The objective of Defence of the Realm has been to make a case for the constitutional repudiation of the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Union.

There are, of course, other means by which the UK’s membership of the EU may end - the government of the day might withdraw its ambassador and void the treaties with the EU; the EU might collapse or throw us out (equally unlikely); parliament might vote for repeal of the 1972 Act; private prosecutions of government ministers for treason might be successful. Any one of these events would have much the same practical effect as we seek.

Whichever event prevails, we argue that there are other actions, legal and otherwise, which need the urgent attention of those in a position, and with the knowledge, to take them.

1. Determine how best to test in the courts the claim that European law is "supreme" in the United Kingdom. This is the first step towards ultimately proving the illegality of EU law in the UK.

2. Examine the direct conflict between the oaths sworn by privy counsellors and EU commissioners. At the very least, we advocate that those who have taken the commission’s euro should be publicly stripped of their status as privy counsellors.

3. Examine the constitutionality of the three separate attempts currently being made by parliament acting under instructions from the EU and the European Court of Human Rights to interfere with the oath of attestation made by all members of the armed forces. The first involves the setting up of an embryo European Army, and passing command to a foreign power, the second proposes giving the ‘right’ to junior ranks to sue their commanding officers, and the third interferes with the setting and interpretation of standards of behaviour likely to be detrimental to the efficiency of the forces. In all these actions parliament appears to be exceeding its authority and compromising the sovereignty of The Queen.

4. Examine the issue of citizenship (Article 8 of the Maastricht Treaty - "Citizenship of the union is hereby established"). British citizenship (we prefer the term "subject of the crown") is a birthright. Citizenship is not in the gift of a self-appointed foreign institution, which in any event is unaccountable to the British electorate and, we argue, has no standing here.

The notion of dual citizenship, implied under this Treaty, is nonsensical. Across the world, applications for dual citizenship are entirely voluntary. Furthermore, the European Union is even now only an association of sovereign nation states. It is not in itself a state, much as it might like to pretend otherwise. It is impossible to be the citizen of a non-state. At the very least, therefore, that legal anomaly needs to be disputed in the courts, with the outcome providing individual subjects with a practical and effective means of rejecting so-called citizenship of the EU, and all its pathetic paraphernalia - passport covers, driving licences and the like.

5. Examine the constitutionality of the 1975 referendum and the referendum proposed on the euro, both of which concern changes which appear to have been forbidden under our constitution and, if possible, instigate proceedings to have them set aside.

6. Investigate the case against all the plenipotentiaries acting under the royal prerogative and who signed the Treaties of Rome, Maastricht and Amsterdam on behalf of the United Kingdom, and who may be held to have exceeded the powers granted to them.

7. Test the legality of all new EU legislation, directives and regulations, as attempts are made to introduce and enforce them. To date, insufficiently vigorous opposition has been applied. There are major battles ahead, including: the euro and tax harmonisation, weights and measures, a European defence force, Europol and Corpus Juris. As the EU attempts to enforce its policies and law on the UK, contrary to Magna Carta, the Declaration of Rights, and common law, each and every one must be disputed to the utmost of our resources and will-power.

8. The restitution of the constitution will release an avalanche of cases of maladministration, involving whole industries (fishing, for example) and many thousands of individuals and businesses, and going back over many years.

The desire for an immediate and gigantic bonfire of EU inanities will need to be balanced with an equally important desire to achieve rapid but orderly abolition of (now) illegal regulations. An immediate moratorium on enforcement seems the most practical and desirable first step.

The vital issue of making good the damage suffered by the people will come a close second. This might perhaps be addressed in much the same way as restitution and reinstatement was handled after the second world war, with the state leading a programme of national re-building. What redress do the people whose livelihoods have been damaged or destroyed over the last 30 years have against government ministers and enforcement agencies past and present? And how can it be delivered quickly and fairly, without time-consuming and expensive civil proceedings? It is possible that justice itself will demand that the state foots the bill.

We urge that a powerful independent body be set up as a matter of the highest priority and charged, primarily, with determining the best means of achieving rapid and equitable redress for all those affected by the enforcement of EU law, regulations, directives and judicial decisions in the UK since 1 January 1973.

9. Investigate the constitutionality of actions and decisions concerning the EU taken or authorised by all the prime ministers, their administrations and enforcement agencies, since 1972. Consider what legal response is now appropriate.

Further examine the past actions of ministers and officials who exceeded or may have exceeded the authority delegated to them by the people, and who attempted to defy the clear intentions of the constitution of the United Kingdom. The investigation should specifically consider what liability attaches to all or any of these people who, like all of us, are subject to the law and not above it, and whose past actions paid no proper attention to the common law.

10. The people are sovereign. The monarch is the embodiment of that sovereignty. So it was and still should be. But these tenets of the constitution have been seriously threatened by the erosion of the checks and balances between the sovereign, the houses of parliament and the people - an erosion which has been insidious, lengthy and allowed to thrive by the negligence of the people, who have failed sufficiently to exercise vigilance.

It was 473 years after Magna Carta that a further treaty became necessary between sovereign and people. Today, 312 years have passed since the Declaration of Rights.

Events of recent years, and the momentous issues raised in this document, convince us that a new and historic re-affirmation of the rights of the people is now essential - a confirmation of liberties between the monarch and the people. It should re-state the true relationship between sovereign, the two houses of parliament and the people, re-establish the checks and balances between them, and re-affirm the covenant between sovereign and subjects.

A Declaration for the next thousand years based on the rights, freedoms and customs of the British people for the last thousand years. Nothing else will do.

___________________________________________________________________

This document was researched and written by the founding members of

The Magna Carta Society. First published 6 April 2000

By happy co-incidence, The Magna Carta Society’s proposed petition to The Queen via the hereditary House of Lords comes at a time when the re-establishment of that distinguished House is under consideration.

By accepting and dealing with our petition, the hereditary House of Lords will be the first estate of the realm to grapple with the great constitutional issues raised by the European Union, the first to give a hearing to the concerns of the people (after more than 25 years of waiting), and the first to have an opportunity to put the EU’s constitutionality in the UK fully to the test.

They will also be the first estate of the realm to acknowledge, in the context of our relationship with the EU, the birthrights of the people as laid down in common law and enshrined in the constitution. They will be seen to be doing their duty under the first document of our constitution - Magna Carta - both by the people and by the sovereign.

It was a group of hereditary peers who forced King John to sign Magna Carta in the first place, and by so doing took the initial steps towards creating our constitution. Thus their support today is steeped in history and represents another few steps on the same road.

Top