argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
UK’s Withdrawal from the European Union — House of Commons, 2019-03-14
Topic: International Affairs
David Ian Jones (Conservative, Centre-right): The vote was on whether we wished to leave the European Union or remain. It did not refer to any particular deal, and it is this Parliament that has voted the deal down. The intention of all this is to stop Brexit. The plain and simple fact is that Parliament contracted out the decision on whether to remain in the European Union to the people of this country, and the decision of the people was absolutely clear: they wanted to leave. Parliament has put in place the legislation to enable us to leave, with a clear departure date that is now just over two weeks away. I remind all hon. Members that that is what this House voted for Yet today we have arrived at a point where the Government motion before us seeks to delay the date of our departure. That is after more than 100 repeated assurances by the Prime Minister that we will certainly be leaving on 29 March. We are told that the way to avoid any delay is to support the deal that the Government have concluded with the European Union, yet this House, as my right hon. Friend just mentioned, has twice rejected that deal—most recently only two days ago. The deal is dead. It cannot be resurrected. There is no deal The legal position of what this House voted for is that we now leave without a deal on 29 March. That is the law, but that is what the Government’s own motion shamefully seeks to frustrate, and I believe that every Member who supports the motion will equally be acting shamefully. He or she will be expressing, as clearly as possible, contempt for the outcome of the referendum and for all those who voted to leave the European Union. Those voters will see what is behind the extraordinary exercise that has taken place over the last three days: a determined attempt by people inside and outside this House to halt Brexit and impose on the British people a second referendum in the hope that Brexit will be stopped altogether. I have no doubt that that ambition is not shared by the people who sent us here I am absolutely convinced that people out there are sick and tired of the gyratory antics of parliamentarians. They want an end to the apparently interminable Brexit process. They know the law provides that we leave on 29 March, and they expect this House to do its best to ensure that we do. They have made their decision, and they expect that decision to be implemented. If we break our promise to the British people, which we will be doing if we pass the motion this evening, we will risk completely destroying the already fragile trust that the people of this country have in this country’s constitutional arrangements, in its political institutions and, to be blunt, in each and every one of us. That would be a profoundly dangerous state of affairs. No Member of this House should be willing to put that trust at further risk, which is why I urge the House to reject this motion.
UK’s Withdrawal from the European Union — House of Commons, 2019-03-14
Topic: International Affairs
Brett Charles Anthony Elphicke (Conservative, Centre-right): As ever, it is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who rightly pointed out the importance of tradition. I backed remain in the referendum, but there is a tradition in our country of democracy and of respecting public votes, which is why I respect the two thirds in my constituency who voted to leave the EU and why I believe we should get on with it and not extend article 50. To do otherwise would badly undermine public trust in our democracy.
UK’s Withdrawal from the European Union — House of Commons, 2019-03-14
Topic: International Affairs
Brett Charles Anthony Elphicke (Conservative, Centre-right): My hon. Friend is quite right, and I will come to that in a minute First, let me underline the importance of honouring the referendum. This was the biggest democratic exercise in our history, and 17.4 million people made the clear decision that we should leave the EU, yet amendment (h) seeks yet another referendum—a so-called people’s vote. It is not a people’s vote; it is a losers’ vote, because it is promoted by the very people who lost last time. I completely agree with the Labour Front-Bench team when they say that they cannot support the amendment; I agree with the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), who made a point of order earlier on this subject; and I agree, I hope, with a majority of the House in thinking that we should vote on this amendment and reject it. We should put to bed the idea of further referendums and delays and get on with leaving the EU and dealing with the future of this country. We cannot have endless Brexit. I hear that the Independent Group, under pressure, might wish not to press the amendment. It will be interesting to see what the Liberal Democrats and the SNP, who are also signatories to the amendment, will do. Will they have the courage of their convictions and see it through, or will they be frit and run away, as they are asked—begged—to do by the Labour party Front Bench? We do not need to extend article 50. We need to get on with it. We do not need a referendum of the losers. We need to listen to the British people. A snap poll today by YouGov finds that a majority want to get on with it: 43% to 38%. The 43% want MPs to vote against delay. The British people are as sick of endless Brexit as most people in this House. That is why I shall be voting against every amendment tonight, and against the main motion, making it clear that we need to honour and respect the verdict of the referendum We also need to put maximum pressure on the European Union to provide an exit from the backstop, either unilaterally or through a sunset provision. We must not have the affront of European parliamentary elections, which would see Nigel Farage and Tommy Robinson elected. The hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) would be elected as well. What we need is true democracy. We also need to see some integrity; not only should we honour and respect the result of the referendum, but those Members who wish to set up a new party should have the integrity and courage of their convictions and put to the people, in a true public vote, the question of whether they should continue to be Members of this House. They should face the people in a by-election, rather than running away from them. They should honour our democracy, as we should honour the referendum result.
