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

A Tory minister today resigned from the government in protest over Brexit in a crushing new blow to Theresa May.

Dr Phillip Lee drew "gasps of surprise" by announcing the decision live during a Tory think tank conference - and demanding a second EU referendum.

He dramatically warned Britain "is not going to be ready in time" for Brexit and said without speaking up he won't be able to "look my children in the eye".

It comes just hours before MPs stage 15 crunch votes that would make or break the Prime Minister's plans for hard Brexit.

The Justice Minister, who backed Remain and whose brief includes human rights, said he was resigning to ensure MPs have a meaningful vote on Brexit.

He is now expected to rebel against Mrs May this afternoon in a Commons showdown over the issue.

Vowing to "speak up" against Hard Brexit and backing a new EU referendum, Dr Lee said the decision "should go to the people, once again, to seek their confirmation."

Scroll down for his resignation statement in full

(Image: Trinity Mirror Southern)

He added: "In my medical experience, if a course of treatment is not working, then I review it. I also have a duty to get my patient’s informed consent for that action."

Dr Lee, 47, studied at Oxford and enjoyed a career as a hospital doctor before he became a family GP.

He has been the MP for Bracknell since 2010 and was made a junior minister in the Justice Department in 2016 when Theresa May took power.

He is no stranger to controversy and declared last year that the NHS is a "Ponzi scheme" that's "about to collapse".

(Image: UKParliament)

He reportedly resigned after confronting the Prime Minister over analysis that said Britain would be worse off economically under every planned Brexit scenario.

Dr Lee is said to have told his leader: "We can't just dismiss this and move on."

Dr Lee wrote today that resigning "goes against every grain in my soul".

But he said: "If, in the future, I am to look my children in the eye and honestly say that I did my best for them I cannot, in all good conscience, support how our country’s exit from the EU looks set to be delivered."

(Image: Getty Images North America)

He added: "Regrettably, it seems inevitable that the people, economy and culture of my constituency will be affected negatively.

"I cannot ignore that it is to them that I owe my first responsibility."

Dr Lee will remain as an MP in Parliament but is no longer a member of the government, meaning he is not bound by 'collective responsibility' - the choice to follow the lead or resign.

He announced his decision at a 'fighting for freedom' conference led by the Tory-backing think tank Bright Blue. Founder Ryan Shorthouse tweeted: "We had no knowledge that this announcement would be made".

The Prime Minister received Dr Lee's resignation letter just before she hosted the weekly Cabinet meeting in No 10 at 9.30am.

Dr Lee's boss, Justice Secretary David Gauke, who was at the Downing Street meeting, was unaware his deputy planned to quit.

Dr Lee announced his resignation to the Bright Blue think tank minutes later.

Mrs May's spokesman said: “His resignation is a matter for him. We thank him for his service.”

He added: “The PM is working for a Brexit which will be to the benefit of every citizen in the UK and on delivering the will of the British people.”

It comes after a flurry of last-minute drama around Theresa May's flagship EU Withdrawal Bill - which kicks off today and lasts until tomorrow night.

(Image: AFP)

The Prime Minister has made a desperate plea to her MPs to back her in 15 crunch votes that could drive her vision of Brexit off the rails.

Labour sources believed Mrs May was in most danger over an amendment, now backed by rebel Dr Lee, that calls for a 'meaningful vote'.

This amendment could allow MPs not just to reject her Brexit deal, but force her back to the table - delaying or stalling Brexit itself.

Brexit Secretary David Davis warned Tory rebels if they "throw out" his deal there will be no time to negotiate a new one.

He told the BBC: "A meaningful vote is not the ability to reverse the decision of the referendum."

He added claims he had threatened to quit last week over customs were "just nonsense" and "scurrilous allegations".

But Mr Davis had to correct himself after saying only that he "thinks" Theresa May will still be PM by the next election. He hastily added: "I hope so too!"

(Image: Simon Dawson)

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

Despite Dr Lee's resignation, it appeared the 'meaningful vote' amendment may not pass in its original form.

That is because Tory rebel leader Dominic Grieve had already tabled a compromise this morning that would give MPs a meaningful vote, but in a watered-down form.

Mr Grieve's compromise would give ministers until the end of November to get political agreement. Parliament would then get the power to direct ministers if there's still no deal in mid-February 2019.

Meanwhile the PM has backed a separate compromise to avoid defeat tomorrow on the thorny issue of the customs union.

The House of Lords wanted to force Tory ministers to take steps towards staying in an EU Customs Union.

But the compromise, tabled by key Tory Remainers, would instead make the government back a weaker "customs arrangement".

Mrs May is “absolutely focused on getting an important piece of legislation passed”, said No 10.

