SS Richard Montgomery Matter
Edward Heath UK entry to EEC Illegal Letter
This is the original letter from englishconstitutiongroup.org
( no longer there)
Just to point out to everybody once something is on the internet it cant be
removed or covered up if that should be the case!
Update! 09 October 2018
For more source information do Google search for: FC 030/1048, on
public record
See also:
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/882881/Brexit-EU-secret-document-truth-British-public
(Tue,
Oct 2, 2018 )
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In answer to a letter from Edward Heath written on the 30 November, Lord
Kilmuir, the Lord Chancellor, makes it plain that there are real problems with
the constitutional limitations imposed on government which prevent our joining
the EEC. He goes on to mention some ways in which the constitution will conflict
with Heath’s plans but also indicate ways of subverting the conflict. The
comments in red, interleaved in Lord Kilmuir’s letter, clearly show that the
Heath Government was prepared to commit acts of sedition and treason in taking
the UK into the EEC. Unfortunately we do not have a copy of Heath’s original
letter to Lord Kilmuir and therefore Heath’s questions are unknown. However it
will take little imagination to guess what they were!
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 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 only
held it in trust for those who followed on. The Money the Pope was demanding as
tribute was not to be paid. Because England’s Kings were not vassal Kings to the
Pope and the money was not owed.
Adherence to the Treaty of Rome would, in my opinion, affect our sovereignty in
three ways:-
Parliament would be required to surrender some of its functions to the organs of
the community;
Answer as above.
The Crown would be called on to transfer part of its treaty-making power to
those organs of the community;
The Constitution confers treaty making powers only on the Sovereign and the
Sovereign cannot transfer those powers to a foreign power or even our own
parliament because they are not the incumbent Sovereigns to give away as they
only hold those powers in trust for those who follow on.
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 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
of 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 Acts of
Treason 1351, the Act of Praemunire 1392, The Act of Supremacy 1559, and the
Declaration and Bill of Rights 1688/9.
Parliament could legislate ad hoc on each occasion that the Council make
regulations requiring action by us. The difficulty would be that, since
Parliament can bind neither itself not 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 is
the constitutional convention whereby Parliament passes British North American
Bills without question at the request of the Parliament of Canada, in this
respect Parliament here has 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 1392 Act of Praemunire, an
Act of Treason under the 1559 Act of Supremacy, and the 1688/9 Declaration and
Bill of Rights.
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 to accept a position where
Parliament had no more power to repeal us 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 1392 Act of Praemunire, and Treason under the 1559 Act of
Supremacy, and the Declaration and Bill of Rights 1688/9.
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 O.E.E.C. restrict severely our liberty to make agreements with third
parties and I should not regard it as detrimental to our sovereign 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 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 although the 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 1392 Act of Praemunire, it is Treason
under the 1559 Act of Supremacy and the 1688/9 Declaration and Bill of Rights.
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 sovereignly 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 lo
gloss over them at this stage 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 lull 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.
Download letter in PDF format here: http://www.ssrichardmontgomery.com/download/heathletter.pdf
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now have a look at the rest of the site, you may find something of interest! Fun
files and pictures
Movie
clips
Free MID polyphonic Ringtones for mobile phones to download
DVD region unlock codes main Index page