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Lines from Political Thinking with Nick Robinson have been withdrawn from this page while we check who is speaking.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
“That will give us the opportunity to give certainty to the country and allow the process of reconsideration of the political declaration to take place.”
House of Commons29 March 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Gentleman’s prescription would have us do is take a chance on the good will of the 27 member states of the European Union granting us another extension. The withdrawal agreement—everyone knows; the right hon. Gentleman knows—is an essential prerequisite for our departure from the European Union. That may be why he does not want to vote for it. The official Labour position is that it does not disagree or object to a clause or article of the withdrawal agreement. The country looking on must judge this. The Opposition do not object; they have not emitted a peep of disagreement with a single clause or article of that agreement, and their position today is that they intend to vote it down. What kind of cynicism is that? The opportunity now is for us to embrace the certain legal right of an extension to 22 May.”
House of Commons29 March 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I understand the right hon. Gentleman’s point. I say straightaway that the answer is that this is the only right we have to an extension. If we move into next week without securing it, we take the chance that among those 27 leaders there will be vetoes. The right hon. Gentleman asks me about European parliamentary elections. Plainly, the stated position of the European Union is that we would have to organise and stand in those elections if we went beyond 23 May. Some lawyers, of course, disagree with that stated position and say that it would not be necessary, but that is the stated position of the Union. The point, however, is that we have the opportunity here to embrace certainty. What the right hon.”
House of Commons29 March 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My right hon. and learned Friend is a very distinguished and able lawyer, but I never knew that he had a crystal ball. The fact of the matter is that the European Union has not agreed to grant any longer extension. It will be subject to the veto of any of the 27, and it would certainly be subject to clear signs in the House that there was a stable majority for an alternative solution, and a stable way to deliver it.”
House of Commons29 March 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I must make progress, but I will give way, particularly to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). The reason for the motion today, and for the form of the motion, is that it enables the House to secure this legal right. It is the case that the Government make that the agreement is required in any event. Members on the other side do not dispute the requirement for the agreement to be passed, so we invite the House to secure the certainty of the extension; to continue the process of the political declaration reconsiderations; to enable us, by 22 May, to ratify the domestic implementing legislation; and to conclude discussions on the political declaration.”
House of Commons29 March 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“There will certainly have to be a Bill. There will have to be a process of ratification in the House, which is why, if it votes for the withdrawal agreement today, it would be surprising if it did not vote to implement the withdrawal agreement. This is the step that we need to take.”
House of Commons29 March 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Plainly, that would be open to the House to do. The problem is that we would have lost the legal right to the extension, so we would apply to the discretion of the Union for it to be granted. Let me come back to the political declaration, because it is important that I should say a few more words about it. The process that is—”
House of Commons29 March 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell)—in connection with the next stage of the political declaration and its negotiation with the European Union is that there will be new mechanisms and new procedures so that the House can be properly consulted and have a role in the manner in which the political declaration, once it is finalised in the House, will be negotiated in that second stage. I can say to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central—I shall give way to him in a moment—that the Government would have accepted the amendments that he tabled, with others standing in his name.”
House of Commons29 March 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), but let me complete my remarks on the political declaration. The process is being undergone by the House at the moment. The Government recognise that process and will in due course make decisions on how and if we can implement anything that might emerge from that. The whole point of the political declaration is that it cannot be negotiated with the European Union now. What the Government are saying—and some amendments were tabled, I think, by the hon.”
House of Commons29 March 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We would have accepted the hon. Gentleman’s amendments. Clearly, in terms of the detailed working out of those amendments, in discussion—[Hon. Members: “Ah!”]. No, no, no—hon. Members can table an amendment. If it requires amendment to that legislation, we would obviously consider the detail carefully, but we would be minded to accept such.”
House of Commons29 March 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“What I can say to my hon. Friend is that we would certainly give it very careful consideration. We have taken the view up till now that, before the withdrawal agreement is approved, it is premature to publish the Bill. There are certain elements of it that still remain to be finalised. However, as I have said to my hon. Friend privately, the moment we are in a position to publish it, he, as Chairman of the Committee, will be among the first to see it.”
