argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
EU Customs Union and Draft Withdrawal Agreement: Cost — House of Commons, 2018-10-22
Topic: International Affairs
John Philip Glen (Conservative, Centre-right): Every arm of Government is working at pace to firm up and put in place all necessary arrangements to ensure that we are ready to leave and chart our own course as global Britain. The Government will continue to update Parliament on the progress of the negotiations, and the Prime Minister will update the House shortly in this regard in a post-Council statement In respect of the customs union, common rules will remain in place throughout the implementation period to give businesses and citizens critical certainty. This will mean that businesses can trade on the same terms as now until the end of 2020. As the Prime Minister has said, a further idea has emerged—and it is an idea at this stage—to create an option to extend the implementation period for a matter of months, and it would only be a matter of months. But as the Prime Minister has made clear, this is not expected to be used, because we are working to ensure that we have a future relationship in place by the end of December 2020 As the House will appreciate, the length and cost of any extension to the implementation period are subject to negotiations. Throughout the implementation period, we will continue to build our new relationship, one which will see the UK leave the single market and the customs union to forge our own path and pursue an independent trade policy while protecting jobs and supporting growth During the progression of our exit negotiations, we reached a financial settlement with the EU that did two things—honoured our commitments made during our membership and ensured the fairest possible deal for UK taxpayers. In December, we estimated the size of the settlement to be between £35 billion to £39 billion, using reasonable assumptions and publicly available data. In April, the National Audit Office confirmed that this was reasonable The Government are committed to upholding our parliamentary democracy through honouring the result of the referendum and remaining fully transparent with Parliament on the deal that is reached, in advance of the meaningful vote.
EU Customs Union and Draft Withdrawal Agreement: Cost — House of Commons, 2018-10-22
Topic: Macroeconomics
John Alan Redwood (Conservative, Centre-right): The Treasury should do some calculations, because it would be an act of great rashness to agree to extend our period when we would be in another seven-year financial period for the EU, with all the consequences that might bring. It could cost £15 billion or more for a year and we would probably have to accept liabilities that might extend for the whole seven-year financing period. Why wouldn’t the EU front-load its expenses when we were still in the thing, and why wouldn’t it expect us to meet the forward commitments, as it says it wants us to do as and when we leave under the existing seven-year period? We are desperately in need of more money for our schools, our hospitals, universal credit and for our defence—[Interruption.] We desperately need money so that we can honour our tax-cutting pledges which we all made in our 2017 manifesto—[Interruption.]
EU Customs Union and Draft Withdrawal Agreement: Cost — House of Commons, 2018-10-22
Topic: International Affairs
John Philip Glen (Conservative, Centre-right): I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for a number of Budget representations on that point. What I can confirm is that, when the sum of £35 billion to £39 billion was agreed, it was agreed on three principles: the UK would not make its payments sooner than it would otherwise have done; it would be based on the actual rather than the forecast; and it would mean that we would include all benefits as a member state. I recognise the wide range of concerns in the House, including those raised by my right hon. Friend, but we are at a delicate stage of the negotiations and the Prime Minister will be speaking to the House shortly.
EU Customs Union and Draft Withdrawal Agreement: Cost — House of Commons, 2018-10-22
Topic: Foreign Trade
John Philip Glen (Conservative, Centre-right): It is difficult to discern the precise questions there, but I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. The Government are in a negotiation and there are a number of issues that are not yet resolved. With respect to the final state around our future freedom to trade, those are matters that will be reported on to this House before there is a meaningful vote. So he needs to be patient a little longer as we move through that last 5% and deal with those matters.
EU Customs Union and Draft Withdrawal Agreement: Cost — House of Commons, 2018-10-22
Topic: Foreign Trade
Justine Greening (Conservative, Centre-right): I am very concerned about the Government’s plans because, essentially, they mean our staying in a customs union in which we will have no say on the rules for a prolonged period, at the very moment that the global economy is facing some significant risks. Can my hon. Friend explain how this is in the UK’s national interest?
EU Customs Union and Draft Withdrawal Agreement: Cost — House of Commons, 2018-10-22
Topic: Foreign Trade
John Philip Glen (Conservative, Centre-right): I have set forward the Government’s position with respect to the negotiation and the idea about a modest extension in terms of months. It will be for the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister to update the House sooner, but I acknowledge my right hon. Friend’s point with respect to the opportunities that exist beyond the EU in terms of finding a settlement that gives us the freedom to develop our trading relationships.
EU Customs Union and Draft Withdrawal Agreement: Cost — House of Commons, 2018-10-22
Topic: International Affairs
John Philip Glen (Conservative, Centre-right): No, I cannot give the hon. Lady a cash figure for every member of the United Kingdom, but what I can say is that the Government and the Treasury are determined to make preparations for all eventualities. That is why we are preparing 70 statutory instruments to take through this House in the event of a no deal. The EU should be very clear that we are going to be ready for all eventualities while being committed to negotiating the best possible outcome, as directed by the British people two years ago.
