Thread by @EmporersNewC

Someone actually tweeted an article about the Lord Kilmuir letter the other day. It has apparently got some exposure recently by that bastion of truth The Daily Express. (Thread)

express.co.uk/news/uk/128323…

The letter starts with the Lord Chancellor replying to Edward Heath to say that he agreed with him that there were important constitutional issues involved.

He talks about how we would take laws in, even under QMV where we may have voted against them, and how it might be implemented.

He talks about the fact we will be allowing them to make treaties on our behalf in trade and lose our ability to do independent trade deals.

He then refers to the independence of the courts and the ECJ

The letter concludes with a remark saying that serious surrender of sovereignty was involved and these should be brought up now.

It is dated several months before the government announces they are going to even apply, and it is the 2nd August that the government ask the house to support their decision to negotiate, promising they would not enter into an agreement involving sovereignty without its approval.

With the Foreign minister on the same day making clear that this was a considerable derogation of sovereignty, and done in a way differently than any treaty the UK had signed before.

Next up, Lord Kilmuir, the Lord Chancellor himself.

Here he is making the first point in his letter about parliament.

Here he is suggesting that we would be making a concession with regard to our treaty making powers.

And here is with the independence of the court.

Which means everything he said needed to be said, he said.

The Lord Kilmuir is not proof of anything other than he spoke to Edward Heath before hand about what should be said.

But it doesn't end there, because we have the Night of the Long Knives. Kilmuir is replaced by Dilhorne as Lord Chancellor.

And Dilhorne lays out the Constitutional implications, even referring to Kilmuir.

And it doesn't end there, because in 1967 Labour publish a White paper on the Legal and Constitutional implications. Cmnd 3301

Something that is so comprehensive that they are happy to refer to for the third application.

And the Heath government like it so much they refer MPs to it until it becomes the standard reference for Legal and Constitutional implications.

For example, here is The Times referring to it in terms of the Clause 2 Direct Effect issue.

Which allowed MPs like Neil Marten to have concerns about sovereignty with relation to Clause 2.

The Lord Kilmuir letter is so easily debunked with his own words in parliament, that this may be the stupidest conspiracy theory to date.

Less "Maybe there was a second shooter on the grassy knoll", and more "Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK to bring in the birth of the great Templar messiah Macaulay Culkin.

It's from the spidery green biro of someone who is absolutely batshit crazy.

This is Alex Jones territory, and it's being published by the UK media without a single check.

People are being manipulated and abused with this misinformation, and the question we have to ask ourselves is:

Do we want our country to be like this?

/End