As a personal commemoration of the achievements of Sir Edward Heath, I offer this series of letters, published in the Daily Telegraph, between Alan Judd, Sir Edward Heath and Neil Herron, in September 2001.

Sir Edward was so convinced of the benefits for Britain of joining the European Union that he was prepared to lie about it. His most famous quote, and lie, on the implications of our joining the then E.E.C., was: "There will be no loss of essential national sovereignty". On a TV current affairs programme in 1990, he was asked if he had known that this statement was untrue at the time he said it. His notorious answer was "Of course, yes!".

The European Union was founded on lies and deceit and has been constructed with continued lies and deceit. Sir Edward Heath played his part in the construction of this project.

A man who did not trust the people with the truth:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What MPs Didn't Tell You About The Common Market by Alan Judd

Bank Holiday notwithstanding, garage forecourts, power stations, daily papers (yes, really), farmers, newsagents, milkmen, junior hospital staff and members of Parliament will function today much as they did last Monday, and shall the next.

The last category, though do not function quite as the others. Our elected representatives are enjoying a holiday peculiar to themselves. It began on July 20, and lasts until October 15.

Of course, many will be working hard at constituency business, or investigating local conditions in the Seychelles. Others may be busy with second jobs. It is surely only reasonable that disgraced or failed ministers such as Peter Mandelson and Chris Smith should be found something at taxpayers' expense to fill those few precious minutes a week they spend not representing our interests and not scrutinising legislation.

Should we begrudge MPs their absences and moonlighting, or should we be grateful that they don't spend more time representing us? It is hard to say.

I pondered thus in the wake of news that the Queen's sawmill at Sandringham has been threatened with prosecution for selling wood in imperial measures. The woodmen did it because that's what their customers preferred. Although they printed both imperial and metric measurements on their wood, they made the criminal error of putting the metric second, in smaller type, rather than the other way round. Nor did they possess a metric measuring stick stamped by an Inspector of Weights and Measures. They are taking urgent steps to conform with the law.

There has in fact been freedom to use either metric or imperial measurements in this country since 1864, and some industries have long used metric. This has not caused public confusion, nor has it affected Britain's ability to trade with the world (as it hasn't that of the United States, either). Then came the 1972 EC Act, under which we joined the then Common Market, and an acceleration both of metrication and of government willingness to amend primary legislation not by further legislation but by statutory instruments - in other words, by the stroke of a ministerial pen. These powers are quaintly referred to as "Henry VIII powers", after Henry's habit of abusing them. It is a habit that may be catching.

Thus is was during 21 minutes of desultory discussion in 1994, a committee of 14 MPs nodded through the Units of Measurement Regulations. These regulations led to the prosecution this year of the first of the so-called metric martyrs, Steven Thoburn, whose sale of bananas by imperial weight so excited officials in Sunderland. Less well known is the fact that these same regulations permit imperial measurements to be shown on goods, provided they are less prominent than the metric, until 2009; also, that they state that "Nothing in these regulations shall apply in relation to the use of the mile, yard, foot or inch for road traffic signs, distance and speed measurement". Local authorities who put up metric distance signs are therefore liable to prosecution and BBC correspondents who report distances in metres and kilometres are wrong.

Mr Thoburn, however, was found guilty and, though his case will go to appeal, it is hard to imagine that the outcome can by very different. Judge Morgan's judgement (available on www.bwmaOnline.com) is surprisingly readable, given the necessary abstruseness of much of the argument. Admittedly, there are one or two mistakes and peculiarities: we joined the European Economic Community in 1972, not the EU as is claimed at one point; in the 1975 referendum we did not vote to join but to remain in; and it is unclear why "it would be difficult to have a common market with two ways of measuring mass" when that is precisely how the genuinely common market of the United Kingdom has functioned since 1864.

