Another letter to a Leave MP re Kilmuir Petition

  • 0 Replies

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


Offline the leveller

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • 4128
  • +75/-0
Another letter to a Leave MP re Kilmuir Petition
« on: October 20, 2016, 10:19:48 AM »

Dear Mr Lord


Would you please enquire why the Government will not comment on the Kilmuir Petition which is still awaiting a response after more than 80 days. I know that the government has received this Petition and considered, it because a freedom of information request was answered saying that, what was written on the letter that the Parliament petitions committee sent to the government requesting a response, was covered by parliamentary privilege.


To give you more information on why many of us are so anxious that the subject of Lord Kilmuir's letter to Edward Heath should be debated in the House, I am laying the letter out below.


I should be most grateful if you could do all in your power to see that this debate takes place at the earliest possible moment as this should ensure that 'Brexit means Brexit' as the Prime Minister has agreed.


Sonya Porter

Damning Letter from Lord Kilmuir the Lord Chancellor
 to Edward Heath

 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 indicates ways of subverting the conflict. The comments 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

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

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

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 underestimate
 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.

Share this topic...
In a forum
In a site/blog

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk