• The above Banner is a Sponsored Banner.

    Upgrade to Premium Membership to remove this Banner & All Google Ads. For full list of Premium Member benefits Click HERE.

  • Join The Silver Forum

    The Silver Forum is one of the largest and best loved silver and gold precious metals forums in the world. Join today for FREE! Browse the sponsors topics (hidden to guests) for deals and offers, check out the bargains in the members trade section and join in with our community reacting and commenting on topic posts. If you have any questions whatsoever about precious metals collecting and investing please join and start a topic and we will be here to help with our knowledge :) happy stacking. 

ChrisSIlver

⚠️ Members engage in political discussions at their own risk. Please note that likely other members may have strongly opposing views to yours.

It is advisable to stay out of political discussions, if you wish to engage in debate please be respectful to other members. ⚠️ 

Message added by ChrisSIlver

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, augur said:

😱 you are absolutely spot on! German Ethnicity/Nationality (ius saguinis) has not awarded after 1914 but can still be claimed to have been inherited.

Since 2000 a type of German Nationality is awarded based on ius solis but it appears only the pre 1914 has the diminutio capitis minima applied.

I am not sure if and when the British Nationalities ceased to be applied but the nationality “BRITISH CITIZEN” is an odd one. 

You should not think this way. Germany is a state under occupation but that will not be the case for all time. The legal games the elite play, the drawing of borders and boundaries, endless tomes of legislation, different passports, titles and other paraphernalia - it is all there to confuse, control and demoralise. It is there to destroy identity, history and culture. It is all aim at domination of mankind. That there is a piece of paper saying you are German is simply a piece of paper at the end of the day - a piece of paper cannot make someone German - it can only create the legal construct of German - it creates a legal fiction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, MickB said:

No matter what your ethnicity or nationality, you need to believe in the country you are living in. This is where you find a true national in your country who will stand with you.

Patriotism is racism as far as the Leftist swill are concerned. As i have said elsewhere - i care not who is at my side as long as we are all fighting the enemy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Xander said:

The highest court has now become the biased court. The Attorney General Geoffrey Cox told Boris that proroguing Parliament was "lawful." 

Interesting argument, the court is biased because it has a different view to the political Attorney General.  Maybe he was wrong, and biased in his advise?

The court has found in favour of the argument that parliament is sovereign and the Prime Minister did not act lawfully in closing it.  It does not stop the process of Brexit, up to the PM to get on with a deal parliament agrees with. 

Edited by Martlet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, sixgun said:

Patriotism is racism as far as the Leftist swill are concerned. As i have said elsewhere - i care not who is at my side as long as we are all fighting the enemy. 

I like this. I read this in relation to the LGBTQI teaching thread point. Makes sense and I wish everyone had such a view. Sadly a lot of people are scared of what they do not know and use racism as a means of defence. It’s actually super sad and pitiful. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, sixgun said:

Patriotism is racism as far as the Leftist swill are concerned. As i have said elsewhere - i care not who is at my side as long as we are all fighting the enemy. 

For the leftists in life, I am a patriot and stand by those who believe in my fellow countrymen who stand with me. If that makes me racist, then the leftist can label me a racist and I couldn't care less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, AndrewSL76 said:

What do you think would have happened if the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 wasn’t introduced and section 8 of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876 had applied instead?

The House of Lords would have had to have given a ruling on the suspension of their own chamber. D’oh!!!!

Acts of Parliament can be deemed unlawful and unconstitutional by the way. If you want an example, please review the recent Judgment if the Supreme Court in Miller and Ors.

Cheers.

Exactly why the supreme court should be abolished, proroguing the houses of parliament has never been illegal do not pretend this is anything but an attempt to stop Brexit. There isn't any legitimacy in law or in democratic principle in what the supreme court has done.

More importantly the principle for the courts to overrule an elected official is dangerous precedent to set, are you so short sighted not to see how this can and will be used against your interests in the future?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, KDave said:

Exactly why the supreme court should be abolished, proroguing the houses of parliament has never been illegal do not pretend this is anything but an attempt to stop Brexit. There isn't any legitimacy in law or in democratic principle in what the supreme court has done.

