|
|
|
PAST YEARS FROM 2000 Membership Bulletins Articles In Defence of Australia's Constitutional Monarchy The Golden Jubilee The Queen's Christmas Messages Resolving Deadlocks The Senate Inquiry into a Republic The Issue of the European Constitution (includes Papers delivered to meetings in the House of Lords by Philip Benwell MBE)
The Commonwealth Realms v The Constitution for Europe
“inasmuch as the Crown is the symbol of the free association of the members of the British Commonwealth of Nations … united by a common allegiance to the Crown”
The Statute of Westminster 1931
A Paper delivered to a meeting held in
The House of Lords London
on the 21st April 2004
by
Philip Benwell MBE
My Lords, Ladies & Gentlemen,
My task tonight is not to take sides on whether we should be in or out of Europe, but rather to explore what I consider to be a very real danger to the Constitution of Australia and the other fourteen Commonwealth Realms.
The issues relating to individual sovereignties are indeed complex, particularly since the Statute of Westminster of 1931 which was enacted to provide for the maturing independence of those former colonies who remained ‘under The Crown of the United Kingdom’ which were termed ‘Dominions’, so named in 1907 as ‘the self-governing dominions beyond the seas’ to replace the term ‘Great Colonies’ and which today comprise the nations of Australia, Canada and New Zealand, each having unique constitutions with precedents and conventions developed to suit their individual environments and peoples.
For instance, Canada is still essentially a ‘Royalist’ nation whereas Australia is not; and this is probably due to the comparative physical closeness of Canada to the United Kingdom and its greater number of Royal Visits, a privilege Australia has little experience of, due to our distance and the length of travel time to reach us .
This may explain why Australia has a more constitutional – and lesser Royalist - approach to our Monarchy than Canada. We tend to recognise The Crown as but an ingredient - albeit vital - within our system of Government. It is this more sterile approach that has led Monarchists to explain that the Governor-General is effectively Australia’s Head of State with The Queen as Sovereign, whereas Canada still unashamedly recognises The Queen as their Head of State.
In the years leading up to 1931, the former British Prime Minister, Arthur, later Lord, Balfour, formulated a Treaty between the United Kingdom and the then Dominions to encompass the views expressed during the preceding Imperial Conferences, particularly that of 1926. These Conferences had been held in London between the United Kingdom Government and representatives of the Governments of the Dominions who were calling for a relaxation of control which continued to be exerted by the British Government following their independence, particularly with regard to the decision of who would nominate their respective Governors-General.
It was this Treaty which was consolidated into an Act of the British Parliament called the Statute of Westminster which was also adopted by the then Dominions, which included Australia, Canada, South Africa and New Zealand.
The independent sovereignty of the Realms was clearly shown at the time of the Constitutional Referendum in 1999, for if Australia were not in charge of its own affairs, how else could the people themselves decide whether or not to retain The Crown?
The concerns now facing Australia go far beyond the Republican/Monarchist divisions caused by the Referendum. Whilst the British Parliament no longer has any right to legislate over the affairs of Australia, it is itself fettered from taking certain actions relating to the Crown of the United Kingdom and is specifically barred from legislating in matters of the Succession and the Royal Styles and Titles. For over fifty years, the British Parliament has been debating and legislating over matters pertaining to its entry into Union with Europe. That there are economic benefits to Britain in a European Trading Bloc cannot be denied. That there are disadvantages, also cannot be denied. Today, however, we are not just talking about an economic Union, but a political one, one that denies, indeed saps, the natural right of member states to legislate and administrate for themselves without external interference or authority. It is this which is the greatest challenge to the independence of Britain’s sovereignty and it is this which provides a possible danger to the integrity of the Crown of the United Kingdom, without which the independent constitutions of the other fifteen Commonwealth Realms cannot survive. That is the question to be analysed before us tonight.
THE BEGINNINGS OF BRITISH INTEREST IN EUROPEAN UNION
How, one may ask, did this terrible state of affairs come about?
The British attitude towards some sort of Union is not new. In fact as far back as 1897, Lord Salisbury stated: “The federated action of Europe, if we can maintain it, is our sole hope of escaping from the constant terror and calamity of war, the constant pressure of the burdens of an armed peace, which weigh down the spirits and darken the prospect of every nation in this part of the World. The Federation of Europe is the only hope we have.”