UK’s Withdrawal from the European Union — House of Commons, 2019-03-14
Topic: International Affairs
Christopher James Green (Conservative, Centre-right): It is astounding to me that we are in this position. The British people made their decision in June 2016, yet here we are in March 2019 debating by how long we should be extending article 50, or even whether we should have a second referendum. We need to get on with this. We need to leave decisively on 29 March. That is the democratic expectation across the country, because 29 March 2019 is a date in so many people’s heads across the country. Millions of people, whether they voted to leave or to remain, or indeed whether they abstained, are expecting us to leave on that date It is not just good for democracy to deliver our promises; it is also good for business. If there is a suspension, whether short or long, or a series of suspensions, that will be bad for business planning, whether in manufacturing, clinical trials, life sciences or in the universities sector Just look at the EU’s approach to science to see why it is not working now and will not work in future. The clinical trials directive was thought of in 2001 and introduced in 2004. The EU wanted to change it to the clinical trials regulation in 2016. Thus far, it has failed to make that change and we do not know when it will be delivered. The failure to change from the directive to the regulation is holding back trials. If trials do not go ahead, life-saving or life-enhancing treatments will not be invented and brought to market to serve people’s interests The EU is still going in the same direction. Against the advice of the advocate-general, the European Court of Justice decided to treat gene editing as the creation of genetically modified organisms, which means that that technology will be held back in the EU. Professor Nigel Halford said: "If adopted by the Council and Parliament the decision could set back agbiotech in Europe by another 20 years. We are already a generation behind. Young scientists interested in agbiotech are likely to move to places where common sense and scientific evidence prevail" That is not the European Union. I believe the EU is 1950s politics applied to the 21st century. We need to leave on 29 March this year.
UK’s Withdrawal from the European Union — House of Commons, 2019-03-14
Topic: International Affairs
Stephen Paul Barclay (Conservative, Centre-right): The shadow Secretary of State opened this debate, and he has long indicated his commitment to a second referendum and to remaining in the European Union. I disagree with him, but I respect the integrity with which he holds that position. Other Members of the House, such as the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie), have been prepared to make the difficult decision to leave their parties and make the case for a second referendum, and few doubt the sincerity with which they hold their views Amendment (e), in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, does not reflect such principle or integrity. It is fundamentally flawed. As the European Council statement of 12 March makes clear, any extension to article 50 must be on the basis of providing clarity about its duration and credible justification for it. The amendment tabled by the Leader of the Opposition meets neither of those tests. First, it does not clarify the duration of the extension that it seeks. Perhaps that is because the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry)—she is not in her place—said on Saturday that Labour would back an extension to article 50 only until July, because it would be inappropriate for us to stand for the European Parliament. Just the next day, however, the shadow Chancellor contradicted her and said that any extension should be "as long as necessary". To be fair, the manuscript amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell), which would amend amendment (i), tabled by the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), does address the duration of the extension, but the Leader of the Opposition’s amendment fails to do so The Leader of the Opposition does not set out a credible justification for his extension, as demanded in the EU statement on 12 March, and merely calls for "a different approach". That different approach is based on a fiction that he can deliver his deal, while also securing participation in EU trade policy and full participation in EU security, and holding his own position on state aid—all things that the EU has ruled out as non-negotiable. He speaks about the Prime Minister’s red lines, but what are his red lines when he puts forward completely unrealistic ideas? Indeed, his commitment to a second referendum is so strong that in his statement on Tuesday he failed to mention it once.
UK’s Withdrawal from the European Union — House of Commons, 2019-03-14
Topic: International Affairs
Stephen Paul Barclay (Conservative, Centre-right): We thought the hon. Gentleman used to support a second referendum, but he failed to even mention it in his intervention The Leader of the Opposition called this week for cross-party consensus, but he refused even to meet the Prime Minister. [Interruption.] He met her once, after weeks of delay, and he has blocked the Labour Front Benchers from engaging with the Government. When he talks of cross-party consensus, perhaps what he really means is having meetings with the hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Tom Watson). There are no limits to the inconsistencies of his approach. He talks of listening to this House, yet when the House spoke on his amendment on 27 February, defeating it by 323 to 240 votes, he failed to listen to that judgment. Today, the Leader of the Opposition presents an amendment that fails the tests set out by the European Commission on Tuesday, calls for cross-party talks when he himself has resisted them, and calls for listening to this House when he fails to do so for his own amendment.
