Semper Fidelis - Yeh or Neh ?

Among the many questions those in the Euro-realist camp ask are those surrounding the seemingly continual surrender of the sovereignty of this country.

There are those of us who have noted that constitutional blocks such as The Magna Carta of 1215, The Bill of Rights 1689 and the Coronation Oath (last taken in June 1953) that should have, if not stopped the process, should at least have held the process up until parliament had specifically legislated to remove these constitutional impedimenta for what in effect has been a transfer of sovereignty - i.e.; pass legislation that specifically amended these aforementioned constitutional blocks. This has not been done. Furthermore, none in the establishment have attached any significance to this.

Whilst all will acknowledge that when it comes to litigation and legal opinions, there are many. There can be no doubt that those who would argue the aforementioned statutes can serve as a constitutional block (this after all was what they were intended to be) have at least an arguable case.

The questions are these?

Why has that case never been heard or argued ?

What about the Royal Assent ?

Did not the Queen's advisers draw the monarch's attention to this ?

Those who at this point would say that the Queen could not just refuse the Royal Assent point blank do not understand how the system should have worked. What should have happened is this; The then Prime Minister Heath would have advised the monarch of her government's programme, i.e.; to join what was the The Common Market and to sign the Treaty of Rome. At this point it should have become clear to the constitutional lawyers that there was a problem. This would not have meant the Queen in some high handed and dictatorial manner telling Heath that his party's intention to join would be blocked by her. It would have meant those lawyers advising Heath that in order to join the Common Market and sign the Treaty of Rome it would be necessary to give the monarch the authority to do so by removing the aforementioned constitutional impediments.

Of course all know that had Heath had been required to go to the Commons and have such specific disabling bills put through he would never have succeeded. Britain would never have joined the Common Market.

How then did we come to join and how then did the monarch ignore these disabling statutes?

At this point we suggest you click on the hypertext link at the bottom of this page;

Before leaving our site however, ask yourself this question ? If the content of the website is true and not idle speculation and the Heath government knew about it; would those persons be vulnerable to pressure Heath might possibly have applied ? There are additional facts to consider; When Heath became Prime Minister in 1970 his main objective was to get the U.K. into what was then known as the Common Market. We know that this man was determined to achieve this. We know he is quoted in 1972 as stating;

".....There are some in the country who fear that in going into Europe we shall in some way sacrifice independence and sovereignty....these fears, I need hardly say, are completely unjustified...."

We also know that there were many in the Conservative party who opposed Britain's entry and many who were lukewarm. These lukewarm members had to be won over. Furthermore many Labour M.P.s were against Britain joining. We know that had the Heath government accepted that Common Market entry required disabling legislation to be passed amending Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights and the Coronation Oath to allow the surrender of sovereignty, Britain's membership would not have happened.

It is possible that Heath decided to ignore these constitutional constraints and proceed regardless ?

We know that the Queen and her courtiers are diligent in their constitutional duties and would have noted these constitutional impedimenta ?

IN  SUMMARY;

Through a combination of misrepresentation and possibly other acts, he took part in an unlawful conspiracy to subjugate the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the influence and dominance of a foreign power; namely The Common Market, A.K.A. The European Economic Community A.K.A. The European Community A.K.A. The European Union.

The United Kingdom has subsidised the European powers to the tune of £500,000,000,000 (FIVE HUNDRED BILLION POUNDS) over 30 years. This conspiracy started even before the treaty had been signed; Papers released under the 30 year rule reveal the full extent of Edward Heath's betrayal of the British Fishing Industry. The story begins in 1970, when Britain, Ireland, Denmark and Norway were about to apply for membership of the Common Market. The original Six saw that these four countries would control 90 per cent of Europe's fishing industry. So they prepared a cunning plan; just hours before the application arrived they declared that all fish in western waters would be regarded as a Common European Resource. This was illegal under the Treaty of Rome, and the Six knew it was, but they gambled on the Euromania of Heath; that he would accept it as part of the acquis communitaire. They gambled successfully; publicly the government line was that they would take proper account of the interests of the fishermen. Similar soothing words continued for a while, but a decision had to be made by January 1973. In November Heath wrote a letter to the Norwegian government, imploring them to accept the principle. The leaking of this letter caused a major row, leading to Norway's rejection of entry in a referendum. But Heath was not to be moved; the 22,000 British fishermen were Politically insignificant. Heath's co-conspirator Rippon agreed privately to accept the surrender of all Britain's fishing waters, in return for a face saving 10 year derogation, giving British fishermen rights out to six miles, with more limited rights out to 12 miles. Rippon misrepresented the situation to the House; We retain full rights up to 12 miles; no change at all in the protection to British fishermen in their inshore waters; these are not just transitional arrangements. Thanks to the treason of Heath, the British Fishing Industry today faces terminal disaster; thanks too to Heath, misrepresentation about the purpose and nature of the European Union are part of the stock-in-trade of every pro-EU politician, even though the purpose of the EU, to forge a European Supra-National Confederacy, has been well known to the British Government from the earliest days.