argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Article 50 — House of Commons, 2016-11-07
Topic: International Affairs
Nick Herbert (Conservative, Centre-right): Since we clearly must respect the decision of the British people, and since it is also clear that the majority of Members of this House, including me, would vote to trigger article 50, surely the real question is the substantive one about what kind of Brexit will be pursued. Why is it that the former Government were able to set out a White Paper on their objectives ahead of the Lisbon treaty negotiations, but that this Government are saying that they will not set out a similar document in respect of these much more important negotiations?
Article 50 — House of Commons, 2016-11-07
Topic: International Affairs
David Michael Davis (Conservative, Centre-right): I guess I was the part-author of the White Paper ahead of the Amsterdam treaty, and our aims were put only in very broad terms. In those terms, we already have our broad aims. They are very plain: control of laws, control of borders, maintenance of our security and the maximum possible access to free markets, both in Europe and elsewhere. Those are the broad aims. In terms of detail, I have just been asked about the customs union. As I have said, when we get to the point of being sure of where we are going on that—[Interruption.] I am glad that Labour Members are all very sure about that, since they do not seem to have looked at any of the numbers at all. The national interest requires that we make sure what the outcome is before we attempt to achieve it. That is a very small negotiating lesson I do not think that I want to commit at this point, but let me say this. I have said over and over again in this process that we will be as open as possible, consistent with maintaining our negotiating stance. I mean that. I have stood up for that principle through decades in this Parliament, and I will not stop standing up for it just because I am standing here.
Article 50 — House of Commons, 2016-11-07
Topic: International Affairs
David Michael Davis (Conservative, Centre-right): The hon. Lady makes a good point, in that the aim of the Government is to carry out the national instruction, because that is what it was, in the national interest. At the risk of repeating myself, I have said that we will be as open as it is possible to be while maintaining that national interest, which means a degree of confidentiality in the early stages of negotiation. Parliament will have plenty of opportunities both to scrutinise the legislation and to amend it before it takes effect.
Article 50 — House of Commons, 2016-11-07
Topic: International Affairs
Mark James Harper (Conservative, Centre-right): I was very pleased that the Secretary of State started his remarks by saying that he wanted to respect the decision. It seems to me that the confusion among many is that they think that the decision the British people took on 23 June was conditional on some kind of deal; it was not. I was on the remain side of the argument, but I accept unconditionally the decision of the British people. We are leaving. The task at hand for the Government is to negotiate with our partners for the best trade deal, the best access to the markets and the best security arrangements. I am confident that the Prime Minister will do so. Too many Opposition Members think that leaving is conditional; it is not.
Article 50 — House of Commons, 2016-11-07
Topic: Law and Crime
David Michael Davis (Conservative, Centre-right): I have already commented on the judges, but let me comment on the treatment of Gina Miller. I have said that I deplore—I cannot find words strong enough, frankly, to say how much I detest—the attacks on her. I have not seen them directly, but they sound to me to be effectively criminal attacks, because incitement of violence, threats of violence and racial abuse are all crimes.
Article 50 — House of Commons, 2016-11-07
Topic: International Affairs
Christopher Robert Chope (Conservative, Centre-right): May I press my right hon. Friend further on the idea of allowing both Houses of Parliament to vote early on a resolution calling on the Government to exercise article 50 before 31 March? Surely to do so would respect the judgment in the High Court, because that judgment made it clear that this House is sovereign; and, as a sovereign House, we should decide how to exercise that sovereignty.
Article 50 — House of Commons, 2016-11-07
Topic: International Affairs
David Michael Davis (Conservative, Centre-right): It is not a late-night game of poker; it is a devil of a lot more important than that. The simple truth is: when you go into a negotiation of this nature and you publicise your minimum negotiating objectives, you make them your opponent’s maximum negotiating objectives and you increase the price. I am afraid a commitment to parliamentary accountability—I share such a commitment with everybody else in the House—is not an excuse for naivety in negotiation.
