I write to you today about matters of fundamental importance to our Constitution, democracy and justice. May I apologise for the length of this letter, however, as you will read the subject matter is of utmost importance and beyond brevity.
As this is a matter of public interest, this is an open letter which will be available to the general public.
This argument is not about nationalism; it is about the essential safety of our democracy.
I am profoundly concerned about the threat to our democracy posed by the decisions being made, past and present, regarding Britain’s relationship with the European Union.
For democracy in this country to truly exist the people must be their own rulers. Democracy does, of course, originate from the Hellenic Athenian Constitution of Government, where democracy was founded on the Rule of Law, with laws being decided via the Trial by Jury system. I believe that the word ‘democracy’ speaks for itself; ‘demo’ means people, and ‘kratos’ means sovereignty, which is the principle of the supreme authority.
I would like to first start by making reference to the recent court ruling (Santos and M -v- Secretary of State for Exiting The European Union) in which Lord Chief Justice, Lord Thomas, defended Parliamentary Sovereignty against the use of the Royal Prerogative in legislative matters. The ‘summary of the summary’ of the judgement was simply this: “the most fundamental rule of the UK constitution is that parliament is sovereign”. This is disinformation fundamentally misleading and undoubtedly confusing to any citizen without a proper understanding of our Constitution, particularly its powers over Parliament to protect the People’s sovereignty.
For something to be legal in Britain it must also be lawful (comply with the British constitution), which parliament has not done since the passing of the Parliament Act in 1911, where the royal assent was diluted. Also since the very first breach of the Coronation Oath (breached over 3,500 times to date) the crown was deposed/usurped and the sovereignty (which was held in trust by the monarch) by default came back to the people.
It is an undeniable fact that Parliament is bound by the Constitutional Law of the land. The Constitutional Laws of our country; enshrined and codified in the Magna Carta (1215), the Petition of Right (1628), the Bill of Rights (1689) and the Act of Settlement (1701); are the most important and powerful laws that we the people have. These laws protect our liberty, democratic rights to self-governance, limit the powers of Parliament and the Judiciary, maintain the imperative right of Britons to a trial by our peers, a right to redress and the right to enforce our laws.
Parliament is restricted by Constitutional Law; it confines the maximum term of office to five years, prohibits an unelected person from speaking in its chambers, limits Parliament’s powers, such that Parliament cannot bind its successors as to the content, manner and form of subsequent legislation (Statutes and Acts), it cannot dissolve itself and it cannot legitimately depose the Queen. Furthermore, it has a lawful duty of care to preserve and protect the rights and freedoms of the people who elected it, including the sovereignty of the people. The Constitutional Law of this land cannot be changed by parliament alone; it can only be changed via an open and lawful constitutional agreement with the People.
Therefore, when discussing ‘Parliamentary sovereignty’ within the context of our Constitutional Laws, it is clear that this sovereignty is rightly limited to the legal creation, amendment or annulment of Statutes and Acts of Parliament, all of which must lawfully comply with our Constitution. Any Act of Parliament which does not comply with Constitutional Law cannot lawfully be granted Royal assent, and those that have been are technically void. Ultimately, our sovereignty is represented by our Sovereign the Queen and protected by Her Majesty’s obligations under the Coronation Oath.
The Queen has solemnly promised to govern the peoples of the United Kingdom according to the laws and customs of her People. Her Majesty also swore to preserve all rights and privileges as by law do or shall appertain to any of them. As I’m sure you are aware, the sovereign can dissolve parliament, with or without the advice of ministers, and can withhold the royal assent. Only the Sovereign can call for new elections, and only the Sovereign can sign treaties. Those powers are the embodiment of the sovereign’s supremacy over parliament.
Therefore, in matters of Constitutional Law, the British people are sovereign. We, the people, own the rights to our own property, in this case, Britain.
My second point for discussion again relates to both sovereignty and Constitutional Law, but with particular reference to the constitutional validity of our actual membership of the EU. Many constitutional experts state that Britain isn’t actually a member of the European Union since our apparent entry was in violation of British law and was, therefore invalid.
As part of our Constitution, the 1689 Bill of Rights clearly states:
“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.”
By enacting the European Communities Bill through an ordinary vote in the House of Commons, Ted Heath’s Government breached Constitutional Law which requires a prior consultation of the people, either by a general election or a referendum, on any measure involving constitutional change. The general election or referendum must take place before any related parliamentary debate.
