Lord Kilmuir letter to Edward Heath

Letter from Lord Kilmuir, the Lord Chancellor to Edward Heath.Explanations to the implications to Lord Kilmuir's comments are printed in red.

In answer to a letter from Edward Heath written on the 30TH 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 in red, interleaved in Lord Kilmuir’s letter, clearly show that the Heath Government were
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. 1Ihave 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 insurrendering 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 cannottransfer 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 theSovereign. 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 ParliamentIt 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 takeeffect 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 1351Treason 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 atotal 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 PowersThe 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, hut 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 lake 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 aPraemunire, 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 CourtsThere 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 courtoutside of Her Majesty’s control.

BRITAIN IS NOT PART OF THE EU

When he signed the European Communities Act (ECA72) in 1972, Prime Minister Edward Heath knowingly and wilfully tricked, deceived and betrayed the British people into foreign rule by the EEC/EU under the pretence that they’d be joining a European common trading agreement. The underlying intention was to surrender Britain’s sovereignty.
There can be no doubt that he deliberately lied to the nation. “I will only sign ECA72 with the will of the people, the will of Parliament and there will be no loss of sovereignty.” As we know the people were never consulted. Having twice lost the vote on ECA72 in Parliament Heath made the final crucial vote, a vote of confidence. Faced with bringing down the Government, the Conservatives reluctantly voted by NINE votes to pass ECA72. So much for the “overwhelming support of Parliament”.
As to the loss of sovereignty, we fortunately we have a witness in Lord Thorneycroft who was present in Heath’s private office when Lord Kilmuir’s letter was delivered. Heath had asked the Lord Chancellor Lord Kilmuir whether the ECA72 was contrary to English Constitutional Law. The advice was clear. It would be. Heath read it and went as white as a sheet. He folded the letter, put it in his pocket and said, “No one must see this, least of all the Cabinet.” Heath went ahead anyway and signed the ECA72. It was an act of treason.
For that reason alone under English Law, the ECA72 is void and of no effect.
Heath’s was the most calculating and grievous High Treason in British history. He knowingly gave away his country. Upon signing, his treason instantly removed him from lawful office and his treasonous act failed to become lawfully binding because treason has no legitimacy and cannot do that. You cannot make law by breaking the law. His then treasonousgovernment immediately became an unlawful assembly as a treasonous government is not lawful and has no legitimacy.
No parliament can bind a successor. But no following parliament has ever reversed Heath’s treachery. Instead, every following prime minister and parliament has consciously and deliberately lied to reinforce Heath’s outrageous pretence that Britain had knowingly and willingly consented to foreign rule. As public servants, neither he nor they ever had such authority and their actions are treasonous contrary to English law for acting against the nation’s known interests, intention to surrender its sovereignty, using wilful deception to deliberately betray the nation and for acting in the political interests of a foreign power. It is effectively to declare war on the British Crown and the nation and is thus treason contrary to the 1351 Treason Act and the Treason Felony Act 1848.
Every parliament since Heath’s therefore, is and has been an unlawful assembly. With no legitimacy and in knowingly committing the most evil act of treason against their own people, each has invited and imposed foreign rule over their own country for others’ political purpose.2Since 1972, not one British parliament has acted within the law. Having solemnly sworn lifetime oaths of loyalty and allegiance to serve and protect Britain, each has conspired in this treason and they persist in deceitfully concealing the truth of their illicit activities from the public as it has long been known that the British people would never accept it and would object most violently were they ever to find out.
But they are finding out. Parliaments’ history of treason and corruption is a matter of public record with an increasing number of research documents, newspaper and magazine articles,
TV documentaries and an overwhelming amount of Foreign and Commonwealth Office documentary evidence released to the public domain. Over 600 pages of it can be downloaded and read at http://www.englishconstitutiongroup.org/downloads/treason-relateddownloads/ and this evidence is also verified in Hansard with a full and complete record of politicians’ statements.

  No law or other binding obligation can result from treason or intent by an unlawful assembly.
English law therefore, stands as it was prior to signing of the ECA72. Thus Britain is not and can never have been part of the European Union as every Act, EU Treaty and every statute since 1972 whether or not given the Royal Assent, is treasonous, unlawful, null and void.