Article 50 — House of Commons, 2016-11-07
Topic: International Affairs
Philip Andrew Davies (Conservative, Centre-right): If the referendum was no more than advisory, it makes one wonder why some people who now claim it was only advisory campaigned so hard during the referendum campaign. Triggering article 50 is just the start of the process, so if the Supreme Court does not overturn the perverse decision of the High Court, does my right hon. Friend expect the Labour party to agree to triggering article 50 without any conditions? Given that it was made perfectly clear in the Conservative party manifesto at the last election that we would have a referendum and honour the result of the referendum whatever the outcome, does he expect the House of Lords to honour one of the conventions of this place, which is that it should not stand in the way of a manifesto promise?
Article 50 — House of Commons, 2016-11-07
Topic: International Affairs
David Michael Davis (Conservative, Centre-right): I am responsible for many things, but the Labour party’s stance is not one of them. Frankly, that is just as well, given that it had three of them—three different stances—over the weekend. As I understand it, the approach taken by my Labour opposite number is that conditions will be attached to the approval of triggering article 50. That does not reflect the will of the people at all—just the reverse.
Article 50 — House of Commons, 2016-11-07
Topic: Law and Crime
David Michael Davis (Conservative, Centre-right): The hon. Lady has not listened to my responses to earlier questions. Yes, she is right in one respect: the judgment may come as late as early January. The expectation is that the case will be held in early December, and I suspect that it will take two to three weeks for the judgment to be written up. I think the proper role of the Government is to await and to respect the judgment from the Supreme Court—full stop.
Article 50 — House of Commons, 2016-11-07
Topic: International Affairs
Edward Garnier (Conservative, Centre-right): Having worked with my right hon. Friend for many years in this place, both in opposition and in government, I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever about the truth of his suggestion about the value of the independence of the judiciary. Will he accept that the referendum gave the Government permission to leave the European Union—and that is going to happen—but the referendum did not give the Government a power they do not have?
Article 50 — House of Commons, 2016-11-07
Topic: International Affairs
Cheryl Elise Kendall Gillan (Conservative, Centre-right): One of the complexities of article 50 is that there are no transitional arrangements. I know that the Secretary of State understands that there are genuinely held fears about people’s rights. Will he confirm that, notwithstanding the outcome from the Supreme Court, cases referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union either before article 50 is invoked or before the final date of the UK’s departure from the EU will be heard by that court and, more importantly, that any decision by that court, however long it takes, will remain binding in the UK?
Article 50 — House of Commons, 2016-11-07
Topic: International Affairs
James Gerald Douglas Howarth (Conservative, Centre-right): Will my right hon. Friend confirm that invoking article 50 changes not one word of English law, but is simply the process of sending a letter formally notifying the EU of the people’s vote to leave, and that failure to do that would be a betrayal of the British people that they would not lightly forgive?
Article 50 — House of Commons, 2016-11-07
Topic: Law and Crime
David Michael Davis (Conservative, Centre-right): I agree that of itself it does not change one word of English law. Some people see it as a point of no return; I see 23 June as the point of no return. We have to live by the instruction we were given on that day.
Article 50 — House of Commons, 2016-11-07
Topic: International Affairs
Peter William Bone (Conservative, Centre-right): While I understand the Government’s desire to proceed with the court case—there is a principle of law—is it not a good idea, which we have heard from both sides of the House today, urgently to put a resolution to the House that can be voted on, which would help the courts to decide Parliament’s view on article 50?
Article 50 — House of Commons, 2016-11-07
Topic: International Affairs
David Michael Davis (Conservative, Centre-right): I do not recognise the first part of my hon. Friend’s comments and I do not see how the Government have refused to be inclusive. We have taken input on vast amounts of policy from large numbers of people who voted or campaigned for remain, so I do not think her description is remotely true.
