Keir Starmer warns of ‘historic constitutional row’ if government does not place full version before MPs

This article is more than 1 year old

This article is more than 1 year old

Theresa May has been warned she is on course for a “historic constitutional row” unless the government releases its full legal advice on the Brexit deal.

Labour has said it is ready to combine with other opposition parties to start proceedings for contempt of parliament unless the legal opinion of the attorney general, Geoffrey Cox, is published in full.

The DUP, which props up the Conservative government in the Commons, was said to be ready to sign a joint letter to the speaker, John Bercow, on Monday unless ministers back down.

The clash potentially represents another hurdle for May as she struggles to win backing for her deal in the crucial commons vote on 11 December.

Labour vows to do all it can to uncover May's Brexit legal advice Read more

MPs across parliament have angrily accused ministers of ignoring the will of the House after they said they would only release a “full, reasoned position statement” based on the legal advice.

A binding Commons vote in November required the government to lay before parliament “any legal advice in full” relating to the withdrawal agreement, including that given by the attorney general.

Ministers chose not to oppose the motion – tabled by Labour under an arcane procedure known as the humble address – as they feared a damaging Commons defeat.

The latest row erupted as it was reported that Cox, who is due to make a statement to the Commons on Monday, had warned the UK could be tied to the EU customs union indefinitely through the Northern Ireland backstop.

The Sunday Times said that, in a letter sent to cabinet ministers, Cox advised that the only way out of the backstop – designed to prevent the return of a hard border with the Irish Republic – once it was invoked was to sign a new trade deal, a process that could take years.

Theresa May insists she will be the leader to take UK out of the EU Read more

“The protocol would endure indefinitely,” he is reported to have written.

The former Brexit secretary Dominic Raab – who quit last month over the withdrawal agreement – said the legal position was clear.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Former Brexit minister Dominic Raab said the Northern Irish backstop would last indefinitely. Photograph: NurPhoto/NurPhoto via Getty Images

“The backstop will last indefinitely until it is superseded by the treaty setting out our future relationship, unless the EU allows us to exit,” he told the Sunday Times.

“The EU has a clear veto, even if the future negotiations stretch on for many years, or even if they break down and there is no realistic likelihood of us reaching agreement.”

The environment secretary, Michael Gove, a key Leaver ally of May’s, said he had concerns about the backstop, but argued that the idea of being stuck indefinitely in it was unlikely, as EU leaders would “see Britain having a competitive advantage over their country”.

“I would have preferred it if we had a unilateral right of exit,” Gove told BBC One’s The Andrew Marr Show. “It’s uncomfortable for me that there are some rules that might apply in Northern Ireland that might not apply in other parts of the United Kingdom.

“The critical thing about the backstop is, however uncomfortable it is for the UK, it is more uncomfortable for the European Union, because we will have tariff-free access to their markets without paying a penny. More than that, we will have control of our borders.”

Asked about the idea of a Norway-style deal, keeping the UK in a permanent form of customs union, if May’s planned deal fell through, Gove said it was “better than membership” but not as good as the PM’s proposal.

Asked if he would back such a plan if May’s deal could not be passed, Gove did not rule it out, saying: “I think the right thing to do is to argue for this deal because it is better.”

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Sir Keir Starmer: ‘If the full legal advice is not forthcoming, we will have no alternative but to start proceedings for contempt of parliament.’ Photograph: Peter Byrne/PA

Ministers have argued the legal advice is privileged, the same as any advice given by a lawyer to their client, and that government cannot function if it is required to release such confidential material.

However, writing in the Sunday Telegraph, shadow Brexit secretary Sir Keir Starmer said it was essential MPs understood the full legal implications before they voted on the agreement. “If the full legal advice is not forthcoming, we will have no alternative but to start proceedings for contempt of parliament – and we will work with all parties to take this forward,” he said.

Labour sources said that Starmer was ready to sign a joint letter with the DUP’s Westminster leader, Nigel Dodds, the Liberal Democrat Brexit spokesman, Tom Brake, and the SNP Europe spokesman, Stephen Gethins, asking Bercow to allow a motion “that the government has held parliament in contempt”.

Under Commons rules, if the speaker allows the motion to go before the House and the vote is carried, it would then be referred to the committee of privileges which would rule on whether a contempt of parliament had taken place.

May puts on brave face at G20 as Brexit deal flounders back home Read more

If it were decided that a contempt had occurred, the committee could recommend a suitable punishment which would be put back to MPs to agree.

In theory, the most severe penalty is expulsion from the House, although the prospects of that happening would appear remote.