UK’s Withdrawal from the European Union — House of Commons, 2019-03-14
Topic: International Affairs
Stephen Paul Barclay (Conservative, Centre-right): Well, the hon. Gentleman should have a word with the Leader of the Opposition, so that he puts forward credible proposals that have not already been ruled out by the European Union and do not fail to address the statement issued just two days ago In the limited time left, let me turn to amendment (i). The right hon. Member for Leeds Central raised a specific point. He said that we needed to vote for that amendment because the House would not have a vote on another amendable motion until after 29 March. We will make our statement under section 13(4) of the withdrawal Act tomorrow, setting out how the Government propose to proceed in relation to negotiations. There will be the option of an amendable motion no later than Monday 25 March Amendment (j), tabled by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), raises an issue that I think you, Mr Speaker, have already addressed in your response to the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle). I will therefore not dwell on it, other than to suggest that it is an issue for the Chair and will be shaped by the motion that is brought forward by the Government On amendment (h), tabled by the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), it is clear Government policy to resist a second referendum. That policy has not changed.
UK’s Withdrawal from the European Union — House of Commons, 2019-03-14
Topic: International Affairs
Stephen Paul Barclay (Conservative, Centre-right): I have two minutes left, and I have given way a couple of times already It was Tony Blair who said that the way to stop Brexit was first to vote against the Prime Minister’s deal, then to vote against no deal, then to seek a long extension. In his votes on Tuesday, Wednesday and tonight, that is the precise script followed by the Leader of the Opposition. Perhaps he could share with us whether it was Tony, Peter or Alastair who wrote it for him. How proud those envoys of the elite must be with his late conversion to the cause. His approach has become more Davos than Don Valley Some Members will remember the Banksy painting that went through the shredder. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans) had it on his Christmas card. The reality of the Leader of the Opposition’s approach this week is that he is shredding the votes of 17.4 million people by turning his back on the referendum, going back on his word in his own manifesto and failing to listen even to his own Front Benchers. The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) said just last night: "I think that it would be disastrous for us as Members of Parliament to go back to the people" That is the very issue that others in his party are campaigning for This is a time for responsibility, yet we have a motion from the Leader of the Opposition that ducks the choice, ducks the time, ducks the clarity and ducks any sense of national responsibility. It is time for this House to act in the national interest. It is time to put forward an extension that is realistic. I commend the Government motion to the House.
UK’s Withdrawal from the European Union — House of Commons, 2019-03-14
Topic: Law and Crime
Luke Patrick Graham (Conservative, Centre-right): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I ask for your guidance on a security matter. Last night, two individuals approached my constituency office and banged on the windows and shouted at the one member of staff who was in there. She was on her own, and she approached the individuals. She was told: "In an independent Scotland, all of you will be hanging and we will be there at the front cheering on." They also said: "I can’t wait to come and drag you from this office and get you to the noose." My member of staff was on her own. If she were here now, she would say that she was a tough St Ninians woman who was happy to take them on, but she should not have to do that. May I ask for your guidance on what we can do in this House to ensure that everyone is as respectful as possible, both in this place and on social media, and what can be done to help the security of our staff in constituencies?
Government Contracts: Climate Emergency — House of Commons, 2019-06-20
Topic: Environment
Questions: What recent discussions he has had with the Minister for the Cabinet Office on including provisions to tackle the environment and climate emergency in future Government contracts.
Michael Andrew Gove (Conservative, Centre-right): How grateful I am, Mr Speaker, to hear you say that there can indeed be no opposition Tackling the climate change and environment emergency is a cross-Government priority and an issue that I discuss regularly with Cabinet colleagues. The greening Government commitments include specific targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and improving sustainable procurement. Those commitments demonstrate the Government’s leadership in improving the environmental sustainability of their own estate, and the 2018 revisions to the Green Book have also improved the evaluation of the natural capital impacts of Government decision making.
Government Contracts: Climate Emergency — House of Commons, 2019-06-20
Topic: Environment
Questions: What recent discussions he has had with the Minister for the Cabinet Office on including provisions to tackle the environment and climate emergency in future Government contracts.
