Sir: Impressive as Mr Ernst Albert's argument may be about
the irreversible nature of Britain's commitment to the Treaty of Rome, there is to my mind the answer that Parliament is not in fact absolute and that it exceeded its powers in passing the European Communities Act.
This argument is more a moral than a legalistic one in that it rests on the accepted custom of the country in respect of its institutions, whether major or minor. This is that no institution can merge with another or change its nature and stature by the deliberate act of its governing body alone. The consent of its membership is required, whether it be a public company, a professional body, or a mere tennis club. On this basis one can assert that Parliament had no right to change itself from a sovereign into a subordinate institution without the express consent of its electorate and that the Communities Act for that reason has no validity. This accords with an established custom of the Realm; and it is both the laws and customs that the Sovereign swears to uphold at the Coronation. This is what makes the argument moral rather than legal, but none the less definitive in this unique case.
Kenneth R. Middleton 13 Dean Park Crescent, Edinburgh.
Previous page