It is tempting to guess where, as they might say in the North American Free Trade Association, Judge Morgan is coming from: he commends the 1972 Act as a "bold new source of law", urges adoption of a criminal code such as is found "in some foreign jurisdictions", describes attempts by EU member states to decide things for themselves as "legislative frolics" and notes with approval that "one of the most important reasons to justify [sic] European Union is that of conformity and uniformity".

But these are quibbles. There is no indication that Judge Morgan's views, whatever they may be, warped his interpretation of the law or the logic of his argument. In essence, the prosecution's case was that, since the 1972 Act, what has become EU law takes precedence over the national law into which it is incorporated. The essence of the defence case was that no act of Parliament can bind a successor parliament and that it is an abuse of "Henry VIII powers" to use them to bring about changes of national importance.

While noting that "some say the electorate were misled" in 1972 and that during the 1975 referendum "all the issues were not put to the electorate", Judge Morgan found that European legislation was enacted by properly constituted parliaments with no indication that Parliament intended anything other than what is now happening.

As for no parliament binding its successor, the 1972 Act refers to "enactments passed or to be passed" and, along with the 1998 Human Rights Act, it establishes a "hierarchy of statute", effectively nullifying that principle. Both Acts could be repealed by Parliament and we could leave the EU but "we cannot leave by stealth by passing Acts that conflict with Community law".

Whether or not the Heath and Wilson governments lied to us directly in 1972 and 1975, there is no doubt that the full constitutional consequences of EU membership were not spelt out to the electorate while we were being urged to vote for it. Enoch Powell tried but he was a prophet crying in the wilderness. Were our MPs part of the lie or were they reassured by the sort of government half-truths they are supposed to challenge on our behalf? Or were they simply lazy or indifferent?

Although there are conscientious, principled MPs, most did not challenge and scrutinise the executive as they should have in 1972, 1975 or 1994, and still don't. In fact, the volume of legislatio, much of it EU - derived, is such that they could not make a proper job of it even if they wanted. Were there a referendum on EU membership now, with all made crystal clear, maybe we would still vote for it; but there is no doubt that, whatever lawyers may argue, an injustice was done us in the past when consequences were witheld or played down. It is as if the full evidence was witheld from a jury. Parliament failed us then, and fails us still. That injustice, be it buried never so deep, rankles; and the day may come when the stench of it will cause the horse to rear and upset the apple cart.

Given, however, that our representatives have achieved all this without really trying and without even being there for much of the year, then perhaps we shouldn't begrudge them their continued absence now.

Imagine how much more regulation they could pass without proper scrutiny if they were there all the time.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sir Edward Heath's response - Daily Telegraph letters 10 Sept 2001

Sir - Alan Judd makes the scurrilous and completely unjustified allegation that I lied to the country in 1972 by not properly spelling out the constitutional implications of membership of the then European Economic Community (Comment, Aug. 27).

The White Paper of 1971 that detailed the case for membership clearly stated the Government's position: "There is no question of any erosion of essential national sovereignty; what is proposed is a sharing and an enlargement of individual national sovereignties in the general interest." The paper then went into considerable detail to explain exactly what the implications of this sharing of sovereignty were:

"The treaties establishing the EEC and Euratom are concluded for an unlimited period. Those treaties contain no provision expressly permitting or prohibiting withdrawal...The English and Scottish legal systems will remain intact. Certain provisions of the treaties and instruments made under them, concerned with economic, commercial and closely related matters, will be included in our law."

"The common law will remain the basis of our legal system, and our courts will continue to operate as they do at present. In certain cases, however, they would need to refer points of Community law to the European Court of Justice."

On a historical point I have never referred to the European Community as the "Common Market". The vision of the original six, and the grouping that I wished the UK to join, was always going to be something more than a simple customs union. On metrification, Mr Judd might note that the decision to go metric was taken in 1965, well before the United Kingdom joined the then European Community. Weights and measures are mentioned in Magna Carta, and George Washington drew attention to the need for a uniform system of measurement in the newly independent United States.

