argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
EU: Withdrawal and Future Relationship (Motions) — House of Commons, 2019-04-01
Topic: International Affairs
Charles George Eustice (Conservative, Centre-right): For some time, I favoured a simpler and swifter Brexit, based on our leaving the European Union but rejoining the European Free Trade Association, and in so doing, making our existing rights and obligations as a signatory to the treaty establishing the European economic area operable. It would mean that we would have no customs union and an independent trade policy. We would be outside the common fisheries policy and the common agricultural policy, but we would accept regulatory alignment to reduce border friction. My motion was not selected, but this evening, I will support motion (D) in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles)—the so-called common market 2.0 option—for reasons that I will come on to There were two ways to address the issue of Brexit. One was to self-confidently resolve from the beginning that we would leave as a third country and prepare on that basis, and be willing to leave without an agreement if necessary. I would have supported the Prime Minister in that, had she seen that through. However, if the Cabinet always believed that we could not leave without a deal, it had to recognise that that would require significant compromise with the EU, which in turn would require the development of a cross-party consensus in this House. Now that the Prime Minister and her Cabinet have signalled that they are unwilling to leave under a no-deal scenario, we must try to secure a consensus Last Friday, the Prime Minister’s withdrawal agreement was defeated for a third time, but the vast majority of Government Members voted for the withdrawal agreement, albeit unenthusiastically in many cases. My contention this evening is that hon. Members who were willing to take a second look at the withdrawal agreement should also take a second look at common market 2.0. Certainly, it envisages a temporary customs union, but so does the withdrawal agreement, first through the implementation period, then through a probable extension to the implementation period, and finally through the backstop. It also envisages some regulatory alignment through membership of EFTA and the EEA, but that would be dealt with expeditiously under the motion. Under the withdrawal agreement, the UK is already committed to aligning its regulations in relevant areas. The extent to which we have border checks would depend on any divergence from that I believe that this option provides a way to compromise and a way forward for the House. It is far preferable to motion (C), the proposal for a customs union, which, as hon. Members have pointed out, does not make sense for an independent country such as this. It means that we would have our commercial interests traded away in the interests of other countries, and it would not solve the border issues.
EU: Withdrawal and Future Relationship (Motions) — House of Commons, 2019-04-01
Topic: International Affairs
Oliver Letwin (Conservative, Centre-right): I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will recognise that the only way in which the Government can carry this forward, if there is a cross-party consensus, is by bringing in something like the withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill, which would give his party the opportunity to seek to amend it, no doubt with much support around the House, to prevent the eventualities that he is talking about.
EU: Withdrawal and Future Relationship (Motions) — House of Commons, 2019-04-01
Topic: Foreign Trade
Marcus John Hudson Fysh (Conservative, Centre-right): Does the right hon. Gentleman also recall that being in a customs union is not a frictionless state but would require physical movements, certificates on every consignment, export declarations, import VAT, up to 200 million transactions per annum, and so on, which is not frictionless trade?
EU: Withdrawal and Future Relationship (Motions) — House of Commons, 2019-04-01
Topic: International Affairs
Robert Henry Halfon (Conservative, Centre-right): Common market 2.0 is a strong Brexit, a workers’ Brexit, a no-backstop Brexit and a Eurosceptic Brexit. We would be out of the political union—out of the common fisheries policy, the farming policy, home affairs policy, taxation—and we would leave the jurisdiction of the ECJ. We would regain our sovereignty and take back control. We would not be rule takers either. Sitting on the EEA Joint Committee, we could delay, adapt or seek a derogation from any single market law or directive. EFTA states have secured over 1,100 derogations and adaptions. Between them, Norway and Iceland alone have obtained a derogation from EU law on more than 400 occasions. We would also have much greater involvement in the law-making process, with a right to be consulted on any new EU single market law.
