argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-02-08
Topic: Foreign Trade
Edward Vaizey (Conservative, Centre-right): I agree with the hon. Lady and that example reinforces my belief that free trade deals will not be easy to negotiate What I am really saying, I suppose, is that my constituents who voted to remain—especially those who come from other European countries—have a great deal of anxiety and want a realisation that we cannot wave a magic wand but that this will need hard pounding. I stand foursquare with the Government on ensuring that we get the best deal possible.
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-02-08
Topic: Foreign Trade
Steven John Baker (Conservative, Centre-right): I want to cheer my right hon. Friend up a little and apologise to him as I may have inadvertently failed to invite him to meet the Legatum Institute special trade commissioners who visited Parliament on Monday. The Mexican trade commissioner, who was one of the original North American Free Trade Agreement negotiators, explained to us the danger that NAFTA may need a major renegotiation under President Trump. With talk of the need to get the substance right and then get it through three Parliaments, it sounded as if it would take a terribly long time, but they think it can be concluded by October 2018. The experience of actual trade negotiators who have negotiated such agreements is that they can be done quickly.
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-02-08
Topic: International Affairs
Edward Vaizey (Conservative, Centre-right): I will visit my hon. Friend’s constituency in April, so we can discuss the matter at length as I turn his leave association into a remain one. I know the Legatum Institute well because the chap who has become flavour of the month for his knowledge of trade deals, Shanker Singham, was at school with me, which automatically makes him a dangerous member of the liberal metropolitan elite. It is important that we are aware that one of the Brexiteers’ great champions is a member of the dangerous liberal metropolitan elite—
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-02-08
Topic: Energy
Edward Vaizey (Conservative, Centre-right): That is just one of many factors we must take into account I have tested the patience of the Committee with my wisecracks, and I now want to talk about my main, very serious issue—the withdrawal from Euratom, which will directly affect my constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell), who is no longer in his place, represents the Culham Centre for Fusion Energy, where the main research into nuclear fusion—the holy grail of sustainable energy—takes place. In 2014 we signed an almost €300 million contract to run the Joint European Torus on that site until 2018. We are now negotiating to take the programme forward. The JET, based in Oxfordshire, accounts for a quarter of the European fusion programme budget. Other money comes from ITER, the global fusion project. It will take place in France but still provides financial support for British projects including, for example, €40 million of remote handling equipment awarded to the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority—based in Oxfordshire—as part of a wider consortium Coming out of Euratom would present some difficult issues, including a requirement to conclude new bilateral co-operation agreements with the United States and approximately 20 other countries to maintain our access to intellectual property and nuclear technologies; removing the requirement for the UK to comply with Euratom’s safety regimes, which would prevent other countries from collaborating with us; and further potential delays and cost increases to the nuclear new build programme. I am extremely unhappy that the Bill will take us out of Euratom—and I was also unhappy that I had no warning of that—but I am grateful to Ministers, some of whom are in their places, for their reactions on this issue. I have been able to have discussions with Ministers from the Departments for Exiting the European Union and for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. I am grateful to the Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation, my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Joseph Johnson), who has personally met the Culham chief executive, and to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy who has also spoken to the chief executive. I am also delighted that the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), is due to visit Culham. Every effort is being made to ensure that at its all-staff meeting tomorrow proper reassurances can be given.
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-02-08
Topic: Technology
Edward Vaizey (Conservative, Centre-right): As far as I understand it, that subsidy is not going away, and certainly shortly after the referendum the Science Minister guaranteed science funding up to 2020. I am sure that we will find some way to be a member of Euratom and to benefit, because British—and European—scientists working in Culham are vital to that project.
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-02-08
Topic: International Affairs
Brett Charles Anthony Elphicke (Conservative, Centre-right): It is welcome to hear that Ministers have been so heavily engaged with my right hon. Friend following the concerns he raised on Second Reading. Does he agree that Euratom is so closely linked with the European Union that it would be difficult for the United Kingdom to continue to be a member of Euratom while leaving the European Union?
