What is really going on in politics? Get our daily email briefing straight to your inbox Sign up Thank you for subscribing We have more newsletters Show me See our privacy notice Invalid Email

The Attorney General was accused of descending into farce and "amateur dramatics" as he explained the Brexit legal advice he has given to the government.

Geoffrey Cox QC's booming voice and dramatic delivery led to him being compared to, among others, Gandalf, Mufasa and Brian Blessed when he provided the warm up for the Prime Minister at Tory Conference.

And today was certainly no different.

The Government's chief legal adviser faced a stormy Commons as he defended the decision not to publish the Brexit legal advice in full, bellowing: "There is nothing to see here."

Political journalist Rob Hutton tweeted: "The role of Geoffrey Cox will today be played by Tom Baker."

Guardian journo Peter Walker commented: "If an actor was asked to portray a stereotypical QC and did a Geoffrey Cox impersonation, they'd probably be told to tone it down a bit."

(Image: REUTERS)

But, while political journalists enjoyed his theatrics at the dispatch box, Green MP Caroline Lucas was not impressed.

She complained: "This is a serious issue and this House is descending into farce and amateur dramatics."

In a session replete with dramatic language, Mr Cox said that the Irish backstop "would be as much an instrument of pain to the European Union as it would be to the United Kingdom."

The Attorney General told the House: "So there are real reasons that I don't think this will become a permanent solution."

Labour said the Government was seeking to avoid the publication for "fear of the political consequences", while DUP Westminster leader Nigel Dodds denounced the Irish border backstop plan as "deeply unattractive", urged the Government to release the advice and told Mr Cox to recommend that the deal is rejected.

Labour is leading calls for the government to face contempt of Parliament proceedings over their refusal to publish their Brexit legal advice.

Today, a cross-party alliance has written to Speaker John Bercow, asking him to consider launching contempt proceedings against the Government for failing to release the Attorney General’s full legal advice on the Brexit deal as ordered by Parliament.

Video Loading Video Unavailable Click to play Tap to play The video will start in 8 Cancel Play now

After Labour's Harriet Harman raised concerns about the Government's approach, Mr Cox said he was "caught in an acute clash of constitutional principle" and explained a minister is obliged to consider the public and national interest.

Mr Cox asked MPs to suppose the advice included details on relationships with foreign states and arguments that might be deployed in the future, noting: "Would it be right for the Attorney General, regardless of the harm to the public interest, to divulge his opinion.

"I say to (Ms Harman) it wouldn't."

Mr Cox said it would be difficult to ensure information would be redacted, adding: "I cannot take a step that I firmly and truly believe would be contrary to the public interest".

He went on: "I ask the House to understand that it is only that consideration that is motivating me and this Government in declining at this stage to break the convention that applies to both sides of the House when they are in government.

"There is nothing to see here."

Earlier, shadow attorney general Nick Thomas-Symonds said: "For the sake of our economy, our jobs and our futures, all possible information should be made available to members of this House.

"The Government should do the right thing and make this full advice available, with so much at stake for all our constituents, with eight days to go before the vote on the deal, this House and this country deserves better from this Government."

Conservative former minister Ken Clarke thanked the Attorney General for addressing "paranoia and conspiracy theories" around the Northern Ireland Protocol and providing a "perfectly sensible" solution to the border problem.

Mr Cox responded: "I make no bones about it - I would have preferred to have seen a unilateral right of termination in this backstop.

"I would have preferred to have seen a clause to exit if negotiations had irretrievably broken down.

"But I'm prepared to lend my support to this agreement because I do not believe that we're likely to be entrapped in it permanently."

But Mr Dodds, arguing for the full legal advice, said: "The overall context of this is as he has said; a deeply unattractive, unsatisfactory presentation, and he needs to therefore, rather than recommend this agreement, needs to recommend that it be rejected."

Mr Cox, in response to a question from Tory former attorney general Dominic Grieve, later told MPs that even under the Northern Ireland backstop proposal "checks might have to be carried out" on a small number of products.

He said: "There would be regulatory divergence as there are within sovereign states throughout the world between one part of the sovereign territory of the United Kingdom and another.

"Those divergences could be kept to a minimum and they involve on my investigation some 15 forms of product in respect of which checks might have to be carried out at the border.

(Image: AFP/Getty Images)

"Those 15 forms of product are largely phytosanitary goods in respect of which in any event checks in many cases are already carried out at the ports of Northern Ireland."

Labour MP Hilary Benn, who chairs the Commons Brexit Committee, in reference to Mr Cox's earlier comment said there "is something to see here".

Tory former Brexit secretary Dominic Raab warned that "whilst the Article 50 basis for the backstop is meant to be temporary it might well take some 10 years to be struck down by the European court".

Mr Cox said that estimate was "far too long" but added it was "impossible to say".