EU: Withdrawal and Future Relationship (Motions) — House of Commons, 2019-04-01
Topic: International Affairs
Richard Harrington (Conservative, Centre-right): I congratulate my right hon. Friend and his colleagues on the intelligent work they have done on promoting common market 2.0, and other right hon. and hon. Members on today’s debate and the sensible compromises that have been brought forward. Would he agree that it would have been much better for all concerned if the House had had this discussion two years ago to help shape our negotiations with the EU?
EU: Withdrawal and Future Relationship (Motions) — House of Commons, 2019-04-01
Topic: International Affairs
Robert Henry Halfon (Conservative, Centre-right): My hon. Friend is right, though of course hindsight is a wonderful thing Under common market 2.0, the UK would regain its seat at global bodies such as the WTO and so be able to shape the global standards that are the basis for many EU and EEA laws. As an EFTA member, we would take back control over immigration. Article 112 of the EEA agreement gives us important safeguards that would allow us to "unilaterally take appropriate measures". Article 28(3) would allow us to apply brakes "on grounds of public policy, security or health" We would also be able to do our own trade deals outside of the EU—EFTA states have 27 deals with 43 other countries Common market 2.0 is also a workers’ Brexit that would allow us to keep the high standard of workers’ rights on annual leave, equal pay, maternity and parental leave and many other things, and we would be aligned with the single market, which would safeguard our economy, businesses and jobs. It would also be a no-backstop Brexit because it could be negotiated before the end of the transition period, meaning that the backstop would never need to be activated. The former President of the Court of Justice of the European Free Trade Association States, Carl Baudenbacher, said in an interview that a Norway-style deal could solve our issues relating to the backstop. There would also be no backstop because we would mirror customs union arrangements until the frictionless border problem was solved Common market 2.0 is a unifying Brexit. It brings together the support of remainers and leavers across the parties, from my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) to my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) and the hon. Members for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) and for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock). A report produced by King’s College London about changing attitudes to Brexit shows that the most popular option is a Norway-style deal, and it is gaining traction. Since 2017, support for EFTA has increased to 43%. Among leave voters, 34% opted for the EEA option in 2018, up from 24% in 2017. In the past, it has been supported by many of the principal Eurosceptics,
EU: Withdrawal and Future Relationship (Motions) — House of Commons, 2019-04-01
Topic: International Affairs
Robert Henry Halfon (Conservative, Centre-right): I will not, because many other Members wish to speak Last week, the Government said that we would leave the European economic area automatically when we left the EU. However, in a January 2017 application for a judicial review of exactly this issue, they conceded in court—as can be seen in paragraph 16(d) of their legal submission—that the legal position argued by the applicant, Mr Adrian Yalland, that we would not leave the EEA automatically, but would do so by giving an article 127 notice, was in fact correct. The Government’s legal submission states "for the avoidance of doubt, the Secretary does not rely on Article 126 as giving rise to the termination of the EEA Agreement." Common market 2.0 is a Brexit that can unite the Conservative party, unite the country and unite Parliament. It is a Brexit that is for everyone.
EU: Withdrawal and Future Relationship (Motions) — House of Commons, 2019-04-01
Topic: Foreign Trade
Victoria Grace Ford (Conservative, Centre-right): There are huge divisions in our country. Although I voted remain, I do not support a second referendum or revoking previous decisions because I do not believe that that would heal our divisions. However, having no deal with our largest trading partner is unacceptable. It poses huge risks to our economy and creates uncertainty on the Irish border I voted three times for the Prime Minister’s deal. It is a bespoke deal and to me it is the best option, but it has failed three times. Saying no to everything does not work. We need a compromise and I will support a customs union this evening. That is not the same as the customs union that we are in today. We can be in a customs union, but out of the common fisheries policy, the common agricultural policy and free movement. All those were big issues in the referendum. Yes, we would have the same tariffs on goods, but we would not have to follow the same regulation on goods. On services—the key part of our economy—we would be free to make our own regulations, and our own trade deals with other parts of the world. A customs union does not involve handing over our trade policy to Brussels because a country Britain’s size would influence Brussels policy. Even Turkey retains its own say on trade sanctions The fundamental issue is deliverability. We could be in a customs union, combined with the withdrawal agreement, and deal with everything with the future framework. That could all be done by 22 May and we would not need ever longer extensions or another European election.
