Brexit reports:
Eurosceptics relying on the DUP deputy leader to assess any amendments to the Withdrawal Agreement
IT WAS a star speech with a Shakespearean flourish that was worthy of the political equivalent of an Oscar.
When Geoffrey Cox took to the stage as Theresa May’s warm-up act at last year’s Conservative party conference, a star was born.
Now, the Attorney General is acting as the Prime Minister’s stunt man in an attempt to wrestle legally binding changes to the Irish backstop from the vice-like grip of EU negotiators.
It is a dirty job but someone has to do it, and as the star political performer, not to mention accomplished legal eagle, the eminent QC was naturally the number one choice for the unenviable task of producing what has been dubbed “Cox’s codpiece”.
How ironic, then, that as the March 12 meaningful vote approaches, there appears to be a best supporting actor about to steal his thunder.
For as far as the influential European Research Group (ERG) of Eurosceptic Tory MPS are concerned, it is not Cox’s legal advice they are waiting for, but that of Nigel Dodds, the deputy leader of the DUP.
As The Daily Telegraph reported yesterday, a star chamber of eight Brexiteer lawyers has been assembled to forensically analyse whatever Cox brings back from Brussels – and the inclusion of the Londonderry-born politician is seen as crucial.
According to one senior Tory source: “MPS in the ERG are all waiting to see what Dodds says. If the DUP is happy with the amended Withdrawal Agreement then they’ll be happy.”
Another ERG insider added: “The addition of Dodds is absolutely critical.
“If Dodds gives his assent, then that will help to move the vast, vast majority of those who voted against the Withdrawal Agreement last time. But of course it all depends on what Cox brings back.”
Having originally demanded that the Irish backstop be removed from the deal altogether, it seems that the stance of both the ERG and DUP has softened as attempts by Remain-supporting MPS to thwart Brexit – assisted by John Bercow, the Speaker – have hardened.
Before, it was a case of no deal being better than a bad deal, but with the passing of the Spelman amendment, which called for no deal to be taken off the table, Brexiteers appear to have woken up to the reality that running down the clock until March 29 may not result in the “clean” Brexit they crave.
In the absence of a Commons majority in favour of no deal, Leave-supporting MPS now face the choice between Mrs May’s amended deal or an extension of Article 50.
Jacob Rees-mogg, the ERG chairman, has said he will accept an appendix or codicil, which has equal legal status to the Withdrawal Agreement, setting a time limit on the backstop.
Sources suggest the DUP is also “looking for a ladder to climb down” that will allow them to back a revised deal. An insider said: “There does seem to be a softening. I think at this point they really want a deal.”
Simon Coveney, the Irish foreign minister, has hinted that the EU will offer the UK an addition to the Withdrawal Agreement, making clear that the backstop would not be permanent.
“The EU has made it very clear though that they’re not going to reopen the Withdrawal Agreement in terms of text,” he said. “So what they’ll be providing will be an addition to that, but in a way that doesn’t undermine the meaning of that text.”
Asked whether it would be a legally binding addition, he replied: “Let’s wait and see what the negotiating teams work on.”
What is certain is that nothing short of the “legally binding” changes called for by the Brady amendment, which passed in January with almost all of the ERG backing it, will do.
Yesterday, Dominic Raab, the former Brexit secretary, who sits in the Brexiteer star chamber, was unequivocal, vowing to vote against the deal unless the EU accepted “substantive, legally binding changes”. Saying he did not accept the “Faustian bargain” of backing May’s deal to avoid the risk of staying in the EU, he told the Today programme on BBC Radio 4 that: “The most obvious specific change is the ability to exit the backstop, whether through a sunset or time-frame or a mechanism that allows us to be confident that we go into the end of 2021 knowing we are free of [it].”
Last night, Steve Baker, the ERG deputy chairman, said: “The Brady amendment is the touchstone. Only one Brexiteer voted against it and two abstained, so if Cox achieves what the Brady amendment set out to achieve then an overwhelming number of my colleagues will vote for it. If other people vote against the Withdrawal Agreement, against legal advice, then they will have to give their reasons.”
But what if the eight Brexiteer lawyers cannot find agreement between themselves? The group represents a relatively broad church of Euroscepticism, from ardent Leavers Sir Bill Cash and Martin Howe QC, to the arguably more moderate Suella Braverman and Michael Tomlinson.
One source said: “Cash and Howe are hard-line. They hate everything about the Withdrawal Agreement. What if they present a minority report and the rest don’t agree with them?”
And what if Cox goes off script? The highly regarded former barrister, described as “a man of honour and integrity” by those who know him, will not want to be seen as the lawyer who changes his legal advice to achieve political objectives. Having already advised MPS that the backstop will “endure indefinitely”, it is surely going to have to take the “substantive, legally binding” changes Raab has called for to get him to change that advice – or risk comparisons to Peter Goldsmith, the former Labour attorney general who famously changed his legal advice on the Iraq invasion under Tony Blair.
As one member of the ERG group put it: “What we won’t accept is smoke and mirrors from Geoffrey and knowing the man, nor will he. If he looks at what he’s achieved and says it isn’t enough to make him change his legal advice then the PM may find she hasn’t got anything new to present.”
With the interval nearly over, a great deal appears to rest on how all the actors in this seemingly never-ending drama play their part.