Govt response via Jonathan Lord MP on Kilmuir Petition

  • 0 Replies

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


Offline the leveller

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • 4128
  • +75/-0
Govt response via Jonathan Lord MP on Kilmuir Petition
« on: October 25, 2016, 09:12:37 PM »
[email protected] writes:

Dear Sonya,


Thanks for your email regarding the Kilmuir petition.


All petitions submitted to the Petitions Committee, once accepted, are live for a period of 3 months. If the petition receives 10,000 signatures during that time, it is put to the Government for a response. When a petition reaches 100,000 signatures, the Petitions Committee will consider it for debate, but it’s worth pointing out that, due to the limited sitting time available in the Chamber, it simply isn’t possible to debate all petitions which exceed 100,000.


In this case, the petition received 10,396 signatures and so the Department for Exiting the European Union issued the following statement in response:


“The issues that this correspondence exchange raises, around Parliamentary sovereignty in relation to the EU, have been debated in Parliament many times.


Although the letter from Lord Kilmuir to Edward Heath has never been the subject of a debate in the Houses, the issue of sovereignty in relation to the EU has been debated and discussed on numerous occasions.


For example, during the passage of the European Act in 2011 and European Union Referendum Bill in 2015, where issues of sovereignty were debated extensively.


The Government is clear that the referendum result is a mandate from the public to leave the European Union. It is a message that the majority of British people wish to see Parliament’s sovereignty strengthened. By the end of this process, when we have left the European Union, we will have put the supremacy and sovereignty of Parliament beyond doubt.”


Having been live for the designated 6 months, the petition is now closed and I’m afraid this means that it’s very unlikely to be debated in Parliament.


With best wishes.

Kind regards,


Jonathan Lord

Member of Parliament for Woking

House of Commons, London, SW1A 0AA | 020 7219 6913 | [email protected] 

Churchill House, Chobham Road, Woking, GU21 4AA | 01483 773384

Sent: 20 October 2016 09:39
To: LORD, Jonathan <[email protected]>
Subject: The Kilmuir Petition


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.
 UK Parliament Disclaimer: This e-mail is confidential to the intended recipient. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender and delete it from your system. Any unauthorised use, disclosure, or copying is not permitted. This e-mail has been checked for viruses, but no liability is accepted for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail. This e-mail address is not secure, is not encrypted and should not be used for sensitive data.

« Last Edit: October 25, 2016, 09:15:19 PM by the leveller »

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

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk