Sovereignty – The ability to rule ourselves and make our own laws.
The Lord Kilmuir letter, below, was sent to Edward Heath advising him that joining the European Economic Community would be contrary to English Constitutional Law. It would be a total abrogation of his duty to govern us according to our laws and customs.
Heath went ahead anyway and in 1972 gave away Britain’s sovereignty in the most grievous act of treason in British history. Diligently pursuing his treachery, every following parliament has been an unlawful assembly unqualified to legally govern. This means that every Act and EU Treaty since 1972 is null and void as treason has no authority in law.
The comments in red interleaved in Lord Kilmuir’s letter, clearly show that the Heath Government was fully prepared to commit acts of Sedition and Treason in order to take the UK into the EEC. Unfortunately we do not have a copy of Heath’s original letter to Lord Kilmuir.
My Dear Ted,
You wrote to me on the 30th November about the constitutional implications of our becoming a party to the Treaty of Rome. I have now had an opportunity of considering what you say in your letter and have studied the memoranda you sent me. I agree with you that there are important constitutional issues involved.
I have no doubt that if we do sign the Treaty, we shall suffer some loss of sovereignty, but before attempting to define or evaluate the loss I wish to make one general observation. At the end of the day, the issue whether or not to join the European Economic Community must be decided on broad political grounds and if it appears from what follows in this letter that I find the constitutional objections serious, that does not mean that I consider them conclusive. I do, however, think it important that we should appreciate clearly from the outset exactly what, from the constitutional point of view, is involved if we sign the treaty, and it is with that consideration in mind that I have addressed myself to the questions you have raised.
He is clear that if we do sign the agreement with the EEC we will suffer some loss of Sovereignty. This is clearly an act of Treason because our Constitution allows no such surrender of any part of our Constitution to a foreign power beyond the control of the Queen in parliament. This is evidenced by the convention which says:-
(Parliament may do many things but what it may not do is surrender any of its rights to govern unless we have been defeated in war). And the ruling given to King Edward 3rd in 1366 in which he was told that King John’s action in surrendering England to the Pope and ruling England as a Vassal King to Rome was illegal because England did not belong to John, he held it only in trust for those who followed him. The money that the Pope was demanding as tribute was not to be paid because England’s Kings were NOT vassal Kings to the Pope nor was the money legitimately owed.
Adherence to the Treaty of Rome would, in my opinion, affect our sovereignty in three ways:-
a) Parliament would be required to surrender some of its functions to the organs of the community;
b) The Crown would be called upon to transfer part of its treaty-making power to those organs of the Community;
The English Constitution confers treaty making powers on only the Sovereign. The Sovereign cannot transfer those powers to a foreign power nor even, to our own parliament because they are mere servants of the Monarch. Sovereignty itself cannot be given away as it resides with the people who entrust it to the Monarch for his/her lifetime and the Monarch is obliged by law to pass that sovereignty on to any successor as it was received.
c) Our courts of law would sacrifice some degree of independence by becoming subordinate in certain respects to the European Court of Justice.
It is a Praemunire to allow any case to be taken to a foreign court not under the control of the Sovereign. The European Court of Justice or the European Court of Human Rights are foreign courts not under the control of our Sovereign. Praemunire is a crime akin to Treason.
The position of Parliament:
It is clear that the memorandum prepared by your Legal Advisers that the Council could eventually (after the system of qualified majority voting had come into force) make regulations which would be binding on us even against our wishes, and which would in fact become for us part of the law of the land.
There are two ways in which this requirement of the Treaty could in practice be implemented:-
It is a Praemunire to allow any laws or regulations not made by the Sovereign in parliament to take effect as law in England. This is illegal under the 1351 Treason Act, the 1351 Act of Praemunire (which was introduced by King Edward III because he believed it was an affront to his honour and dignity as King of England to have laws imposed upon his Kingdom by a foreign power, to have any of his subjects to be taken out of England to be tried in a foreign court or for his Bishops to excomminicate any of his subjects on the orders of the Pope), the Act of Praemunire 1392, the Act of Supremacy 1559, the Declaration and Bill of Rights 1688/9 and the Treason Felony Act 1848.
Parliament could legislate ad hoc on each occasion that the Council made regulations requiring action by us. The difficulty would be that, since Parliament can bind neither itself nor its successors, we could only comply with our obligations under the Treaty if parliament abandoned its right of passing independent judgement on the legislative proposals put before it.
A parallel [to the position of Britain and the EU] would be, for instance, the constitutional convention whereby Parliament passed British North American Bills without question at the request of the Parliament of Canada. In this respect Parliament here would have in substance, if not in form, abdicated its sovereign position and it would have pro tanto, to do the same for the Community.
