss the government in times of war or national crisis for example.

A number of years ago the Australian government reached a budget impasse so serious that the army and navy were not being paid. The Governor General of Australia, in consultation with the Queen, stepped in and dismissed the government on it own authority declaring that the government had ceased to function. It then called for new elections. Australians sometimes howl about the dismissal of the Whitman government but they fail to see this is just how the system is designed to work. This is the central role of the monarchy within Westminster government. In the United States we turn to the constitution to fill a similar role. The problem is the constitution can not speak or act by itself and so can at time get steamrolled if you will by politicians seeking their own ends.

[gclayjr]

gkearney,

Thanks for that further enlightenment. Between you and Robin Hood, I learned a lot about how the commonwealth works. I still prefer the American system. The most beautiful land I have ever visited was New Zealand. If I ever leave the United States, that is where I would like to go. While I prefer the American system, I surely would not fear living in New Zealand.

Regards,

George Clay

[gkearney]

gkearney,

Thanks for that further enlightenment. Between you and Robin Hood, I learned a lot about how the commonwealth works. I still prefer the American system. The most beautiful land I have ever visited was New Zealand. If I ever leave the United States, that is where I would like to go. While I prefer the American system, I surely would not fear living in New Zealand.

Regards,

George Clay

Well you need to keep in mind that joining the Commonwealth makes no demands to change the government system of the United States or any other nation. Indeed the realms make up a minority of Commonwealth members, most are republics of some kind or are local constitutional monarchies. So by all means keep the American system of government. Joining the Commonwealth will not change that at all.

[FoxMammaWisdom]

Maybe we are already there since the Queen has been signing off on American legislation for... how long? Or maybe someone can explain WHY the Queen is regulating US legislation regarding the IRS, like the example below. Some interesting stuff out there regarding this corporation of America.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1997 ... ction/made" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You probably should read it.
It is an Act of the British parliament to have a reciprocal arrangement between the UK and the US regarding certain social security issues. These kind of bilateral arrangements are common. For example, if I was to move to Canada I would receive social security payments based on my contributions while living in the UK. Canada would honour the credit I had built up here. They would, of course, bill the UK.
The same would apply to a Canadian citizen coming to live in the UK.

The Act you have highlighted is simply an example of one of these arrangements; nothing more.

I disagree and just provided that link to inspire others to start doing their due diligence. I did mine - this goes much deeper than what you explain above. But don't take my word for it... ;)

You can disagree if you like, but I'm correct.
If you're so convinced that the US is still run by the Crown, then give me another example. The one you have posted has been used by conspiracy theorists for years and is constantly doing the rounds on the internet. Just that one, mind you. They can't find another. The reason for this is that my explanation is the correct one.

If you care enough, you'll do the research yourself without me providing it all for you. I don't care enough to provide it all for you, and just happened by and commented on something I've already researched the hell out of when I cared enough to. Go ahead and be correct ;)

[Robin Hood]

You probably should read it.
It is an Act of the British parliament to have a reciprocal arrangement between the UK and the US regarding certain social security issues. These kind of bilateral arrangements are common. For example, if I was to move to Canada I would receive social security payments based on my contributions while living in the UK. Canada would honour the credit I had built up here. They would, of course, bill the UK.
The same would apply to a Canadian citizen coming to live in the UK.

The Act you have highlighted is simply an example of one of these arrangements; nothing more.

I disagree and just provided that link to inspire others to start doing their due diligence. I did mine - this goes much deeper than what you explain above. But don't take my word for it... ;)

You can disagree if you like, but I'm correct.
If you're so convinced that the US is still run by the Crown, then give me another example. The one you have posted has been used by conspiracy theorists for years and is constantly doing the rounds on the internet. Just that one, mind you. They can't find another. The reason for this is that my explanation is the correct one.

If you care enough, you'll do the research yourself without me providing it all for you. I don't care enough to provide it all for you, and just happened by and commented on something I've already researched the hell out of when I cared enough to. Go ahead and be correct ;)

I've already done it. Did it years ago.
I told you you the result of that research, but you said I was wrong.
So it's up to you now to provide the evidence I'm wrong, or accept that the article you posted does not demonstrate what you claimed it did.
The ball is in your court.

[Army Of Truth]

Well you need to keep in mind that joining the Commonwealth makes no demands to change the government system of the United States or any other nation. Indeed the realms make up a minority of Commonwealth members, most are republics of some kind or are local constitutional monarchies. So by all means keep the American system of government. Joining the Commonwealth will not change that at all.