In the 1930s there was widespread concern by the Baldwin Government with Hitler’s re-armament of Germany. Churchill was then for putting the Germans down, but Baldwin’s view (a view for which he was later vilified) was that Britain helped cause the problem with the harshness of the Treaty of Versailles and that they had to deal with the Germans before things got out of hand. It was that view which was adopted by Chamberlain and later, following the Second World War, by Macmillan.
You will all recall the state of almost total devastation of Europe at the end of the Second World War. It was that devastation which caused Churchill, when in Opposition, to change his mind and to defy the wishes of the Attlee government and to work assiduously to establish some sort of coalition in Europe, because he then realised that if Europe continued along its disparate path, that unless it united and reinvigorated its democracies, it would fall totally under the increasing influence of Communist Russia.
I do believe that the reasons of those in Britain who, immediately following the end of the Second World War, promoted Union in Europe did so out of a genuine concern for the future stability of the World. Winston Churchill was a man who often prioritised, a man who dealt with the issues before him and let the future take care of itself. This position was clearly stated in his response to criticism when, in 1941, he, a violent anti-Communist, in advocating aid and support for Russia said:
“If Hitler invaded Hell, I would make at least a favourable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons.”
In Zurich in September 1946, Churchill, still in Opposition, explained his motivation in working for Union: “When the Nazi power was broken, I asked myself what was the best advice I could give my fellow citizens in our ravaged and exhausted continent. My counsel to Europe can be given in a single word: Unite!”
In Volume 1V of his ‘The Second World War’ Churchill wrote: “Hard as it is to say now, I trust that the European Family may act unitedly as one under a Council of Europe...I look forward to a United States of Europe in which the barriers between nations will be greatly minimised and unrestricted travel will be possible. I hope to see the economy of Europe studied as a whole.”
It was thus that Churchill founded the United Europe Movement in 1947 and it was Churchill who brought together persons of influence to create a bi-partisan committee and it was Churchill who persuaded France to allow a defeated Germany into the Alliance. Indeed had not Churchill thrown his weight behind the early meetings the entire concept of a united Europe may have become a forgotten segment of history.
Churchill, of course, knew that Britain had to provide leadership in bringing the war-torn nations of Europe together and that in doing so there would be some loss of sovereignty. Britain has been entering into treaties for nigh on a thousand years or more, all of which have resulted in a loss of some sovereignty.
There is a statement attributed to Churchill: “If the choice for Britain is Europe or the open sea, then Britain must choose the open sea.” This, however, has been taken from a conversation Churchill had with de Gaulle in 1944 and is often quoted out of context to indicate his opposition to European Union. It is not necessary to take Churchill’s comments out of context for it was never in his mind that Britain would ever become a State subservient to a United Europe, and certainly not at the expense of the Empire and Commonwealth, but rather that Britain had to take a lead, jointly with the United States of America, in the reconstruction of Europe.
When in Government, Churchill seemed to lose interest in European Union. This was possibly because the Marshall Plan was working, but more probably because he was then in full command of the facts and he vehemently disagreed with the more extensive plans of pro-Unionists and would never be convinced that the sacrifice of British Sovereignty would be worth anything Europe could offer Britain. It was not until Harold Macmillan became Prime Minister that Union was pursued by Britain with full vigour at whatever the cost.
Macmillan, of course, had been with Churchill as Churchill sought solutions to rebuild a war-torn Europe, but unlike Churchill, Macmillan never took into account the dangers of full integration.
Macmillan was not the British Bulldog Churchill was. He was a Conservative as such and in his younger days had flirted with many different ideologies, including Mosley’s National Socialism and Roman Catholicism.
Clement Attlee perhaps best described Macmillan as a “left wing radical in his social, human and economic thinking”! When asked in the 1930s why he did not join the Labour Party, Macmillan indicated that he did not think that he would fit in “After all”, he said “I must remember that I am a very rich man.”