EU Customs Union and Draft Withdrawal Agreement: Cost — House of Commons, 2018-10-22
Topic: Foreign Trade
Gregory William Hands (Conservative, Centre-right): Of course, it is the policy of the party opposite for us to remain in the customs union forever. That is worth bearing in mind. Will my hon. Friend give a bit of detail on what work HMRC has done, in the case that we are in the customs union but outside the EU, on who determines things such as trade preferences and who runs trade defences on behalf of this country in those years?
EU Customs Union and Draft Withdrawal Agreement: Cost — House of Commons, 2018-10-22
Topic: International Affairs
John Philip Glen (Conservative, Centre-right): I can confirm to my right hon. Friend that these are matters with which the Government are engaged intensively in the negotiations at the moment. We are also working towards securing as much autonomy as possible for the British Government in the future. That is the mandate that we have been given by the British people.
EU Customs Union and Draft Withdrawal Agreement: Cost — House of Commons, 2018-10-22
Topic: International Affairs
John Philip Glen (Conservative, Centre-right): Government policy is that we have a backstop arrangement in place to fulfil our obligations and we are in negotiation over the timings of that. The Prime Minister will be coming to the House later today and the right hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to clarify with her the answer to that question.
EU Customs Union and Draft Withdrawal Agreement: Cost — House of Commons, 2018-10-22
Topic: International Affairs
Anne Margaret Main (Conservative, Centre-right): Can my hon. Friend inform me why he thinks that there is any incentive for the EU to give us a good deal if they think that by dragging their heels they can drag us into being obliged to pay extra money to them?
EU Customs Union and Draft Withdrawal Agreement: Cost — House of Commons, 2018-10-22
Topic: International Affairs
John Philip Glen (Conservative, Centre-right): There is no expectation that this Government will seek to pay more money to the EU. We are in negotiation, as has been set out. We have made considerable progress. We have a small number of items to resolve, but the intention is to get the best possible deal for the British taxpayer in the national interest.
EU Customs Union and Draft Withdrawal Agreement: Cost — House of Commons, 2018-10-22
Topic: Macroeconomics
John Philip Glen (Conservative, Centre-right): I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that I am not sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) has a lot of faith in the Treasury on this, so I feel there is little point in taking that figure back to him.
EU Customs Union and Draft Withdrawal Agreement: Cost — House of Commons, 2018-10-22
Topic: Foreign Trade
Antoinette Geraldine Sherratt (Sandbach) (Conservative, Centre-right): What businesses in my constituency want is certainty and reassurance that the border will be as frictionless as possible. This is key to many sectors of prosperity in the north-west. Will the Minister confirm that the costs involved in temporary ongoing membership of a customs union will dramatically be outweighed by the benefits to business?
EU Customs Union and Draft Withdrawal Agreement: Cost — House of Commons, 2018-10-22
Topic: International Affairs
John Philip Glen (Conservative, Centre-right): The Government have to reconcile the decision of the British people to leave the EU with, as my hon. Friend says, the need to make sure that the cost to business is as little as possible. That is why it is absolutely imperative that, when we secure the final outcome of the negotiations, it is good for business, good for the economy and good for jobs.
EU Customs Union and Draft Withdrawal Agreement: Cost — House of Commons, 2018-10-22
Topic: Government Operations
John Philip Glen (Conservative, Centre-right): My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham has spoken for himself. The reality is that, before the Government come back to the House for a meaningful vote, a whole range of data will be supplied to the House in order to make the discussion about that decision meaningful.
EU Customs Union and Draft Withdrawal Agreement: Cost — House of Commons, 2018-10-22
Topic: Foreign Trade
John Philip Glen (Conservative, Centre-right): There are a range of assumptions around the implications of different scenarios. The Government seek to ensure that we minimise the downsides and maximise the upsides in the agreement that we come to. I recognise that significant industries in the north-east rely on certainty in that relationship, and that is why it is very important that we get it right.
EU Customs Union and Draft Withdrawal Agreement: Cost — House of Commons, 2018-10-22
Topic: International Affairs
John Philip Glen (Conservative, Centre-right): I would be in a position to justify that if it were a firm outcome of the negotiations, but it is not. I have not been conducting the negotiations; the Prime Minister has, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will be able to ask her about that later.