Article 50 — House of Commons, 2016-11-07
Topic: Labor
David Michael Davis (Conservative, Centre-right): All those figures will be published in due course, but the right hon. Gentleman is wrong about one thing: I have given in terms an undertaking to the House that there will be no dilution of employment rights as a result of our leaving the European Union. He has not been paying attention.
Article 50 — House of Commons, 2016-11-07
Topic: International Affairs
Jonathan Simon Djanogly (Conservative, Centre-right): The High Court judgment noted: "The Government accepts that a notice under Article 50 cannot be withdrawn once it has been given." Why did the Government simply accept that? If they had maintained that triggering could be reversed by Parliament, would not Parliament remain sovereign, despite the Executive taking the decision to trigger article 50?
Article 50 — House of Commons, 2016-11-07
Topic: International Affairs
Steven John Baker (Conservative, Centre-right): Is it not the case that, at various times and in various ways, the Government have given clear indications of their direction of travel on legal supremacy, migration policy, trade policy, reciprocal rights and regulatory continuity? To go further on what has been said and to tie the Government’s hands would be to act against the national interest.
Article 50 — House of Commons, 2016-11-07
Topic: International Affairs
Conor Burns (Conservative, Centre-right): There are far too many Members of both this place and the other place, including my right hon. Friend’s opposite number at lunchtime today, who are taking to the airwaves to tell us that they fully respect the result of the referendum and then go on to insert that very important word "but". Will my right hon. Friend use this occasion to explain, from the Dispatch Box, to those at this end and the other end that there are no buts on Brexit?
Article 50 — House of Commons, 2016-11-07
Topic: International Affairs
Helen Olivia Bicknell Whately (Conservative, Centre-right): Earlier this afternoon, the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) said that no one expects the Government to reveal their negotiating hand. Then, however, he set out a series of negotiating positions he would like the Prime Minister to reveal. Does my right hon. Friend agree that rather than trying to tie the hands of the Prime Minister, Members of both Houses of Parliament should put the national interest first and let the Prime Minister get on with the job of getting the best deal for Britain?
Article 50 — House of Commons, 2016-11-07
Topic: Law and Crime
David Michael Davis (Conservative, Centre-right): My hon. and learned Friend makes an important point that lies at the heart of the argument. She is quite right. The plaintiffs in the Northern Ireland case may appeal, but that case is not the same as this one, although it does have a relationship with it. It is therefore very important that if that appeal is allowed and expedited—even if it is not expedited—the cases are heard properly and together.
Article 50 — House of Commons, 2016-11-07
Topic: International Affairs
Oliver James Dowden (Conservative, Centre-right): The High Court’s position is very straightforward: parliamentary consent is required to invoke article 50. Does my right hon. Friend agree that our response should be equally straightforward: give that consent without haste and without any conditions that seek to fetter the Prime Minister’s negotiating position?
Article 50 — House of Commons, 2016-11-07
Topic: International Affairs
William Peter Wragg (Conservative, Centre-right): The judges are not enemies of the people, but the enemies of democracy would be Members of this House who sought to frustrate the triggering, or adulterate the substance, of article 50. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that he will not allow those still oscillating among the five stages of grief to derail our leaving the EU?
Article 50 — House of Commons, 2016-11-07
Topic: International Affairs
David Michael Davis (Conservative, Centre-right): I will make two points to the hon. Gentleman. First, under the mechanisms of the European treaty, the only point at which negotiations can formally start is when article 50 is triggered. Secondly, the notion that a two-year timetable is somehow problematic is true only if countries are unprepared when they go into the process. Ultimately, there will be costs on both sides if we do not get a deal and, as a result, I would expect everyone to behave rationally and get that deal.
Article 50 — House of Commons, 2016-11-07
Topic: International Affairs
Sue-Ellen Cassiana Braverman (Conservative, Centre-right): Delivering his judgment, the Lord Chief Justice said "the court…is…dealing with a pure question of law. Nothing we say has any bearing on the question of the merits or demerits of a withdrawal by the United Kingdom from the European Union; nor does it have any bearing on government policy, because government policy is not law." Will my right hon. Friend confirm that Government policy is indeed to trigger article 50 before the end of March, to leave the European Union and to enact the great repeal Bill, and that the commitment of the Prime Minister and the Government is undiminished, regardless of the hearing in the Supreme Court?
