argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Brexit Readiness and Operation Yellowhammer — House of Lords, 2019-09-25
Topic: Foreign Trade
Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, the equivocal position of the Minister on standards, which he laid out this afternoon, is in direct contrast with resolutions of this House when we amended the Trade Bill with regards to standards. That Trade Bill is no longer a casualty of the illegal Prorogation, so will the Minister commit that the Bill, and the amendments of this House, will now be heard by the other place so that we are able to resolve this issue? During that Bill, we looked at what were then emergency measures for the Northern Ireland border and a tariff regime published in March. After the horror of the security and intelligence services of Northern Ireland, and business sectors, at the emergency tariff regime, the Government said that it was merely a consultation. We have had no further information about the results of that so-called consultation. Businesses across this country—in Northern Ireland and the UK—need this information, so when will the Government publish it?
Update to Parliament — House of Lords, 2019-09-25
Topic: Government Operations
Menzies Campbell (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, my initial indignation about the Statement has been replaced rather by disappointment. Let me begin by saying that I have very great sympathy with the Leader of the House having to repeat this. It is a Statement that is vacuous; it lacks contrition or substance; and it fails, in my view, to make the kind of public apology to Her Majesty the Queen that is necessary in circumstances where she has been drawn into the political arena—not helped, if I may say so, by some of the observations of a previous Prime Minister The Statement says that: "It is absolutely no disrespect to the judiciary", but that is the oldest form of weasel words. It goes on to say: "the court was wrong to pronounce on what is essentially a political question at a time of great national controversy", emphasising the belief that the court was wrong. Then we look at the next paragraph, which says: "So we have Opposition MPs who block and delay everything, running to the courts". What is that other than deliberately pejorative language, no doubt for the purpose in mind? To "block" is a pejorative word and "delay" even more Then we come to the least attractive feature of this Statement, which says that measures are delayed, "including legislation on the NHS", suggesting that those that who run to the courts obstruct the good practice and the expansion of the National Health Service. If ever there were a piece of sleight of hand, to put it mildly, it is contained in that. Even more so is, "and keeping violent criminals in jail" So those who went to court are to be blamed for adverse effects on the National Health Service and on keeping violent criminals in jail. That is why I am disappointed The Prime Minister had an opportunity to rise to the occasion, but he chose not to take it. I fear that that is precisely the judgment that not only Members of this House have formed, but which the public increasingly will form. It says a great deal about this Prime Minister—I will not rehearse his failures, as put so eloquently by my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace—that, at a time such as this, he is incapable of rising to the occasion I ask the Leader of the House one question: why did she feel it necessary to ask to see the legal advice about Prorogation? If Prorogation is a routine matter, as has been suggested, why was it necessary for her to be shown the legal advice that justified it? The inference that some might draw is that this was already accepted to be an unusual Prorogation.
Update to Parliament — House of Lords, 2019-09-25
Topic: Law and Crime
Anthony Robert Greaves (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, in my lifetime, from Mr Attlee to Mrs May, there have been, I think, 13 Prime Ministers before the present one. Would the Leader of the House like to hazard a guess as to how many of them would not have thought it necessary to tender their resignation in the face of such a shattering and astonishing decision against them by the Supreme Court? Secondly, I think she said that the Supreme Court had changed the law. I am not a lawyer but I watched a lot of the Supreme Court proceedings with fascination, as no doubt many other noble Lords did. The very clear impression I got was that the Supreme Court was not trying to change the law; it spent a lot of time trying to establish exactly what the law is and, having decided that, then had the decision to make as to whether or not it had been broken.
Spending Round 2019 — House of Lords, 2019-09-25
Topic: Government Operations
Anthony Robert Greaves (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): The Minister might like five seconds’ rest. He has not tackled the point I raised, which is that none of this new money—or extra money, if that is what it is—for local government appears to be coming to ordinary district councils and unitary councils for their ordinary local, street-level, neighbourhood services. In many places these are in a state of potential collapse.
Brexit: Preparations — House of Lords, 2019-10-08
Topic: International Affairs
Julie Smith (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, the Statement addresses the danger of dishonouring the referendum result, suggesting that 17.4 million people voted to end vast financial contributions to the EU and instead invest in people’s priorities, such as the NHS—I seem to remember that being on the side of a bus—and our brave police service. Fine, those investments would be great, but in light of the IFS’s suggestion today that a no-deal Brexit would lead to borrowing at levels not seen for 50 years and to our debt-to-GDP ratio rising to 90%, when will Her Majesty’s Government stop dancing to the tune of the Brexit Party, the Spartans and Mr Dominic Cummings, and acknowledge that the financial costs of Brexit, especially a no-deal Brexit, will outweigh any financial contributions that we have been making to the European Union?