More importantly the principle for the courts to overrule an elected official is dangerous precedent to set, are you so short sighted not to see how this can and will be used against your interests in the future?

Firstly, do you have a law that the Prime Minister acted according to?  Couple of cases noted where the proroguing may have been illegal, it just wasnt challenged at the time.  

Secondly, the court overruled the the position of the government in favour of the elected parliament (well, Commons).  This may well work in our favour in the future should a socialist government try seizing property for example.  Government must act within the law, court judged they did not.  The government has accepted this verdict, perhaps we should too?

Edited by Martlet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, augur said:

Nationality is a Human Right which is gained by descent/birth (ius sanguinis/ius solis) and is the “right to have rights” while citizenship is a legal status (rights and obligations) within a nation and can be withdrawn; a nationality can also be withdrawn as long as the person still has another one. 

One of the effects of the British Citizenship vs a British Nationality seems to be that the last name is now capitalised on birth certificates capititis diminutio media.

This is what I meant in my post by saying she wasn’t British but it got twisted to race straight away. She is a British citizen yes,  but she is from Guyana and is of Indian heritage so not British in the sense of English, Scottish, Welsh. Northern Irish. 

She has no historical/identity connection to the British lands but is changing and subverting the political landscape for the people who are from here. Along with the foreign money funding her she is undermining our country and people. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, KDave said:

Exactly why the supreme court should be abolished, proroguing the houses of parliament has never been illegal do not pretend this is anything but an attempt to stop Brexit. There isn't any legitimacy in law or in democratic principle in what the supreme court has done.

More importantly the principle for the courts to overrule an elected official is dangerous precedent to set, are you so short sighted not to see how this can and will be used against your interests in the future?

Short sighted? That’s a real shame you feel that way because there may come a day in the future when you need the Supreme Court yourself.

None of the irrelevant, ill judged and racist chatter on here today would have happened had the court ruled that the claim was not justiciable or that it was and that the advice was lawful. Had the court ruled that way you would be singing their praises and you certainly wouldn’t be calling for the court to be dissolved.

Anyway. Fine. Do away with the judiciary because you do not like their decision. Let’s see how you cope when you need the court to protect you in the future.

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—

     Because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
     Because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
     Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, AndrewSL76 said:

Short sighted? That’s a real shame you feel that way because there may come a day in the future when you need the Supreme Court yourself.

None of the irrelevant, ill judged and racist chatter on here today would have happened had the court ruled that the claim was not justiciable or that it was and that the advice was lawful. Had the court ruled that way you would be singing their praises and you certainly wouldn’t be calling for the court to be dissolved.

Anyway. Fine. Do away with the judiciary because you do not like their decision. Let’s see how you cope when you need the court to protect you in the future.

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—

     Because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
     Because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
     Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

 

The Supreme court is 10 years old mate give over. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, augur said:

Nationality is a Human Right which is gained by descent/birth (ius sanguinis/ius solis) and is the “right to have rights” while citizenship is a legal status (rights and obligations) within a nation and can be withdrawn; a nationality can also be withdrawn as long as the person still has another one. 

One of the effects of the British Citizenship vs a British Nationality seems to be that the last name is now capitalised on birth certificates capititis diminutio media.

That seems narrow separation.  The question is what rights are different between natural born British and a naturalised British?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, RichmondStacker said:

This is what I meant in my post by saying she wasn’t British but it got twisted to race straight away. She is a British citizen yes,  but she is from Guyana and is of Indian heritage so not British in the sense of English, Scottish, Welsh. Northern Irish. 

She has no historical/identity connection to the British lands but is changing and subverting the political landscape for the people who are from here. Along with the foreign money funding her she is undermining our country and people. 

‘Got twisted to race straightaway’?!?!!!?!!!!!

Your first response, after you were called out for that disgusting remark was to say:

’Because she isn’t’.

Now you are saying that she is. Make your mind up. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Martlet said:

Firstly, do you have a law that the Prime Minister acted according to?  Couple of cases noted where the proroguing may have been illegal, it just wasnt challenged at the time.  

