gentleman, though i am sure it is a clever forensic gentleman, though i am sure it is a cleverforensic point, the circumstance in which a point of european law would arise in connection with the best endeavours of bad faith clauses are difficult to envisage. the reality is it is a straightforward question of fact. it is the union moving with the urgency, the pace and to the procedural timetables and according to the procedural steps that this agreement now enforces? at the right honourable gentleman cannot deny, he is an honest politician, you cannot look at these things in the face and say they mean nothing. these are important amplifications and clarifications of the duty of best endeavours. now, iquite clarifications of the duty of best endeavours. now, i quite agree with the right honourable gentleman, i very much doubt whether or not we would ever get to a tribunal, because what these duties and new clarifications and amplifications do is set the framework for people's conduct within the negotiation. it is the impact upon their behaviour

and conduct, very rare is the case when one would ever get to an arbitral tribunal. what matters is the framework of obligations and responsibilities, and there was have tightened, materially tightened on the european union. indeed! sur william cash. may i thank my right honourable and learned friend for his opinion, which is not only for the government, i would stress, but also for parliament and of the voters? the substance of this backstop is due to wish my right honourable and learned friend has just referred is the legal and constitutional and therefore political status of northern ireland within the uk, which cannot be put at risk. he refers to a reduced risk of the uk being indefinitely detained a new protocol but adds that ultimately there is no

internationally lawful means, i repeat lawful means, of exit unless both the eu and the uk agree. does he therefore appreciate on his own terms that this fundamental legal impediment trumps political considerations and that therefore there would be insufficient protection for northern ireland to continue as part of the united kingdom. i don't agree with that. he knows that we have a difference of opinion, i hope that the right honourable, the honourable gentleman will move towards my position. i have still a hope that that might be so, and the reason i say that is because one has to look at the mutual incentives and disincentives for both parties to stay in the arrangement. this is a point i made in december, and for reasons i advanced in december, for reasons i advanced in december, for reasons i advanced in december, for reasons i advanced in my november opinion, that the incentives or disincentives for the european union are as

profound or if not greater to get us out of the backstop than to keep us m, out of the backstop than to keep us in, that is what i firmly believe. the honourable gentleman may disagree, but that is what i believe. that is why i have taken the politicaljudgment believe. that is why i have taken the political judgment that this withdrawal agreement needs to be supported, but in saying that, these improvements do make a difference, because, and i would say the honourable gentleman just one other thing, in the last line of my advice, i do say no lawful exit u nless advice, i do say no lawful exit unless a fundamental change of circumstance, and it is extremely important to remember that there is a lwa ys important to remember that there is always a right to terminate a treaty, unilaterally, if circumstances fundamentally change. so there is no question that we have a right to exit if those circumstances apply. sir vince

cable. mr speaker, those of us who remember some infamously politicised legal opinions, as with the iraq war, will want to acknowledge the attorney general's total integrity and independence, but carrie explains why no lawyer how the respect for the international rule of law is enhanced by a unilateral declaration to break it? —— but can he explain? no, no, i mean... it was a... itwas he explain? no, no, i mean... it was a... it was to give with one hand and take with the other, the right honourable gentleman! with the greatest of respect, the right honourable gentleman is not quite right about that, the unilateral declaration is not incompatible with international law. it reserves the uk's right to take all measures available to it in circumstances where talks have broken down as a result of a breach of article five, which is the good faith duty, so it

reinforces and further stresses the right of the united kingdom to take measures to withdraw from the arrangements if there is a breach of bad faith. mr david james. my right honourable and learned friend has noted in his opinion that the unilateral declaration is not an agreed document. can he say whether effo rts agreed document. can he say whether efforts were made to obtain the agreement of the european union to that declaration, and if so, why was such agreement withheld? no unilateral declaration is worth the paper it is written on if it is objected to. my understanding, it is not objected to, it will be deposited alongside the withdrawal agreement and therefore will carry legal weight under article 31. mr nigel dodds. thank you, mr speaker, and can! nigel dodds. thank you, mr speaker, and can i alsojoin others who have

commended the attorney general, and i want to pay tribute to him in terms of the dealings that he has had with us and holding entirely to his word that he would deliver a totally objective and fair legal analysis and opinion on whatever came back? so i want to pay tribute publicly, as well as what i have said privately, to him in that regard. would he agree that, in relation to the reduction in risk of being held in the backstop, in relation to the eu acting in bad faith or want of best endeavours, does he agree with his previous advice of paragraph 29 that all the eu would have to show good faith would be to consider the uk's proposals, even if they ultimately reject them? this could go on repeatedly without such conduct giving rise to bad faith failure. and on the point about, if it isn't a question of bad faith, but if it

is just a question of bad faith, but if it isjust a question a question of bad faith, but if it is just a question that the two sides can't reach agreement, he is saying in paragraph 19 that is legal opinion, the legal risk remains unchanged — we know already from the irish government and from others what they see as the ultimate destination for northern ireland, the backstop is the bottom line. from what the attorney general is saying today, provided there is no bad faith, the fact is that northern ireland and the rest of the united kingdom could be trapped if it is a question that the eu does not agree with the united kingdom to supersede in agreement. i am grateful to the right honourable gentleman for that question. let me deal with it one by one. first, my opinion has changed in connection with the ability of this country to prove bad faith. there is now a new contextual

framework forjudging there is now a new contextual framework for judging whether the other party is using best endeavours oi’ other party is using best endeavours or good faith. the time has been made of the essence, and time has been made of the essence in the specific connection with the negotiating of alternative arrangements. a specific work track is set out, a specific timetable is set out. it would be unconscionable, asi set out. it would be unconscionable, as i say in my opinion, iforget set out. it would be unconscionable, as i say in my opinion, i forget the paragraph, but the right honourable gentleman will have it, unconscionable if, having said to this country, we will set up a specific discrete work track on alternative arrangements, which are defined in this new document as meaning facilitative techniques, technologies and customs procedures, it would be unconscionable if, having set up a timeline for negotiating those alternative arrangements, 12 months, or we must

intensify our efforts, it would be extraordinary if they never agreed to use a single one, and they refused every proposal reasonably adjusted to the core interests. it would be, isay adjusted to the core interests. it would be, i say in the written opinion, i stand would be, i say in the written opinion, istand by would be, i say in the written opinion, i stand by it, would be, i say in the written opinion, istand by it, it would be, i say in the written opinion, i stand by it, it would would be, i say in the written opinion, istand by it, it would be a potential breach of best endeavours and good faith, best endeavours and good faith, best endeavours is defined in thisjoint instrument now as requiring them to consider our diverse interests and the matters that are adverse to their interests. so even if these facilitative technological and customs measures were adverse to their interests, still the duty requires them. therefore, if there was a pattern of refusal, a systematic refusal to consider these alternative arrangements, we would have a case before the arbitration panel, and it would be a potentially serious breach of good fight. i say i believe that with all candour to the honourable gentleman, he knows i wouldn't say it if i didn't mean it. it is there in my written opinion, i

urge him to consider it. mr robert neill. i thank you, urge him to consider it. mr robert neill. ithank you, mr urge him to consider it. mr robert neill. i thank you, mr speaker. urge him to consider it. mr robert neill. ithank you, mr speaker. does my right honourable friend agree that any practical lawyer will know that any practical lawyer will know that legal risk can seldom be totally eliminated from any agreement of any kind, but what the parties must look at is the practical risk of that occurring, and does he not agree that what has been achieved markedly diminishes the practical risk, and that is the key consideration we need to bear in mind when looking at the broader context? i entirely agree with my honourable friend. the illegal ingredient in any political question must be subordinate, and in particular in connection with this political question, mr speaker. the fa ct political question, mr speaker. the fact is that there are always legal risks of various kinds, we walk among legal risks all the time. some of us more than others, perhaps! but

the truth of the matter is we don't determine our behaviour by them, we ta ke determine our behaviour by them, we take practical judgments every minute of the day, every day of the week, about whether the legal risks week, about whether the legal risks we are engaged in are ones that are worth taking, and i say to my honourable friends, as i say to all honourable friends, as i say to all honourable members, we must come to a decision on this question today. and i would urge the house to consider carefully these... there is no real legal basis to be seriously troubled that the union will never reach agreement with us. if it is through bad faith, then we have further improvements in the deal now. but because we just can't reach agreement when the alternative arrangements are now cemented into this deal in a manner they have not before, i think not. in all candour, i think not. stella creasy. thank you, mr speaker. in layman and lay