Brexit: Preparations — House of Lords, 2019-10-08
Topic: Foreign Trade
Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): Page 29 of the Government’s paper shows that British exporters would see price increases on 60% of the UK’s exports to the EU. It says that these include increased prices of 65% for beef, 53% for lamb and 10% for cars. The Government must have estimated the total value extra of British exports regarding price increases. What are they for those businesses exporting to the EU?
Brexit: Preparations — House of Lords, 2019-10-08
Topic: Macroeconomics
Ian Wrigglesworth (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): Given the IFS estimate that the economy is smaller by £60 billion as a result of the Brexit process, can the Minister tell the 60% of the electorate who did not vote for Brexit how much this whole exercise has been costing the United Kingdom since the Conservative referendum?
Syria: Withdrawal of US Troops — House of Lords, 2019-10-08
Topic: International Affairs
Lindsay Granshaw (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for his reply. Will the UK raise this at the UN Security Council? In this incredibly dangerous situation, will the Government provide any assistance, if necessary, to the Syrian Democratic Forces to enable it to maintain security at the seven camps that hold ISIS fighters? What assessment have the Government made of the impact of any further Turkish invasion of north-east Syria on UK military operations against ISIS and the security of British humanitarian organisations in the region?
Syria: Withdrawal of US Troops — House of Lords, 2019-10-08
Topic: International Affairs
Julie Smith (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, asked what representations Her Majesty’s Government are making to the Turkish Government as well. Clearly, the United States has a sovereign right to withdraw its troops, but Turkey remains a NATO ally. Do we not have some leverage to talk to Turkish leaders to try to ensure that their actions against the Kurds do not lead to any further reprisals, going beyond what is happening in Syria in any case?
Customs Legislation and Amendments: Impact Analysis — House of Lords, 2019-10-08
Topic: Foreign Trade
Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for speaking to me before Questions; I welcome that courtesy In its impact assessment, HMRC itself suggests that many of its assessments are cautious. This is an impact assessment just on the export of goods to the EU for UK bureaucracy; the £15 billion a year is on UK bureaucracy. As indicated, it does not cover exports of services or the likely reduced revenue to the UK Treasury from those extra business costs. It does not include any estimate of the additional bureaucracy costs to the recipient market in the EU. All those must together be marginally more than £15 billion, but—even if it were just the cautious £15 billion—that is massively more than any estimate the Prime Minister has made of the financial benefit to the UK of leaving the European Union with no deal at all As we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, after being pressed by me and others, the Government are working on a package of assistance to benefit the agricultural sector and for the new tariff regime that we will put in place. Indeed, as the readiness report said, there will have to be mechanisms for off-setting new VAT procedures for services and new procedures for VAT processes on parcels—not included in the impact assessment. What are the mitigation measures and what is their value? What is the emergency package that would be necessary for the agricultural sector and small businesses? The Government have not published any information in global sums about what those mitigation factors might have to be. Finally, what is the global cost to British businesses of the increase in tariff prices, in addition to this bureaucracy that HMRC is indicating?
Northern Syria: Turkish Incursion — House of Lords, 2019-10-15
Topic: International Affairs
Lindsay Granshaw (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, this is indeed an extremely dangerous situation. Following on from the noble Lord, Lord Collins—I am also very pleased to see him back—the Statement says that the Minister’s right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary, "addressed the issue at the NATO Parliamentary Assembly on Saturday" However, although his speech mentioned various trouble spots around the world, I find absolutely no mention of Turkey’s incursion into Syria, or even of Syria itself. He makes reference to the, "relatively minor disputes between us" Did the Minister just talk about being "candid and clear"? Is the Statement not misleading on this very important matter?
Northern Syria: Turkish Incursion — House of Lords, 2019-10-15
Topic: International Affairs
Meral Hussein-Ece (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, according to reports I have read, the German Chancellor spoke directly to President Erdoğan, urging him to declare a ceasefire, as others European nations have done, to avoid any more terrible bloodshed and displacement. Have the British Government done the same?