Business without Debate — House of Commons, 2019-04-01
Topic: International Affairs
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): Order. I will now suspend the House until the outcomes of the votes on motions relating to the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from and future relationship with the European Union are available. The Division bells will be rung 10 minutes before the House resumes.
EU: Withdrawal and Future Relationship (Votes) — House of Commons, 2019-04-01
Topic: International Affairs
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): I can now announce the outcome of the Divisions on motions relating to the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from and future relationship with the European Union In respect of Mr Kenneth Clarke’s motion (C)—customs union—the Ayes were 273 and the Noes were 276, so the Noes have it In respect of Mr Nicholas Boles’s motion (D)—common market 2.0—the Ayes were 261 and the Noes were 282, so the Noes have it In respect of Mr Peter Kyle’s motion (E)—confirmatory public vote—the Ayes were 280 and the Noes were 292, so the Noes have it In respect of Joanna Cherry’s motion (G)—parliamentary supremacy—the Ayes were 191 and the Noes were 292, so the Noes have it The lists showing how hon. Members voted will be published in the usual way on the CommonsVotes app and website, and in Hansard.
EU: Withdrawal and Future Relationship (Votes) — House of Commons, 2019-04-01
Topic: International Affairs
Stephen Paul Barclay (Conservative, Centre-right): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is now the second time the House has considered a wide variety of options for a way forward. It has once again failed to find a clear majority for any of the options, yet the result of the House’s decision on Friday not to endorse the withdrawal agreement means that the default legal position is that the UK will leave the EU in just 11 days’ time. To secure any further extension, the Government will have to put forward a credible proposition to the EU as to what we will do with that extra time. This House has continuously rejected leaving without a deal, just as it has rejected not leaving at all. Therefore, the only option is to find a way through that allows the UK to leave with a deal. The Government continue to believe that the best course of action is to do so as soon as possible. If the House were to agree a deal this week, it may still be possible to avoid holding European parliamentary elections. Cabinet will meet in the morning to consider the results of tonight’s vote and how we should proceed.
EU: Withdrawal and Future Relationship (Votes) — House of Commons, 2019-04-01
Topic: International Affairs
Nicholas Edward Coleridge Boles (Conservative, Centre-right): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have given everything to an attempt to find a compromise that can take this country out of the European Union while maintaining our economic strength and our political cohesion. I accept that I have failed. I have failed chiefly because my party refuses to compromise. I regret, therefore, to announce that I can no longer sit for this party.
EU: Withdrawal and Future Relationship (Votes) — House of Commons, 2019-04-01
Topic: International Affairs
Julian Murray Lewis (Conservative, Centre-right): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I, within the rules of order, just point out that a clear majority of Conservative MPs—no fewer than 159 including tellers—voted a week ago that we should leave the European Union without a deal? I find it very strange that everybody assumes that, because of the House’s position as a whole, that cannot be a way forward. If it was always going to be left to the House of Commons, dominated as it is by remainers, to have the final say, there was never any hope for a referendum to achieve anything whatsoever.
EU: Withdrawal and Future Relationship (Votes) — House of Commons, 2019-04-01
Topic: International Affairs
William Nigel Paul Cash (Conservative, Centre-right): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In the light of the word "blockage" that was just used, and the suggestion that somehow or other there is something wrong with our democratic system, may I simply say this? I recall the fact that section 1 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 quite clearly states, as a matter of law, that the European Communities Act 1972 is repealed on exit day, and if that exit day happens to be 12 April, so be it. That is the law of the land. That is something that we ought to hang on to, because it is the anchor of the referendum in which the British people voted.
