A minister has been slapped down after saying "evidence, not dogma" should dictate the Government's approach to Brexit.

Downing Street said Phillip Lee had been spoken to by chief whip Julian Smith and "reminded it is better to express such views in private in future".

It came after the justice minister commented on a leaked Brexit analysis in a series of messages on Twitter.

Downing Street said Dr Lee was "speculating about provisional leaked documents and he was asked to keep that speculation private".

The disclosure of the document, obtained by BuzzFeed News, has dominated the political agenda in recent days and sparked calls for the full paper to be released.

Downing Street said on Wednesday it would not contest a vote forced by Labour to get the analysis published.

According to the leaked draft, Britain would be worse off under every Brexit scenario modelled, with the much-vaunted benefits of new trade deals predicted to add just 0.3% to GDP in the long term.

Speaking in the Commons on Tuesday, Brexit minister Steve Baker described the document as a "preliminary analysis" and said the reporting of it was a "selective interpretation".

He also cast doubt on the accuracy of economic forecasts generally, telling the Commons there is "huge uncertainty" around such work and "these analyses have proven to be wrong in the wake of the referendum".

Mr Baker made reference to his comments on Twitter on Wednesday, writing: </s> A minister who questioned whether Brexit should be halted after a secret Government analysis exposed the predicted economic damage has been silenced by Theresa May.

Phillip Lee was told to “air his views in private” after a meeting with the Conservative chief whip, but has escaped the sack, No 10 said.

The disciplinary action raised fresh questions about Brexit minister Steve Baker, who has not been censored despite suggesting civil servants had drawn up the analysis behind the backs of ministers.

We’ll tell you what’s true. You can form your own view. From 15p €0.18 $0.18 USD 0.27 a day, more exclusives, analysis and extras.

The Prime Minister’s spokesman was forced to deny that pro-EU civil servants were “working rogue” – insisting it was “entirely correct” for such studies to be prepared.

However, the spokesman said Mr Lee, a justice minister, should “recognise that the analysis was initial and not worth commenting on”.

“He has been spoken to by the chief whip and been reminded that it is best to air views in private,” he added.

In tweets last night, Dr Lee said he doubted whether Mrs May could “legitimately lead a country along a path that the evidence and rational consideration indicate would be damaging”.

The extraordinary intervention was an apparent response to Mr Baker’s statement to MPs that the analysis was worthless because forecasts drawn up by civil servants are “always wrong”.

Dr Lee posted: “The next phase of Brexit has to be all about the evidence. We can’t just dismiss this and move on. If there is evidence to the contrary, we need to see and consider that too.

“It’s time for evidence, not dogma, to show the way. We must act for our country’s best interests, not ideology & populism, or history will judge us harshly. Our country deserves no less.”

Inside Politics newsletter The latest news on Brexit, politics and beyond direct to your inbox Inside Politics newsletter The latest news on Brexit, politics and beyond direct to your inbox Enter your email address Continue Continue Please enter an email address Email address is invalid Fill out this field Email address is invalid Email already exists. Log in to update your newsletter preferences Register with your social account or click here to log in I would like to receive updates on politics every morning by email Update newsletter preferences

A leak of the analysis – which will now be published, after a Government cave-in – suggested a no-deal Brexit, leaving Britain trading with Europe on World Trade Organisation terms, would reduce growth by 8 per cent over 15 years.