What exactly will it change? And why do we need this? How does it benefit our country?

[gkearney]

Well you need to keep in mind that joining the Commonwealth makes no demands to change the government system of the United States or any other nation. Indeed the realms make up a minority of Commonwealth members, most are republics of some kind or are local constitutional monarchies. So by all means keep the American system of government. Joining the Commonwealth will not change that at all.

What exactly will it change? And why do we need this? How does it benefit our country?

As far as how the United States is governed, nothing will change by becoming part of the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth is a voluntary association with no military or economic commitments of its members. We should do this to support a group of nations we are bound to by history and tradition and with whom we share common values. In many cases we are already in military alliances with these countries. We share more in common with the Commonwealth nations than we do with most other nations.

By being in the Commonwealth we are able to join a trading block that we already share a common legal foundation with which would mean that we would find working out trade and other legal arrangements with much simpler than say attempting to do with with latin America or Asia. It would aid or citizens as they travel within the Commonwealth.

One very specific benefit is that if a citizen of a Commonwealth nations finds themselves in trouble in a country where his home nation does not have diplomatic representation they can turn to the embassy of any commonwealth nation for assistance. This would make travel by U.S. citizens overseas more secure.

[FoxMammaWisdom]

I disagree and just provided that link to inspire others to start doing their due diligence. I did mine - this goes much deeper than what you explain above. But don't take my word for it... ;)

You can disagree if you like, but I'm correct.
If you're so convinced that the US is still run by the Crown, then give me another example. The one you have posted has been used by conspiracy theorists for years and is constantly doing the rounds on the internet. Just that one, mind you. They can't find another. The reason for this is that my explanation is the correct one.

If you care enough, you'll do the research yourself without me providing it all for you. I don't care enough to provide it all for you, and just happened by and commented on something I've already researched the hell out of when I cared enough to. Go ahead and be correct ;)

I've already done it. Did it years ago.
I told you you the result of that research, but you said I was wrong.
So it's up to you now to provide the evidence I'm wrong, or accept that the article you posted does not demonstrate what you claimed it did.
The ball is in your court.

ACtually, I did not say you are wrong, I said I disagree. YOU said:

"You can disagree if you like, but I'm correct."

I then told you I did my due diligence, and go ahead and be correct.

The part about it being up to me to provide evidence..... =))

No. Like I said, if YOU care enough, you'll do more research. If YOU don't, you won't. I certainly DON'T care enough about proving you wrong to do the research FOR you... good gravy. I just wasted 7.3 seconds typing this. LOL

[Robin Hood]

You can disagree if you like, but I'm correct.
If you're so convinced that the US is still run by the Crown, then give me another example. The one you have posted has been used by conspiracy theorists for years and is constantly doing the rounds on the internet. Just that one, mind you. They can't find another. The reason for this is that my explanation is the correct one.

If you care enough, you'll do the research yourself without me providing it all for you. I don't care enough to provide it all for you, and just happened by and commented on something I've already researched the hell out of when I cared enough to. Go ahead and be correct ;)

I've already done it. Did it years ago.
I told you you the result of that research, but you said I was wrong.
So it's up to you now to provide the evidence I'm wrong, or accept that the article you posted does not demonstrate what you claimed it did.
The ball is in your court.

ACtually, I did not say you are wrong, I said I disagree. YOU said:

"You can disagree if you like, but I'm correct."

I then told you I did my due diligence, and go ahead and be correct.

The part about it being up to me to provide evidence..... =))

No. Like I said, if YOU care enough, you'll do more research. If YOU don't, you won't. I certainly DON'T care enough about proving you wrong to do the research FOR you... good gravy. I just wasted 7.3 seconds typing this. LOL

I'm sorry Jules, but you clearly haven't researched this non-story as you claim; just lifted it from some conspiracy theory website. Like I said, it's been doing the rounds for years. It's strange how these people always use the same piece of "evidence". They can't come up with anything else.

The truth is that you only have to READ the document itself to clearly see what it is and why it exists.
My advice to you: read beyond the headline.

[gclayjr]

Robin Hood.

The real proof of this conspiracy lays in the secret hidden lyrics behind "My country 'tis of thee".


Regards,

George Clay

[Robin Hood]

Robin Hood.

The real proof of this conspiracy lays in the secret hidden lyrics behind "My country 'tis of thee".


Regards,

George Clay

Maybe you're right.
LDS Hymnal No. 341 ;)