He should also note that Mr Steven Thoburn was not prosecuted for having scales calibrated in imperial units, only because they were not also calibrated in metric units.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Metric Martyrs Reply

Sir - Further clarification of Sir Edward Heath's misconceptions are required (I did not lie about EEC - Mon 10th September).

Firstly, Steven Thoburn had dual-purpose scales as well as imperial only when his business was raided by police and Trading Standards Officers. He has always dual priced his goods. If the undercover consumer protection officer had asked for a kilo of bananas, Steven could and would have obliged.

You mention the decision to go metric was made in 1965. It was meant to be a voluntary process but as a result of European Directives 80/181 and 89/617 the compulsion element was added.

Therefore, the fact that it is now a CRIMINAL OFFENCE to sell any goods in imperial measures in Britain and the adsurdity of a customer actually inciting an offence to be committed.

You fail to mention that from 2009 it will be a CRIMINAL OFFENCE to make any imperial reference whatsoever, even on dual calibrated scales.

The damning statement however, was made in a packed courtroom in Sunderland on April 9th 2001. After 30 years of lies, deception and stealth by elected representatives of all parties, Judge Bruce Morgan stated "that in passing the 1972 European Communities Act, Parliament SURRENDERED its sovereignty to the European Union."

You may not have lied Sir Edward. You just failed to tell the truth.

Neil Herron,
For and on behalf of The Metric Martyrs Defence Fund

<<Firstly, Steven Thoburn had dual-purpose scales as well as imperial only when his business was raided by police and Trading Standards Officers. He has always dual priced his goods. If the undercover consumer protection officer had asked for a kilo of bananas, Steven could and would have obliged.>>

Firstly I saw pictures of his dual pricing. The price/kg was very small and inconspicuous. The price marking law requires the metric to be of the same or greater size.

Secondly, the fact that he was in possession of approved equipment is hardly relevent if he didn't actually use it. His conviction rested on the fact that he was using the imperial-only ones for trade.

It's one thing to argue that such laws should not have been enacted and to disagree about changing the law to disallow imperial for trade, but it does no good to twist things and try and pretend that Mr Thoburn was wrongly convicted on the basis of the law as it stands.

I'm not impressed by the above attempt to suggest that Mr Heath was a liar when it comes from people who make their own case on the basis of such dubious semantics.

From the BBCi website, 2001

Edward Heath carpets critics in online outburst


Sir Edward: Took exception to criticism

The gruff reputation of Tory former prime minister Sir Edward Heath has been enhanced after a cyber counterblast at critical members of the public. The 84-year-old unexpectedly e-mailed a BBC online debate after contributors referred to him as a "deceitful dictator" and "arrogant liar" over his role taking Britain into the European Community in 1973.

QUOTE: "Heath illegally took us into the Common Market and lied to achieve that" - Debate contributor

Sir Edward's e-mail to the website of BBC Radio 4's The Westminster Hour declared: "Many of your respondents seem to have been duped by Eurosceptic propaganda."

"I have always been completely honest with the British people on Europe."

The row followed a Westminster Hour programme on Sunday looking back on his half-century in politics.

It included an interview with Sir Edward, who is standing down at the next election.

An online debate about his record was also launched - prompting many extremely critical e-mails from website visitors and listeners.

QUOTE: "He obviously wanted to have his say after so much criticism" - Westminster Hour editor

One contributor wrote: "How can anyone support such an arrogant and deceitful dictator? He lied to the people that he's supposed to represent about the most important thing in our history, the European Union."

Another said: "Heath is an arrogant liar who damned himself out of his own mouth."

Others accused him of talking "garbage", being Britain's worst leader of modern times and having "contempt" for the views and rights of the public.

Many accused him of taking Britain into the Common Market saying there would be no consequences for national sovereignty and later admitting this was untrue.

But Sir Edward rejected it all in his contribution, which arrived unsolicited apparently after he went online on to see the debate for himself.

'Lively' debate

He said: "In today's increasingly globalised world it is impossible for the United Kingdom to exercise total sovereignty in all areas.

"It is far more sensible for her to share sovereignty with her European neighbours for the common good."