House of Commons29 March 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“No other extension is guaranteed; every other extension would require European parliamentary elections, as the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) said. We are therefore at an important crossroads for the purposes of this nation’s future and its history, and I urge all Members of his House to embrace this opportunity now, when this withdrawal agreement, in its substance, is in no way objectionable to any Member willing to consider moving forward with it. In those circumstances, what conceivable point can there be now in not embracing this agreement, subject to further discussions on the political declaration? I urge the House to vote for this agreement.”
House of Commons29 March 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I must make some progress. I am very conscious that it is Friday and that we need to move forward as swiftly as we can. The House can take a single, decisive step today to afford certainty to the millions of people throughout this country who are waiting for it and to have a short—not prolonged—extension that will bring our exit from the European Union to 22 May. There will be no further uncertainty. The political declaration can be resolved in that time. The ratification of the Bill can proceed with any amendments that might be forthcoming in connection with the subsequent negotiating stage. I submit to the House the responsible thing. I ask the House to consider and reflect carefully, because what we have before us today is the legal right to extend.”
House of Commons29 March 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House how, compliant with the Speaker’s ruling, he would have brought a vote that fulfilled the conditions he has just set out?”
House of Commons29 March 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. May I say on the proposal the Government are making that when the House listens to the rationale behind it and hears the full context of it, I am sure the House will accept that it is not only perfectly lawful and perfectly sensible, but designed to give this House the opportunity of availing itself of a right that the European Union has given us to avail ourselves of an extension until 22 May. The view of the Government is simply that we could not let the time limit expire at 11 pm tomorrow without allowing this House the opportunity to avail itself of that right, and it is perfectly reasonable and perfectly lawful.”
House of Commons28 March 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I rise out of respect for the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn). This is clearly a matter that I shall address tomorrow morning in full. It requires serious consideration, as virtually everything the right hon. Gentleman says in this House is entitled to. I will address that point in full tomorrow.”
House of Commons28 March 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I rise out of respect to those asking questions about why the motion was late. I do apologise to the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz)—I was anxious to get it to her and to others as soon as I could—but I was particularly concerned that the motion should comply with your ruling, Mr Speaker. Therefore—I hope you will permit me to divulge this—as a result of some discussion with you, I am afraid that it was concluded only shortly before the time we came into the House. [ Interruption. ] Well, I cannot speak for that, but I say to the House that I am sorry it was late, but it was a matter that needed to comply with your important ruling, Mr Speaker.”
House of Commons28 March 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We can use the new contexts in this agreement, and I believe we will secure a good deal for the Northern Irish border.”
House of Commons12 March 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“A party cannot go on refusing something that requires a reasonable adjustment in its position.”
House of Commons12 March 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We can make the leverage of the backstop as powerful an argument for them not to remain in it as it is for us.”
House of Commons12 March 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Those commitments include establishing “immediately following the ratification of the Withdrawal Agreement, a negotiating track for replacing the customs and regulatory alignment in goods elements of the protocol with alternative arrangements.” If an agreement has not been concluded within one year of the UK’s withdrawal, efforts must be redoubled. [Laughter.]”
House of Commons12 March 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The instrument confirms that the European Union cannot pursue an objective of trying to trap the UK in the backstop indefinitely. It makes explicit that that would constitute bad faith, which would be the basis of a formal dispute before an arbitration tribunal. That means, ultimately, that the protocol could be suspended if the European Union continued to breach its obligations. The joint instrument also reflects the United Kingdom’s and the Union’s commitment to work to replace the backstop with alternative arrangements by December 2020, including as set out in the withdrawal agreement.”
House of Commons12 March 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Such an event, in my opinion, is highly unlikely to occur, and it is in the interests of both the United Kingdom and the European Union to agree a future relationship as quickly as possible. Let me make it clear, however, that were such a situation to occur, the legal risk, as I set it out in my letter of 13 November, remains unchanged. The question for the House is whether in the light of these improvements, as a political judgment, it should now enter into those arrangements. Let me move on to what the documents do achieve. As I set out in my opinion, the joint instrument puts the commitments in the letter from Presidents Tusk and Juncker of 14 January 2019 into a legally binding form, and provides, in addition, useful clarifications, amplifications of existing obligations, and some new obligations.”