Queen’s Speech — House of Lords, 2019-10-15
Topic: International Affairs
William John Lawrence Wallace (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, the Minister’s opening speech displayed a spirit of faith-based optimism worthy of Boris Johnson himself. In the hard light of the real world, after three and a half years of internal arguments within the Conservative Party and the right-wing media, Brexit negotiations are being crammed into the narrow gap between the end of the Conservative Party conference and the parliamentary deadline of 19 October. So far, we know only that any agreement reached would leave the UK in a looser relationship with the EU than Theresa May had proposed, and that in future Britain would be looking for other preferred international partners than the member states of the European Union I will focus on the pledges in the Queen’s Speech that the Government will continue to, "play a leading role in global affairs … be at the forefront of efforts to solve the most complex international security issues … champion global free trade and work alongside international partners", to which I add the Leader of the House’s declaration yesterday that the UK will be, "a strong and reliable neighbour";—[Official Report, 14/10/19; col. 19.] I am not sure to whom There is a central contradiction at the heart of the Government’s rhetoric about our place in the world after we leave the EU. Yes, the Prime Minister refers from time to time to "our European friends", but the mood music—which our continental neighbours hear loud and clear—is of hostility, in particular to Germany and France: that we are escaping from a new German empire; that British Europhiles are traitorously plotting with the French Government, or even the Belgians; and that we can be free only if we cut the multilateral ties we have negotiated with them for half a century. Last week Jacob Rees-Mogg again referred to the EU as the German empire—I say to the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, who is intervening from a sitting position—displaying as weak a grasp of European history as his recent book displayed of English history.
Queen’s Speech — House of Lords, 2019-10-15
Topic: International Affairs
William John Lawrence Wallace (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I do not recollect anyone saying that the UK was now its colony; I look forward to receiving chapter and verse. The European Union is a confederation of countries in which Britain, from the time that we joined, has played a major part, alongside its other major players. That is what we believe and that is what we wish Britain to continue to do Once we have escaped from our neighbours, the Prime Minister promises that we will rediscover ourselves as a more global Britain. But no one has defined what the phrase "global Britain" might mean. A lengthy Commons inquiry concluded last year that it had entirely failed to discover a plausible definition, including from the Foreign Office or from outsiders Seventy years ago, Winston Churchill, on whom the Prime Minister apparently models himself, redefined the foundation for Britain’s place in the world as resting on three pillars: our special relationship with the United States, our position in Europe and our role in what was then the Commonwealth and Empire. Ten years later, Harold Macmillan realised that we could maintain the special relationship with the United States only by embedding ourselves in the developing institutions of European co-operation and applied, with American pressure behind him, to join the European Economic Community. The right-wing lobby within the Conservative Party that bitterly opposed this shift was then called the League of Empire Loyalists—the European Research Group is its lineal descendant Macmillan recognised that the end of Empire would leave the Commonwealth a useful association but not a strategic partner. Harold Wilson, as his successor, withdrew British forces from their expensive deployments and bases east of Suez.
Queen’s Speech — House of Lords, 2019-10-15
Topic: International Affairs
Dick Taverne (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, I want to return to one of the most important decisions that we face in the near future about the future of Britain as a whole. It is the question of whether we should hold a new referendum. I want to stress how strong the arguments are in favour of doing so Brexiteers say that we are ignoring the people’s will but they seem to assume that the people’s will is the same now as it was in 2016—or will be by the time we hold a referendum. Since 2016, a lot of older people—who mainly voted leave—have died, and there will be a lot of new, young voters who will, on present evidence, mainly vote remain. Leaving aside those demographics, what matters is that we now know much more about what Brexit actually means. There have been a number of forecasts by independent bodies such as the IFS and by experts asked by the Government to assess what the future holds. These have produced strong evidence that we will be much poorer, especially after a no-deal Brexit I am aware that the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, says that experts are often wrong. I have a certain bias in favour of the IFS because I was its first director. I am proud of the fact that I nursed it in its early days and acted as midwife to the infant which has now grown into a formidable adult. However, there are other cases where people make forecasts and the evidence begins to support it; we should then take note of it. I differ profoundly from the noble Viscount, who is a sceptic about climate change. There is now plenty of evidence that climate change should be taken enormously seriously.