EU Customs Union and Draft Withdrawal Agreement: Cost — House of Commons, 2018-10-22
Topic: International Affairs
John Philip Glen (Conservative, Centre-right): At the moment, this is an idea that has been raised. In terms of the detail of it and where it fits within negotiations, clearly the Prime Minister will be best placed to answer. I say to the right hon. Gentleman that one of the enduring principles of our negotiations is to ensure that we treat the whole United Kingdom as a single united entity. That is an enduring principle that is guiding us through these negotiations.
EU Customs Union and Draft Withdrawal Agreement: Cost — House of Commons, 2018-10-22
Topic: International Affairs
John Philip Glen (Conservative, Centre-right): I imagine that my hon. Friend—like many of his constituents—thinks that no sum is worth paying. Of course, there are a range of views on this matter, but we have to honour our obligations, as this country does, and secure a fair outcome.
EU Customs Union and Draft Withdrawal Agreement: Cost — House of Commons, 2018-10-22
Topic: Labor
John Philip Glen (Conservative, Centre-right): The Government have made an assessment that means it is imperative that we come out with a solution that is right for those employers in the hon. Lady’s constituency and gives the certainty that they need, because that is what her constituents will require.
EU Customs Union and Draft Withdrawal Agreement: Cost — House of Commons, 2018-10-22
Topic: Macroeconomics
Hugo Swire (Conservative, Centre-right): I think we can agree that any extension to the transition period will be costly—£15 billion, £16 billion or whatever it is—but the problem is that we will have no MEPs to represent us, no say and no influence on any legislation introduced during that period. Does my hon. Friend agree that there should be no taxation without representation?
EU Customs Union and Draft Withdrawal Agreement: Cost — House of Commons, 2018-10-22
Topic: International Affairs
John Philip Glen (Conservative, Centre-right): We will have a considerable amount of material before the House. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, who is about to come to the Dispatch Box, will have more information on that issue.
EU Customs Union and Draft Withdrawal Agreement: Cost — House of Commons, 2018-10-22
Topic: Foreign Trade
Jonathan Simon Djanogly (Conservative, Centre-right): When looking at the customs union, would it not also be wise to look at the significant benefits of being in a trading bloc of 500 million people that has delivered wealth through some 40 FTAs with some 70 countries—agreements that the Government have already said they wish to adopt if we are able to, post Brexit?
EU Customs Union and Draft Withdrawal Agreement: Cost — House of Commons, 2018-10-22
Topic: International Affairs
John Philip Glen (Conservative, Centre-right): It is important that we honour the decision of the British people and that we come out with an arrangement that gives us the optimal long-term relationship with the EU and also a chance to exploit the opportunities in the world economy beyond the EU, which is growing faster.
EU Customs Union and Draft Withdrawal Agreement: Cost — House of Commons, 2018-10-22
Topic: Macroeconomics
John Philip Glen (Conservative, Centre-right): The Chancellor has made money available across-Government to help us through this process. I would acknowledge the massive contribution made by our civil service to help across many Departments of Government. The Prime Minister is committed to securing the best deal for the nation.
EU Customs Union and Draft Withdrawal Agreement: Cost — House of Commons, 2018-10-22
Topic: International Affairs
John Philip Glen (Conservative, Centre-right): The Prime Minister and the whole Government are committed to finding a solution for the whole of the United Kingdom. I recognise the different distribution of EU funds and therefore the policy challenges that will exist for the Government thereafter.
EU Customs Union and Draft Withdrawal Agreement: Cost — House of Commons, 2018-10-22
Topic: Macroeconomics
John Philip Glen (Conservative, Centre-right): What I stand by is the desire of the Government to find the best possible solution for the United Kingdom—that maximises the advantages to the UK economy of the growth in economies outside the EU. There is a range of assumptions to a range of forecasts, and the Treasury always goes into considerable depth in setting those out clearly.
Leaving the EU: Meaningful Vote — House of Commons, 2018-10-22
Topic: International Affairs
Questions: To ask the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union if he will make a statement on Her Majesty’s Government’s policy on how any motion under section 13(1)(b) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 is to be put before the House of Commons for decision.
