Why is UK government a CORPORATION? Proof?

[BaldBeardyDude]

Hey Pete

I wasn't saying 'so what?'...being economically challenged as I am, I was genuinely asking what the play out is and how it manifests to ordinary joes like you and and I...

I know, m8 - I used your phrase to intro this, I'm sorry.

It is, though, what most would say. If I were to walk up to someone in the street and tell them "Our country is a corporation, don't you know?" - that would be the average reaction. I used it not because YOU said it, but because MOST would say it.

I mean no offence, as you know, but if you happen to drop a little crumb, I will use it for the benefit of others, as I see it.

It is an awe-inspiring moment when one first begins to see the beast in full. I'm sure Peckinpah would do no better visually, than I experienced when I first saw 'it' for the first time. It is breathtaking in it's size, complexity and power. This is, I believe, the reason more do not cotton on to it. Some call them 'sheeple', but I tend to find these peeps are so loaded down with the ever mounting problems of day to day life, they just want to get away from it and try to get peace for some of the time they have. Generally, they are genuine, nice people, lead to believe in the establishment.

I, for one, would say that I am a born rebel, so it's no surprise I am here. I have never trusted or liked authority of any kind, being imposed on me without my consent, or the need to do so. School did a grand job of my education. I learned thoroughly, that anyone given power over me will misuse it at some point, even if in a minor way, when I do not do what they want, demand or expect. Not that I want to live a life of crime - far from it, I am not a banker or politician

[BaldBeardyDude]

there is evidence to suggest (the Cunliffe and the Macmillan Reports) that Britain was considered a Creditor Nation until 1931. while the Bankruptcy Act 1869 set the foundations for the national bankruptcy, i contend that is did not actually happen until 1931. than banksters always lay their plans many years in advance of public implementation.

http://freetheplanet.net/articles/106/interim-report-of-the-cunliffe-committee-1918
http://freetheplanet.net/articles/120/macmillan-committee-report-1931

Indeed, the fact we removed ourselves from the gold standard merely evidences the intention to manipulate the value of our currency - something impossible when it was backed by gold.

There is also the devaluation by Harold Wilson - I remember that! He 'promised' each and every one of us, our pound in our pocket would still be worth the same. Even then at about 4-5 years old, I asked my father HOW it could be the SAME if it was made to be worth LESS?

Many other events and policies have contributed, but we have listed those which have done most damage, I think.

Thanks for the links, Michael. It's a site I've never been to and will have to take a look.

[Farmer]

This country has never been a democracy as far as I am concerned...

Actually, it is a democracy because those in power, and the politicians, love democracies; which is why they are forcing democracy on people all over the world.

[BaldBeardyDude]

Apparently, according to a pm I have received, this thread has been deleted.......er......nope

[Farmer]

I obviously see it as well.

[IamallthatIam]

yep , its definitely here , obviously just a fatal BKAC error

[jobsaboba]

HAS ANYONE FOUND THAT MISSING THREAD YET ?

jOBS............... SARCASM AS USUAL.

[azad]

Some interesting points have been raised so far which demands special attention, but to be short I just want to address a key issues.

