Brian Barder's website and Ephems blog

  • Home
  • What Diplomats Do (book)
    • Reviews
  • Blog
    • Politics
    • International Affairs
    • Civil Liberties
    • International
    • Family History
    • Family Today
    • Arts & Entertainment
    • Computers
    • Miscellaneous
  • Other writings
    • Politics
      • Civil Liberties
      • UK Politics
    • Photos
    • Family
      • Contemporary
      • History
      • Photos
    • Miscellaneous
  • Links
  • Contact me
  • About
    • About Brian
    • About Ephems, Brian’s blog
    • Privacy

Brian Barder's website and Ephems blog

  • Home
  • What Diplomats Do (book)
    • Reviews
  • Blog
    • Politics
    • International Affairs
    • Civil Liberties
    • International
    • Family History
    • Family Today
    • Arts & Entertainment
    • Computers
    • Miscellaneous
  • Other writings
    • Politics
      • Civil Liberties
      • UK Politics
    • Photos
    • Family
      • Contemporary
      • History
      • Photos
    • Miscellaneous
  • Links
  • Contact me
  • About
    • About Brian
    • About Ephems, Brian’s blog
    • Privacy

The Brexit Article 50 trigger Bill : a greater betrayal

by Brian · 4 February, 2017

Dear all,

In a new Ephems blog post at http://www.barder.com/the-brexit-article-50-trigger-bill-a-greater-betrayal/, “The Brexit Article 50 trigger Bill : a greater betrayal”, I argue that MPs who know that Brexit will inflict great harm on our country, yet who voted for Mrs May to trigger Article 50 before the end of March, committed a double betrayal.  They betrayed their duty to parliament and the country to vote in accordance with their own judgement of the best interests of Britain; and perhaps even worse, they betrayed the central principle of parliamentary sovereignty: that MPs do not take instructions, even from their own constituents, nor have a duty to reflect popular views in their votes, even when expressed in an expressly advisory referendum.  They are representatives, not delegates.  They can’t be mandated to vote in any particular way, especially when to do so is contrary to their own consciences and convictions.  The defence of some MPs’ votes on Article 50, that despite their own contrary views they voted in accordance with the majority votes on Brexit in their own constituency in the referendum on 23 June, won’t wash.

To read the argument in full, please visit http://www.barder.com/the-brexit-article-50-trigger-bill-a-greater-betrayal/, and please write any comments there, not in reply to this summary email.

Best wishes to all from a wet, windy, mild south London
Brian
4 February 2017

Search this site

Recent posts

  • Was the 2016 Brexit referendum binding on parliament or the government? Answer: No.
  • Stop Brexit!  Time for the Labour majority to stand up and be counted
  • More heresies on the election arithmetic and the manifestos
  • The 2017 Election Arithmetic and its consequences 
  • How to vote on Thursday: a minority Labour government would be the best outcome
  • Notes for May (not Her, 2017)
  • Syria: myths and omissions (with personal postscript)
  • The Brexit Article 50 trigger Bill : a greater betrayal
  • The duty of MPs and peers who support remaining in the EU is to vote against the Bill authorising an Article 50 trigger
  • Farewell to Brexit: some valedictory reminders

Get posts by email

Subscribe for email updates

Your full name

  • Next story Syria: some myths and an omission, with a personal postscript
  • Previous story The duty of MPs and peers who support remaining in the EU is to vote against the Bill authorising an Article 50 trigger

Recent comments


    Harry Barder and his ancestors (5 comments)
    • Christopher Barder { I have an obituary of your father given by mine, the latter is no longer with us, and he talked ... }
    • Robert Marcus { Can anyone connect me to the Barders of Bolney Hall in Sussex who rescued my father Hans Marcus from persecution ... }

    The 2017 Election Arithmetic and its consequences (6 comments)
    • Abhinav { If there is another election this year, they will likely keep all of their current seats and may well gain ... }

    A new angle on House of Lords reform (3 comments)
    • Abhinav { The House of Lords must be reformed. As an initial, self-contained reform, not dependent on further reform in the future, ... }

    The Barders of Krakow and London in the 18th century (5 comments)
    • V9Poker { Great post. “I have an almost complete set of photos of the south and north banks of the river between ... }
    • Sarah Wray { Hello. My name is Sarah i am the grandaughter of John Barder. Brother of Sam Barder. So Donald Barder and ... }

    The Quartly Engravers (3 comments)
    • Hilda McDonnell { My mother's printer / compositor grandfather James or Jim Foster (b. Bethnal Green 1839-d. Invercargill, New Zealand, 1916) emigrated to ... }

    Syria: myths and omissions (with personal postscript) (8 comments)
    • xMarine1066 { Brain Now that more information on the staged Chemical Attack have come to the for, maybe a follow-up artical on ... }

    A scandalous injustice: 4,614 IPPs stranded indefinitely in our prisons, 77% of them for crimes... (12 comments)
    • John Worboys case shone light on IPP injustice | Letter – My Thoughts { […] he wrote in June 2016: “Since it is inherently impossible to prove a future negative, few IPPs have managed ... }
    • John Worboys case shone light on IPP injustice | Letter – Updates on Law Matters { […] he wrote in June 2016: “Since it is inherently impossible to prove a future negative, few IPPs have managed ... }
    • John Worboys case shone light on IPP injustice | Letter – My Ramblings { […] he wrote in June 2016: “Since it is inherently impossible to prove a future negative, few IPPs have managed ... }
    • John Worboys case shone light on IPP injustice | Letter – Law Blog { […] he wrote in June 2016: “Since it is inherently impossible to prove a future negative, few IPPs have managed ... }

    More heresies on the election arithmetic and the manifestos (9 comments)
    • Peter Martin { @Brian, You say: <em>"And secondly, my rough guess is that 10 per cent or more of the votes cast for ... }
    • Brian { Brian replies to Peter Martin: I don't accept for a minute that criticism of the leader of the Labour party, ... }

    Was the 2016 Brexit referendum binding on parliament or the government? Answer: No. (5 comments)
    • Peter Martin { I suppose the key concession would have to be on freedom of movement. By far the majority of people in ... }
    • Kevin Jones { Cameron was dead meat by the time he tried to get concessions from the EU and May is going about ... }
    • William Spurgeon { I think the EU is prepared to make concessions - in fact, it made concessions to Cameron on migrants' benefits ... }
    • Acilius { The referendum was a paradoxical idea from the start. Leave was always going on about the importance of Britain's constitutional ... }
    • Peter Martin { I don't believe it would be too hard to get a majority for staying in the EU, but there would ... }

    Margaret Annie Wood (3 comments)
    • Don Knibbs { Thanks for sharing all of that information. I'm related to Sarah's husband, Edwin George Knibbs. }
  • Older »

Get posts by email

Subscribe for email updates

Your full name

Recent posts

  • Was the 2016 Brexit referendum binding on parliament or the government? Answer: No. 2 August, 2017
  • Stop Brexit!  Time for the Labour majority to stand up and be counted 5 July, 2017
  • More heresies on the election arithmetic and the manifestos 20 June, 2017
  • The 2017 Election Arithmetic and its consequences  9 June, 2017
  • How to vote on Thursday: a minority Labour government would be the best outcome 2 June, 2017

Search this site

Brian Barder's website and Ephems blog © 2021. All Rights Reserved.