Queen’s Speech — House of Lords, 2019-10-15
Topic: International Affairs
Dick Taverne (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I quite agree. I have great admiration for the noble Viscount as a scientist; he has written some excellent books about science The evidence produced by the IFS and many others—that the future we face from a no-deal Brexit would be disastrous and that, in any event, Brexit means we would be much poorer—is dismissed by Brexiteers because any evidence that contradicts their beliefs is dismissed as more of Project Fear. Even if one disregards the forecasts of economists, it is hard to completely ignore the predictions of employers such as the car manufacturers, Airbus, the chemical industry, the pharmaceutical companies and massive numbers of small, and many large, service companies, that if there is Brexit they will move production from the United Kingdom. There are already signs of this. Many businesses have already incurred losses and face enormous costs because of the very prospect of Brexit Why do we also assume that most leavers just want out, and why do we pay so much attention to those who shout the loudest? People give very different reasons why they voted leave, and poll evidence is scarce. However, one significant poll of a massive sample was carried out by YouGov on the eve of the referendum. It found that one view was almost universally shared by leave voters: they saw no downside to Brexit. They nearly all believed that, once we had cast off the shackles of Brussels, we would emerge into the sunny uplands. I fear that the evidence from business is beginning to prove that the more gloomy forecasts are likely to be right. I believe that the forecast that we will be a poorer nation will influence a vital group of leave voters to change their minds That raises the question of whether a new referendum should precede a general election. This must surely be a no-brainer, especially for the Labour Party. The choice in the referendum this time must be a clear one; not like saying, "Brexit means Brexit". There may be some problems about the exact wording, but the obvious choice must be between Boris Johnson’s deal, if there is one—or a no-deal Brexit if there is not—and remain. How can this be clearly decided in a general election? Voters vote for different parties for a great variety of reasons; for some, Brexit may not be one of them at all. I remember the 1974 election, at the time of the three-day week and the miners’ strike. Heath said it would be about who governs Britain. It was, for a few days. Then people returned to the usual issues: the cost of living, jobs, and the NHS. In no way will, or can, a general election solve the Brexit problem. Indeed, in so far as it does feature, Labour may well suffer greatly if, as seems likely, its stance on Brexit is still uncertain. We seem to be moving towards a new referendum. It must precede, and not just be part of, the coming general election.
European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 6) Bill — House of Lords, 2019-09-05
Topic: International Affairs
Sarah Ludford (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, for introducing the Bill. As has been said, a broad coalition came together to support this short Bill, which is simple and has a narrow focus: to prevent a crash-out Brexit for which there is no mandate. As Hilary Benn MP said, preventing a no-deal Brexit is the central most important question facing the country. The new MP Jane Dodds, who made her maiden speech yesterday, gave an illustration of what would happen to sheep farmers in her constituency I pay tribute to the responsible senior politicians from all parties who came together in the national interest. As we know, that included two distinguished Conservative former Chancellors of the Exchequer, Philip Hammond and Ken Clarke. What is notable is that many people have commented that it is an odd world in which an individual’s Conservatism is measured by how recklessly they wish to leave the EU. We are in a topsy-turvy world Supporters of the Bill are open about the fact that, beyond preventing the devastating harm and disruption of no deal, they have very different views on how to resolve the Brexit question. None of those options is precluded by the Bill, which, as I said, has a narrow scope. As Alistair Burt, one of the co-sponsors of the Bill, said, "is the Bill a stumbling block to negotiations? No, it is not. The Bill does not prevent the Prime Minister or the Government from negotiating".—[Official Report, Commons,4/9/19; col.224.] It simply prevents no deal unless the Commons agrees to it and gives the Commons powers over the extension process—so it is taking back control to Parliament in action rather than in empty rhetoric.
European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 6) Bill — House of Lords, 2019-09-05
Topic: International Affairs
Sarah Ludford (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I covered that point. The Bill does not prevent a deal, because a deal could be agreed within the extension period—that is specifically covered. I said that the coalition is perfectly open about the fact that it has coalesced on a specific, narrow purpose: to prevent massive harm to the people of this country. Beyond that, there will be further discussion about how to proceed.
European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 6) Bill — House of Lords, 2019-09-05
Topic: International Affairs
Menzies Campbell (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): The noble Lord would be regarded as a good chap if he were to give way to me, which he declined to do before. I have never said, nor did I say in my remarks, that the European Union was the sole cause of stability in Europe. Of course, NATO played its part. Indeed, I implied that when I referred to the attitudes and policies of Mr Putin. If he is endeavouring to infer that I believe that Europe alone has kept the peace, that is not the case.
European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 6) Bill — House of Lords, 2019-09-05
Topic: International Affairs
Sarah Ludford (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness. Since her remarks seem to include observations about anti-EU feeling in different states, can she give an example of a member state where a majority want to copy the UK in voting to leave? My understanding of the polls is that support for membership of the EU has gone up in every EU country.