Michael Andrew Gove (Conservative, Centre-right): It is already the case that we are the first Government of a developed nation to embrace the ambition of reaching net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. I congratulate the Members across the House who have campaigned to ensure that that commitment is at the heart of this Government’s proposals—indeed, it is a vision—to ensure that we leave a cleaner, greener planet for the next generation.
Government Contracts: Climate Emergency — House of Commons, 2019-06-20
Topic: International Affairs
Questions: What recent discussions he has had with the Minister for the Cabinet Office on including provisions to tackle the environment and climate emergency in future Government contracts.
Victoria Grace Ford (Conservative, Centre-right): Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the Foreign Secretary and the Foreign Office team on their amazing diplomatic success in the negotiations with Italy, which mean that next year’s global climate change conference is almost certain to come to London?
Government Contracts: Climate Emergency — House of Commons, 2019-06-20
Topic: International Affairs
Questions: What recent discussions he has had with the Minister for the Cabinet Office on including provisions to tackle the environment and climate emergency in future Government contracts.
Michael Andrew Gove (Conservative, Centre-right): The Foreign Secretary has done an outstanding job on the diplomatic stage and will continue to do so. Co-operating with our partners across western Europe, including Italy, will ensure that the 2020 conference of parties brings nations together to deal with this global challenge. The Secretary of State for International Development has also played a distinguished role alongside the Foreign Secretary in using our global footprint to ensure that our planet is in a more sustainable state.
Government Contracts: Climate Emergency — House of Commons, 2019-06-20
Topic: Environment
Questions: What recent discussions he has had with the Minister for the Cabinet Office on including provisions to tackle the environment and climate emergency in future Government contracts.; As has been said, this House declared a climate emergency on 1 May. In recent weeks, pupils at Abercanaid Community School and Ysgol Rhyd y Grug in my constituency have been in contact with me to urge this Parliament to do all that we can to address the climate emergency. Will the Secretary of State outline the specific actions that he will take on Government contracts, and on any other measures, to give the pupils in my constituency and elsewhere the confidence that this Government are serious and will meet their target of net zero emissions by 2050?
Michael Andrew Gove (Conservative, Centre-right): I congratulate the students in his constituency and so many other students across the country on helping to ensure that our climate and environment emergency is at the heart of our decision making. We will put greening Government and greening the whole country at the heart of our decision making in the forthcoming spending review.
Food Producers: Overseas Marketing — House of Commons, 2019-06-20
Topic: Foreign Trade
Questions: What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for International Trade on (a) promoting and (b) supporting UK food producers in marketing their produce overseas.
Robert Goodwill (Conservative, Centre-right): I met with the Secretary of State for International Trade yesterday, and he told me that he had just come back from Turkey, where he had been exploring opportunities for British trade, including in food and drink. On Monday, I signed an agreement with China which means that British beef could be back on Chinese dinner plates by the end of the year, which could be worth £230 million over five years to our world-class beef producers. Those are just two examples of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Department for International Trade working closely to raise the international profile and reputation of the UK’s high-quality food and drink products, to open new markets, and to boost our exports.
Food Producers: Overseas Marketing — House of Commons, 2019-06-20
Topic: Foreign Trade
Questions: What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for International Trade on (a) promoting and (b) supporting UK food producers in marketing their produce overseas.
Robert Goodwill (Conservative, Centre-right): It has been great, as it says on the can. DEFRA’s "Food is GREAT" campaign supports DIT’s trade promotion activity, including at trade shows and meet-the-buyer events. It helps businesses to succeed in overseas markets by ensuring global recognition of UK excellence in food and drink, while encouraging our food and drink companies to export more.
Food Producers: Overseas Marketing — House of Commons, 2019-06-20
Topic: Agriculture
Questions: What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for International Trade on (a) promoting and (b) supporting UK food producers in marketing their produce overseas.
Philip Thomas Hollobone (Conservative, Centre-right): British breakfast cereals are among the best in the world and none is finer than Weetabix, which is based in the Kettering constituency and which sources its wheat from farms within a 50-mile radius of the factory. Will my right hon. Friend be the great British breakfast champion?
Food Producers: Overseas Marketing — House of Commons, 2019-06-20
Topic: Agriculture
Questions: What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for International Trade on (a) promoting and (b) supporting UK food producers in marketing their produce overseas.
Robert Goodwill (Conservative, Centre-right): I am a great fan of Weetabix, not least because I am a wheat producer myself. Indeed, I have driven past the Weetabix factory in his constituency with my hon. Friend, and I quite fancy going to visit when my diary allows.