No such power exists for parliament to do this. This would be an act of treason under the 1351 Treason Act, a Praemunire under the 1351and 1392 Acts of Praemunire, an act of treason under the 1559 Act of Supremacy, the 1688/9 Declaration and Bill of Rights and the Treason Felony Act 1848.
It would in theory, be possible for Parliament to enact at the outset legislation which would give automatic force of law to any existing or future regulations made by the appropriate organs of the Community. For Parliament to do this would go far beyond the most extensive delegation of powers even in wartime that we have ever experienced and I do not think there is any likelihood of this being acceptable to the House of Commons. Whichever course were adopted, Parliament would retain in theory the liberty to repeal the relevant Act or Acts, but I would agree with you that we must act on the assumption that entry into the Community would be irrevocable. We should therefore have to accept a position where Parliament had no more power to repeal its own enactments than it has in practice to abrogate the statute of Westminster. In short, Parliament would have to transfer to the Council, or other appropriate organ of the Community, its substantive powers of legislating over the whole of a very important field.
There is no constitutionally acceptable method of doing this because it would be tantamount to a total abrogation of their duty to govern us according to our laws and customs. And it would be an act of treason under the 1351 Treason Act, a Praemunire under the 1351 and 1392 Acts of Praemunire and treason under the 1559 Act of Supremacy, the 1688/9 Declaration and Bill of Rights and the Treason Felony Act 1848.
Regarding Treaty-making powers:
The proposition that every treaty entered into by the United Kingdom does to some extent fetter our freedom of action is plainly true. Some treaties such as GATT and OEEC restrict severely our liberty to make agreements with third parties and I should not regard it as detrimental to our sovereignty that, by signing the Treaty of Rome, we undertook not to make tariff or trade agreements without the Council’s approval. But to transfer to the Council or the Commission the power to make such treaties on our behalf and even against our will, is an entirely different proposition.
There seems to me to be a clear distinction between the exercise of the sovereignty involved in the conscious acceptance by us of obligations under treaty-making powers and the total or partial surrender of sovereignty involved in our cession of these powers to some other body. To confer a sovereign state’s treaty-making powers on an international organisation is the first step on the road which leads by way of confederation to the fully federal state. I do not suggest that what is involved would necessarily carry us very far in this direction, but it would be a most significant step and one for which there is no precedent in our case. Moreover, a further surrender of sovereignty of parliamentary supremacy would necessarily be involved: as you know, treaty-making power is vested in the Crown.
Parliamentary sanction is required for any treaty which involves a change in the law or the imposition of taxation, to take two examples, and we cannot ratify such a treaty unless Parliament consents. But if binding treaties are to be entered into on our behalf, Parliament must surrender this function and either resign itself to becoming a rubber stamp or give the Community, in effect, the power to amend our domestic laws.
This is a surrender of our Sovereignty, a clear act of treason under the 1351 Treason Act and a Praemunire under the 1351 and 1392 Acts of Praemunire, it is treason under the 1559 Act of Supremacy, the 1688/9 Declaration and Bill of Rights and the Treason Felony Act 1848.
Independence of the Courts
There is no precedent for our final appellate tribunal being required to refer questions of law (even in a limited field) to another court and as I assume to be the implication of ‘refer’ — to accept that court’s decision. You will remember that when a similar proposal was considered in connection with the Council of Europe we felt strong objection to it. I have no doubt that the whole of the legal profession in this country would share my dislike for such a proposal which must inevitably detract from the independence and authority of our courts.
Of those three objections, the first two are by far the more important. I must emphasise that in my view the surrenders of sovereignty involved are serious ones and I think that as a matter of practical politics, it will not be easy to persuade Parliament or the public to accept them. I am sure that it would be a great mistake to under-estimate the force of objections to them. But these objections ought to be brought out into the open now because, if we attempt to gloss over them at this state, those who are opposed to the whole idea of our joining the Community will certainly seize on them with more damaging effect later on.
Having said this, I would emphasise once again that, although those constitutional considerations must be given their full weight when we come to balance the arguments on either side, I do not for one moment wish to convey the impression that they must necessarily tip the scale. In the long run we shall have to decide whether economic factors require us to make some sacrifices of sovereignty: my concern is to ensure that we should see exactly what it is that we are being called on to sacrifice, and how serious our loss would be.
It is a Praemunire to subject Her Majesty’s Courts of Law to the domination of a foreign court outside of Her Majesty’s control.