YouSaid · the spoken record
Geoffrey Cox
Lines from Political Thinking with Nick Robinson have been withdrawn from this page while we check who is speaking. See the correction.
On the record 2005–2026
hansard
This is everything the corpus holds for Geoffrey Cox. It is not everything they have said on the record.
Every line below is reproduced as it was said and credited to the record it came from, and links to that record wherever it can be linked. Nothing here is summarised or generated. Directory · Search · Corrections
“What I can undertake to my right hon. Friend is that there will be no Prorogation that does not comply with the terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court.”
House of Commons25 September 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“What I am considering is the public interest, and whether or not there are factors in this case connected closely with the public interest generally that should outweigh the Law Officers’ convention and lead to disclosure, but that is not only my decision. I am in the position, in a rough and approximate way, between a lawyer and his client, and I must ensure that there is proper consultation and proper reflection on what the public interest requires. That is what I have undertaken to the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West to do, and in due course I will make my mind up.”
House of Commons25 September 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It would, of course, be open to the House to decide to legislate otherwise, and no doubt that is one of the implications of this judgment that will have to be reflected upon in the coming months and years. I know that there was a widespread view that it was indeed a proceeding in Parliament, but the Supreme Court is as entitled to redefine, or at least to take a view of, its definition of the protection afforded by the Bill of Rights as it is to invent a new legal principle, as it did in this judgment.”
House of Commons25 September 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My hon. Friend asks whether this came as a surprise. Quite a lot about the judgment came as a surprise, but that particular part proceeded from a quite strict, narrow interpretation of the Bill of Rights on what was a proceeding. It was interpreted to apply the protection afforded by the Bill of Rights to the core and essential business of Parliament, and it was held by the Supreme Court that such a proceeding—namely, the execution of the Queen’s Commission in the Lords, in the presence of Mr Speaker and those who attended that proceeding—was not sufficiently close to its core and essential business to attract the protection of the Bill.”
House of Commons25 September 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Let me make it plain that I have never denied any member of the Cabinet any sight of any advice of mine. I am not certain who else asked for that advice and when, but I certainly have never denied it.”
House of Commons25 September 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Let me say to my right hon. Friend that the Supreme Court invoked the principle of parliamentary sovereignty and the convention of ministerial accountability to Parliament as a justification for making justiciable the decision to prorogue. That is what it was entitled to do, and it effectively amounts to converting a political convention into a legal rule. That, traditionally, was not thought to be possible; the Supreme Court has decided that it is, and I certainly do not in any way complain with its right to do so. I agree that Parliament has to determine the terms on which we leave, but this Parliament has declined three times to pass a withdrawal Act to which the Opposition had absolutely no objection. [ Interruption. ]”
House of Commons25 September 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We now have a wide number in this House setting their face against leaving at all. When this Government draw the only logical inference from that position, which is that we must leave therefore without any deal at all, they still sets their face, denying the electorate the chance of having their say in how this matter should be resolved. This Parliament is a dead Parliament. It should no longer sit. It has no moral right to sit on these green Benches, and whatever— [ Interruption. ]”
House of Commons25 September 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“They don’t like to hear it, Mr Speaker. They don’t like the truth. Twice they have been asked to let the electorate decide whether they should continue to sit in their seats, while they block 17.4 million people’s votes. This Parliament is a disgrace. Given the opportunity— [ Interruption. ] Since I am asked, let me tell them the truth. They could vote no confidence at any time, but they are too cowardly to give it a go. They could agree to a motion to allow this House to dissolve, but they are to cowardly to give it a go. This Parliament should have the courage to face the electorate, but it won’t, because so many of them are really all about preventing us from leaving the European Union at all. But the time is coming, Mr Speaker, when even these turkeys won’t be able to prevent Christmas.”
House of Commons25 September 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“If the right hon. Member for Delyn (David Hanson) is so confident that his electorate will consider that his moral right to sit here is so strong, why does he not submit it to them now? All we need—I offer this to the Labour Front Bench—is a one-line Bill, which we could put through with Mr Speaker’s help, to fix the date of a general election by a simple majority, and we could have the election. Why does he not tell his Front Bench to put his confidence in his constituents to the test?”
House of Commons25 September 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. In our constitution, when a Government can no longer govern because Parliament has withdrawn its assent, the moral and constitutional thing to do is to have the courage of your convictions, which this spineless gang on the Opposition Front Bench do not, and to table a motion of no confidence, but they have not got the guts to table that motion of no confidence because most of them do not want their own leader in power.”
House of Commons25 September 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In answer to the hon. Lady’s last point, I completely and firmly support the independence of our judiciary. In Scotland, in England, in Wales and in Northern Ireland we have one of the finest judiciaries in the world. The fact of the matter is that the Supreme Court gave its judgment, and its judgment must be respected, but that does not prevent robust criticism of the terms of that judgment, which will no doubt be subjected to that criticism—that is onside. What is not onside is the imputation of improper or inappropriate motives.”