Dominic Rennie Raab (Conservative, Centre-right): May I start by welcoming the question from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 confirmed in statute the Government’s long-standing commitment to provide Parliament with a vote on the terms of our final deal. When it comes to the motion that we consider at the point when the approval of the House is sought, the decision whether the motion is amendable or not will be a matter for you, Mr Speaker, not for the Government. However, the Government have made clear our expectation, subject to your prerogatives, that the motion will be amendable. The Government’s response, dated 10 October, to the report of the Select Committee on Exiting the European Union, "Parliamentary scrutiny and approval of the Withdrawal Agreement and negotiations on a future relationship", stated: "Of course, we accept that the Speaker may permit the tabling of amendments to the motion, as is usual convention." That understanding is also reflected in our response to the inquiry by the Select Committee on Procedure, which I provided on 10 October. Both responses were made publicly available on the Committees’ websites in the interests of transparency and to ensure that this House understands the Government’s position on the matter—although again, I defer to the House and to you, Mr Speaker, on procedural matters that fall within the prerogatives of the House It will be evident to hon. Members that any amendment to the motion would not be able to effect amendments to the withdrawal agreement or the future framework, which will have been agreed at the international level between the United Kingdom and the European Union; nor could any such amendment delay or prevent our departure from the EU as set out under article 50. It is worth reminding the House that the timing of our departure from the EU is set out in international law under article 50 of the Lisbon treaty, which this House voted to trigger The Government committed to giving Parliament a vote on the deal, and section 13 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 sets out how that will happen. In passing that Act, Parliament confirmed its ultimate role in delivering on the will of the British people. Approving the final deal will be the responsibility of the House of Commons alone—a responsibility I know all hon. Members will take very seriously indeed.
Leaving the EU: Meaningful Vote — House of Commons, 2018-10-22
Topic: International Affairs
Questions: To ask the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union if he will make a statement on Her Majesty’s Government’s policy on how any motion under section 13(1)(b) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 is to be put before the House of Commons for decision.
Dominic Charles Roberts Grieve (Conservative, Centre-right): While I have every sympathy with procedural problems that the Government may encounter and any honest attempt at finding a solution to them, I have to say that I find the Government’s position as stated in the memorandum they sent to the Procedure Committee entirely unsatisfactory. It departs from the plain assurances given repeatedly to the House that we would be enabled to express a desire for alternatives when voting to reject or accept any deal To remind my right hon. Friend, when his predecessor, our right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), appeared in front of the Exiting the European Union Committee on 25 April, to Question 1383 from the Chair: "Can you give an assurance that the Government’s motion on the withdrawal agreement will be amendable? Yes or no?", our right hon. Friend replied: "Mr Chairman, if you can tell me how to write an unamendable motion in the House of Commons, I will take a tutorial." Actually, one way of reading the memorandum is that that is exactly what the Government are planning to do. I might add that the promises were repeated by my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) on 18 April in front of the Select Committee on the Constitution, and that throughout debates on the Floor of the House in June, when we were looking at unamendable motions, no one on the Treasury Bench demurred from the oft-repeated statements that the motion on the substance of the deal would be amendable Could my right hon. Friend please tell the House how he can reconcile those statements with the Government’s plain submission to the Procedure Committee recommending that a vote is first taken on the Government motion and before amendments are considered? What happens if Parliament approves the Government motion, but then amends it afterwards? Are the Government suggesting that they have what they need to ratify or not? Surely the issue will be no clearer if the Government adopt their method rather than the one they are criticising in the memorandum. Why, if there is a genuine problem over uncertainty, which I do understand, have the Government not suggested allowing different motions and choices to be put to the House for a view to be expressed prior to the Government motion being put? Why does that not feature in the Government’s submission at all My right hon. Friend knows that a lot in this House depends on trust. If I may say to him, the difficulty with the memorandum is that on one reading of it—I am glad to hear what he said at the Dispatch Box—it tends to undermine trust in the Government’s intention to honour the commitments they gave to the House.
Leaving the EU: Meaningful Vote — House of Commons, 2018-10-22
Topic: International Affairs
Questions: To ask the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union if he will make a statement on Her Majesty’s Government’s policy on how any motion under section 13(1)(b) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 is to be put before the House of Commons for decision.
Dominic Rennie Raab (Conservative, Centre-right): I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend’s question and his comments. Let me try to address them, if I may. He fears, if I understand correctly, that the Government are in favour of an unamendable motion, but in fact, as the memorandum he cites makes clear in paragraph 4: "The approval…will be a substantive motion"— that was, I think, the first point he made— "and therefore, under existing House procedures, will be amendable." I hope that gives him some reassurance. It is also worth pointing out the implications that we set out in paragraph 6 of the memorandum, which was published on 10 October, which is that "due to the legal status accorded to the motion under s. 13 of the 2018 Act," which I know he scrutinised very carefully, "a clear decision on approval of the motion is needed in order for the Government to be able to ratify the Withdrawal Agreement." Again, I hope that that makes clear what the basic challenge is If I understand my right hon. and learned Friend correctly, he may wish to change the terms of the agreement that has been struck. I think that would come up against very real, practical and diplomatic obstacles. So late in the day, there would not be time to revisit the negotiation. Secondly, just from a practical, diplomatic point of view, is he really suggesting that at that point we would actually be offered different or more favourable terms? I think that that is unlikely in the extreme It is very important that this House is presented with a very clear decision of the most meaningful sort available, which is between the terms of the best deal that the Government can negotiate and the alternative. I hope and I am sure that that will focus minds when that point comes.