Just weeks before the 1970 general election which made him Prime Minister, Edward Heath declared that it would be wrong if any Government contemplating membership of the European Community were to take this step without `the full-hearted consent of Parliament and people’.
However, when it came to it Heath didn’t have a referendum because opinion polls at the time showed that the British people were hugely opposed, by a margin of two to one, against joining the Common Market. Instead, Heath merely signed the documents that took us into what became the European Union on the basis that Parliament alone had passed the European Communities Bill of 1972. By doing so, he used Parliament’s legal sovereignty to deny and permanently limit the political sovereignty of the electorate.
Heath and Parliament changed the basic rules and they did not have the right (lawful or moral) to do that. The 1972 European Communities Bill wasn’t just another Act of Parliament. Heath’s Bill used Parliament’s legal sovereignty, and status as representative of the electorate, to deny the fundamental rights of the electorate.
An advisory letter to Edward Heath, dated 30th November 1960, about the Treaty of Rome, from Lord Kilmuir, the Lord Chancellor, makes it plain that Constitutional Laws were broken with planned foreknowledge. This letter can be accessed easily online and reveals that Heath knew sovereignty would be lost in three main ways- “Parliament would be required to surrender some of its functions to the organs of the community; The Crown would be called on to transfer part of its treaty-making power to those organs of the community; Our courts of law would sacrifice some degree of independence by becoming subordinate in certain respects to the European Court of Justice.”
In 1975, when the Government changed, Harold Wilson sought to put right the clear constitutional error by organising a retrospective referendum. Voters were asked: “Do you think that the United Kingdom should stay in the European Community (the Common Market)?”
The result of this referendum was technically void as it was misleading in two ways – firstly we were never lawfully in the EEC, due to the constitutional breach, therefore we were unable to vote to “stay in” something we were not lawfully already a part of; and secondly, it was never made clear to the people that joining the EEC was anything more than a trade agreement – Heath told voters that the EEC was merely a free trade association.
Additionally, it was never explained to the people that the system would evolve into a European Government which would involve the loss of British sovereignty. The fact that this loss of sovereignty was known and deliberately hidden from the public can now be confirmed in the original government document (ref: FCO 30/1048), which can be easily accessed since its 30-year classified status has now elapsed.
Edward Heath, later confirmed that he had lied to the British people about the implications of the Treaty. But, the bottom line remains; we couldn’t enter the Common Market because Parliament never had the lawful constitutional right to sign away our sovereignty in the first place.
Much of the above is reiterated in the attached short interview with Tony Benn regarding the Lisbon Treaty – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTjg-vt0Ao4 .
Irrespective of our personal opinions regarding the merits or disadvantages of a continued membership of the EU, in the interests of preserving democratic integrity and liberties, the referendum result should be respected and reflected in the parliamentary vote, should that be the course which this process finally takes. However, herein lies another hurdle for democracy. Whilst parliament is using a party-political whip system, individual constituency views cannot be truly and democratically represented in this particular situation. Due to the fact that all the main parties were backing the ‘Remain Campaign’, how can a parliamentary vote, heavily controlled by the party political whip system, reflect true democracy?
How can you as a representative of your constituency fairly represent the democratic will of your constituents? How can you know what percentage of your constituency voted IN or OUT? How can the people trust their MPs to vote based upon the democratically determined outcome of the referendum, when there is a clear conflict of interest between MPs, the ‘Remain’ vote and their own future career prospects in Brussels?
All of the above questions are of course pointless when you acknowledge that our entry into the EEC, and subsequently into the EU, violated Constitutional Law. For all of these reasons, the referendum must be respected and the people’s democratic wishes must be carried out with a lawful resolution to these unlawful actions.
Please can you explain how Great Britain’s Government has lifted itself into a position above the Constitutional Laws of the land and proceeded to ignore is People’s democratic will?
Please can you also clarify why the Queen was petitioned on February 7th 2001 regarding several breaches of our Constitution (See attached). A petition which was sanctioned by Leolin Price Q.C. and had the backing of 65 peers from the House of Lords, led by Lord Ashbourne. There has, as yet, been no resolution that I am aware of regarding this petition and the identified breaches of Constitutional Law.
This is a very dangerous path for parliament to tread. If the Government, any government, considers itself to be supreme and believes it can do as it wishes without the constraint of a constitution which is enforceable, then no-one and nothing is safe.
I look forward to hearing from you with answers to my questions and concerns.
Also please find enclosed within this email a complete duplicate of this email, in the case that some links do not work.
Yours sincerely and with all repect,