Leaving the EU: No Deal — House of Commons, 2019-04-10
Topic: International Affairs
Karen Anne Bradley (Conservative, Centre-right): Today is the 21st anniversary of the Belfast agreement. Our commitment to the agreement and its successor agreements remains steadfast. It has been instrumental in bringing peace and stability to Northern Ireland and remains the bedrock of the significant progress that has been achieved since 1998 We want and expect to leave the European Union with a negotiated agreement. However, as a responsible Government, we have been working intensively to ensure that all parts of the UK, including Northern Ireland, are as prepared as possible in the event of a no-deal exit. We have been clear that the unique social, political and economic circumstances of Northern Ireland must be protected.
Leaving the EU: No Deal — House of Commons, 2019-04-10
Topic: International Affairs
Karen Anne Bradley (Conservative, Centre-right): The Belfast/Good Friday agreement was a landmark achievement. It took many years and many people take credit for it, and quite rightly so. We have been clear that there will be no diminution of rights when the United Kingdom leaves the European Union. That is set out very clearly in the Northern Ireland protocol to the withdrawal agreement, which means, as I said earlier, that the answer is to vote for the deal.
Leaving the EU: No Deal — House of Commons, 2019-04-10
Topic: Macroeconomics
Andrew William Murrison (Conservative, Centre-right): Does my right hon. Friend agree with the Northern Ireland Department for the Economy that cutting corporation tax to the level enjoyed by businesses in the Republic of Ireland would more than compensate for any loss of attractiveness of Northern Ireland to foreign direct investors and the associated job losses?
Leaving the EU: No Deal — House of Commons, 2019-04-10
Topic: Macroeconomics
Karen Anne Bradley (Conservative, Centre-right): This House gave the Northern Ireland Executive the power to cut the corporation tax rate. That is an achievement of this Government, and we believe it would help the economy of Northern Ireland. We need a functioning Executive—we will come on to that issue later—in order for that power to be used, and that is what we all want to happen.
Leaving the EU: No Deal — House of Commons, 2019-04-10
Topic: International Affairs
Brett Charles Anthony Elphicke (Conservative, Centre-right): Will the Secretary of State confirm that there are already differential rates of duties and VAT between Northern Ireland and the Republic, and that, whether we leave with a deal or no deal, co-operation and ensuring that there is no hard border is in everyone’s interests?
Leaving the EU: No Deal — House of Commons, 2019-04-10
Topic: International Affairs
Karen Anne Bradley (Conservative, Centre-right): I agree that it is in everyone’s interests that we co-operate with all our friends in the European Union, and in particular with Ireland. My hon. Friend is right. Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom—a separate jurisdiction and a separate sovereign country—and therefore there are differences. As I have said, the best way for us to leave the European Union—the way that will protect so many of the things that have been achieved in the past 21 years—is to leave with a negotiated agreement.
Leaving the EU: No Deal — House of Commons, 2019-04-10
Topic: International Affairs
Karen Anne Bradley (Conservative, Centre-right): The right hon. Gentleman is right to point out that there was a majority—the only majority in this House for anything—for the Brady amendment. I was one of those who voted for it, because I want to see changes to the backstop. Of course, that is something we have achieved through the agreement that alternative arrangements could be part of the way in which the backstop is replaced. As I have said, we all want a negotiated exit that works for the whole United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland.
Leaving the EU: No Deal — House of Commons, 2019-04-10
Topic: International Affairs
Karen Anne Bradley (Conservative, Centre-right): I understand the many frustrations that there are around this process. I voted for the withdrawal agreement—I voted for it three times. I believe that it is a fair and balanced way for the whole United Kingdom to leave the European Union in a way that respects fully the Belfast agreement and its successor agreements, and that is what I want to see us deliver.
