One of Anna Soubry’s Constituents asked The List to intervene in email correspondence when the constituent felt she was just not being listened to by Ms. Soubry.

Email sent to Anna Soubry, MP by one of her constituents


As ONE of your constituents that voted for Brexit I feel your betrayal of myself, and others who voted for you to obtain Brexit, but most of all the betrayal of your party.
I would just like to point out rule 10 of your code of conduct.

“Point 10 – Members shall base their conduct on a consideration of the public interest, avoid conflict between personal interest and the public interest and resolve any conflict between the two, at once, and in favour of the public interest.”

You and your 10 rebels should be thoroughly ashamed of yourselves.

I don’t expect you to reply but as a constituent I would like a personal reply by yourself not your staff.


“Reply from Anna Soubry”

Thank you for your email. Send me the text of what I voted for and I will explain why. I mean you do know what I voted for?

With best wishes

Second Email sent by Constituent

re : amendment 7

Dear Anna,

I believe amendment seven was tabled by the former attorney general Dominic Grieve requires any Brexit deal to be approved by a separate Act of Parliament before it can be implemented.
Therefore it appears you don’t trust your leader or party to make the right decision.
Correct me if I’m wrong.


“Reply from Anna Soubry”

No that’s not quite right.
The Withdrawal Agreement and Inplementation Act will implement the final Agreement. Amendment 7 implements Government policy which is for Parliament to be given a meaningful vote before the other Bill.

It’s all about Parliamentary sovereignty – something you voted for when you voted to take back control.

Just a small point but political parties don’t negotiate international agreements or make decisions about our country’s future, democratically elected MPs do. We represent our constituents and are not party delegates.

With best wishes


Constituent Advised to send this reply from The List

Dear Ms. Soubry (Anna),

I was surprised to receive your curt and, if I may say so, discourteous reply. I was also surprised at your lack of understanding of the meaning of “Sovereignty” and the Constitution of the UK. When those who voted Leave referred to Sovereignty, they meant the Sovereignty of the UK and not Parliament which is not Sovereign per se. They did not want to be subject to the laws of a foreign entity.

The Constitution of the UK, to put it in its simplest terms, comprises:

1. The Government (the Crown) which is responsible for the governing of the country.
2. The Houses of Parliament which passes the Laws and to some extent can
call the Government to account.
3. The Judiciary which interprets the law.
4. The Electorate which elects the Members of the House of Commons and
has ultimate Sovereignty.

Members of Parliament are representatives of their constituents and should take into account their concerns when making decisions on their behalf and should not promote the MPs personal views. MPs do not negotiate international agreements, this is the function of Government.

MPs do not make decisions about the future of the country without having regard for the concerns of their electorate.
It is absolutely clear, to anyone with common sense, that Parliament delegated the decision as to whether to Leave or to Remain in the EU to the electorate.
The decision was made to Leave and this was recognised by the House of Commons when it voted by a significant majority to approve the invoking of Article 50.
The Prime Minister has clearly taken this on board, despite being a “Remainer” herself, and is making an effort to make arrangements to leave the EU in a manner which is beneficial to the country and which maintains the most amicable relations with EU States as is possible. Whilst constructive criticism is helpful, she deserves your support in this regard. Your personal views should not be a factor. It appears that other “Remain” MPS have taken this pragmatic and honourable stance.

You talk about “Parliamentary” Sovereignty which was has been gradually eroded since we became part of the EU by EU Directives and which laws you were complicit in nodding through Parliament. If you are to persist in your personal views to the extent that we remain in the EU, we will become a vassal state of the North France/UK segment of the EU. You and your fellow MPs will then become obsolete. In that scenario, we will remain in the EU which is undemocratic, incompetent, whose accounts have never been signed off by its Auditors and whose single market is declining and its currency in a precious situation.

What are you trying to suggest is beneficial to us by Remaining in the EU?



——– Original message ——–

From: “SOUBRY, Anna” <>

Date: 19/12/2017 21:14 (GMT+00:00)


Subject: RE: Brexit


Thank you for your email, the contents of which have been noted.

With best wishes,


 Rt Hon Anna Soubry MP
Member of Parliament for Broxtowe
Constituency Office
Barton House
61 High Road
Chilwell NG9 4AJ
0115 943 6507







  1. So Soubry had no answer for the pertinent issue of non Governmental Sovereignty. By which she seems to imply is more important than, our People’s Sovereignty. Have sent several Emails and tweets to this “Lady” and am still awaiting a reply.. Having checked her business portfolio, its seems, she is acting purely in self interest, re Brexit. With several business holdings in other Member states of the EU. I fear the “Lady”, is not to be trusted to act, for her constituents. But I believe she will act in self interest.
    As the proposer of Amendment 7, I believe Mr Grieve mp has acted in a similar fashion..
    I fear, there is precious little integrity left in our Parliamentary house.

  2. The agreement required with the EU is a trade agreement, not an agreement on how we leave. As the EU have refused to talk about trade, then there is no alternative but to simply leave!
    By a vast majority, our MPs passed the Withdrawal Act in June 2018 and this states very clearly that we leave all EU treaties at 11pm on 29th March 2019, with or without a deal. Those MPs who now want to prevent “no deal”, (in other words, a WTO Brexit), either never read their own legislation or didn’t understand what they were voting for in 2018.

  3. Anna Sourby appears to be another of those ex media Know-it-alls, who know nowt, only their own self importance.
    Being heckled by one of the Yellow Vest protesters has exposed the true worth to the electorate of some of these anti-British MPs.

  4. I wish to have my country back How it was some 40 – 50 yrs ago, before the ROT set in.
    Punish criminals. Deport those criminals pedeophiles murderers Break ins. Abusing young people etc.Also Make a clean break with this so called Government Get rid of them for they are all for themselves We don’t want or need These Treasonous LYING Axxxsxxls. We want people who care about our country and its people

  5. We can either continue to tolerate these Dumbasses continue to vote for them and their corrupt self serving Parties who have committed Treason allowed Bankers to commit fraud allowed the 3 parties to continue to screw the Younger Generation out of their Country and future or We can get rid of all them forever leave the EU immediately and establish a written Constitution with an elected Head of state elected 2nd Parliamentary chamber end the Class & outrageous Honours system enough is enough take to the streets remove May Corbyn etc general strike & revolution for a clean sweep

  6. Sourby was elected as a Conservative Candidate therefore when she resigned the party she should, with all of the others of a similar ilk stood for a place in Parliament via a byelection. The government response was that all MPs are independent. That is a new one on me and I expect on around 90% of the voters. That being the case why do we have political parties?

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: