eurealist.co.uk

A post on Conservative Home about the refusal of by Salisbury District Council to allow Ted Heath’s wish that his house be opened to the public as a museum has cause a bit of to do.

Of course the decision by the council has nothing to do with Heath’s term as Prime minister when he took this country into the European project, apparently 16 of his ex -neighbours objected the scheme, claiming it would ruin the unspoiled and peaceful character and setting of majestic Salisbury Cathedral.

However as these things go it was Heath’s term in office that sparked the debate with special reference to British entry into the Common Market EU, one of the commenters wrote it was a pity he did not live long enough to be tried for treason.

I added my bit because many do not seem to understand that theoretically Heath did commit treason as he worked with other to undermine the sovereignty of his own state and that is treason according to the British laws of the time.

As Heath was instrumental in taking this country into the European Project which undermines our parliamentary sovereignty and undermines the British state there is an argument that he committed treason, according to the British Constitution; Tony Blair acknowledged that point last year;

The British problem with our membership of the EU may derive from the curious and tortured circumstances of its birth. But long since, it has taken on a unique life of its own. The dilemma of a British Prime Minister over Europe is acute to the point of the ridiculous. Basically you have a choice: co-operate in Europe and you betray Britain; be unreasonable in Europe, be praised back home, and be utterly without influence in Europe. It’s sort of: isolation or treason.
Tony Blair 02/02/06 OXFORD
http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page9003.asp

It is an offence under Section 1 of the Treason Act 1795 “within the realm or without … to devise … constraint of the person of our sovereign … his heirs or successors.”
It is an offence under section 1 of the Treason Act 1795 to engage in actions “tending to the overthrow of the laws, government and happy constitution” of the United Kingdom
The Attorney-General took over the cases brought against our leaders under the Treason Act 1795 and then he dropped them as “not in the public interest”.

That in itself breached the Bill of Rights by “suspending the operation of law” and was contrary to natural justice in that the Attorney sat in judgement on his own case.

Of course as Blair has since repealed the Treason Act 1795 no more action can be brought, but when Heath took this country into the Union the Treason act was still in force as was the Bill of Rights 1689 it still is in fact.

As there is documentary proof that Heath knew the full extent of the European project and exactly what was planned for the British state there can be no argument that he did not understand the full implication of his actions. Sorry I cannot give respect to a leader who only holds his position because he has taken an oath of allegiance to his state and then works to undermine that state.

Of course as another commenter noted “there’s no sensible argument of treason. Since the Queen ratified the Treaty of Rome and Parliament (comprised of Queen, Lords and Commons) enacted the European Communities Act, you’re living in a fantasy land.”

Treason does not fail because many colluded together to commit the crime, The Queen members of The Lords and the members of the Commons all took an oath of allegiance to Britian, the fact that we have effectually ended up with a revolutionary system that ignores the previous constitution of Britian does not mean that according to that Constitution there was no treason.

It has been argued that even the previous constitution was also arrived at by treason, because the Parliament that agreed it had no legal right to do so.

Another commenter picked up on the Bill of Rights point

“still in force as was the Bill of Rights 1689 it still is in fact.”

Think you’ll find that no politician, judge, or lawyer would agree with you on that, in that the Bill of Rights explicitly sets out to limit the powers of government, and I don’t think you’d find anybody who could enforce such limits actually willing to do so.

Which is a reasonable point to make however, it is wrong to assume that because no one is willing to enforce the Bill of Rights that it does not still have power if you look at the laws which supposedly undermine it becomes clear that they do not in fact do so. And as the Metric Martyrs case showed it is still Constitutional law in Britian as it has not been directly repealed.

Lord Justice Laws ruling on that case was that although parliament is sovereign there are some laws that are so important that they cannot be changed by implication and can only be changed by direct legislation he mentioned both Magna Charta and the Bill of Rights as being examples of such laws, to date Lord Laws ruling has not been challenged.

Britain has arrived at the present constitutional mess because the people we elect have simply ignored the Constitutional settlement of the British state, they all swear allegiance to the British state they all swear allegiance to the Queen who took an oath to uphold our laws and our Constitution, Tony Blair is right Basically you have a choice: co-operate in Europe and you betray Britain.

But neither Ted Heath or any of our prime minister up to an including Blair have been elected by or taken an oath of allegiance to the EU. They own their positions exclusively as a consequence of being elected by the British people and even then may only take those offices after they have taken an oath of allegiance to the British state.

The thought step that is missing is that this obviously must mean that all of our leaders who have given their power away, have also given our power away to elect our own law makers, and British sovereignty rests with the people.

It has been a long quite revolution which has removed our sovereignty and forced us to become citizens of a foreign state in the making which has been conducted by political leaders who have both ignored their oath of allegiance to the British state and the British people and have constantly lied to the people about what they have been doing. We now find that after 33 years of membership of the European Project that it has changed from a group of sovereign nation states joining together for trading proposes to the overriding law making agency of our country where the vast majority of the laws which we must obey are made by people we do not elect and cannot influence with our votes.

I would call that treason to the British state and the British people who have at no time ever given their consent to the destruction of the British state.