As far back as 1939 Macmillan had declared: “But if Western Civilization is to survive, we must look forward to an organisation, economic, cultural and perhaps even political, comprising all the countries of Western Europe.” It was only after becoming Prime Minister, following the collapse of Eden after the disaster of Suez, that Macmillan was able to sway - and as we know now often mislead - the Cabinet to effect the introduction of his long held plans. His ‘Winds of Change’ speech, given in Cape Town in 1960, meant change not just for Africa but for the entire Commonwealth. It also meant the abolition of the comfortable trading arrangements that then existed between Great Britain and its former Colonies and Dominions.
The reason for so many Members of the Westminster Parliament supporting European Union was, I believe, that most, in the early days at least, quite genuinely felt that Britain could only survive if it became a part of a giant trading bloc. That European Union meant political and judicial union was not a part of their early thinking.
The opening words of the Treaty of Rome of the 25th March 1957 are: “Determined to lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe”. Very few people indeed ever realised that these words could mean political integration. Even eminent judges and constitutional lawyers of the time thought that the Treaty created a glorified Free Trade Zone! How then could one expect people without any legal training to think any differently?
There is still much confusion over what the Union actually is. British Foreign Minister, Jack Straw, has recently stated of the European Constitution : “It is not a constitution for a federal state”, but in 1998 the German Foreign Minister said: "Creating a single European state bound by one European Constitution is the decisive task of our time."
The history of the Union is remarkably interesting. The empiric dreams of Charlemagne are often quoted as the foundation of the Union and undoubtedly the Holy Roman Empire was the cause of the Prussian dream of European Union in its modern format in the eighteenth century. It was this basic concept which was later embraced by Hitler and the Nazi Party before being accepted by the United States of America as the solution to future peace in Europe.
THE POSITION OF THE ‘OLD COMMONWEALTH’
At the time of the Treaty of Westminster, the British Empire, apart from India, which was always treated in a special manner, was divided into ‘Dominions’ and ‘Colonies’. The ‘Dominions’ comprised those nations which had been allowed a measure of independence, such as Ceylon, or total independence, such as Australia, but who remained under The Crown of the United Kingdom. By 1950 only four of these ‘Dominions’ existed. These were Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa. Today, other than South Africa which became a republic and left the Commonwealth in 1961, these countries are included in what are termed ‘Commonwealth Realms’ which are those nations which have been constituted ‘Under The Crown of the United Kingdom’. These are sixteen in number and include the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada and New Zealand.
The British Empire was essentially a trading conglomerate controlled by London which was the hub of the network which spread throughout the World. Preferential trading arrangements had been worked out, generally to Britain’s advantage, and until the First and then the Second World Wars, the system worked quite well and all the member nations of the Empire tended to benefit in one way or another.
However, when it became clear following the end of the Second World War, that Britain intended entering into an economic union with Europe, Australia and other Realms sought assurances that their “interests would not be sacrificed for the sake of rehabilitating western Europe.” These were initially readily given and, in fact, in the late 1940s Australia, together with other Commonwealth countries, were invited to attend the European Customs Union study group as observers.
The Attlee Government also made it a priority that any trading arrangement with Europe must include the Commonwealth as well as the former and current Colonies of the European Nations. In reality, however, there was little consultation by the United Kingdom with the Realms, which led former Australian Prime Minister Chifley to write to Attlee in 1948: “I cannot emphasise too much or too often the seriousness of taking decisions clearly involving us, or in expectation of our support, without the fullest prior consultation. One instance where we are completely uninformed is the matter of a Customs Union. We are being asked and will no doubt be questioned in Parliament, as to our knowledge of this matter. We can only say that we have no knowledge as to how the union is to work.”
At that time the Commonwealth accounted for just under 50% of Britain’s trade compared with around 15% with Europe. Australia was then Britain’s single biggest export market which alone warranted being taken into Britain’s confidence instead of being sidelined with obscurities.
Perceiving that they were not to be a party to whatever terms Britain was negotiating with Europe convinced the Menzies Government that Australia had to explore other trading opportunities. Accordingly negotiations were opened primarily with the United States of America and with Japan, then of course still under America’s influence.
This, of course, suited America which, for many years, had seen Britain as an impediment to its own imperialistic ambitions. In Europe they were using the Marshall Plan to pressure Britain into Europe and at the same time were trying to wean the old Empire countries away from the ‘Motherland’.
By the time Macmillan formally announced Britain’s application for EEC membership in the House of Commons on the 31st July 1961, it was clear that the British Government had no intention of allowing its ties to the Commonwealth - and particularly to the former Dominions or ‘Old Commonwealth’ - to hamper its Union with Europe.
Australia’s suspicions of Britain’s intentions were well founded and their actions in sourcing other trading arrangements were completely justified and within six years Australia had succeeded in replacing Britain with Japan as its largest export market and by 1973, it was in a strong enough position to itself terminate the existing Trade Agreement with the United Kingdom.
Whilst Britain’s actions in reneging on its long-term obligations were reprehensible indeed, they did lead to the development of the economic independence of the former Dominions. Today, whatever trade and other arrangements currently exist do so on a level playing field and to the advantage of both and the detriment of neither.
Australia now numbers itself amongst the developed nations. We have one of the most resilient economies in the World and our growth rate exceeds that of most OECD countries and we are consistently rated amongst the top ten listings in most areas of economic activity and preference.
The tables have somewhat turned from those pre-1970 days and Britain is now anxiously seeking not just to protect but also to expand its trade and investment with Australia. In 1997 the then Foreign Minister Robin Cook stated “Australia is a much more valuable partner to Britain in the modern world than at any time in those past two centuries. The growing importance of Asia and of the countries around the Pacific mean that Australia is much stronger for Britain as a bridge into an area of the world of growing importance.”
However, one can sense a sort of distrust by Australia of Britain as a vehicle into Europe. For instance, Australia’s Foreign Minister Alexander Downer, in a speech to the National Press Club in May 2002, seemed to indicate that the time had come for Australia: “to work hard on building our links not only with the individual member states of the European Union, but also with European institutions. We need to see Europe through a new prism, not just through the United Kingdom and traditional bilateral relationships.”
Fifty years ago, Australia was forced out of the British trading empire and had to radically alter its thinking and adjust to being a relatively free marketer on the World scene. Now it is in the process of committing itself to another trading bloc, the United States of America.
Today, Australia is a major trading partner of the United Kingdom which is the largest importer of Australian products and consistently the first or second largest investor in Australia and its manufacturing industry. Australia is the fifth-largest market for British products outside the EU and the sixth-largest foreign investor in the United Kingdom.
If Britain proceeds to enter into full political and constitutional integration with Europe one wonders whether these trading arrangements will remain relatively unaffected.
Whilst trade will always find its own markets based on quality, price and efficiency of supply, Australia’s trade and investment ties with the United Kingdom have been greatly assisted, not just by old loyalties but rather through the sharing of a common language, a common culture and a once shared legal system. A system steadily being replaced by a European code which has little similarity to Australian law.
Article 11,4 confirms that: “The Union shall have competence to promote and coordinate the economic and employment policies of the Member States” which seems to point to an eventual common trade policy which would either absorb or supersede existing trade arrangements we have with Britain. Already our trading figures with the United Kingdom have been incorporated into those of the Union without reference to Britain.
The High Commissions and trade missions of both Australia and the United Kingdom have also played a major part in developing our new trading arrangements. However Article 39,1, states: “The European Union shall conduct a common foreign and security policy..” and 39,4 states: “The common foreign and security policy shall be put into effect by the Union Minister for Foreign Affairs ..” We do know according to the Constitution that there will initially be based in the Diplomatic Missions of Member States, representatives from what will be called ‘the European External Action Service’. There have been rumours that the member States of the Union will eventually lose their separate diplomatic missions and the affairs of each will be handled by a single European Embassy. Obviously, should this occur, our trade will undoubtedly suffer as the personal contact and effort of existing consular officials could never be duplicated by a bureaucracy of conflicting loyalties, which is what the European diplomatic Missions would become.
THE POLITICS OF UNION:
That there was manipulation of the truth and even deceit in the promotion of the concept of European Union to the British People is undoubtedly true. It was a manipulation primarily to obscure the aspect of political integration which had always been a fundamental premise of union.
The general attitude of the British politicians towards Europe was always one of superiority and arrogance. In 1949, at the first meeting of the Council of Europe, Macmillan reported the Labour Minister Herbert Morrison as thinking that: “The ‘foreigners’ would stand in awe of British Prestige ..”
Apart from the innuendoes of her apparent sexual indiscretions, the Edwina Currie’s 1991 diaries reveal a most interesting attitude towards Europe, which I feel typifies the mind-set of so many politicians of her ilk. Her answer to Margaret Thatcher’s fear that Germany would dominate Europe was to “Chuck signed contracts at them, not insults.”
Those of us who live outside Britain find it inconceivable that Britain would forsake a thousand years and more of constitutional and legal heritage to adopt continental systems that are not only alien but repugnant to everything that Britain, its Empire and its Commonwealth once meant and was. To trade and to legalise commercial arrangements through legal pacts is one thing, but to submit willingly to a full and total submersion into what will always be a foreign power is incomprehensible to say the least.
General de Gaulle spoke very astutely when he said that Britain was: “Maritime and insular” and that Britain’s nature, structure and “very situation differs profoundly from those of the Continentals”.
That European Union has some advantages cannot be denied. Several generations have grown up in Britain who know nothing other than Union with Europe. They enjoy being a part of Europe, the ability to travel without immigration or currency restrictions and the perception of a huge market just across the Channel.
The Union’s influence on human rights and the environment, particularly of former Iron Curtain and Eastern European nations, has been remarkable, but could not the removal of customs barriers and the facility of free travel just as well have been attained by treaties based on trade and not political integration? Could not the beneficial influence of democratic states on emerging democracies be just as well achieved by a League of European Nations, each sovereign and independent of each other but joined through a voluntary and free association, rather than integrated into a political and constitutional union?
Whilst the United Kingdom may export more to the EU than to the rest of the world combined, it is probable, taking into account its enormous contribution to uphold the Government of the Union not only in terms of money but more importantly of its very sovereignty, that on balance Britain would be better off being outside the preferential arrangements.
Put in simple terms, it seems as though Britain is paying too high a price and in its search for ‘mammon’ is losing its very soul!
CONCLUSION
However, my brief tonight is to raise several constitutional issues of great concern to us in Australia and the other Commonwealth Realms. The Crown of the United Kingdom is not Britain’s to do with as they wish for it belongs not just to the United Kingdom but to all of the sixteen Commonwealth Realms. The Australian Constitution itself cannot exist without The Crown. In fact our preamble commences with the words “Whereas the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania, humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God, have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and under the Constitution hereby established.” The first concern is the effect of Britain’s treaties entered into with the European Union upon the Crown of the United Kingdom and whether they, and more importantly the Constitution for Europe, erode or dilute its Authority and status.
As far back as 1964, the European Court of Justice concluded that the member States of the European Economic Community had accepted primacy of EC law over their own national law.
In a recent article the (British) Daily Telegraph written by the British Foreign Minister, Jack Straw, he confirmed that the primacy of treaties with Europe over UK law had always been an accepted fact from the union's beginnings and was necessary to implement the trading arrangements of the Union! “Yes” he wrote “the union already has a bureaucracy in Brussels and a court, both of which have existed from the union's beginnings as the Common Market. So has the primacy of EU law. How, for instance, could we ensure that the single market operates otherwise?”
The several Treaties Britain has already entered into with the European Union and its predecessors have already established what may be termed a ‘surrogate constitution.’ However the Constitution for Europe has been drawn up to, in the words of the Preface to the Constitution Book: “develop the Union into a stabilising factor and a model in the new world order.”
A Constitution is by its very nature a far more obligatory arrangement than any treaty could ever be and it will bind the participating parties into a composite legal personality encompassing every aspect of their existence, including their laws, their security and their defence. It will furthermore have an overriding authority over the constitutions of the member States.
Article 6 of the Constitution states: “The Union shall have legal personality” and Article 10,1 states: “The Constitution, and law adopted by the Union’s Institutions in exercising competences conferred on it, shall have primacy over the law of the Member States.”
In Australia, we have a Federal Parliament with primacy over our States. We have one overriding set of laws which, together with one foreign, one security and one defence policy, means that we have what we call a ‘Federation’.
Similarly, the several treaties that the member states of the European Union have entered into have established a primacy over their individual laws and activities. The proposed European Constitution specifies that: “The Union shall be served by a single institutional framework which shall ensure the consistency and the continuity of the activities carried out in order to attain its objectives..”
This means that the European Constitution, should there be one, will secure into one document the various treaties entered into by the member states and will further bind them into a Federation the terms and penalties of which make it difficult, indeed virtually impossible, to secede from.