Shape Created with Sketch. Brexit: the deciders Show all 8 left Created with Sketch. right Created with Sketch. Shape Created with Sketch. Brexit: the deciders 1/8 European Union's chief Brexit negotiator, Michel Barnier Getty 2/8 French President Emmanuel Macron Getty 3/8 German Chancellor Angela Merkel Reuters 4/8 Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker EPA 5/8 The European Parliament's chief Brexit negotiator Guy Verhofstadt Getty 6/8 Britain's Prime Minister Theresa May Getty Images 7/8 Britain's Chancellor of the Exchequer, Philip Hammond PA 8/8 After the first and second appointed Brexit secretaries resigned (David Davis and Dominic Raab respectively), Stephen Barclay is currently heading up the position PA 1/8 European Union's chief Brexit negotiator, Michel Barnier Getty 2/8 French President Emmanuel Macron Getty 3/8 German Chancellor Angela Merkel Reuters 4/8 Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker EPA 5/8 The European Parliament's chief Brexit negotiator Guy Verhofstadt Getty 6/8 Britain's Prime Minister Theresa May Getty Images 7/8 Britain's Chancellor of the Exchequer, Philip Hammond PA 8/8 After the first and second appointed Brexit secretaries resigned (David Davis and Dominic Raab respectively), Stephen Barclay is currently heading up the position PA

Leaving with a Canada-style free trade agreement would see growth cut by 5 per cent, while staying inside the single market would reduce growth by 2 per cent.

The document also warned that the gains from free trade deals with other big countries would fail to make up for the losses – a boost of just 0.2 per cent over 15 years from a deal with the US, for example.

Its leak has enraged Brexiteers, who accused the head of the civil service of conspiring with the Treasury to produce the devastating research without the knowledge of ministers in the Department for Exiting the European Union.

On Tuesday, Mr Baker told the Commons: “Even the ministerial team in my department has only just been consulted on this paper in recent days and we've made it clear it requires significant further work.

“It is a selective interpretation of a preliminary analysis. It is an attempt to undermine our exit from the European Union.”

The attack triggered a protest from the Whitehall trade union, which said it was an “insult” to dedicated professionals and suggested he should be sacked.

Asked why Mr Lee had been disciplined over his remarks but not the Brexit Minister, a spokesman said Mr Baker's comments were made in a statement to the Commons, while Mr Lee had been “speculating” on leaked documents. </s> A Tory minister was given a dressing down today, after breaking ranks to suggest Brexit should be stopped if evidence showed it would be “damaging.”

Justice Minister Philip Lee spoke out late last night, after a leaked Whitehall assessment showed every modelled outcome of Brexit would leave Britain worse off.

In a burst of Tweets, he warned "we can't just dismiss this and move on."

A senior Number 10 source said: "He has been spoken to by the chief whip and been reminded that it is best to air views in private."

But they said no further action will be taken and Dr Lee will not be sacked.

It came as the Tories were on the verge of backing down on their refusal to release the Whitehall Brexit assessment, which was leaked to the media on Monday night.

The document suggested economic growth would be reduced by at least 2% compared to current forecasts even if the UK maintained access to the single market.

If we crash out without a deal, the document suggested the reduction would be as much as 8%.

Writing on Twitter last night, Dr Lee warned: "The next phase of Brexit has to be all about the evidence. We can’t just dismiss this and move on. If there is evidence to the contrary, we need to see and consider that too.

"But if these figures turn out to be anywhere near right, there would be a serious question over whether a government could legitimately lead a country along a path that the evidence and rational consideration indicate would be damaging. This shows the PM's challenge."

He added: "The PM has been dealt some tough card s and I support her mission to make the best of them. It’s time for evidence, not dogma, to show the way.

"We must act for our country’s best interests, not ideology & populism, or history will judge us harshly. Our country deserves no less." </s> Lawmakers in the United Kingdom on Tuesday debated a motion alleging the government was acting in contempt of Parliament by failing to publish in full the legal advice it had received concerning on the ongoing Brexit negotiations.

Keir Starmer, the shadow Brexit secretary who represents the opposition Labour Party, has accused Geoffrey Cox, a Conservative Member of Parliament and current Attorney General, of failing to honor a House of Commons vote last month demanding that Prime Minister Theresa May's government publish, in full, the advice it received for its proposed agreement on the UK's withdrawal from the European Union. </s> The Government tonight caved to pressure to publish the full legal advice on the Brexit deal after suffering an historic and humiliating defeat.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

'That is contempt,' he said.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Cox had asked MPs to suppose the advice included details on relationships with foreign states and arguments that might be deployed in the future, noting: 'Would it be right for the Attorney General, regardless of the harm to the public interest, to divulge his opinion.

