The Queen's position
Sir: In total agreement with John Martin (July 24) who asks in his letter (Constitutional position of
the Queen) What majority?, I should like to go further and ask What mandate? Mr Heath successfully stood for election as Prime Minister of Great Britain, as head of the mother of Parliaments and as ruler of the affairs of this realm. He did not say he was standing for our vote merely as a " proxy " — in order to hand our vote to foreign powers for subsequent rulership from Brussels. So where is his " mandate " for breaking up "the system which has served us so well," as he himself describes our Parliamentary procedures
Lucy M. Gonin The Gables, 30 Kingswood Road, Shortlands, Bromley, Kent.
Sir: Welcome to Mr John Martin's letter (July 24) on the Constitutional position of the Queen now that Mr Heath has turned the serious Constitutional issue of adhering to the Treaty of Rome into a question of confidence in himself and his Common Market policy. And this, may I add, without the shred of a mandate from the electorate!
I endorse Mr Martin's suggestion that Her Majesty should consult a number of her Privy Councillors (non-party ones) to advise her on the sort of majority in the H of C which would justify her in giving the Royal Assent to what is (to say the least) a matter of grave constitutional importance. Mr Heath must not be allowed to get away with his dictatorial (and treasonable?) behaviour by a minuscule majority of "whipped lobbyfodder."
The only alternative to involving the Queen's assistance, and thus risking a General Election, would be to invoke the assistance of the People through a referendum.
Isla M. Atheriey 55 Nine Acres Close,
Charlbury, Oxford.
Previous page
