Brexit debate: Why are MPs in the House of Commons talking about codpieces?

‘Cox’s codpiece’ has entered the Brexit dictionary. Political editor Joe Watts explain why

Geoffrey Cox has found himself in the growing dictionary of Brexitisms (AFP/Getty)

There was a bizarre moment in the Commons on Thursday when MPs appeared more concerned with an item of Tudor attire that covered a man’s dignity, than they were with governing the country.

The codpiece, as modelled by Henry VIII in almost any portrait, is a sort of upturned pouch designed to shield and also draw attention to a gentleman’s crotch.

But the word’s vague similarity to attorney general Geoffrey Cox’s surname and to a particular legal device, means it has now entered the growing dictionary of Brexitisms that afflicts our news copy.

Phrases such as “the Malthouse compromise”, “the Brady amendment”, “Canada plus, plus, plus”, “Maximum Facilitation”, “Max Fac 2”, “the backstop” and “the backstop to the backstop” will now be joined by “Cox’s codpiece”.

It manifested out of Cox’s efforts to secure a new addition to Theresa May’s withdrawal agreement – he wants to use a legal instrument to create a legally binding way for the UK government to say it wants Britain to leave the dreaded “backstop” (an arrangement the UK could otherwise be trapped in indefinitely if it fails to secure a future trade deal with the EU by 2020).

But the device he is seeking to use is in legal circles called a codicil – which no-one really knew how to say beyond a courtroom until this month – and so it was replaced with “codpiece”.

The phrase finally sealed its place in the Brexit dictionary when the man himself told MPs on Thursday: “It is government policy to achieve the necessary change in the backstop

“That is government policy, that is the subject of the discussions that we are having. I would say that it has come to be called ‘Cox’s codpiece’. What I am concerned to ensure is that what is inside the codpiece is in full working order.”

A canny way for the attorney general to avoid answering what had actually been quite a difficult question on the government’s approach.

The problem for Mr Cox is that as far as anyone can tell at this point, it does not look like his negotiations to secure a codicil or an addendum or an annexe or anything else to the agreement are going anywhere.

The EU – which is adamant that the backstop in its current form should remain untouched – said that there is no solution to the impasse in sight.

If Cox cannot achieve an adequate change, the government will not get the support of Tory MPs and the DUP, and the government’s deal falls.

The irony maybe that, given the intransigence in Brussels, whatever the attorney general does come back with in a bid to convince Tory Eurosceptics, may represent an altogether different item of biblical attire. The fig leaf.

Got an unanswered question about Brexit? Send it to editor@independent.co.uk and we’ll do our best to supply an answer in our Brexit Explained series