House of Commons12 March 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Government laid three new documents reflecting those changes in the House: first, a joint legally binding instrument on the withdrawal agreement and the protocol on Northern Ireland; secondly, a unilateral declaration by the United Kingdom in relation to the operation of the Northern Ireland protocol; and thirdly, a joint statement to supplement the political declaration. The legal opinion I have provided to the House today focuses on the first two of those documents, which relate to the functioning of the backstop and the efforts of the parties that will be required to supersede it. Let me say frankly what, in my opinion, these documents do not do. They are not about a situation where, despite the parties properly fulfilling the duties of good faith and best endeavours, they cannot reach an agreement on a future relationship.”
House of Commons12 March 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement about my legal opinion on the joint instrument and unilateral declaration concerning the withdrawal agreement published last night. Last week, I confirmed I would publish my “legal opinion on any document that is produced and negotiated with the Union.” —[ Official Report , 7 March 2019; Vol. 655, c. 1112.] That has now been laid before the House. This statement summarises the instruments and my opinion of their legal effect. Last night in Strasbourg, the Prime Minister secured legally binding changes that strengthen and improve the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration.”
House of Commons12 March 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I have in this statement, and in the letter that I have published today, set out, frankly and candidly, my view of the legal effect of the new instruments that the Government have agreed with the Union. However, the matters of law affecting withdrawal can only inform what is essentially a political decision that each of us must make. This is a question not of the lawfulness of the Government’s action but of the prudence, as a matter of policy and political judgment, of entering into an international agreement on the terms proposed.”
House of Commons12 March 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It records the United Kingdom’s position that, if it were not possible to conclude a subsequent agreement to replace the protocol because of a breach by the Union of its duty of good faith, it would be entitled to take measures to disapply the provisions of the protocol in accordance with the withdrawal agreement’s dispute resolution procedures and article 20, to which I have referred. There is no doubt, in my view, that the clarifications and amplified obligations contained in the joint statement and the unilateral declaration provide a substantive and binding reinforcement of the legal rights available to the UK in the event that the Union were to fail in its duties of good faith and best endeavours.”
House of Commons12 March 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In my view, as a matter of law, the provisions relating to the timing of the efforts to be made in resolving withdrawal agreements make time of the essence in the negotiation of a subsequent agreement. A doctrine with which the lawyers in the House will be familiar is of legal relevance. In my opinion, the provisions of the joint instrument extend beyond mere interpretation of the withdrawal agreement, and represent materially new legal obligations and commitments which enhance its existing terms. Let me now turn to the unilateral declaration.”
House of Commons12 March 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The question now is: do we assume our responsibilities as a House and allow not only this country—yearning as it is for us to move on—but the entire continent of Europe to move on? To do that, the time has come now to vote for this deal.”
House of Commons12 March 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“There is now a heavy emphasis upon a swift and expedited track to negotiate them, and it would be unconscionable if, having made that emphasis and having said that time was of the essence, the European Union simply refused to consider or adopt reasonable proposals relating to alternative arrangements. That is new. What this document does is address the risk that we could be kept in the backstop by the bad faith and deliberate manipulation of the Union. This makes significant reductions in that risk. I say to the hon. Gentleman that it would be a good thing if we could hear from the Labour party just occasionally not only political shenanigans but some sincere engagement with the real issues that this withdrawal agreement now raises.”
House of Commons12 March 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The hon. Gentleman asks me about my opinion. He knows that my opinion is that there is no ultimate unilateral right out of this arrangement. The risk of that continues, but the question is whether it is a likelihood, politically. One thing that we did not hear from him is what the Labour party’s position is on the backstop. Does they accept the backstop? Do they think it is a good thing? If they think it is a good thing, why on earth are they criticising it? Or is this just the usual political opportunism that one expects to hear from the Front Bench of the Labour party? The hon. Gentleman says to me that there is nothing new in this agreement, but that is not so, and some of the authorities that he has quoted are saying that this morning. There are material new obligations—for example, in relation to alternative arrangements.”
