LAW CHIEF FACES BREXIT DEAL REVOLT

He defends PM’s plan – but admits Irish border solution is a ‘calculated risk’

THE row over legal advice on Brexit deepened last night as Britain’s law chief admitted the UK would have no ‘unilateral’ right to quit the controversial Irish backstop.

Attorney General Geoffrey Cox told MPs the UK could be kept in the arrangement ‘indefinitely’.

But in a boost for Theresa May, the Eurosceptic cabinet minister said the backstop was a ‘calculated risk... but one worth taking’. He also said he was backing the Prime Minister’s Brexit deal because ‘I do not believe that we are likely to be entrapped in it permanently’.

The unvarnished advice – part of a 43-page ‘legal position’ on the deal – was designed to persuade Eurosceptic opponents to fall in line ahead of next week’s crunch Commons vote.

However, Mr Cox was told he could face suspension for refusing to publish his legal advice on the Brexit withdrawal agreement in full. In an ominous move last night, the DUP joined forces with Labour, the Liberal Democrats, the SNP, the Greens and Plaid Cymru to accuse the Government of ‘contempt of Parliament’ for failing to comply with a Commons motion demanding the publication of its full legal advice on the deal.

Commons Speaker John Bercow was last night considering a vote on the issue, which could lead to Mr Cox being suspended from Parliament. The law chief said he was prepared to face ‘sanction’ from the Commons. But he said it would be ‘against the national interest’ to publish, in full, advice that could aid Britain’s opponents in negotiations or legal claims.

Senior Tories believe the standoff is a stunt designed to wreck Mrs May’s efforts to sell her deal to Parliament and the public.

In a rowdy session in the Commons, Mr Cox rounded on jeering Labour MPs who have said they will vote against the deal regardless of the legal advice, saying: ‘I’m trying to guard the public interest. It’s time they grew up and got real.’ On a day of developments, Mrs May told ITV’s This Morning she would still be PM in two-weeks’ time. Her chief Brexit negotiator Olly Robbins admitted the backstop plan was an ‘uncomfortable necessity’ for Britain and the EU.

Downing Street denied reports that the crunch vote next Tuesday could be postponed if the effort to persuade 100 Tory rebels fails to achieve a breakthrough soon. Meanwhile, the head of insurance giant Aviva said business wanted MPs to back the deal, saying markets would respond ‘really positively to a deal going through.’

Home Secretary Sajid Javid also confirmed that post-Brexit immigration plans have been delayed following a Cabinet row over Mrs May’s drive to bar low skilled migrants getting visas.

Mr Cox’s ‘legal position’ on the Brexit deal, released yesterday, sets out the Government’s broad position. It warns that, once approved, the backstop would continue to apply ‘unless and until its provisions are superseded by a subsequent agreement between the UK and the EU’.

But Labour, the DUP – which props up the Tories in the Commons – and some Eurosceptic MPs said the document did not comply with Parliament’s demand for the full legal advice. Labour MP Chris Williamson asked Mr Cox if he was ‘ready to be expelled?’ And Tory Brexiteer Jacob Rees-Mogg said the law chief had no right to deny the demand of a ‘higher authority’ to publish the advice in full.

The Attorney General flatly denied he was refusing its publication to spare the government embarrassment, saying: ‘There is nothing to see here.’ He added: ‘I cannot take a step that I firmly and truly believe would be contrary to the public interest.’

Shadow Brexit spokesman Sir Keir Starmer and counterparts in five other opposition parties incuding the DUP last night wrote to Mr Bercow over the refusal to publish the advice in full.

Mr Bercow said he would consider the case immediately before deciding whether to allow a debate and vote on contempt. In the Commons yesterday, Mr Cox admitted he had ‘wrestled’ with his conscience before deciding to back the deal. He confirmed that in terms of strict international law, the UK could be kept in the backstop ‘indefinitely’, but said the deal was a ‘calculated risk’ that MPs would have to ‘weigh up’.

He said the EU did not want the UK in the backstop for fear it would give British firms a competitive advantage. And he said the backstop would eventually succumb to legal challenge.

Former chancellor Kenneth Clarke said Mr Cox’s comments had ‘put paid to quite a lot of the paranoia and conspiracy theories’ peddled by critics. But Tory Brexiteer Sir Desmond Swayne said it simply confirmed the backstop plan was a ‘trap’. The DUP’s deputy leader Nigel Dodds said the legal advice showed the deal was ‘deeply unsatisfactory’.

‘Wrestled with his conscience’

AFTER all the bluster, posturing and namecalling, Attorney General Geoffrey Cox injected a dose of much-needed realism into the Brexit debate yesterday.

In a masterful Commons performance, the distinguished lawyer and prominent Brexiteer deconstructed the Prime Minister’s deal with brutal candour.

No, it’s not perfect. Yes, it carries calculated risks. No, he was not comfortable with the Northern Ireland backstop, or the fact that it could not be unilaterally terminated. And yes, there is a chance that the UK could remain in the customs union beyond December 31, 2020, if a trade deal can’t be finalised by then.

But for all the compromises, this was the best deal available and he felt he must accept it. With good faith and ‘the best endeavours’ of both sides, it could pave the way to an orderly withdrawal from the EU, he said. If others could come up with a better plan, they should present it.

Like any other divorce, Brexit stirs high emotions. But instead of the sound and fury that has so exasperated the ordinary public, Mr Cox called for ‘wisdom, forbearance and measured evaluation’.

The fact is, it’s in no one’s interests for the UK to be entrapped permanently in a customs limbo – and may well be against EU law. So why on Earth should it happen?

True, this was not the full, detailed Government legal advice demanded by MPs. But it was a thorough and honest disclosure of all the legal issues in play.

How petty and self-serving then, that opposition parties are still insisting – against all convention – that the full advice should be published and calling for contempt proceedings that could see Mr Cox expelled from the Commons.

It’s for Speaker John Bercow to decide whether this pointless kangaroo court should be allowed. If he believes in fairness, he’ll have nothing to do with it.