Mr Cox said it would be difficult to ensure information would be redacted, adding: 'I cannot take a step that I firmly and truly believe would be contrary to the public interest'.

He went on: 'I ask the House to understand that it is only that consideration that is motivating me and this Government in declining at this stage to break the convention that applies to both sides of the House when they are in government.

'There is nothing to see here.'

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

'That's my view as a former international lawyer, but it is consistent if not identical with all of the formal advice I received.' </s> Theresa May has been forced to publish the full legal advice on Brexit after MPs found her ministers in contempt of Parliament.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Parliament is set to begin debating the divorce deal agreed between the government and the European Union, before a vote on December 11. </s> • Downing Street has published the legal advice it was given on Theresa May’s Brexit deal by the government’s top law officer, Attorney General Geoffrey Cox.
• The government tried to prevent the full legal advice being published, and MPs found the government in contempt of parliament for refusing a demand to do so.
• Here’s everything you need to know about the legal advice the government tried to withhold.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He conceded that the UK would be indefinitely committed to EU customs rules if Brexit trade talks broke down, under the terms of the withdrawal agreement hammered out in Brussels by Theresa May. </s> Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption David Davis explains why he resigned

David Davis, who has been leading UK negotiations to leave the EU, has quit his role as Brexit Secretary

He told the BBC that he was no longer the best person to deliver the PM's Brexit plan - agreed by the cabinet on Friday - as he did not "believe" in it.

He said the "career-ending" decision was a personal one but he felt the UK was "giving away too much and too easily" to the EU in the negotiations.

Mrs May said she did not agree but thanked him for his work.

The resignation is a blow to Mrs May as she seeks to win over Eurosceptic MPs to her proposed Brexit vision, which would form the basis of the UK's position in on-going talks with the EU.

Dominic Raab, who campaigned for Leave during the UK's 2016 EU referendum, has been promoted from housing minister to take over from Mr Davis.

The UK is due to leave the European Union on 29 March 2019, but the two sides have yet to agree how trade will work between the UK and the EU afterwards.

There have been differences within the Conservative Party over how far the UK should prioritise the economy by compromising on issues such as leaving the remit of the European Court of Justice and ending free movement of people.

Mrs May's Conservative Party only has a majority in Parliament with the support in key votes of the 10 MPs from Northern Ireland's Democratic Unionist Party, so any split raises questions about whether her plan could survive a Commons vote - and has also led to renewed questions about whether she will face a challenge to her position.

Image copyright Crown Copyright Image caption Mr Davis said he told the PM at Chequers that he was the "odd man out" in objecting to the plans

In a sign of how delicately positioned the numbers are on Brexit strategy it has emerged that the government has taken the unusual step of arranging a briefing for opposition Labour MPs on the detail of the Brexit plan agreed on Friday.

In his resignation letter, Mr Davis told Mrs May that "the current trend of policy and tactics" was making it "look less and less likely" that the UK would leave the customs union and single market.

He said he was "unpersuaded" that the government's negotiating approach "will not just lead to further demands for concessions" from Brussels.

Mr Davis, who was appointed Brexit Secretary in 2016, said: "The general direction of policy will leave us in at best a weak negotiating position, and possibly an inescapable one."

In her reply, Mrs May said: "I do not agree with your characterisation of the policy we agreed at cabinet on Friday."

She said she was "sorry" he was leaving but would "like to thank you warmly for everything you have done... to shape our departure from the EU".

Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption In full: Davis interview with Kuenssberg

Mr Davis told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that he had objected to Theresa May's plan at the Chequers meeting, telling cabinet colleagues at the outset that he was "the odd man out".