Sir Edward went on to say that further changes to the UK's relationship with Europe took place - with the consent of the British people - after he had left office.

Westminster Hour editor John Evans described the online debate as "lively" with some "very critical" contributions.

"But it still came as a total surprise to get an e-mail from a former Prime Minister out of the blue.

"He obviously wanted to have his say after so much criticism."

Relationship with Thatcher

Sir Edward, who served as prime minister from 1970 to 1974, holds the Commons title Father of the House as the longest serving MP.

His personal reputation was fuelled for years by the clear resentment that lingered between him and fellow former Tory Prime Minister Baroness Thatcher.

The pair barely spoke to each other for some time - although recently they are said to have patched things up.

<<I pondered thus in the wake of news that the Queen's sawmill at Sandringham has been threatened with prosecution for selling wood in imperial measures. The woodmen did it because that's what their customers preferred. Although they printed both imperial and metric measurements on their wood, they made the criminal error of putting the metric second, in smaller type, rather than the other way round. Nor did they possess a metric measuring stick stamped by an Inspector of Weights and Measures. They are taking urgent steps to conform with the law.>>

This has to be complete rubbish. Sawmills would not be prosecuted for putting imperial measurements on lumps of wood. If that be the case then an awful lot of traders would have been taken to court by now for giving the dimensions of products in inches.

The only enforced aspect of trade that requires metric is unit pricing, i.e. they are not allowed to sell wood xxp/ft except as a supplementary indication. Anything else is descriptive only.

The articles given above are interesting reading. It would appear that British nationalists are still unforgiving of the late Sir Edward Heath for taking Britain into the EEC and likely always will be. What I would like to know is what do they suggest the UK do if she cannot withdraw from the European Union? What courses of action are open to her?

I'd like to see the court's complete record of what Judge Morgan said in full when he was quoted as saying, "that in passing the 1972 European Communities Act, Parliament surrendered its sovereignty to the European Union," on April 9th, 2001, during the Steve Thorburn case. It is something that really ought to be read in its full context to be able to judge this quote's accuracy.

With all due respect to Judge Morgan he could have been wrong. He was only venturing an opinion which wasn't definitive and not something he had to base his judgement on. I doubt he had much expertise on the treaty of Rome etc.

It was the high court that had to decide whether the law in question was invalid based on the Shrimpton defence of implied repeal.

So far, from all of the above, I've not seen any real evidence that Mr Heath and others were really lying. It's all sour grapes from rabid Eurosceptics trying to sow the seeds of doubt and mistrust in the EU.

Rip

Morgan's full judgement is at http://www.bwmaonline.com/Legal%20-%20Morgan%20Judgement.htm

Stan - I've stayed oout of the Heath debate deliberately because the fella's just died (I personally thought he was the UK's worse prime minister, but that doesn't make me glad he's departed.)

However - he *did* admit to misleading the country of the feral - sorry - federalist agenda.



Rip:
<<<
What I would like to know is what do they suggest the UK do if she cannot withdraw from the European Union? What courses of action are open to her?
>>>

An independant nations state with liberal views on trade with neighbouring Europe, US and the world.

We could have persued closer ties with Canada, the rest of the commonwealth and the US in parallel with Europe.

It would have meant we didn't follow an isolationist "counter balance to the US" mentality that the EU has.

Our traditions would remain intact too - without this strange drive to say "we're all european now" rather than celebrating our differences.

Having wrote all that I land firmly back to earth with a notion of "I may as well be pi**ing in the wind" firmly emplanted in my mindset.

I see Alice has returned to wonderland and has been dipping into the mushroom gravy again.

In Steve's fantasy land Britain is still an empire, on the Queen's empire the sun never sets, everyone is happily measuring and trading in imperial......

Then we wake up, it is the 21-st century and none of those fantasies are real.

Can you point me to the bit where I said I was fond of having an empire?

Or do you want to admit making yourself look like a supreme d*ck again?

The choice - as they say - is yours.

X-D