Devolution — House of Commons, 2019-04-10
Topic: Government Operations
Karen Anne Bradley (Conservative, Centre-right): On 26 March, I laid before Parliament a statutory instrument that extends the period for Executive formation until 25 August. This follows the recent engagement that I have had with the five main political parties in Northern Ireland and the Irish Government. On the basis of those conversations, I have proposed a short, focused set of five-party talks aimed at restoring devolution and the other institutions at the earliest opportunity.
Devolution — House of Commons, 2019-04-10
Topic: International Affairs
Karen Anne Bradley (Conservative, Centre-right): I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman’s opening remarks, but I do want to look at what is the best way to achieve a successful outcome from the talks, and I am open to looking at all options for how to achieve that.
Devolution — House of Commons, 2019-04-10
Topic: International Affairs
Karen Anne Bradley (Conservative, Centre-right): I would like to see talks resume as soon as possible, but I am acutely aware that there are issues, including the fact that local government elections are now being fought in Northern Ireland and that we are in purdah, that create difficulties for what can be achieved, but I do want to see as soon as possible a short, focused set of five-party talks.
Devolution — House of Commons, 2019-04-10
Topic: Government Operations
Karen Anne Bradley (Conservative, Centre-right): The hon. Gentleman refers to a number of issues that may be making it more difficult for parties to find an accommodation to enable them to restore devolution. I know that he is a supporter of devolution, and therefore I suggest to him that the best way that we can all help on that is to vote for the deal.
Devolution — House of Commons, 2019-04-10
Topic: Government Operations
Karen Anne Bradley (Conservative, Centre-right): The right hon. Gentleman knows that the best thing for the people of Northern Ireland is devolved government in Stormont, with local politicians making decisions for the people who elected them. That is what we are all determined to see, and I am as determined as anybody to make sure that I put the conditions in place so that we can enable that to happen.
Devolution — House of Commons, 2019-04-10
Topic: Government Operations
Karen Anne Bradley (Conservative, Centre-right): I do not wish to correct the hon. Gentleman unnecessarily, but the recommendations of the Hart inquiry came two years ago, just after the Executive collapsed. Since that time, the head of the Northern Ireland civil service, David Sterling, has completed a consultation, and we await its results; that would need to be done in any event. I stand ready to look at the appropriate action that needs to be taken when the consultation recommendations are brought forward and I hear from David Sterling.
Devolved Government — House of Commons, 2019-04-10
Topic: Government Operations
Questions: What discussions she has had with (a) Cabinet colleagues and (b) representatives of political parties in Northern Ireland on restoring devolved government in Northern Ireland.
Karen Anne Bradley (Conservative, Centre-right): As I set out previously, the statutory instrument that I laid before Parliament on 26 March extends the period for Executive formation until 25 August. I have proposed a short, focused set of five-party talks aimed at restoring devolution at the earliest opportunity.
Devolved Government — House of Commons, 2019-04-10
Topic: Government Operations
Questions: What discussions she has had with (a) Cabinet colleagues and (b) representatives of political parties in Northern Ireland on restoring devolved government in Northern Ireland.
Ross Thomson (Conservative, Centre-right): Given that the Secretary of State has previously stated that she wishes to ensure the best chance of restoring devolution, is she concerned that no opportunity to successfully bring the parties together has yet presented itself?
Devolved Government — House of Commons, 2019-04-10
Topic: International Affairs
Questions: What discussions she has had with (a) Cabinet colleagues and (b) representatives of political parties in Northern Ireland on restoring devolved government in Northern Ireland.
Karen Anne Bradley (Conservative, Centre-right): We have tried on a number of occasions to bring the parties together. My hon. Friend will know that we had an intensive period of talks last year that were very close to a successful outcome, but it has just not been possible to do that. I would not wish to say to the people of Northern Ireland that we were able to do something if I did not genuinely believe that we could. I therefore need to ensure that the conditions are right to have the best chance of success, because that is what the people of Northern Ireland deserve.