He said it was "not tenable" for him to stay in post and try to persuade Tory MPs to back the policy when he did not think it was "workable".

"The best person to do this is someone who really believes in it, not me."

He said he feared the EU would seek to further water down the UK's plans and his resignation would make it easier for the UK to resist attempts to extract further concessions.

Mr Davis told BBC political editor Laura Kuenssberg that he had been compromising for two years and that the latest plan was "a compromise too far".

But Mr Davis insisted he continued to back Theresa May, saying that if he "wanted to bring her down", the time would have been after she failed to win last year's general election outright.

A leadership contest now would be "the wrong thing to do", adding: "I won't throw my hat into the ring."

Eurosceptic MP Steve Baker has also resigned. He played a leading role in the Brexit campaign in the run up to the 2016 referendum. He was promoted to the Department for Exiting the EU as a parliamentary under-secretary in June last year.

Conservative MP Peter Bone hailed Mr Davis's resignation as a "principled and brave decision", adding: "The PM's proposals for a Brexit in name only are not acceptable."

Labour Party chairman Ian Lavery said: "This is absolute chaos and Theresa May has no authority left."

'No choice but resignation'

By BBC political editor Laura Kuenssberg

After many months of rumours that he would pull the plug, David Davis has actually quit as Brexit Secretary.

His unhappiness in government has been no secret for some time, but after the prime minister's Chequers agreement with cabinet ministers to pursue closer ties with the EU than he desired, he found his position untenable.

After a visit to Downing Street on Sunday he concluded that he had no choice but to walk.

The move, while not completely surprising, throws doubt on to how secure the government's Brexit strategy is.

Read Laura's full blog here

Mrs May is due to address MPs on Monday afternoon and is expected to tell MPs that the strategy agreed by the cabinet at Chequers on Friday is the "right Brexit" for Britain.

Brexiteer MP Jacob Rees-Mogg said it would be "very difficult" for Mrs May's plans to win the backing of MPs without Mr Davis.

He told BBC 5 Live: "These proposals will have to come to the House of Commons in legislation and the question is 'will they command support from Conservative MPs?'

"And I think without David Davis there, without his imprimatur, it will be very difficult for them to get the support of Conservative MPs and therefore the prime minister would be well advised to reconsider them."

BBC political editor Laura Kuenssberg said she understands Mr Davis was "furious" after a meeting at No 10 earlier on Sunday and "concluded he could not stay in post".

The resignation came as people awaited the verdicts of senior figures from the Brexit side of the 2016 referendum. There has yet been no on the record comment from Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson, while Environment Secretary Michael Gove told the BBC on Sunday he was urging Tory MPs to support Mrs May.

Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption 'Be generous or we'll walk away' - Gove's warning to EU

One of the leading pro-Remain Conservative MPs Anna Soubry did not refer directly to Mr Davis's resignation, but tweeted it was "not the time for egos, grandstanding and blind ideology".

The director-general of the CBI, Carolyn Fairbairn, said the resignation was "a blow", adding that business had welcomed the agreement of ministers on Friday.

Meanwhile, some Remain-supporting politicians said the resignation was evidence of the need for a second referendum.

Lord Adonis, a prominent backer of a second vote, tweeted: "People's Vote to put Brexit out of its misery a big step closer after DD's resignation. Now the Brexiteers holding Mrs May hostage are falling out, there isn't a majority for any withdrawal treaty in Parliament."

The Liberal Democrats called on people to sign a petition for a vote on the proposed deal, adding: "The resignation of David Davis is yet more evidence of the chaos of this Tory Brexit. You deserve the final say".

Nigel Farage congratulated Mr Davis for quitting and called for Mrs May to be replaced as prime minister, accusing her of being "duplicitous" and claiming her response "shows she is controlled by the civil service".
Prime Minister Theresa May orders Phillip Lee, a Justice minister, to "air his views in private" after he suggested that Brexit planning should be based on evidence rather than dogma.