Article 50 — House of Commons, 2016-11-07
Topic: International Affairs
Craig Mackinlay (Conservative, Centre-right): My understanding of parliamentary sovereignty is that it is a mixture of the will of this House, the views of the other place and the Crown in Parliament as exercised by the Government. Does my right hon. Friend agree that article 50 should be triggered and implemented as intended because the instruction has been given by the ultimate holders of sovereignty in this country—the British people?
Article 50 — House of Commons, 2016-11-07
Topic: International Affairs
Robert Edward Jenrick (Conservative, Centre-right): If the Government do bring forward a Bill to trigger article 50 and any Member tries to amend it in any material way that binds the hands of the Prime Minister, does the Secretary of State agree that the British public would lose out? They would get a worse deal on our exit, so nobody who truly believes in our national interest would do that?
Article 50 — House of Commons, 2016-11-07
Topic: International Affairs
Brett Charles Anthony Elphicke (Conservative, Centre-right): Does the Secretary of State agree that it is extraordinary to see Labour Members saying that Parliament should decide on article 50 and all matters Brexit when just a few short weeks ago they piled in to defeat a Bill that I brought to this House that would have provided for exactly that? Is that not double standards and doublespeak from Labour Members, including the shadow Secretary of State on this morning’s "Today" programme? Is it any wonder that the people of Britain think that Labour Members are seeking to subvert the will of the British people and to defeat the mandate of the masses, and that they have lost touch with the hard-working classes of modern Britain?
Article 50 — House of Commons, 2016-11-07
Topic: International Affairs
John Philip Glen (Conservative, Centre-right): Will the Secretary of State explain how any Prime Minister could be expected to negotiate effectively for the best outcome for this nation if the other side knows her objectives, aims, plans and goals before she sits down at the negotiating table?
Article 50 — House of Commons, 2016-11-07
Topic: International Affairs
David Michael Davis (Conservative, Centre-right): My hon. Friend is exactly right. Of course, any negotiator of any substance would recognise that, as indeed does the EU, which is why we are pursuing our strategy of giving the broad outline but not the details.
Article 50 — House of Commons, 2016-11-07
Topic: International Affairs
James Roger Cartlidge (Conservative, Centre-right): After all the questions that we have heard, I am slightly surprised that my right hon. Friend still wants to go ahead with his appeal. It must be blindingly obvious to him that a short Bill committing us to invoking article 50 would receive a huge majority on Second Reading. Will he reflect on the powerful statement that that would send to our EU partners and to those in the other place, if it happened?
Article 50 — House of Commons, 2016-11-07
Topic: Law and Crime
David Michael Davis (Conservative, Centre-right): I note that my hon. Friend adds the condition "if it happened". There are issues here that are political, constitutional and legal, and we need to resolve all of them. The best way to do that is to take this case to its full course, and that is what we will do. The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom will make the decision.
Article 50 — House of Commons, 2016-11-07
Topic: International Affairs
David Michael Davis (Conservative, Centre-right): The decision in the referendum was taken at the United Kingdom level. If, in the Scottish independence referendum, the hon. Lady’s side had had a majority but, say, half of Scotland had voted against, would she have said that that had invalidated the referendum result? I do not think so. I do not think that any smaller group than the whole of the United Kingdom can invalidate or veto the referendum.
Article 50 — House of Commons, 2016-11-07
Topic: Law and Crime
Julian William Hendy Brazier (Conservative, Centre-right): I echo the view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) about the possible implications of this judgment for areas such as defence. Does the Secretary of State agree that while the independence of the judiciary is indeed a crucial pillar of our independent constitution, it is only one of a number of them? Does he also agree that for the judiciary to interfere between Parliament and the Executive would break frightening new ground?