woman's terms, nothing has changed, but something has been added. a year to get the timescale right, and if they government can't do that, they will try really, really hard for the next year. it is not possible to unilaterally stop a hard border, but it is possible, single—handedly, for the attorney general to admit that all he has done today is amplify, not amend, the original deal that parliament voted down. to say anything else is a matter of bad faith. hear, hear. the honourable lady knows that i have not attempted to say something... of course, there has been no ending of the treaty, but what there has been is a supplementary agreement which both amplifies, extends and deepens the obligations within it. well, the honourable member can shake her head, but really you have to look at

the wording, you have to look at the text, and if i have got something wrong, she will no doubt tell me, but the fact is there are materially new obligations here, materially new obligations in relation to the pace and timetable, materially new obligations in relation to binding legal commitments on alternative arrangements — these are set the context against which and within which those duties of bad faith of the best endeavours will be measured. that is a significant difference to the deal. she is not listening! steve baker. paragraph 23 of the political declaration makes it clear that we would build and improve on the single customs territory provided for in the withdrawal agreement, and we know what the european union understands that to mean — in good faith and with best endeavours, they understand it to mean a customs union, which dan hannan mep reminded us of earlier, so isn't it the case

that if we negotiate under this agreement, we will either find ourselves trapped indefinitely in the backstop, because they are acting in good faith, or we will have to agree a customs union, contrary to our manifesto?” simply... isimply contrary to our manifesto?” ' a contrary to our manifesto?” simply... i simply say to contrary to our manifesto?” ' sa to my honourable friend, i really don't believe so. why not? because the commitments that are now cemented on alternative arrangements, which require a separate negotiating track, with a timetable to negotiate them, they are so now built in that, asi them, they are so now built in that, as i have said in my written opinion, it would be extraordinary if they declined to adopt any such measures. it would be extraordinary, soi measures. it would be extraordinary, so i don't accept that the backstop is the basis for any future arrangements, but let me say another

reason why it is not. because in the political declaration, in the political declaration, in the political declaration, in the political declaration, built into the political declaration is an independent... you cannot have an independent... you cannot have an independent free trade policy and have a customs union. secondly, built into it is no free movement. does the labour party support free movement? no! they speak with all sorts of voices, but the political declaration says no, you cannot belong to the single market without free movement. so i say to the honourable gentlemen, these fears, i understand where they come from, but we must be bold, and we must be courageous, and we must move forward for the sake of our country. hear, hear! anna soubry. mr speaker, can i too commend the attorney general for his work and his efforts? i believe he has acted in all good faith, and i also pay tribute to the prime minister, because there is no doubt she has done her best to try to

solve this problem and come back with something? but she simply has not been able to, as many of us had predicted. i am an old criminal barrister, mr speaker... laughter no, who said, lock up?! but in all seriousness, criminal barristers tend to speak in simple language, because we address juries, and would because we address juries, and would be attorney agree with this plain and simple assessment of the joint instrument, which indeed i have read, that it doesn't change the withdrawal agreement? it offers no new tree to obligations at a treaty level, and security also confirm that this is the end of the road, there are now no more negotiations with the eu, despite all the best effo rts with the eu, despite all the best efforts of himself and the government? i don't agree with the right honourable lady. this is an

instrument which will be deposited with the withdrawal agreement, that contains materially new obligations which are couched in the language of agreement. that represents an agreement. that represents an agreement between the parties, not only about the interpretation but also about specific operational commitments, so this has a standing equal to the withdrawal agreement. and it is, in my... in its material commitments, particularly relating to its obligations on operational character, i do not agree with her, i think that isn't right, you have to look at the substance, not the label. the right honourable lady may ask me this, our negotiations at an end? yes, ask me this, our negotiations at an end ? yes, they ask me this, our negotiations at an end? yes, they are, this is the moment of decision. we now have to ta ke moment of decision. we now have to take the fork in the road. and we are going to have to assume our responsibilities for it. can i

congratulate my right honourable and learned friend for his work and the splendid candour of his statement and comments this morning? and also, his colleague, the secretary forgetting alternative arrangements and an implementation date into the text. in the case however that despite the very best endeavours negotiations in the very best of faith, agreement is not reached by the end of december 2020, what can an independent, sovereign uk do if a decision is made at political level that the game is not with the capital? can the uk walk away? as my right honourable friend knows, if the parties, using their best endeavours, incomplete sincerity of cooperation and good faith, are