Not one has the force of law. In any case, the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties provides that a signatory power may abrogate any treaty unilaterally where corruption can be demonstrated in respect of procuring the Treaty in the first place or in respect of any dimension of it's implementation. This means that the known and proven treason by Heath and his successors and the widely recognized and often reported deep corruption within the EU render every EU Treaty “signed” by Britain, invalid.
The European Union has no legitimate influence in Britain whatsoever. Neither does its Napoleonic European Law. Their authority exist only in the minds of certain politicians in furtherance of the European Union political agenda. Britain may lawfully walk away at any time without a second thought as she is not a part of it anyway. Moreover, the supremacy of English law in Britain automatically intercedes and strikes down any attempt to repeal, subvert, overrule or replace it. The deceit, pretence and false enforcement of Britain’s “European involvement” is none other than parliamentary make-believe and pure theatre designed at the highest levels to deceive and subjugate the people to foreign rule against their will for others’ political purpose contrary to Common Law. It is WILFUL TREASON.A succession of unlawful British parliaments therefore, having no legitimacy, illegally and without mandate, wilfully and criminally import and impose upon their own people, foreign rule and influence that has no authority in Britain.English Constitutional and Common Law is beyond parliamentary reach to alter or repeal and cannot be ignored. Parts are, in any case, by contract directly between the King and his people. Thus Parliament is not a party to those arrangements and can have no input.
Importantly, this English law is immutable and in perpetuity, written specifically to forever protect the British people from despotic governance.
Even Her Majesty the Queen cannot change or ignore these laws as she is herself subject to them. She cannot surrender Britain’s sovereignty that she holds in trust from the British people, for her successors. Neither can she relinquish Britain’s independence and freedom of self determination to a foreign power. Her solemn obligation is to protect and preserve the United Kingdom for her successors, as she received it. What she cannot do, her servants in Parliament ALSO cannot do.3A succession of British parliaments has since 1972 attempted to do the very things the Queen cannot. In so doing, each has placed themselves above the Queen which is to imagine her death. Each of these acts is the most serious treason contrary to the 1351 Treason Act.
Thus their treason is compound in plotting and attempting to give away their country and in considering themselves above the Queen whose death they casually assume.
The Common Law imposes strict and enduring duties upon every British subject from birth.
Every British subject is duty bound in allegiance and loyalty to the nation and in the reporting and prevention of treason. These obligations are absolute and inseparable wherever one may be around the world and cannot be resigned except by renouncing British nationality.
They far pre-date the Bill of Rights 1689 which protects Britain from all foreign influence or rule by any power or authority: “No foreign Prince, person, Prelate, State, or Potentate, hath or ought to have any Jurisdiction, Power, Superiority, Pre eminence, or Authority Ecclesiastical or Spiritual within this Realm.”Britain’s pretend EU membership is contrary to (among others) the 1351 Treason Act, the 1559 Act of Supremacy, the Declaration and Bill of Rights 1689 and the Treason Felony Act 1848. These laws, remember, are beyond the reach of Parliament to amend, repeal or to disregard and just because modern day lawyers are not trained in these laws does not mean they do not exist or that serious offences against them have not been and are not committed. Under the Act of Settlement 1700 S4, these English Constitutional and Common Laws are the birthright of the people and cannot be taken away.
The treason committed by Britain’s politicians is being reported by a growing number of angered people across the country, to the police for prosecution. The police have accepted the evidence as prima facie cases to answer with a view to further action being taken. Under English Common Law anyone who is aware that treason is contemplated or has or is being committed but who does nothing to report or prevent it, commits the equally serious offences of ‘Misprision of Treason at common law’ (knowing of treason committed but doing nothing to report or prevent it) and ‘Compounding (the) Treason at common law’ (any act or inaction which effectively condones, supports or allows the treason to continue). These are tried in court as the original treason. The legal obligation to report known treason extends to every British national. Treason continues to be regarded as so serious an undermining attack upon the British nation that it is still a hanging offence. Ignorance of the law is, of course, no defence.Lawful BritainBritain Is Not Part Of The EU