House of Commons12 March 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“There is a new obligation that has not existed before in any document that the Union has agreed to, which is that it must aim to do this within 12 months of our withdrawal. That is an important obligation, because it makes time of the essence. If that deadline is passed, as in any legal jurisprudence on such matters relating in a domestic context to breach of contract, for example, that means that the parties must demonstrate that they are intensifying their efforts. If they do not, they could be in breach of their best endeavours obligation.”
House of Commons12 March 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My right hon. Friend has got paragraph 16 wrong, if I may respectfully say so. What it says was that I advised in the past that that was so. What I now consider, at paragraph 17, is: “that the legally binding provisions of the Joint Instrument and the content of the Unilateral Declaration reduce the risk” that we would be held involuntarily and by the bad faith. Why? Because these new provisions make it easier to facilitate an effective claim to the arbitrator that that conduct is being exhibited. Those are cumulative. If one looks at the agreement as a whole, one sees that the obligations on the Union are to treat with urgency the negotiation of alternative arrangements.”
House of Commons12 March 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“If that suspension was prolonged, we could invoke article 20 to argue that it was no longer necessary because the inaction of the European Union demonstrated that it must think that it was no longer necessary, and that could lead to termination. It is therefore not entirely true to say that there is no way in which the provisions could be terminated. I say to the hon. and learned Lady that suspension, in these circumstances, is as effective as termination, because the only way in which the EU could restore the position would be for it to come back to the negotiating table with genuinely new proposals.”
House of Commons12 March 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“and learned Lady does no justice to the fact that these measures and improvements do facilitate, and mean that there is a reduction of risk in, our being able to prove and demonstrate bad faith or want of best endeavours. She says that we could not terminate, but there is in fact in my opinion a clear pathway to termination. As the hon. and learned Lady knows, I wrote in my opinion that if in the circumstance that we got a declaration from the arbitral tribunal that there had been a lack of best endeavours, having regard to the accelerated pace of negotiation which this new agreement now imposes, we could then move to suspend our obligations, if we wished to do so, under the protocol.”
House of Commons12 March 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“What I hope will not be lost on my hon. and right hon. Friends is why the hon. and learned Lady is insisting and pressing upon them the facts and matters that she has just been drawing to their attention. It could be, I wonder, that there is some ulterior motive in her concern about the absence of a unilateral exit mechanism in all circumstances. Turning to the opinion of Lord Anderson, who is always worthy of the most careful attention and the greatest of respect—as anybody of his distinction should be listened to—I take issue with some of his comments. For example—my opinion sets this out and other lawyers are commenting to that effect this morning—the hon.”
House of Commons12 March 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I do not agree with my right hon. and learned Friend, although I listen most carefully to him, as ever. The best endeavours duty was in the withdrawal agreement originally, but what this does is to firm and strengthen the context in which an allegation of best endeavours or bad faith would be made, because it sets an accelerated pace and commits—I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend has looked or will look at this—the EU to specific operational commitments about how to deliver that obligation. Those are new agreements, and they are couched in the language of agreement. He knows, as a very distinguished lawyer, that one cannot always trust the label; one has to look at the substance.”
House of Commons12 March 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I quite agree with him, as I very much doubt we would ever get to an arbitral tribunal, because what these duties, new clarifications and amplifications do is set the framework for people’s conduct within the negotiation. It is about the impact on their behaviour and conduct. Very rare is the case in which one would get to an arbitral tribunal. What matters is the framework of obligations and responsibilities, and those have materially tightened on the European Union.”
House of Commons12 March 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Of course I can confirm all those things, which are self-evident in the agreement. May I just point out to the right hon. Gentleman that although I am sure it is a clever forensic point, the circumstance in which a point of European Union law would arise in connection with the best endeavours and bad faith clauses is difficult to envisage? The reality is that it is a straightforward question of fact: is the European Union moving with the urgency and pace, to the procedural timetables and according to the procedural steps that this agreement now enforces? The right hon. Gentleman is an honest politician, and he cannot look these things in the face and say that they mean nothing. These are important amplifications and clarifications of the duty of best endeavours.”