simply unable to agree anything, not even a few alternative arrangements, not even a partial agreement, because this of course can be a stand—alone agreement, the subsequent agreement referred to in the protocol, if in that circumstance it happens, then the united kingdom has no unilateral exit right to leave, unless there was a fundamental change of circumstance under article 62 of the vienna convention on the law of treaties, so my honourable friend knows that, but the question is, is it likely? what this deal has now done is place the burden on the union to negotiate those alternative arrangements — as a result of his work, in part. so i say to the right honourable gentleman, trust in himself, trust in the british people, trust in our ability to deliver a good deal. we can use the new contexts in this agreement, and

i believe we will secure a good deal for the northern irish border. stephen doughty. thank you, mr speaker. i thank the attorney for his candour and sticking to that integrity in terms of the advice provided, and it does line with lord anderson's advice, the backstop may accordingly endure indefinitely, and he says the interpretive declaration is not a legally binding, treaty level because overriding the text, but the attorney has repeatedly said this is about politics, not law, so can he tell us, did he at any point over the weekend of the prime minister preliminary advice that she would not be getting what she wanted in terms of the advice for the politics of today? i am afraid that the honourable gentleman will forgive me for saying that i am not permitted to, by the law offices convention, to say if i gave advice on what advice that would be. does

the attorney general agree with me that, in law and in life, it is indeed a very rare for any lawyer to give a 100% guarantee on how watertight a particular agreement might be, notwithstanding the fact that that lawyer may well have great confidence in that actual agreement? i entirely agree with my honourable friend with that, the law, you are not able to put something into a test tube, put it over a bunsen burner, if it turns green you have an answer. below is a question of judgment, and it is always blended, a lwa ys judgment, and it is always blended, always blended with political considerations or in a commercial considerations or in a commercial consideration and the preponderance that the two form a single judgment. it is my judgment, that the two form a single judgment. it is myjudgment, as the honourable lady knows, that this is a

calculated risk that we can now take, and! calculated risk that we can now take, and ifirmly believe calculated risk that we can now take, and i firmly believe that these new improvements make the risk more acceptable and more easy for this house to take. thank you, mr speaker. could i press him on the status of the joint instrument, because last night the minister for the cabinet office claimed that the joint instrument had equal status in law to the withdrawal agreement and that they both have the status of treaties under international law, and yet legal advice i have seen say that the joint instrument is not incorporated into the withdrawal agreement, not a protocol to the agreement, not a protocol to the agreement, and it is not a treaty in its own right, so can he clarify whether the minister for the cabinet office inadvertently misled the house last night? i would need to say, if i may come up what the honourable lady's quotation is in detail, but the position is that if you agree and put your name to a joint instrument of this kind, you are bound by it. you are bound by it

as to its interpretation, and if it ex presses as to its interpretation, and if it expresses agreement to specific operational commitments, as this one does, you are bound by it because it is an agreement that you will then carry out those specific commitments. it is an agreement, so we shouldn't get hung up on labels. the question is, what is it substance? it is binding. does my right honourable friend agree with me that article 31 of the vienna convention makes it perfectly clear that this protocol does have legal force, it is binding, and it is of equal status to the treaty? and does he also agree with me that there are substantial changes which have been delivered, legally binding changes, and that it is wrong to just read one paragraph of this legal advice, you have to read each paragraph of it? and can ijust finished a point, when it comes to... i am grateful! when it comes to paragraph... thank you very much! when it comes to

paragraph 17, he makes it very clear that this is a substantial change in the level of risk. i think i had better just say i the level of risk. i think i had betterjust say i agree with that one! thank you! chris bryant. the argument seems to hinge on this matter of highly unlikely, but i do not know whether it is reading of recent history, but it seems that everything i thought was highly unlikely five or six years ago has come to pass! and shouldn't we be worrying about what may be likely over the next few years? after all, many of the governments in europe may change, the european commission president will certainly change, and a saudi highly unlikely may indeed come to pass, and i have a sneaking memory of a conversation that he and i had once in the lobby when i asked him, wouldn't it be a good idea, about three years ago, wouldn't it bea about three years ago, wouldn't it be a good idea if he should become attorney general? he said, oh, no, thatis attorney general? he said, oh, no, that is highly unlikely!