The Constitution goes even further and specifies that: “In areas which do not fall within its exclusive competence, the Community shall take action, in accordance with the principle of subsidarity, only if and insofar as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better achieved by the Community.” This, in essence, means that if it is considered that the member states are not competent to process any requirement of the Union, then the Union can assume the authority to do so. Again, an underlying principle of a Federal State!
I believe that already the treaties Britain has entered into with the European Union have subjected not just the British Parliament, but The Crown of the United Kingdom to the overriding authority of the EU. However because a Treaty is a document which can be revoked, this subjugation has not been taken as seriously as it ought. However the European Constitution, should it come into being, will undoubtedly formally establish primacy over The Crown!
The Crown of the United Kingdom is divisible amongst all Commonwealth Realms but at the same time is the one entity of ‘The Crown of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland.’
Whilst Article IV-4,3 of the Constitution of Europe does state in the second paragraph: “The Treaty establishing the Constitution shall not apply to overseas countries and territories having special relations with the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland which are not included in that list” the list being an annexure to the Constitution.
However the Realms could in no way be described as: “overseas countries and territories having special relations with the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland” as our arrangements are solely with The Crown and not with the Government or the country of the UK. This exclusion has nothing to do with The Crown of the United Kingdom and anything that may effect that Crown has the potential to effect the constitutions of the other fifteen Realms. For instance, in Australia the main prerogative of The Queen, as opposed to The Crown, is to appoint and dismiss the Governor-General and similarly the State Governors, although these actions are always at the request of the Prime Minister or State Premiers. As a Citizen of Europe and with The Crown of the United Kingdom subject to European Law, can a dismissal under the Australian Constitution be challenged if it is held to be contrary to European Law?
In the case of Canada, The Queen is formally recognised as Head of State. Can you have a Head of State of a sovereign and independent Nation who herself is subject to European primacy?
This is why the Statute of Westminster, recognising the sovereignty and independence of those nations under The Crown, legislated to ensure that the British Parliament did not have the competence to legislate to subject The Crown to any Authority, save that of the People of the Commonwealth Realms in their respective jurisdictions.
In the words of the Statute: “And whereas it is meet and proper to set out by way of preamble to this Act that, inasmuch as the Crown is the symbol of the free association of the members of the British Commonwealth of Nations, and as they are united by a common allegiance to the Crown, it would be in accord with the established constitutional position of all the members of the Commonwealth in relation to one another that any alteration in the law touching the Succession to the Throne or the Royal Style and Titles shall hereafter require the assent as well of the Parliaments of all the Dominions as of the Parliament of the United Kingdom.”
However neither the principal drafter, Balfour, nor indeed anyone else at the time could ever have imagined that the British Parliament would - on its own – subject its sovereignty to an alien authority!
I therefore submit that the ‘fettering’ arrangements implicit in the Statute of Westminster must also be viewed in the spirit of the wording, which was clearly meant to block the Parliament of the United Kingdom from tampering with The Crown in such a way which may endanger or weaken the relationship that it has with each Dominion, and now with each Commonwealth Realm and that any treaty or contract that the British Parliament has entered into subjecting The Crown in this manner to a foreign power or powers without the approval of the Commonwealth Realms in the same manner that any alteration to the Succession or the Royal Styles and Titles cannot be so altered, is unlawful and invalid.
Whilst the Statute requires the consent of: “the Parliaments of all the Dominions” I submit that the question of subjecting The Crown we all share to an Authority totally alien to Australia, which the European Union is, would require not simply the consent of our Federal Parliament, but also those of our six States, who each have separate constitutions all under The Crown, and also possibly even a referendum of the Australian People.
There is therefore one thing that must be made clear to the People of Great Britain and that is that when they vote at a referendum, which will hopefully be held independent of a General Election - so important is this issue, they are voting not just on what will happen to this country, but that their vote will have far greater implications for the Constitutions and for the sovereignty of the Commonwealth Realms and that those who want Union with Europe have no right whatsoever to impose on us the implications of what will undoubtedly be the supremacy of the Federated States of Europe.
That My Lords, Ladies and Gentlemen, is the case I submit before you tonight.
Philip Benwell MBE April 21st 2004 |