1. Are HM government and National government two different entities in UK?

(i)National government: In the United Kingdom the term National Government is in an abstract sense used to refer to a coalition of some or all UK major political parties. In a historical sense it usually refers primarily to the governments of Ramsay MacDonald, Stanley Baldwin and Neville Chamberlain which held office from 1931 until 1940.
The all-party coalitions of Herbert Henry Asquith & David Lloyd George in the First World War and of Winston Churchill in the Second World War were sometimes referred to as National Governments at the time, but are now more commonly called Coalition Governments. Churchill's brief 1945 'Caretaker Government' also called itself a National Government and in terms of party composition was very similar to the 1931-1940 entity.
The Wall Street Crash heralded the global Great Depression and Britain was particularly badly hit. The government was trying to achieve several different, contradictory objectives: trying to maintain Britain's economic position by maintaining the pound on the gold standard, balancing the budget, and providing assistance and relief to tackle unemployment.
In 1931 the situation deteriorated and there was much fear that the budget was unbalanced, which was borne out by the independent May Report which triggered a confidence crisis and a run on the pound. The Labor government agreed to make changes in taxation and expenditure in order to balance the budget and restore confidence, but the Cabinet could not agree on the two options available: either introduce tariffs, or make 20% cuts in unemployment benefit. When a final vote was taken the Cabinet was split 12:9 with a minority - including many political heavyweights - threatening to resign rather than agree. Due to this unworkable split, on 24 August 1931 the government resigned.
The political crisis generated much concern and the leaders of both the Conservative and Liberal parties met with King George V and MacDonald, at first to discuss support for the measures to be taken but later to discuss the shape of the next government. On 24 August MacDonald agreed to form a National Government composed of "men from all parties" with the specific aim of balancing the Budget and restoring confidence. The government would then dissolve itself and a general election would be held on party lines. A small Cabinet of just ten Ministers was formed to take emergency decisions, with ministerial posts divided as proportionally as possible between the three parties, though relatively few Labor members joined the government.
(ii)HM government: Her Majesty's Government is the government of the United Kingdom.
Under the Constitution of the United Kingdom, executive authority notionally lies with the monarch but is exercised in practice by her ministers. Her Majesty's Government is the collective name for these ministers, and it is effectively an executive authority for the UK.
The government is led by a Prime Minister, who is appointed by the monarch as the Member of Parliament most likely to command a majority in Parliament. In practice, the Prime Minister selects the other members of the government and their appointment is confirmed by the Queen. The Prime Minister and Cabinet (consisting of all the most senior government ministers) are collectively accountable for their policies and actions to the monarch and to Parliament. The government is fused with Parliament, which means that in practice a government must seek re-election at least every five years.
History of the term
In the British Empire, the term "His (or Her) Majesty's Government" was originally only used by the Imperial Government in London. With the development of the Commonwealth, the self-governing Dominions came to be seen as realms of the Sovereign equal in status to the United Kingdom, and from the 1920s and 1930s the form "His Majesty's Government in ..." began to be used by United Kingdom and Dominion governments. Colonial, state and provincial governments, on the other hand, continued to use the lesser title "Government of ...” There was also His Majesty's Government in the Irish Free State
Today, however, Commonwealth realm governments have now reverted to the form "Government of ...", and it is today mainly in the United Kingdom that the titles "Her Majesty's Government", "Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom" or "Her Britannic Majesty's Government," the last in dealings with foreign states and on British passports, can be found in official use. Although very uncommon today in other Commonwealth Realms, this usage is not incorrect; in a 1989 Canadian Supreme Court decision, one of the Justices referred to "Her Majesty's Government for the Province of Nova Scotia".

(iii) In essence both terms refer to an executive organ bound by the same constitution. In US some refer to 14th amendment as the birth of FEDERAL CORPORATION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. By drawing parallel to that, some claim that 1931 was the turning point of separating national government from HM government in UK, but do the facts support this conjecture.

[azad]

In my previous post, I wanted to open a discussion on the subject that Michael argued in favour of UK being a corporation. Some might find these issues too academic or self-evident to talk about, but to my view the moment that a person ceases to analyse the foundation of a theory or political statement, is a turning point for trivialization of that discourse. Of course there are always people who like new trends or political fashions without a comprehensive understanding of that particular idea, and they just do it for a naïve curiosity or a sense of adventurism. I dislike these elements. Why? Because this sort allow themselves to be manipulated so easily. One should never allow somebody else think for him no matter if it is a fictive legal entity or real physical person. Any way, in this post I would like to raise a set of new issues that are important to the subject:

1. Every legal entity pays taxes to government, but a government does not pay taxes to any body.

2. A government could declare bankruptcy not file it. Why? The relation between a government and the judicial system is a symbiotic, meaning one can’t exist or abolish the other?

3. Upon declaring bankruptcy, a government can’t cease to exist, while almost every other corporation does. This is due to the following:
(i)Public service obligations
(ii)Safety and security issues
(iii)International treaties and obligations

.A typical example is Island which is completely bankrupt and totally destroyed but it continues to exist. A bankrupt regime does not cease to exist! The other example is government of Latvia.

4.Is budget deficit = Bankruptcy?

5. The structure of a government could theoretically be changed by virtue of a democratic process

I know that this section of the forum is not too inviting and attractive, but I certainly hope to get some useful responses.

[cjwood555]

Just to reference your point no 2, without refering back to the text books, wasn't charles ii/iii tried by the courts at the end of the english revolution? As parliament was supposed to be a servant of the monarch, this would point to a certain degree of independance of the courts from government, although the revolution was a special case insofar as parliament had rebelled against the monarch...

Courts/solicitors also commonly talk of 'the rule of law' being the foundation of this country, which is what this site is attempting to properly establish I suppose. That leads to a question though of whether the Courts truly exist to uphold the law, or just statues. Since they are now administered by a government ministry, I would lean towards an answer in the negative!