laughter and so it was, under that particular prime minister, mr speaker! laughter i... iwas i... i was telling him the complete truth, as i am telling him it now! mr speaker, i have forgotten what the other question was... laughter i was so taken aback, a betrayal of robing room talk, that one! i am so taken aback by that question, i think i had better sit down. laughter mrjacob rees—mogg. laughter mrjacob rees-mogg. mr speaker, my right honourable friend, learned friend, has pointed out that much of what is being said is political as well as legal. could he therefore set out for the house what penalties there might fall upon this country ifa there might fall upon this country if a future parliament, which obviously cannot be bound, word to decide to resile from the commitments under the backstop? well, my honourable friend will know

that as an attorney general i simply couldn't give countenance to the idea that this country would break international legal obligations! but asi international legal obligations! but as i have pointed out to the house, there is a right for the united kingdom to do that, if fundamental circumstances change, interview of the united kingdom, then it would attempt to resolve the matter within thejoint committee, attempt to resolve the matter within the joint committee, it would attempt to resolve it politically, but if ultimately it is the sovereign right of this house at the british government of the time, it took the view that there was fundamental circumstances had indeed changed, that it has an undoubted legal right to withdraw from any treaty, so let's be clear about this — these kind of absolute interpretations, black letter text, a sovereign state has the right to withdraw if a treaty is no longer compatible with its fundamental interests or its fundamental circumstances, putting it a different way, have changed. so i

would say that, apart from that, of course this country code resile from its commitments. it would be unwise, and it would not be in the tradition of this country to do so, and in those circumstances it is perfectly true that the only remedy is that the union would have would be to ta ke the union would have would be to take countermeasures, and no doubt it would pollute the atmosphere for fruitful relationships between us, which is precisely why this country will never do it, and neither with the european union. kate hoey. i am not a lawyer, and millions of people watching today will not be lawyers, andi watching today will not be lawyers, and i defer to the advice, obviously, of the attorney general, but could you just tell people who are asking this question, why would the united kingdom, a sovereign country, we signed up to the european union, at least there was a way out of that through article 50, although it has taken a very long time — why would we sign up to

anything that does not allow us to simply say, this is not working, we are not going to sign up to this end we are leaving? we have made a solemn pledge to the people of ireland, both north and the republic of ireland, that the border will have a guarantee that it will never bea have a guarantee that it will never be a hard border. now, that... that required the united kingdom to say, in all normal circumstances, we will not depart from it. i repeat the point i made to the honourable gentleman who just ask the previous question — in a case of fundamental change of circumstance, which it is the sovereign right of this house and the government to determine ultimately, it could withdraw pursuant to customary international law. so it is not true to say that there is not ultimately the right of

this house and the government in the country of the time to exercise its discretion to do so in those circumstances. but in every other circumstance, what we were saying to the people of northern ireland is, we will ensure that your lives will be able to continue as they do now at that border. i say that was an act worthy of this house, worthy of the government, worthy of the british people, and one that is worthy of support. sir desmond swayne. he has just worthy of support. sir desmond swayne. he hasjust had to my honourable friend the member for north somerset that the united kingdom would never do that, so why did he raise that possibility of our withdrawing from a treaty under the vienna convention in the first place? no, no. what! no, no. what i said, i said to my honourable friend from north somerset is that we wouldn't do it in breach of the law. we are

permitted, in a case of a fundamental change of circumstances, to withdraw by the law. we would, if such a change of circumstances came about, either because of some fundamental political change in northern ireland, or some fundamental change of circumstances going to the essential basis of the agreement, then we would have the right to withdraw. but in all normal circumstances, all invisible and predictable circumstances, particularly while we are negotiating a subsequent agreement to the pace and accelerated timetable that this instrument now requires, we would not do so. it would be wrong to do so. wrong because it would be a breach of our obligations, wrong because this is a law—abiding country. obligations, wrong because this is a law-abiding country. the attorney general said that it is highly unlikely the best endeavours that they cannot reach an agreement. but they cannot reach an agreement. but the last four months, the government

has been in brussels trying