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-02-08
Topic: International Affairs
Edward Vaizey (Conservative, Centre-right): The hon. Lady makes exactly the point about why people are concerned. As I hope I have made clear, Ministers are putting in a great deal of energy—I am full of terrible puns today—to ensuring that the implications of our technical withdrawal from Euratom are minimised, and that we can restore our de facto membership in the coming months.
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-02-08
Topic: Energy
Christopher Laurie Malthouse (Conservative, Centre-right): My right hon. Friend is concerned about Euratom. Has he considered the alternative? Given that in the last funding round Euratom had to fight very hard to try to maintain its funding, a position it is unlikely to be able to maintain in future, and the fact that the largest single contributors to Horizon 2020, the Germans, have taken the decision to phase out their civil nuclear programme all together, is he not concerned that over the next couple of decades continued membership of Euratom might expose us to diminishing research funding? Exit from the EU could provide us with the opportunity to partner bilaterally with other countries, as we do already with India and South Korea, and therefore expose ourselves to a wider pool of research.
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-02-08
Topic: Foreign Trade
Christopher Laurie Malthouse (Conservative, Centre-right): The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, but will he accept that our membership of the EU has seen a transfer of industries and factories from the UK to eastern Europe and others parts of the EU? Not least of those is Cadbury, which transferred manufacturing to other parts of the EU.
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-02-08
Topic: Foreign Trade
John Charles Baron (Conservative, Centre-right): I have good news for the hon. Gentleman: courtesy of our leaving the EU, sterling has fallen and manufacturing in this country is having a field day, as he can see from the export orders and factory output orders. Does he agree that that has been a boon to the manufacturing industry, particularly in the north?
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-02-08
Topic: Government Operations
Christopher Laurie Malthouse (Conservative, Centre-right): The hon. Gentleman is quite right. I did say "the vast majority". I should not have said that until I had managed to read them all, but I must confess that even my enormous stamina started to wane at one in the morning when I was two-thirds of the way through them. I have not read them all, which is why I am sitting here listening, so I shall have to mull over that decision over the next few hours As I was saying, we do not know what the form of the undertaking is to be, we do not know to whom it is to be made, and, critically, we do not know what the sanction is. If the Prime Minister says "Do you know what? No", what are we to do? Are we to send her to the Tower? Is she not to participate in the elections?
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-02-08
Topic: Government Operations
Mark James Harper (Conservative, Centre-right): According to my reading of the new clause, the sanction is that until the Prime Minister has given the undertaking, she cannot proceed with giving notice under article 50, which I suspect is the intention of those who tabled the new clause. These new clauses are festooned with mechanisms for not giving notice under article 50, which is the entire purpose of the Bill.
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-02-08
Topic: Labor
Christopher Laurie Malthouse (Conservative, Centre-right): I agree, although the word I would use is "simplicity". With simplicity comes clarity, and we need clarity from the Prime Minister, as she enters the negotiations, about the motivations of the House and its support for her My other reason for objecting to new clause 2 is that it abrogates to the Prime Minister decisions that will rightly become the decisions of the House in the future. Paragraph (e) states that the Prime Minister should have regard to "maintaining all existing social, economic, consumer and workers’ rights." Apart from anything else, I am not sure what my social or economic rights are. They are undefined in the Bill. But, in future, those decisions will presumably become decisions of the House. If there are to be any changes in those rights, undefined as they are, they will have to be the subject of primary legislation.
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-02-08
Topic: Government Operations
Mark James Harper (Conservative, Centre-right): May I help my hon. Friend and, in particular, the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas)? It is made clear in the White Paper—an undertaking that the Prime Minister has already given to the House—that any significant policy changes will be underpinned by primary legislation, which means that the House can be given a full opportunity to debate them. It is also clear that secondary legislation, under the great repeal Bill, will be used only to address deficiencies in the preserved law, which will relate to the fact that we will not, for example, be able to use EU institutions. I think that that is very clear, and preserves the rights and privileges of the House to protect our constituents.