She used the 90-minute Cabinet meeting to stress to her top team the importance of today's votes.

According to her spokesman, she told senior ministers the votes were “important in terms of the message which they send to Brussels”.

She added that “anything which undermines the Government at home would make negotiations with the EU more difficult”.

The 15 crunch Brexit votes that will make or break Theresa May MPs are holding a marathon two-day voting session on June 12-13 on the EU (Withdrawal) Bill - the law that enacts Brexit. Theresa May wants MPs to overturn 15 amendments, passed by the House of Lords, that would push Britain towards a much softer Brexit. It could make or break her premiership so she's been pleading for Tory Remain-backers not to vote against the government. But it's going to be massively confusing. To help you follow the drama, here's a summary of the original 15 Lords amendments to the EU (Withdrawal) Bill - and what they would achieve if they pass. Meaningful vote*: Would give MPs a 'meaningful vote' in Autumn 2018 on Theresa May's Brexit deal. This would give Parliament a specific power to decide what happens next if her deal is rejected. MPs could force her back to the negotiating table, for example, instead of crashing out with no deal. Backers insist they wouldn't use it to 'stop Brexit' - but that's exactly what Leavers fear will happen. (49, 19) Customs Union: Would force Tory ministers to take steps towards staying in an EU Customs Union - by making a statement on how they'd do it. This could stop Britain from striking trade deals around the world - but would prevent a hard border in Northern Ireland and keep free trade with the EU. (1, 1) Single market: Would force the Tory government to keep Britain in the European Economic Area (EEA) - which practically means keeping membership of the single market, and following nearly all its rules. This would likely continue free movement between Britain and the EU - almost as we see it today. (110A, 51) Brexit Day: Would remove the legal date of Brexit - 29 March 2019 - to let ministers change the date at the last minute if they don't have a deal. Leavers also fear this could be a tool to delay Brexit indefinitely. (95, 37) Northern Ireland*: Would give added protection to the Northern Ireland border - forcing ministers to obey the Good Friday Agreement, and keep the province in an EU customs union if it stops a hard border. (88, 25) Henry VIII powers 1: Would block Tory ministers from changing EU laws on several issues - employment, equality, health and safety, environmental or consumer rights - without enhanced scrutiny by MPs. (11, 4) Henry VIII powers 2: Would block ministers having a wide-ranging power to decide when EU laws can be challenged after Brexit. (18, 52) Henry VIII powers 3: Limits ministers' power to change law without a vote - they'd only be able to do it "if necessary", instead of "if appropriate". (31, 10) Henry VIII powers 4: Would give a 'sifting committee' of MPs the power to insist Parliament gets a vote on legal changes. (70, 110) Refugees' rights*: Would continue refugees' rights to be reunited with their families in the UK under the EU's Dublin Regulation. (59, 24) Citizens' EU legal rights*: People could continue suing the government in UK courts for breaching "general principles" of EU law. (19, 53) Charter of Fundamental Rights: Would ensure the vast majority of the EU's Charter stays in UK law. (15, 5) Theresa May's mandate: Would force the PM to get MPs' approval for her 'mandate' for Britain's future relationship with the EU. (51, 20) Future EU laws: Would let ministers "copy and paste" new EU laws into UK law after Brexit, and carry on taking part in EU agencies. (93, 32) Protecting the environment: Would block ministers from using Brexit to water down any protections for the environment. (1, 3) For geeks, each amendment's 'number' is in brackets. As if it wasn't confusing enough, each one gets 'renumbered' so we've included both numbers - the old number, followed by the new number. Some of the above will be overturned, some could pass if there's a Tory rebellion. Four we've marked with asterixes (*) - these are ones where the government has offered a compromise to get them through.

Dr Phillip Lee's resignation statement in full

Resigning as a minister from the Government is a very difficult decision because it goes against every grain in my soul. The very word resign conveys a sense of giving up, but that is the last thing I will do. I take public service seriously and responsibly. That is the spirit that has always guided me as a doctor and continues to guide me as a politician.

For me, resigning is a last resort – not something that I want to do but something I feel I must do because, for me, such a serious principle is being breached that I would find it hard to live with myself afterwards if I let it pass. I come to this decision after a great deal of personal reflection and discussion with family, friends and trusted colleagues.

The main reason for my taking this decision now is the Brexit process and the Government’s wish to limit Parliament’s role in contributing to the final outcome in a vote that takes place today.

If, in the future, I am to look my children in the eye and honestly say that I did my best for them I cannot, in all good conscience, support how our country’s exit from the EU looks set to be delivered.