House of Commons12 March 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In the last line of my advice, I say there can be no lawful exit unless there is a fundamental change of circumstance. It is extremely important to remember that there is always a right to terminate a treaty unilaterally if circumstances fundamentally change. There is no question but that we have a right to exit if those circumstances apply.”
House of Commons12 March 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I do not agree. My hon. Friend knows we have a difference of opinion, and I hope that he will move towards my position. I still hope that might be so, and I say that because one has to look at the mutual incentives and disincentives for both parties to stay in the arrangement. I made this point in December and, for the reasons I advanced in December and in my November opinion, the incentives or disincentives for the European Union are as profound, if not greater, to get us out of the backstop than to keep us in it. That is what I firmly believe. He may disagree, but that is what I 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.”
House of Commons12 March 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The right hon. Gentleman seeks to give with one hand and take with the other. With the greatest of diffidence and respect, he is not quite right. The unilateral declaration is not incompatible with international law. It reserves the United Kingdom’s right to take all measures available to it in circumstances where the talks have broken down as a result of a breach of article 5, which is the good faith duty. It reinforces and further stresses the United Kingdom’s right to take measures to withdraw from the arrangements if there is a breach of good faith.”
House of Commons12 March 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“No unilateral declaration is worth the paper it is written on if it is objected to. My understanding is that it is not objected to and that it will be deposited alongside the withdrawal agreement and, therefore, will carry legal weight under article 31 of the Vienna convention.”
House of Commons12 March 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Even if these facilitative technological and customs measures were adverse to the EU’s interests, the duty still requires it to consider them. Therefore if there were 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 faith. I say to the right hon. Gentleman with all candour that I believe that, and he knows I would not say it if I did not mean it. It is there in my written opinion, and I urge him to consider it.”
House of Commons12 March 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Gentleman will have it—if having said to this country that it 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, and if having set up a timeline for negotiating those alternative arrangements by saying “12 months, or we must intensify our efforts,” it never agreed to use a single one, and if it refused every proposal reasonably adjusted to its core interests. That would be extraordinary. I say in my written opinion, and I stand by it, that it would be a potential breach of best endeavours and good faith. Best endeavours are now defined in this joint instrument as requiring the EU to consider adverse interests and matters that are adverse to its interests.”
House of Commons12 March 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his question, which I will deal with point by point. First, my opinion has changed in connection to this country’s ability to prove bad faith if it occurred. There is now a new contextual framework for judging whether the other party is using best endeavours or good faith. Time has been made of the essence in specific connection to negotiating alternative arrangements. A specific work track and a specific timetable are set out, and it would be unconscionable, as I say in my opinion—I forget the paragraph, but the right hon.”
House of Commons12 March 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“If it occurs through bad faith, we have further improvements in the deal now. But just because we cannot reach agreement, when the alternative arrangements are now cemented into this deal in a manner they have not been before? I think not, in all candour.”
House of Commons12 March 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I entirely agree with my hon. Friend; the legal ingredient in any political question must be subordinate, and particularly in connection with this political question. 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 we do not determine our behaviour by them. We take practical judgments every minute of the day, every day of the week about whether the legal risks we are engaged in are ones that are worth taking. I say to my hon. Friends, as I say to all hon. Members, that we must come to a decision on this question today. I urge the House to consider carefully this: there is no real legal basis to be seriously troubled that the European Union will never reach agreement with us.”
House of Commons12 March 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I know that the hon. Lady knows that I have not attempted to say something —[Interruption.] Of course there has been no amending of the treaty, but there has been a supplementary agreement that amplifies, extends and deepens the obligations within it.”
House of Commons12 March 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The hon. Lady can shake her head, but she has to look at the wording—at the text. If I have got something wrong, she will no doubt tell me, but the fact is that there are materially new obligations here in relation to the pace and timetable, and in relation to binding legal commitments on alternative arrangements. These set the context against which and within which the duties in respect of bad faith and best endeavours will be measured. That is a significant difference to the deal.”
House of Commons12 March 2019Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