House of Commons25 September 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I know that my right hon. Friend knows that, when it comes to the judges—though not to this shower on the Opposition Benches—I want to be, if I can, respectful and careful. It is important that we understand that these judges are protectors of all our freedoms and all our rights—”
House of Commons25 September 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I wonder if you, Mr Speaker, in a well-earned retirement, would like to give lessons to Front Benchers. It could be the beginnings of a new and very glorious—or even more glorious—career. I have now lost my thread entirely—”
House of Commons25 September 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am not sure I discerned a question in that marshmallow of rhetoric, but in so far as there was a question, there is an answer. If the hon. Gentleman thinks the Government should no longer be governing, he should tell his leader to bring a motion of no confidence this afternoon and to agree to a simple one-line statute that fixes the election by a simple majority. We would be delighted to meet the right hon. Gentleman wherever he chooses in front of the electorate, who will judge whether the machinations he supports and the devices to which he resorts to make sure that this dead Parliament continues are right or wrong.”
House of Commons25 September 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I cannot comment on matters that are plainly covered not only by the convention but by legal professional privilege, but I say to my hon. Friend that the Government’s position was set out clearly in argument—if she followed it all, she will know it went on for a very long time—and the Supreme Court decided against it. We accept that position.”
House of Commons25 September 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the question. I cannot disclose what advice I gave. The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West, who first asked this urgent question, had that answer, and I am afraid I am going to have to keep giving it today. However, what I would say is that the Supreme Court did indeed, as it overtly and explicitly said, develop the law. It took what was a political convention—hitherto, in all the constitutional textbooks, described as unenforceable by a court—and decided that it would set a test and convert it into a legal principle and legal test. It was perfectly entitled to do that, just as this House will, in the coming months and years, have to reflect on the implications and on whether it is content to leave that position untouched.”
House of Commons25 September 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I simply cannot comment on matters that pertain to the internal preparation of cases, which are covered by legal professional privilege. It is simply not reasonable to ask people to do so, particularly when it relates to individuals. The hon. Gentleman should make no assumptions one way or the other from what I am saying. The fact is that cases are covered by privilege, and that must be respected.”
House of Commons25 September 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is a new principle of law, which has been found to exist by the Supreme Court, and where, hitherto, it has not been thought that a court could go. However, the Court is entitled to develop the common law, and that it has done. This does set a precedent; it is binding, unless this House, in due course, considers that it should take action to alter that position.”
House of Commons25 September 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I have a degree of sympathy with what the hon. Lady says. I think that, as we depart the European Union, there is ground for thinking again about our constitutional arrangements and how they should be ordered. I think that, in doing so, a widespread public consultation of the kind that she is describing would be essential, because any new constitutional arrangements would have to be sanctioned by the widest possible public support and assent, so I do have some sympathy. No doubt over the coming months and years, this will be a subject of important concern to the House.”
House of Commons25 September 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My right hon. Friend is asking me to look into a crystal ball. Far be it from me to fathom the inscrutable minds of their lordships in the Supreme Court as to why they chose not to dissent if they were minded to dissent, or to agree if they were minded not to agree.”
House of Commons25 September 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Well, if I may say to the hon. Gentleman, that is as I would expect from him, particularly in his new guise as an aspirant to even higher office—it is constructive, helpful, impartial and a model to us all.”
House of Commons25 September 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It happened again in 1948 and right up into the 1990s when it was said that a Parliament had been prorogued in order to avoid an embarrassing Select Committee inquiry. From now on, when a Prime Minister has to prorogue Parliament, he will have to look at all the Select Committees, see what inquiries they are doing and which Chairmen of which Select Committees might say in a mortally wounded and offended manner, “Why, to prorogue and not to allow my Select Committee to report is a matter of public importance, for which I will go to court and stop the Prorogation.” I do think that this test set by the Supreme Court invites quite a number of significant questions.”
House of Commons25 September 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As to my hon. Friend’s first question, I say that, plainly, if one re-examines the historical records, there is no doubt that there would have been some—possibly quite a few— Prorogations that, under this test, might have had difficulty in passing. For example, Ramsay MacDonald prorogued this Parliament in 1930 for some months, during the course of a minority Government, at a time when the great Wall Street Crash had happened in 1929 and when I have no doubt that some would have said that the House should sit to determine the onset of the great depression and debate those important matters, but the courts looked on—they looked on impassively—as that Labour Government decided to prorogue.”
House of Commons25 September 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“There are all kinds of reasons why, in judicial reviews, witness statements are not given in cases of this kind. I cannot discuss the internal counsels of the preparations of a legal case because, as I am sure the hon. Lady understands, they are covered by the wholly appropriate legal professional privilege.”
