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 indicate ways of subverting the conflict. The comments in red, interleaved in Lord Kilmuir’s letter, 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 Justice.

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 Community.

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 1688/9.

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 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 court outside of Her Majesty’s control.


A simple question---Are not the `laws` which come from Brussels, usually in the form of EU Directives, converted into English and Scottish law by either acts of parliament or subordinate legislation such as orders in council, in the usual way. In fact there are complaints about parliament adding to the EU output `gold plating`. So does this not cover the loss of soverignty point? 


I am sorry to disappoint you all, but this letter is an obvious, and not very convincing, forgery.  To attribute it to one of the most respected lawyers of the 20th century (David Maxwell Fyfe) is actually quite insulting to his memory.

For a start, no modern lawyer  - and by modern, I mean any lawyer practising after the Glorious Revolution - would refer to Praemunire.  As a cause of action, it was described as 'long obsolete' by the House of Lords in 1844.  It has not been pleaded in court or recognised as part of English law for a very long time and certainly not since 1689.  To suggest that this mediaeval claim would have any legal effect shows a profound misunderstanding of the law.

I suspect that this comes from someone who has fallen for the 'legal name fraud' school of legal thought.  These are people who come to their own conclusions, based on their own researches. They are very keen on mediaeval sources. For reasons that are not clear, they have managed to convince a lot of people that they have some arcane insight into the law, which is denied to other lawyers.  They are a constant source of innocent amusement to real lawyers.

Sorry about that.  Feel free to show this to a proper lawyer: they could do with the fees and would probably appreciate having a laugh.


@LordMansfield Perhaps you should take another look at the letter.  Lord Kilmuir never referred to Praemunire.  The person disseminating the letter and the underlying premises upon which it was written did.  Whether that was correct or current legal opinion I know not.  But what is crystal clear is that your claim of the letter being a forgery is flawed.


@kch @LordMansfield Please see my post in this thread with the information that Lord Kilmuir's period as Lord Chancellor ended in 1962 and he died in 1967. If this is correct, he could not have written this letter to Ted Heath when Heath was prime minister in 1970-1974. If there is a way to explain it, please advise.


@routeman68 @kch @LordMansfield Ted Heath was Harold MacMillan's EEC negotiator in the failed 1961 application, blocked by de Gaulle.  That date fits in perfectly with the timeline and explains why the letter was addressed to Heath.  It could have been written as early as 1960.


@kch @LordMansfield If there is a letter in some archive, it will have a date on it, as will the archive file. A Lord Chancellor does not write a detailed formal letter without a date. As I said in another comment on this thread, the link previously given does not show any original letter. This and LordMansfield's observations give me no confidence in it.


Ask yourselves WHY Brexit and UKIP are not exposing this treason. It's all in a Government document now released. Outlined here, with link to pdf of original Government document agreeing to hide loss of Sovereignty!         http://www.acasefortreason.co.uk/fco-30-1048/


@AlanTaylor1 SO THEY LIED among and to themselves too? "..

17) To what extent would the law which at present applies to the United Kingdom be affected by membership of the European Communites?

By far the greater part of our domestic law would be unaffected. The European Treaties are concerned with economic, commercial and closely related matters.

18) Would the common law still apply?


19) Would the procedures of our courts be affected by entry into the European Communities?

Our courts would in certain cases need to refer matters to the European Court of Justice for rulings on points of Community Law. But otherwise the workings of our courts would be unaffected.."


@AlanTaylor1 How would the letter explain Brexit / UKIP 'not exposing this treason'? 

I CAN understand that UKIP with all the present calls on it's funds peaking at present, wouldn't want to get AS A BODY involved in litigation of this nature, but my question was (and IS!) have we no MEMBER sufficiently qualified to take the matter up with our High Court - AS A MATTER OF NATIONAL IMPORTANCE - EVEN NATIONAL EMERGENCY!


You will find a link here to the original FCO 30/1048 Governmant document which mentions this. It was hidden as a secret document for 30 years, by which time they said it would be too late to leave!            http://www.acasefortreason.co.uk/fco-30-1048/


" letter from Edward Heath written on the 30 November, Lord Kilmuir," What year was this? I can't find it on the page.



Why are we not 'chipping in' to pay for their services anyway, rather than running around contesting elections? 



Interesting.  How does one go about arresting Cameron, Clegg, Blair (also for war crimes) and Major?  I would enjoy seeing all four of them in the Tower.  If these laws have been breached, surely there must be a fairly simple route.  I do not know anything about this part of the law, partly because it has never entered my head to sell my country down the river.  

Actually, thinking about it, selling it is one thing which might be understandable, but this shower paid them huge sums of money and then handed over our freedoms.  People betray their countries for a whole number of reasons, generally money, ideology or both.  This has to be a first though.  Traitors betraying their country and paying for the privilege!


@kch I have always suspected Heath's posession of a series of luxury racing yachts which he named 'Morning Cloud' if I recall aright. This was the hobby of a millionaire, which he certainly wasn't when he entered Parliament after the war! Callahan too, of the same era - leaving the Royal Navy as a Petty Officer BY applying to stand at the end of the war - ended up with a large farm / estate, I think in Surrey - certainly in the Home  Counties - again a millionaire's residence! I am now quite convinced to my own satisfaction that they (AND EVERY OTHER P.M. SINCE) were ASKED WHAT THEIR HEART DESIRED - AND WERE PROVIDED WITH IT! The fact that they went on to give 'train-loads' of money to the E.U. matters not - IT WAS NOT THEIR BANK ACCOUNT THE MONEY WAS LEAVING - BUT BRITAIN'S! 

We paid the price for THEIR TREACHERY! (And still are!) 

All my opinion of course, without a shred of evidence to prove it......(So lock me up for it, it would make a 'different' 78th Birthday present, as would going to Court!)


@StephenBarraclough @kch My question remains, what CAN we do about it?

In view of the referendum outcome, to me very pleasing, it could perhaps - given the right approach to the right person - and not to mention BY the right person; be used as a part of the necessary plan of action for Britain's recovery, OUR EARLIEST WITHDRAWAL FROM THE E.U. LEGAL SYSTEM AND PROCESS!

Patrick Cullinane
Patrick Cullinane


Video - Channel 4 UK - Broadcast November 16, 2009

Dispatches: Inside Britain's IsraelLobby

Dispatches investigates one of the most powerful and influential political lobbies in Britain, which is working in support of the interests of the State of Israel.

Political commentator Peter Oborne investigates how accountable, transparent and open to scrutiny the lobby is, particularly in regard to its funding and financial support of MPs.

Oborne examines how the lobby operates from within parliament and the tactics it employs behind the scenes when engaging with print and broadcast media.(Notwithstanding, Six Jewish Companies Control 96% of the World’s Media, denying us Christians’ a VOICE)


UK Police travelling to Israel to be trained by the Israeli Army

“Your Police are being trained by the Israeli Army to defeat and control their enemy, and when your police come back, you become their enemy” — Eran Efrati — Israeli Army Whistleblower warns the American public in March 2014


Now you know why ‘OUR’ Police in the UK treat blatant FRAUD by Government Organisations against We the People as a CIVIL matter: -

The police have told Patrick Cullinane on VIDEO that the robbery of his residential premises, property and possessions, without a TRIAL, is a civil matter: -


Yours truthfully,

Patrick Cullinane, Common Law Lawyer and Victim of Jew Process in the UK's COMMERCIAL Kangaroo Courts.