Conservative MPs are preparing to hold their second leadership ballot today, with only candidates who get at least 33 votes and do not come last allowed to stay in the race. It follows last week’s first round, which saw Boris Johnson securing the most votes and emerging as the clear frontrunner, followed by remaining hopefuls Jeremy Hunt, Michael Gove, Dominic Raab, Sajid Javid and Rory Stewart. As Brexit uncertainty continues until a new Prime Minister is elected, newly-resurfaced reports reveal a spate of astonishing allegations fired at the man who took Britain into the EEC – the precursor to the EU.
According to a 2007 report by The Oxford Times, Alex Burgess – a former special constable – handed evidence to the police to prove that former Prime Minister Edward Heath and his government should have been charged with treason and sedition.
Mr Burgess said: “I have researched this fully and found that the government of the day gave away sovereign powers to a foreign government and that is against all our traditions and our constitution.
“The way the British people were conned was shameful and amounts to treason and sedition.
“I won’t rest until I see the still living politicians and civil servants are standing in the dock at the Old Bailey.
“I don’t know how many there are still alive, but they can be found.”
Mr Burgess added: “The 1971/72 government committed sedition and treason by undermining this country’s constitution by lying and deceiving the public and Parliament by persuading them to go into the European Union.
“They persuaded the media to take a pro-EU stance and there was no room for contrary views.”
Oxford Police refused to take up the case, claiming lack of resources, the Oxford Times reported.
Supt Jim Trotman wrote a letter to Mr Burgess saying: “I am not prepared to allocate resources which are already heavily committed to other investigations.
“I envisage great difficulties concerning the availability of witnesses, because most of the witnesses are now deceased.
“A considerable passage of time has elapsed since the offences in question and I do not consider it is now prudent to carry out an investigation.”
Mr Heath successfully negotiated the UK’s entry with French President Georges Pompidou and took Britain into the EEC on January 1, 1973.
Since then, the former Prime Minister has been accused of misleading the electorate about the repercussions of Britain’s membership.
In June 1971, a White Paper was sent to every home in the UK, promising: “There is no question of Britain losing essential sovereignty.”
Then, in a TV broadcast in January 1973 to mark his signing of the Treaty of Rome, Mr Heath went even further.
He said: “There are some in this country who fear that, in going into Europe, we shall in some way sacrifice independence and sovereignty.
“These fears, I need hardly say, are completely unjustified.”
However, Mr Heath’s assertion is largely at odds with what he verifiably already knew about the EEC and its true plans.
According to files relating to Mr Heath’s application to join the Community, released by the Public Record Office at Kew in 2001, the former Prime Minister was fully aware of the bloc’s objectives – long before he took Britain into the EEC in 1973.
In June 1970, the Council of Ministers of the Community approved the plan of then Prime Minister of Luxembourg Pierre Werner, issued in his “Interim Report on the Establishment by Stages of Economic and Monetary Union”.
Less than two weeks after the report was published, on November 9, 1970, the Foreign Office produced an assessment on the so-called Werner plan.
In complete contrast with Mr Heath’s claims, civil servants suggested that if the plan was fully implemented, member states would have ended up with less autonomy than US states as the EEC’s aim was to become a political union.
The assessment said: “At the ultimate stage, economic sovereignty would to all intents and purposes disappear at the national level and the Community would itself be the master of overall economic policy.
“The degree of freedom which would then be vested in national governments might indeed be somewhat less than the autonomy enjoyed by the constituent states of the USA.”