House of Commons25 September 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I understand my hon. Friend’s question and say to him, quite frankly, that I think it is a matter which this House may need to reflect upon in the coming months and years, depending on the status of our constitutional arrangements, as indicated by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). I do think that we are going to have to look again at our constitutional arrangements, and we should see if we can find some common ground. We need to have a proper consideration of these matters. As we leave the European Union, a great gap opens up, whereby we take away from legal integration all this European Union law, and we need to think about the implications. I therefore agree that there may very well need to be parliamentary scrutiny of judicial appointments in some manner.”
House of Commons25 September 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I will tell the right hon. Gentleman why: first, because it would be an insult to the millions of people who voted in the first referendum to have a second one before we had implemented the first. [ Interruption. ] That is what I think. I know that people disagree, but it is a legitimate point of view. Secondly, the question now of this House is whether the Government are going to be permitted to govern. If the Opposition do not wish to allow the Government to govern, the morally correct thing to do is to seek to have an election. What I object to here is that the Labour party and others have repeatedly sought to block that and to prevent the electorate from having its say, when this Parliament is as dead as dead can be.”
House of Commons25 September 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The same consequences that flow from any good-faith implementation of advice that, at the time, is perfectly respectable and tenable advice, as this was. The fact of the matter is that the Government’s position was that the Prorogation was lawful and it was constitutional. That was the advice that the Government had, it was the advice that they gave to those who asked them, and the Supreme Court has decided we are wrong. We accept that, as I have said. It was a tenable, reasonable and respectable point of view.”
House of Commons25 September 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“There is nothing in this judgment that applies directly to the question of our departure from the European Union. As the justices made clear, this was a decision solely on the lawfulness of the Prorogation.”
House of Commons25 September 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I cannot answer the last question, as the hon. Gentleman well knows, as Attorneys General have long maintained the convention that we cannot disclose either the fact or content of any advice. But I will deal with the first point. There is no question of this Government not obeying the law. There is a question as to precisely what obligations the law might require of the Government, but once those obligations are ascertained with clarity—and I am not saying that they are not clear; I am just saying that it is a legitimate consideration the Government must go through—the Government will obey them.”
House of Commons25 September 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The law in relation to the referendum is that it was not binding upon this Parliament. It was binding in every moral sense upon those who promised the British people that it would be implemented, but it was not binding as a matter of law.”
House of Commons25 September 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“No, I think that is a ridiculous assertion, in fact. The reality is that what we who believe in leaving the European Union have fought so long for is to return to the United Kingdom the power to chart its own course ungoverned by unelected or other institutions in the European Union. How we arrange our constitutional arrangements is a matter for us, and it should be a matter for us. It should be a matter for the democratic assent of all the people of the United Kingdom. So I do not believe for a moment that this Government or those on this side of the House are trying in any way to avoid that. What we are trying to do is make sure that those powers come back to the British people, where they should reside.”
House of Commons25 September 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Supreme Court judgment said that the Government got the law wrong. We have to accept that, but it is perfectly true that in doing so, it effectively invented or created a new legal principle which hitherto had been a political convention and defined that principle in a new legal test. It is crystal-ball gazing to know whether any court would decide to do that. It did, though the Court below, led by the Lord Chief Justice, concluded that it should not.”
House of Commons25 September 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I do not know—that is the answer to the question—but if the hon. Gentleman wants to know, he can put down a written question, or I am happy to write to him if he would like. I am very happy to disclose that in due course, once the costs are known. But I say to him that all those costs could have been saved if he had just voted for an election. We could have avoided these cascades of cash falling upon so many lawyers in so many jurisdictions by the simple act of him having the moral guts and not being chicken.”
House of Commons25 September 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I do not believe that it is taxable, but if my right hon. Friend will permit me, I would need to look into it, and if she wishes, I will certainly write to her on the subject.”
House of Commons25 September 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“They are not just my long-standing views, as I know the hon. Lady will accept; they are the long-standing views of successive Attorneys General of all Governments over many, many years. As to her second question, I am not aware whether there is a leak inquiry, but these days, I am so used to the porousness of Government that, frankly, I use Cabinet to advertise whenever there is some particular cause that I want to espouse. The reality is that this Government and this Parliament are in a position where we need to go to the electorate, and I urge her to support that as soon as possible, because the only morally right thing to do is subject these debates to the public again.”
House of Commons25 September 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Nobody worked harder than I did to put through the withdrawal agreement that was put before this House. I—and she—worked hard to put this through. I have now reached a sad and heavy conclusion that this Parliament is no longer worth the candle and it should be gone, for any good it is doing.”
