header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
14 October 2016 / Athelstane Aamodt
Issue: 7718 / Categories: Features
printer mail-detail

A resigning matter

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
nlj_7718_backpage

Athelstane Aamodt examines the wonderfully British way in which an MP must leave Parliament

On 12 September David Cameron, the Member of Parliament for Whitney and the former prime minster, announced that he had stood down as an MP. This was obviously big news, but the reporting of Mr Cameron’s announcement—as is usually the case with MPs that stand down—did not mention an utterly bizarre fact about Members of Parliament in the UK: they cannot resign.

Under a resolution of the House of Commons, dated 2 March 1624, it was held that “a man, after he is duly chosen, cannot relinquish”. The convention previous to this was that MPs could not resign, although Parliament did occasionally order by-elections in the cases of members that were incurably ill or infirm.

On 30 December 1680, another resolution of the House of Commons was passed. It said: “Resolved, Nemine contradicente . That no member of this house shall accept any office, or place or profit, from the Crown, without the leave of this House, or any promise of any

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll