London (CNN) Theresa May suffered the worst day in parliament for a British government in 40 years, losing three crucial votes as lawmakers moved to seize control of the faltering Brexit process.

The Prime Minister's authority was left hanging by a thread after Members of Parliament found her government in contempt for failing to publish the full legal advice underpinning her Brexit plan.

In a further and potentially more important defeat, lawmakers approved an amendment that aims to give Parliament greater say if May's Brexit deal is rejected next week. Parliament could then insist on a "softer" Brexit -- where the UK would remain in or closely aligned with the EU's customs union and single market, or even demand a second Brexit referendum.

MPs had already rejected a government compromise on the legal advice, under which the issue would have been kicked to a parliamentary committee. No British government has suffered a worse day at the hands of MPs for 40 years.

May's minority administration -- notionally propped up by the Democratic Unionist Party of Northern Ireland -- was left in turmoil as it became clear it could not win support for crucial votes in the House of Commons.

Read More</s>Lawmakers in the United Kingdom on Tuesday debated a motion alleging the government was acting in contempt of Parliament by failing to publish in full the legal advice it had received concerning on the ongoing Brexit negotiations.

Keir Starmer, the shadow Brexit secretary who represents the opposition Labour Party, has accused Geoffrey Cox, a Conservative Member of Parliament and current Attorney General, of failing to honor a House of Commons vote last month demanding that Prime Minister Theresa May's government publish, in full, the advice it received for its proposed agreement on the UK's withdrawal from the European Union.</s>Theresa May has been plunged into a historic constitutional row after her government was found in contempt of parliament for failing to release its full legal advice on the Brexit deal.



In a crunch decision on Tuesday afternoon, parliament voted 311–293 in favour of a motion brought by the opposition parties to find ministers in contempt.

Responding to the defeat, Commons leader Andrea Leadsom confirmed the government will now publish the legal advice on the Brexit deal in full.

Today’s motion was tabled after the government refused to disclose the advice shown to the cabinet, despite parliament ordering it to do so last month. BuzzFeed News previously revealed that the private advice gave a "very stark" assessment of the deal.

The attorney general, Geoffrey Cox, yesterday released a legal position paper summarising his advice but insisted it was not “in the national interest” to release it in full.

Labour, the DUP, and other opposition parties had argued that the government did not contest last month’s vote and so was in contempt for refusing to abide by a binding motion of the House.

Today’s vote leaves the PM facing the unprecedented situation of having a member of her government found in contempt of parliament.



One of May's senior ministers, most likely Cox or her de facto deputy David Lidington, could be sanctioned.

Being held in contempt means the minister has been found to have obstructed or impeded the work of parliament. Potential punishments include the minister being suspended from the House of Commons.

Labour's shadow Brexit secretary, Keir Starmer, said: “Today’s finding of contempt is a badge of shame for this government. It is of huge constitutional and political significance.

“Never before has the House of Commons found ministers in contempt of parliament. It is highly regrettable that the government has let it come to this, but ministers left the opposition with no option but to bring forward these proceedings."

This is a breaking story. Check back for updates and follow @BuzzFeedUKPol for more.</s>In dramatic scenes at Westminster, the Mrs May’s Democratic Unionist Party allies joined Labour and other opposition parties to inflict defeat on the Government by 311 votes to 293. The humiliating division came shortly before the Prime Minister was due to open a five-day debate on her deal, amid widespread expectations that her proposals are set for rejection by MPs. It is the first time in modern history that a Government has been found in contempt of Parliament.

Labour's shadow Brexit secretary Sir Keir Starmer said that the finding of contempt was "a badge of shame" for the Government, with "huge constitutional and political significance". Sir Keith said: "It is highly regrettable that the Government has let it come to this, but ministers left the opposition with no option but to bring forward these proceedings. "By treating Parliament with contempt, the Government has proved it has lost its majority and the respect of the House. "The Prime Minister can't keep pushing Parliament away or avoiding responsible scrutiny." READ MORE: BREXIT LIVE: May suffers THREE HUGE DEFEATS in 'worst hour for government in DECADES'

Theresa May's Government is to release its legal advice on the Brexit deal on Wednesday. Attorney General Geoffrey Cox insisted the Government has "gone out of its way" to satisfy the terms of the humble address to the Queen passed by Parliament on November 13 which demanded the release of the legal advice in full. Speaking in the Commons after the vote, Leader of the Commons Andrea Leadsom said: "We've tested the opinion of the House twice on this very serious subject. "We've listened carefully and in light of the expressed will of the House we will publish the final and full advice provided by the Attorney General to Cabinet." Mrs Leadsom has written to the Committee of Privileges watchdog, calling for an inquiry into the use of the humble address procedure, which had fallen out of use since the 19th century but has been revived by Labour to inflict a number of binding defeats on the Government. READ MORE: Pound plunges: Sterling TUMBLES to lowest level in 18 months after Brexit DEFEAT

Only hours before the vote, Mrs May had told Cabinet that "candid" legal advice given to ministers must remain confidential, despite a motion passed by the Commons last month demanding the release of the "final and full" papers. Minutes after the historic contempt vote, Theresa May was dealt another blow as MPs backed a move which could put Parliament in the driving seat if the Brexit deal is rejected on December 11. If Mrs May's deal falls in the "meaningful vote" next week, the Prime Minister has 21 calendar days to set out a statement on her next steps. Former attorney general Dominic Grieve's amendment will make any such statement itself amendable, meaning that MPs can effectively direct the Government on how to respond to the defeat of Mrs May's plans. READ MORE: NO DEAL DEAD: MPs vote to APPROVE Dominic Grieve's SHOCK amendment to Withdrawal Act

This could open the door for the Commons to throw its weight behind a Norway-style soft Brexit, or even a second EU referendum, though prominent Leave-backing MPs questioned whether any such vote would be binding on ministers. Twenty-five Conservative MPs rebelled to support Mr Grieve's amendment according to the division list. Among those that voted in favour of the amendment, which could effectively block the chance of a no deal Brexit, were Damian Green, Justine Greening, Nicky Morgan and Anna Soubry. Starting Parliament’s debate on her Brexit deal Theresa May told MPs to accept that compromise is necessary to "bring the country together". Mrs May said: ”I know there are some in this House and in the country who would prefer a closer relationship with the European Union than the one I'm proposing, indeed who would prefer the relationship that we currently have and want another referendum.</s>Theresa May has been forced to publish the full legal advice on Brexit after MPs found her ministers in contempt of Parliament.

The ‘final and full’ advice will be released tomorrow.

A motion tabled by Labour, the SNP, other opposition parties and the DUP which argued ministers were in contempt due to their failure to fully publish advice given by Attorney General Geoffrey Cox was approved by 311 votes to 293, majority 18.

It also ordered the ‘immediate publication’ of the legal advice.

Commons Leader Andrea Leadsom said: ‘We’ve tested the opinion of the House twice on this very serious subject.

‘We’ve listened carefully and in light of the expressed will of the House we will publish the final and full advice provided by the Attorney General to Cabinet but recognising the very serious constitutional issues this raises I have referred the matter to the privileges committee to consider the implications of the humble address.’

The government suffered a third Commons defeat of the day after MPs approved an amendment from Tory Dominic Grieve which aims to give them a greater say should the Brexit deal be defeated on December 11.

Brexiteer MP Jacob Rees-Mogg claimed the situation was so farcical that ‘panto season’ had arrived in Westminster.

Labour Party Brexit spokesman Keir Starmer said the contempt finding was ‘unprecedented,’ and the government said it would now publish the advice.

The vote has little direct impact on the Brexit debate, but reflects mounting tension between the government and Parliament over the next steps in Brexit.

Parliament is set to begin debating the divorce deal agreed between the government and the European Union, before a vote on December 11.</s>The Government tonight caved to pressure to publish the full legal advice on the Brexit deal after suffering an historic and humiliating defeat.

The Commons voted by 311 to 293 to hold ministers in contempt of Parliament for the first time in history after they refused to publish the full advice.

Labour joined with the DUP, SNP and Lib Dems to pass the motion in what Labour's shadow Brexit secretary Sir Keir Starmer said was an ‘unprecedented’ act.

In a torrid night for Theresa May, she suffered another major defeat as MPs voted for an amendment which gives the Commons a greater say if the Brexit deal is defeated on December 11.

Number Ten ran the risk that ministers - including attorney General Geoffrey Cox - could be suspended from the Commons if they continued to refuse to publish the legal advice.

Seconds after the vote was announced in the packed Commons chamber, the Government said it will publish the full legal advice tomorrow.

Commons Leader Andrea Leadsom told MPs: 'We have tested the opinion of the House twice on this very serious subject...We will publish the final and full advice provided by the Attorney General to Cabinet.'

But she said she is so alarmed at the use of arcane parliamentary procedure to force ministers to publish secret information, she is asking a committee of MPs to investigate.

The defeat comes exactly one week before Mrs May faces the biggest political test of her career when MPs will vote on her Brexit deal in the Commons.

A slew of MPs had condemned ministers for refusing to release the full Brexit deal legal advice in a fiery Commons showdown today.

It had pitted Mrs May's authority and support against the accumulated strength of her opposition - which spanned both Brexiteers and Remainers.

The dramatic row erupted after the Government refused to publish the full legal advice despite losing a vote in the Commons last month requiring them to.

Instead they said published a 'full reasoned position' laying out a summary of the legal advice.

But critics accused ministers of keeping secret the most explosive parts of Mr Cox's advice.

Sir Keir warned that ministers were committing contempt of Parliament and used the arcane parliamentary tactics to heap pressure on No10.

Ir Mrs May had still refused to publish the legal advice then MPs would have debated how to enforce their contempt motion in a debate tomorrow.

They could have voted to hold specific named minsters responsible and to mete out punishments to them - including suspending them from Parliament.

Cabinet Minister Mrs Leadsom had fiercely defended the Government over the refusal to publish the legal advice.

She said the Government was defending an important principle that legal advice should stay confidential.

She also insisted MPs should not take it on themselves to rule on whether there had been a contempt - arguing that ministers should have 'due process' of an investigation by the Privileges Committee.

A government-backed amendment to kill off the attempt to hold Mr Cox in contempt by sending the matter to the Privileges Committee was defeated by 311 votes to 307.

Kicking off the constitutional clash in the the chamber this afternoon, Sir Keir accused ministers of ignoring a 'binding motion' passed by the Commons.

'That is contempt,' he said.

The standoff between the House and the government is thought to be unprecedented in modern times.

Ministers insist legal confidentiality is an important point of principle and revealing the material would hurt the national interest. Instead they published a 40-plus page assessment of the package thrashed out with Brussels.

But if the motion is passed today, the pressure to issue the full advice could become unbearable.

The PM's spokesman said she told Cabinet 'there is a long-standing convention that neither the fact nor the content of law officers' advice is shared outside Government without their consent'.

Mrs Leadsom has written to the Privileges Committee to ask them to investigate the use of arcane parliamentary procedures to force ministers to divulge secret information.

Mrs May said that was set out in both Parliament's Erskine May rulebook and the Ministerial Code.

She added 'it is an essential part of the functioning of government that Cabinet ministers can have access to candid legal advice' without the fear of it being published.

The motion being moved by Labour today states: 'That this House finds ministers in contempt for their failure to comply with the requirements of the motion for return passed on 13 November 2018, to publish the final and full legal advice provided by the Attorney General to the Cabinet concerning the EU withdrawal agreement and the framework for the future relationship, and orders its immediate publication.'

Mrs Leadsom, responding for the government, said Mr Cox had done nothing but treat the House with the 'utmost respect' and said he should be given the 'due process' of scrutiny by the Privileges Committee.

'I appeal to all those honourable members across the House that if they seek to pass this motion they should refer it to the committee,' she said.

Tory MP Simon Hoare accused critics of Mrs May's deal of engaging in 'parlour games' rather than focusing on the Brext deal.

He said: 'They clearly had no interest in what Geoffrey Cox had to say yesterday.'

Mr Rees-Mogg told the Commons he would support the Government, although he did not agree with the dismissal of 'ancient procedures' like the humble address being used to hold it to account.

He said: 'I think it's right that a committee looks at this issue in broad terms because it may be right that the House wishes to take a self-denying ordinance on the extent of humble addresses.

'It may be right we would like to say specifically they would be deemed disorderly and therefore not brought forward if they related to matters concerning the security services.'

But fellow Tory Brexiteer Peter Bone suggested he would support the contempt motion as it would ensure the Government would come forward with a compromise.

He said: 'Unless something very dramatically changes between now and the end of the debate - and I do have to leave the chamber as the Chief Whip would like to have a word with me - I do think that if the House votes for the contempt, a compromise will happen and we will get hopefully properly redacted information before we vote next Tuesday.'

In extraordinary scenes last night, Speaker John Bercow agreed there was an 'arguable case that a contempt has been committed' after Tory Eurosceptics, Labour, the DUP, the SNP and Lib Dems joined forces.

The MPs complained that the summary legal advice released by Mr Cox did not comply with a Commons resolution agreed last month.

Mr Cox, who is the Government's chief legal adviser, had staunchly defended the decision to withhold the advice in a marathon appearance in the House - telling MPs 'there is nothing to see here'.

He said that he 'fully accepts' MPs may impose a sanction against him or the Government for contempt of Parliament over Brexit legal advice.

He said: 'The House has at its disposal the means by which to enforce its will.

'It can bring a motion of contempt and seek to have that motion passed and seek to impose through the committee, or whichever way it is appropriately done, to impose a sanction. I fully accept that.

'I don't set myself up contrary to the House, I simply say that I cannot compromise the public interest.'

Mr Cox had 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.

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.'

In his statement to MPs, Mr Cox insisted the backstop part of the divorce was 'expressly agreed not to be intended to establish a permanent relationship but to be temporary'.

He said the Article 50 process did not provide a legal basis for a permanent arrangement.

But 'if the protocol were to come into force, it would continue to apply in international law unless and until it was superseded by the intended subsequent agreement' which met the goals of avoiding a hard border and protecting the Good Friday Agreement.

'There is therefore no unilateral right for either party to terminate this arrangement.

'This means that if no superseding agreement can be reached within the implementation period, the protocol would be activated and in international law would subsist, even if negotiations had broken down.

'How likely that is to happen is a political question, to which the answer will no doubt depend partly on the extent to which it is in either party's interests to remain indefinitely within its arrangements.'

The legal paper gives a more detailed explanation of the 'best endeavours' provision in the Withdrawal Agreement. The deal sets out that if the backstop were to come into force, there will be a review process for the UK to break out.

The summary argues that the 'obligation to negotiate in good faith with a view to concluding agreements is a well-recognised concept in international law'.

'Relevant precedents indicate that such obligations require the parties to conduct negotiations in a meaningful way, contemplate modifications to their respective positions and pay reasonable regard to each other's interests,' it says.

But the document adds: 'A tribunal would only find a breach of the duty of good faith if there was a clear basis for doing so.'

Earlier yesterday, Mrs May's chief Brexit adviser told MPs that the Northern Ireland border backstop was a 'slightly uncomfortable necessity' for both the UK and the European Union.

The UK faces making additional payments to Brussels if the Brexit implementation period is extended, the Government's Brexit legal advice also said.

Under the terms of the Withdrawal Agreement, it is due to run until the end of December 2020 but can be extended by up to two years if both sides agree.

The advice says that discussions on any extension would involve 'reaching further agreement on the UK's financial contribution'.

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.

Mr Cox is said to have warned the UK could be tied to the EU customs union 'indefinitely' through the Northern Ireland 'backstop'.

The Sunday Times said in a letter sent last month to Cabinet ministers, he advised the only way out of the backstop - designed to prevent the return of a hard border with the Republic - once it was invoked was to sign a new trade deal, a process which could take years.

'The protocol would endure indefinitely,' he apparently wrote.

The letter was said to be so sensitive that ministers were given numbered copies to read which they were not allowed to take from the room afterwards.

Former Brexit secretary Dominic Raab - who quit last month over the withdrawal agreement - said the legal position was clear.

'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.

'That's my view as a former international lawyer, but it is consistent if not identical with all of the formal advice I received.'</s>
• Downing Street has published the legal advice it was given on Theresa May’s Brexit deal by the government’s top law officer, Attorney General Geoffrey Cox.
• The government tried to prevent the full legal advice being published, and MPs found the government in contempt of parliament for refusing a demand to do so.
• Here’s everything you need to know about the legal advice the government tried to withhold.

LONDON – The government has published the full legal advice it was given on Theresa May’s Brexit plan after MPs found the government to be in contempt of parliament for refusing to do so.

The advice, from Attorney General Geoffrey Cox, the country’s top law officer, examines the legal effect of the so-called backstop arrangement, or Northern Ireland protocol, which is an emergency measure within May’s proposals designed to maintain an invisible border in Ireland.

The measure is deeply unpopular among Brexit-supporting MPs because would keep the UK in the customs union and Northern Ireland even more closely aligned to the EU, as well as requiring checks on goods moving between Northern Ireland and Great Britain.

Here’s what you need to know about Cox’s legal advice:
• Cox warns that the backstop arrangement contained within the withdrawal agreement would “endure indefinitely,” a phrase which has enraged Brexiteers who say it would represent an incomplete Brexit.
• It confirms the government does not have the right to withdraw from the backstop unilaterally, something Brexiteers have advocated.
• There is a legal risk that UK could become stuck in “protracted and repeating rounds of negotiations” with Brussels.
• The date on the Attorney General’s advice is 13 November, the same day MPs asked for the advice to be published. This could mean that the government had not actually received any formal legal advice on the Withdrawal Agreement before, despite May publishing her formal Brexit plan weeks earlier.

Labour’s shadow Brexit secretary Keir Starmer said: “Having reviewed the Attorney General’s legal advice, it’s obvious why this needed to be placed in the public domain.

“All week we have heard from Government ministers that releasing this information. could harm the national interest. Nothing of the sort. All this advice reveals is the central weaknesses in the Government’s deal.

“It is unthinkable that the Government tried to keep this information from Parliament – and indeed the public – before next week’s vote.”

The government had refused previous requests to publish the advice, just a week before MPs vote on the deal itself, saying it would set a dangerous precedent if the Attorney General could not provide the Prime Minister with honest, confidential legal advice without fear of it being made public.

Cox instead published a 48-page legal commentary outlining the advice he had provided on the Brexit plan and was grilled by MPs in the Commons for two hours on the subject on Monday.

But MPs voted 311 to 293 to find May’s government in contempt on Tuesday afternoon, forcing Downing Street to publish the advice in full. It was the first time in British parliamentary history the government has been found in contempt by MPs.</s>Refusal to publish Brexit deal triggers contempt of Parliament debate in Commons

The UK government may have broken Parliamentary rules by not publishing Brexit legal advice, the Commons Speaker has said. John Bercow said there was an “arguable case” that a contempt of Parliament has been committed.

It means MPs will debate and vote on the issue on Tuesday. This is likely to delay the start of the debate on Theresa May's Brexit deal.

Mr Bercow was responding to a call from senior MPs in six parties - Labour, the Lib Dems, the SNP, the Democratic Unionist Party, Plaid Cymru and the Green Party - for contempt proceedings to be launched.

They say the government has gone back on a binding vote to release any legal advice in full.

Attorney General Geoffrey Cox - the government's chief legal adviser - earlier published an overview of his legal advice on Theresa May's Brexit deal, and answered MPs' questions on it.

He argued that it would not be in the national interest to publish his advice in full, as it would break a longstanding convention that law officers' advice to ministers is confidential.

He insisted there was no cover-up, telling MPs: There is nothing to see here. The MPs are also demanding the immediate publication of his final and full legal advice.

MPs are due to vote on Mrs May's deal on 11 December.

Labor's shadow Brexit secretary Sir Keir Starmer said: This is not about party politics.

It's about parliamentary democracy and guaranteeing that MPs have the information they need to know - precisely what the government has negotiated with the European Union.

Even at this 11th hour, I would urge ministers to step back from the brink and to not go down in history as the first government to be found in contempt.

However, the government has tabled an amendment to have the issue referred to MPs on the Privileges Committee to investigate whether its response fulfils all its obligations, taking into account any relevant past cases.

Lib Dem Brexit spokesman Tom Brake, who campaigns for a further EU referendum, said: Parliament is finally taking back control from this chaotic government.

The attorney general put on a good show, but the House did not want TV drama. MPs expect the publication of the full legal Brexit advice before the debates on the withdrawal deal begin.

The government must not be allowed to use this chaotic situation to take focus away from the mess they are making of Brexit.

During a stormy debate in the Commons. Labour claimed Mr Cox was hiding his full legal advice for fear of the political consequences.

Mr Cox told MPs to get real and grow up - and his legal advice had no bearing on the political reality of the Brexit deal.

He conceded that the UK would be indefinitely committed to EU customs rules if Brexit trade talks broke down, under the terms of the withdrawal agreement hammered out in Brussels by Theresa May.</s>Theresa May was accused of “misleading the House of Commons” by the SNP over the Irish backstop after the full Brexit legal advice was published.

The party’s Westminster leader Ian Blackford made the allegation during heated and hostile exchanges during Prime Minister’s Questions.

He said Mrs May had been “concealing the facts on her Brexit deal”, saying the Withdrawal Agreement would allow Northern Ireland to remain in the EU’s single market - while Scotland could not.

Mr Blackford mocked the PM for having lost three votes on Tuesday and being found in contempt of Parliament, saying: “We were promised strong and stable - what we’ve got is a Government in crisis.”

The MP for Ross, Skye and Lochaber then asked: “Is it time that the Prime Minister took responsibility for concealing the facts on her Brexit deal from members in this House and the public?

Mrs May rejected the claim, and said the full legal advice they were forced to publish contained the same arguments as the shortened version the Government made available earlier this week.

Mr Blackford called that an “incredibly disappointing response”, and suggested the release of the full legal advice showed that: “Since the Prime Minister returned from Brussels she has been misleading the house, inadvertently or otherwise.”

This led to a prolonged period of shouting across the chamber, with Tory MPs calling for him to withdraw the comment.

Commons Speaker John Bercow rebuked Mr Blackford, saying there could be no “ambiguity” in comments to suggest that the PM had purposefully misled the House.

This led Mr Blackford to alter his wording to say she had done it “perhaps inadvertently”.

But this failed to dampen the jeers from the Tory benches and Mr Bercow asked to him to again “rephrase” his argument. However, he continued in the same vein.

In response, Mrs May said the copy of the full legal advice he was holding was “no different” to the statement the Attorney General Geoffrey Cox made on Monday.

She added: “I have myself said on the floor of this House that there is indeed no unilateral right to pull out of the backstop.

“What I have also said is that it is not the intention of either party that a) the backstop should be used in the first place, or ... b) that if it is used, should be anything other than temporary.”</s>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 said it is ready to combine with other opposition parties to start proceedings for contempt of Parliament unless the legal opinion of 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 with other parties to Speaker John Bercow on Monday unless ministers back down.

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

MPs across Parliament have angrily accused ministers of ignoring the will of the House after they said only that they would release a "full reasoned political statement" on the legal position.

It follows a binding Commons vote last month requiring the Government to lay before Parliament "any legal advice in full" - including that given by the Attorney General - relating to the Withdrawal Agreement.

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 row erupted as it was reported Mr 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 in a letter sent last month to Cabinet ministers, he advised the only way out of the backstop - designed to prevent the return of a hard border with the Republic - once it was invoked was to sign a new trade deal, a process which could take years.

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

The letter was said to be so sensitive that ministers were given numbered copies to read which they were not allowed to take from the room afterwards.

Former Brexit secretary Dominic Raab - who quit last month over the withdrawal agreement - said the legal position was clear.

"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.

"That's my view as a former international lawyer, but it is consistent if not identical with all of the formal advice I received."

Ministers have argued the legal advice is privileged, in the same way 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.

"If ministers stubbornly refuse to obey the order of MPs then they risk triggering a historic constitutional row that puts Parliament in direct conflict with the executive.

"Although I accept the long-standing convention that Cabinet legal advice should be kept confidential, it's well-established that in exceptional circumstances that convention does not apply. And these are exceptional circumstances."

Labour sources said that Sir Keir was ready to sign a joint letter with the DUP's Westminster leader Nigel Dodds, Liberal Democrat Brexit spokesman Tom Brake and SNP Europe spokesman Stephen Gethins, asking Mr 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.

If it is decided that a contempt had occurred, the committee can recommend a suitable punishment which is then 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.

However any finding against the Government would be potentially highly damaging for Mrs May at a time when she is at her most vulnerable politically.
The Government of the United Kingdom is found to be in contempt of parliament for the first time in history. The motion, which passed by 311 to 293 votes in the House of Commons, was triggered by Theresa May's government failing to publish its legal advice on its Brexit withdrawal plan.