As a Member of Parliament, I also have a major responsibility to my constituency of Bracknell. In extensive consultations with local employers, both large and small, I have been warned that they expect Brexit as it is currently being pursued, whatever the negotiated settlement, will damage their business. I have spoken to people, many of whom have lived, worked and raised their family here, whose fears for their futures I am not always able to allay. Regrettably, it seems inevitable that the people, economy and culture of my constituency will be affected negatively, and I cannot ignore that it is to them that I owe my first responsibility.

Sadly, from within government I have found it virtually impossible to help bring sufficient change to the course on which we are bound.

I voted to remain in the European Union and have not changed my view that continued membership would have been the better strategic course. Even so, I believe that it would be impossible and wrong to seek to go back to how things were before the referendum. We cannot and should not turn back the clock.

However, as the negotiations are unfolding, two things are becoming clear.

• The practicalities, logistics and implications of leaving the EU are far more complex than was ever envisaged and certainly more complex than the people were told in 2016. The UK is not going to be ready in time, neither is the EU, and both would suffer from a rushed or fudged agreement.

• The outcome that is emerging will be neither fully to leave the EU, nor fully to stay. This is not an outcome for which anyone knowingly voted. In my view, this raises the important principle of legitimacy: I do not believe it would be right for the Government to pursue such a course without a plan to seek a confirmatory mandate for the outcome. And I believe that Parliament should have the power to ask the Government to adjust its course in the best interests of the people whom its Members represent.

In my medical experience, if a course of treatment is not working, then I review it. I also have a duty to get my patient’s informed consent for that action.

If Brexit is worth doing, then it is certainly worth doing well; regardless of how long that takes. It is, however, irresponsible to proceed as we are, so we should:

• recognise that the UK and EU are not ready for Brexit and pause, extend or revoke Article 50 so that we do not leave before we are ready.

• re-engage with our European and international friends to talk about how to achieve the aims that we share for the future in ways that respect individual countries’ interests and sovereignty. Since 2016, electorates in many countries across Europe have expressed similar concerns to those that we expressed in the referendum and so much is changing, and will continue to change, across the whole of our continent.

• empower our Parliament so that its role is not limited to making fake choices – such as between a ‘bad deal’ and a cliff-edge ‘no deal’. Our Parliament should be able to direct our Government to change course in our interests. In all conscience, I cannot support the Government’s decision to oppose this amendment because doing so breaches such fundamental principles of human rights and Parliamentary sovereignty. A vote between bad and worse is not a meaningful vote. And I cannot bring myself to vote for it in the bastion of liberty, freedom and human rights that is our Parliament.

When the Government is able to set out an achievable, clearly defined path – one that has been properly considered, whose implications have been foreseen, and that is rooted in reality and evidence, not dreams and dogma – it should go to the people, once again, to seek their confirmation.

I will miss the Ministry of Justice and the enormous privilege of guiding our Government’s work to turn around the lives of vulnerable young offenders and female offenders; to mobilise the remarkable power of sport to transform lives and cut crime; and to improve how we deal with offenders’ health and mental health which drives so much human behaviour.

I have had the privilege to work with inspiring, dedicated people; to be touched by the appalling stories that some of those caught up in our criminal justice system have shared with me – both victims and offenders; and in a small way to bring some influence to bear to help make our society more just and more secure.

The experience has been deeply humbling. For the last two years, I have been completely committed to enabling our criminal justice system to serve our society better. There is so much more to do and I wish the department and its excellent ministerial team all the strength that they need to drive through the necessary reforms. I regret that I feel forced to leave and will remain a strong supporter.

I strongly supported Theresa May’s bid to lead the Conservative Party in 2016. I have great respect for her and still believe that she is the best person to lead the country at this exceptionally difficult time. But the fact is that we have to make many big changes for our country to have a positive future. There is a great deal of work to be done to lead with more strength, vision and integrity. We must be honest and open at all times with each other and with the public. We must renew our effort to bring the nation back together and proceed in our collective national interest, drawing on the best talent our country has to offer.

We must also have an eye beyond our shores, sustaining our European friendships through a difficult time because what is very clear is that, in our interconnected age, it is nations with allies that will thrive.

It is important that individual ministers and Parliamentarians should be able to influence and speak up on these issues. But effective Government in our country also relies on the important principle of collective responsibility. Resigning my post in this Government will allow me to work towards what I believe can be a better future, inside or outside the EU, for my children, my constituents and my country.

That will start today when MPs vote on the House of Lords’ amendments to the EU Withdrawal Bill and I will support the amendment which – if it is adopted – will empower Parliament to reject a bad deal and direct the Government to re-enter discussions, extending or pausing negotiations which are being badly rushed because of the deadline that Article 50 imposes.

We will not change our country overnight – but we can and must hand our children a better legacy.