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-02-08
Topic: International Affairs
Peter Lilley (Conservative, Centre-right): Is my hon. Friend not puzzled about why the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) and others now want to be able to vote on and control legislation on whole swathes of which, for the last 40 years, they have been content to have no vote—no vote before negotiations, no vote during negotiations, no vote at the end of negotiations—and no power to destroy an EU regulation even if every Member voted against it.
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-02-08
Topic: Foreign Trade
Christopher Laurie Malthouse (Conservative, Centre-right): My right hon. Friend has neatly drawn attention to the fundamental paradox that sits at the base of all remainer arguments When we come to new clause 77, I think we have reached what I would call peak nonsense. The new clause, tabled by the hon. Member for Nottingham East, states: "In negotiating and concluding an agreement in accordance with Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, Ministers of the Crown must have regard to the desirability of retaining full participation in the making of all rules affecting trade in goods and services in the European Union." That effectively means remaining members of the Commission, members of the Parliament, and members of the Council of Ministers, or else not leaving the EU. As far as I can see, that is indeed peak nonsense. Yet again, we see bad legislation and bad law.
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-02-08
Topic: Foreign Trade
Christopher Laurie Malthouse (Conservative, Centre-right): No, that is not what it says. If the hon. Member reads the Member’s explanatory statement to the amendment he will see that it says: "This new clause would require HM Government to negotiate to continue the UK’s participation on agreeing all rules affecting trade in goods and services in the European Union." My understanding is that those rules are made by the Commission and agreed by the Council of Ministers and the Parliament, so we would have to stay around all those tables.
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-02-08
Topic: International Affairs
Thomas Georg John Tugendhat (Conservative, Centre-right): Should we pass this new clause, will the Act of Parliament therefore be binding on the other 27 members, who will therefore, because we willed it, be forced to accept our presence at their table, despite our having left all the organisations that we have left? Does my hon. Friend think that this is in any way enforceable? If not, is it not slightly fallacious even to debate it?
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-02-08
Topic: International Affairs
Christopher Laurie Malthouse (Conservative, Centre-right): My hon. Friend rightly points out that, as with all of these amendments, even if this does not happen, there is nothing to be done. There is no sanction; there would just be a shrug of the shoulders, and we would have to turn our back and ask the hon. Member for Nottingham East what we are supposed to do next if we cannot manage to comply with his amendment. It really is nonsense. I know the hon. Gentleman has ambitions within his party, but he will have to do a little bit better than produce stuff like this Again, new clause 179 on protecting current levels of funding states: "In negotiating and concluding an agreement in accordance with Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, Ministers of the Crown must have regard to the desirability of protecting current funding from the European Union." Funding to whom? Which funding? All funding? The funding that we send? The funding that comes back? Defence spend? Funding to us, or funding to other countries? The vagueness of these new clauses is extraordinary Again, new clause 183 on membership of the single market including EU-wide reform of freedom of movement states: "secure reforms of provisions governing the free movement of persons between EU member states in such a way as to allow for greater controls over movement of people for member states" That is all very vague, as is "maintain the highest possible level of integration with the European single market." What does that mean? What is the highest possible level of integration? Perhaps that means membership.
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-02-08
Topic: International Affairs
Oliver Letwin (Conservative, Centre-right): I think my hon. Friend is being a little uncharitable. He seems to be assuming that these new clauses are without purpose, but, as was recently pointed out, they have a very definite purpose: were they to be passed, it would be impossible for the Government to proceed with article 50. It would be in the courts certainly for years, possibly for decades, and maybe even for centuries. A very conscious policy of great intelligence is being followed here. My hon. Friend is underestimating the ingenuity of the Opposition.
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-02-08
Topic: Energy
Christopher Laurie Malthouse (Conservative, Centre-right): Anyway, I have come to the end of my peroration on that particular point and I have a couple of other points Quite a lot of these amendments are unenforceable and nonsensical and cannot be supported. I will listen to the rest of the debate and discover whether there are any substantive ones in this potpourri that has been thrown up in the air, as my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) says, to try to fog the issue or create legal difficulties in the future. But for the moment I am afraid I am not able to support the vast majority of them, although I have not read every single one yet I wish to make two further points. First, I want to reiterate what I said earlier about Euratom and the nuclear industry. The nuclear industry is of course incredibly important not just to the UK, but to the rest of the world. The UK is a serious nuclear power; there is serious, deep research going on here into the future of nuclear fission and fusion. But we have to recognise that things are changing in the EU nuclear research landscape, and be aware of those decisions, and take them into account when we consider our future association with Euratom There is now only one serious nuclear power in the EU, which is France. Germany has taken the decision to withdraw completely from the civil nuclear programme. Belgium is the only other country with a significant number of reactors, but France, with 58 reactors, is the only country truly putting effort into nuclear research, and of course we are fortunate in this country in having a bilateral nuclear collaboration agreement with France.
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-02-08
Topic: Energy
Christopher Laurie Malthouse (Conservative, Centre-right): I am not quite sure what the hon. Lady thinks I said. I said there were broadly two serious nuclear powers in the EU at the moment, the UK and France, and that we are fortunate in having a bilateral agreement signed in 2010 with the French to deepen and widen our collaboration on nuclear research. Our exit from Euratom, which looks like it is going to happen, will not affect that at all. Those bilateral relations and that research will continue. In particular, our participation in the Jules Horowitz Reactor project in southern France can continue, not least because there are a number of non-EU members in that fantastic materials testing programme at the moment.
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-02-08
Topic: Energy
Theresa Anne Villiers (Conservative, Centre-right): I wonder whether my hon. Friend shares my concern. I think that the threat to the UK nuclear industry is not this Bill but the fact that the Leader of the Opposition wants to shut down the nuclear industry in this country, including, of course, Sellafield.
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-02-08
Topic: International Affairs
James Michael Ellwood Berry (Conservative, Centre-right): Does my hon. Friend agree that Euratom, much like Europol, is one of those organisations from which the other EU member states would have absolutely no interest in excluding the UK and that, therefore, a quick agreement is likely?
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-02-08
Topic: International Affairs
Steven John Baker (Conservative, Centre-right): That is an important point. About half of Business for Britain’s 1,000-page "Change, or go" report went through, section by section, all the areas on which we currently co-operate with other nation states through the European Union and its agencies. In each case, it explained that there were bases on which we could co-operate internationally. During the Prüm debate, I made a point particularly in relation to Europol: in a globalised world of cheap, fast air travel, and the internet making just about everywhere milliseconds away, we need global co-operation on police, judicial and security matters. We need to escape the mindset that the only way to do that is through the hierarchical arrangements of the European Union. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (James Berry) will not mind if I dilate slightly on his point I remember being told back in 2010 by Members across the House, particularly by the then leader of the Liberal Democrats, that politics was changing and that we were seeing a realignment of politics. I thought of Ronald Reagan’s words on choice: "Up to the maximum of individual freedom consistent with law and order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism" That reorientation of politics is happening The availability of the internet and air travel means that the old hierarchical structures that were necessary for communication in the absence of the internet are no longer appropriate for the world in which we live. It is quite right that we should seek, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton suggests, to co-operate on a global basis on all these issues under new arrangements that allow us to act with far greater agility.
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-02-08
Topic: International Affairs
Steven John Baker (Conservative, Centre-right): On that point, I am grateful that my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) is back in his place. He devastated all those arguments in a straightforward intervention by making the point that the Joint European Torus project over at Culham does not want these amendments. That is not to say that people do not want collaboration; of course we all want that. However, the question today is whether these amendments should be made. The clear answer coming from Culham—I am grateful that my hon. Friend the Member for Henley is indicating assent—is that the amendments should not be made.
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-02-08
Topic: Transportation
John Michael Howell (Conservative, Centre-right): My hon. Friend’s point is absolutely clear. The management at Culham do want to co-operate, and they want a much larger project. We should do that not by making amendments, but by having discussions with Ministers.