House of Commons25 September 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I assure my right hon. Friend that if I had not been driven to this language, I would never have used it. The fact is— [ Interruption. ] The fact of the matter is that the Opposition will not let the Government govern. They will not do what the Opposition should do in these circumstances, and that is to vote for an election. By any standards, the Government are in a minority. The Order Paper is being taken over from the Government again and again, with no doubt further attempts to come. That is the very definition of a Parliament that will not fulfil its responsibilities, either to let the Queen’s Government be conducted or to opt for a general election. That is why I call this a dead Parliament and I do so advisedly. My right hon. Friend knows that nobody worked harder than I did for compromise.”
House of Commons25 September 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I suggest that he asks me when he is back here, re-elected by his constituents, as no doubt he has confidence that he will be, and maybe I’ll give him an answer outside.”
House of Commons25 September 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Words fail me; they really do. The hon. Gentleman rises in the full force of his morality, having been elected for one party and sitting on the Benches opposite for another—and with the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), who did the chicken run, or the rat run, before him having said already that she thinks there should be a by-election when Members change their parties—and has the nerve to suggest that somehow I should have affected greater humility. I think he should be on his knees to his own constituents, begging their forgiveness for his betrayal. The fact of the matter is that the question is subject to the Law Officers’ convention as he knows, and I cannot answer him.”
House of Commons25 September 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In any situation where constitutional powers are pushed to their limits, strain is bound to be caused. I completely accept that we are in an unprecedented time, when constitutional limits are being pressed on all sides, in this House, by seizing control of Order Papers, by rejecting the opportunity for a general election, and by not letting the Government govern. These are factors that place huge strain upon our constitutional arrangements, and I agree with my hon. Friend that it would be good if we resumed calmer waters, which we no doubt will as I have every faith and confidence in the good sense of this country and, in the end, the good sense of this House to be able to come to a solution. That solution must be, I believe, a general election.”
House of Commons25 September 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In advocacy terms, that is what we used to call a “When did you stop beating your wife?” question. I do not accept the premise of the question. There is no question that the Supreme Court found in any way that any advice that had been given was consciously or knowingly misleading.”
House of Commons25 September 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I could not agree more with my right hon. Friend. The time has come. The fact is that this Parliament has no further point. There is no possibility of our governing while this Parliament continues to block everything we do.”
House of Commons25 September 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“If I were to answer that question—tempting though it is, particularly from the hon. Lady, who is also a friend—I would be transgressing the Law Officers’ convention, because I would be telling her what advice I had or had not given. But if she is asking, “Did it occur to me?”, my answer is that of course it did. Any barrister who enters into litigation without it occurring to him that he might lose is a bit of a nit, isn’t he? Of course it occurred to me that we might lose; it would be ridiculous for it not to occur to me.”
House of Commons25 September 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I completely agree with my hon. Friend, who has put his finger right on it. This continuing artificial prolongation of this dead Parliament is undermining people’s confidence —[Interruption.] I know why Opposition Members are not doing it; they know they will not survive, but they have to have the courage of their convictions, get on it, and put it to the country.”
House of Commons25 September 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That is, of course, one function of a court’s role, but a court is perfectly entitled to develop the common law. I do not think there can be any doubt that that is what happened in this case.”
House of Commons25 September 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“May I place on the record, Mr Speaker, my endorsement entirely for your expression of gratitude to the staff of the House? They do an extraordinarily great job. We are deeply grateful to them for that and for the speed with which they have been able to facilitate the resumption of Parliament.”
House of Commons25 September 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The hon. Lady will know that I cannot disclose whether I gave advice or the content of any such advice. It is covered by the Law Officers convention. The question, “Was the advice shown?” presumes that there was advice. It simply contradicts the Law Officers convention. I wish I could answer her question, but I cannot.”
House of Commons25 September 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The hon. Gentleman really needs to listen more closely to what I say. The Supreme Court was perfectly entitled to reach the view it did. It did so by reasoned decision making and it was entirely within the scope of its jurisdiction, but there is no question but that in doing so it developed the common law. That is all I have said, and that is what courts often do.”
House of Commons25 September 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The arguments of the Government were set out in writing. The judgment of the Lord Chief Justice in the divisional court was brilliantly reasoned and was, in the Government’s view, entirely right, but the Supreme Court chose to disagree with it.”
House of Commons25 September 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The hon. Gentleman asks why Ministers might contest parts of the judgment. There is nothing wrong with the Government, the hon. Gentleman or any member of the public seeking to argue that parts of the judgment were either mistaken or poorly reasoned. I would not necessarily agree with that, but there is no harm in people doing it, because that is part of democratic debate. What is wrong, and what I deplore and urge all Members of this House not to do, is to impugn the motives of those who make the decisions. These are fine judges who reach their decisions impartially on what they think is the best view of the law. I have no doubt that that is what the Supreme Court did in this case. I am not going to go into all the areas of the judgment that are fragile or vulnerable to alternative arguments.”
House of Commons25 September 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