Secondly, the court overruled the the position of the government in favour of the elected parliament (well, Commons).  This may well work in our favour in the future should a socialist government try seizing property for example.  Government must act within the law, court judged they did not.  The government has accepted this verdict, perhaps we should too?

There isn't a law that anyone acted to or against that is the point. The Supreme court are acting outside their mandate, they have meddled in parliamentary procedure and the precedent has been set now that they are able to do so again in whatever procedure they wish. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Martlet said:

get on with a deal parliament agrees with

Parliament couldn't agree on the time of day let alone a deal.

As for the Attorney General it is his duty to advise the Prime Minister regarding legal matters, not the Supreme court, it is not their duty to advise the Prime Minister or the Monarchy. As for them being biased or not the way this is going that all depends which side of the fence you are on, totally arbitrary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, KDave said:

The Supreme court is 10 years old mate give over. 

It is. Yes. But it continues the tradition of the House of Lords. The Lord justices and now the Lady justices would be sitting in the Lords making the same decisions had the 2005 Act not come into force. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, KDave said:

There isn't a law that anyone acted to or against that is the point. The Supreme court are acting outside their mandate, they have meddled in parliamentary procedure and the precedent has been set now that they are able to do so again in whatever procedure they wish. 

So if there isnt a law means you cannot claim their isnt law or legitimacy the court has acted against. The court is asked to decide if the parliamentary procedure was correct, and the precedent set is narrow, that in the case of prorogation the PM cannot carry out this power without authority of parliament.  It does not empower the court to overrule legislation passed by parliament. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, AndrewSL76 said:

It is. Yes. But it continues the tradition of the House of Lords. The Lord justices and now the Lady justices would be sitting in the Lords making the same decisions had the 2005 Act not come into force. 

There isn't any legitimacy in law or democratic principle in what the supreme court has done today. What has happened today is a power grab by the supreme court and the acceptance of the ruling by parliament has changed the balance between elected and unelected in our country going forward. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, AndrewSL76 said:

‘Got twisted to race straightaway’?!?!!!?!!!!!

Your first response, after you were called out for that disgusting remark was to say:

’Because she isn’t’.

Now you are saying that she is. Make your mind up. 

Calm down on the disgusting remark, you are the one that went straight to race when I said she’s not British.  I see what you are doing, you are classing British nationality and citizenship to be the same thing, maybe I should’ve made it clearer by acknowledging British citizenship but plenty of others seemed to be know what I meant and the context.

Edited by RichmondStacker
Adding context, the word.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Martlet said:

That seems narrow separation.  The question is what rights are different between natural born British and a naturalised British?

As it is defined these days British is a legal status - a British citizen - You can be born into that legal status or be granted it by the authorities. 

An Eskimo could apply for British citizenship - be granted it and become British. Legally he is the same as anyone else born in Britain. Of course he can never be English, Scottish etc. This is a matter of ethnicity. I could have been born in the Congo. i would legally be Congolese but ethnically i will always be English.

Edited by sixgun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, KDave said:

There isn't any legitimacy in law or democratic principle in what the supreme court has done today. What has happened today is a power grab by the supreme court and the acceptance of the ruling by parliament has changed the balance between elected and unelected in our country going forward. 

Would you accept their decision had they ruled that the claim was not justiciable and or that if it were, the advice was lawful? Would you still be calling for the court to be dissolved? It is fine to disagree with a decision, but to call for the institution to be brought down because you disagree with it seems extreme? 

The Supreme Court has delivered many an interesting decision that I disagree with - but I do not think it should be closed as a result. As a lawyer, you lick your wounds, get up and crack on. There is always another route to getting to where you want to be. Attacking something that blocked your way does not help.

Lady Hale and most of the other judges had to intervene on several occasions to stop the discussions straying across and into Brexit. The claim and the subsequent judicial decision were NOT about Brexit. Brexit is going to happen - do not worry. It must. What must first happen is that our Parliament gets on with it and stops messing about. There are also lots of other issues that needs to be tackled that Parliament need to get on with - like the Domestic Violence Bill and the new Immigration Bill. We just need this country to start working again!

Edited by AndrewSL76

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.