Article 50 — House of Commons, 2016-11-07
Topic: Law and Crime
David Michael Davis (Conservative, Centre-right): Well, no. As I have said, we are taking this case to the Supreme Court for a reason. We are a Government who operate under the law. My hon. Friend has a point in that there has been a degree of judicial activism in modern times, but I do not think that this case is susceptible to that analysis.
Article 50 — House of Commons, 2016-11-07
Topic: International Affairs
Marcus John Hudson Fysh (Conservative, Centre-right): Does my right hon. Friend agree that the interests of the people depend on the Prime Minister and her balanced Cabinet having the maximum flexibility and authority to negotiate and conclude new arrangements with the EU as soon as possible, and that a second referendum would guarantee a bad deal, lost jobs and further divisions in our society?
Article 50 — House of Commons, 2016-11-07
Topic: International Affairs
David Michael Davis (Conservative, Centre-right): Yes, my hon. Friend is exactly right. A second referendum would give those on the other side in the negotiations—the European Union—an incentive to give us the worst possible deal to try to force the British people to change their mind. That would be entirely improper.
Article 50 — House of Commons, 2016-11-07
Topic: International Affairs
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): Order. Just before the Secretary of State responds—which I am disinclined to facilitate him doing—I must just say that although I appreciate that repetition is a common phenomenon in politics and not in itself to be deprecated, there is a bit of a tendency on the Scottish National party’s Benches to keep asking him about matters for which he is no longer responsible. The questioning is to the Secretary of State in his capacity as Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, not in his capacity as someone who previously expressed views from the Back Benches or elsewhere in an earlier incarnation.
Article 50 — House of Commons, 2016-11-07
Topic: International Affairs
Michael James Tomlinson-Mynors (Conservative, Centre-right): The independence of the judiciary must be supported and upheld and—I do not say "but"; I say "and"—the Court itself recognised that the case had both political and legal aspects, and that they must be assessed elsewhere, namely in this place. Will the Secretary of State therefore reassure my constituents that he will respect the will of the people and lead us out of the EU?
Article 50 — House of Commons, 2016-11-07
Topic: International Affairs
Wendy Morton (Conservative, Centre-right): For a moment I thought I was going to be the last contributor, Mr Speaker. May I bring us back to the fact that on 23 June we had a single vote on a single political question? People across the country made their view clear. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it was a direct decision to leave the EU? Therefore, we in this place should be doing all that we can to ensure that article 50 is triggered as soon as possible, and that the Prime Minister is able to negotiate the best possible deal for our country.
Article 50 — House of Commons, 2016-11-07
Topic: International Affairs
David Michael Davis (Conservative, Centre-right): My hon. Friend is exactly right. It is the fact that 17.4 million people voted for us to leave the European Union that makes me confident that we can carry this through both Houses of Parliament.
Article 50 — House of Commons, 2016-11-07
Topic: International Affairs
Thomas Christopher John Pursglove (Conservative, Centre-right): You left it a long time to put me out of my misery, Mr Speaker. I am struggling somewhat, because we hear from Opposition Members and some in the country that, on the one hand, we need certainty for businesses—I agree with that and so do Ministers—and then, on the other hand, that they want to drag the whole process out with talk of next summer for invoking article 50. Has my right hon. Friend got on any better than I in understanding and deciphering exactly where they are coming from?
Defence Estate — House of Commons, 2016-11-07
Topic: Environment
Michael Fallon (Conservative, Centre-right): I can certainly give my right hon. Friend that undertaking. The disposal date is foreseen to be 2031, but it is not too soon for us to start those discussions with local authorities to make sure that the best possible use is made of the site and the facilities there.
Defence Estate — House of Commons, 2016-11-07
Topic: Transportation
Michael Fallon (Conservative, Centre-right): I know that my hon. Friend will be pleased that Yeovilton is to become one of the specialist helicopter centres. I visited the base with him only a year ago. I note again his bidding for the dualling of the local road. This is good news for Yeovilton.