argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Parliamentary Scrutiny of Leaving the EU — House of Commons, 2016-10-12
Topic: International Affairs
David Michael Davis (Conservative, Centre-right): I will make some progress and give way again in a moment I return to the Opposition’s motion. They say that there should be "a full and transparent debate on the Government’s plan for leaving the EU" I agree. At the same time, I am sure that we can all agree that nothing should be done to compromise the national interest in the negotiation to come; I think the shadow Secretary of State said that in his opening speech I could list the 100 questions that we have answered, the oral statements, the appearances before Select Committees; the House knows all that. As a Department, we are not being backward in appearing in front of the House. The House may not be overwhelmed with the detail of the answers yet—that is hardly surprising: we are only a few weeks into the process and six months away from the end of it. The simple truth is that we are appearing regularly in front of the House and seeking to give as much as we can.
Parliamentary Scrutiny of Leaving the EU — House of Commons, 2016-10-12
Topic: International Affairs
Anna Mary Soubry (Conservative, Centre-right): To follow up on the question asked by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), I seek a bone. Will my right hon. Friend please tell us whether the Government have turned their backs on membership of the single market? Yes or no, please.
Parliamentary Scrutiny of Leaving the EU — House of Commons, 2016-10-12
Topic: International Affairs
David Michael Davis (Conservative, Centre-right): I am afraid that that intervention is rather a demonstration of one of the problems that we have with the language on this issue. People have been talking about "hard Brexit" and "soft Brexit", which mean very little. Attempts have been made to pigeonhole what could be any one of a whole range of outcomes in market terms. We have not yet started a negotiation with the European Union and there is a whole spectrum—from free trade area, to customs union, to the single market arrangement. The shadow Secretary of State was laying out some of those possibilities. We are not going to go for a Norwegian, Turkish or Swiss option—we are going for a British option, which will be tailored to our interests and better for our interests than any other option.
Parliamentary Scrutiny of Leaving the EU — House of Commons, 2016-10-12
Topic: International Affairs
Cheryl Elise Kendall Gillan (Conservative, Centre-right): I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend May I nail this lie once and for all? The other day, the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee took evidence from Sir Jeremy Heywood, who confirmed that senior civil servants were meeting before the referendum to discuss the outcomes, including the possibility that the country would vote to leave the European Union. Plans and preparations were being made by the British civil service before the referendum.
Parliamentary Scrutiny of Leaving the EU — House of Commons, 2016-10-12
Topic: Government Operations
David Michael Davis (Conservative, Centre-right): I will now move on to the question of scrutiny itself The House already has plans to put in place the so-called Brexit Select Committee, which will take effect next month, and we will be appearing in front of it regularly. It would be surprising if we appeared in front of that Committee and did not talk about some of our plans. I expect to attend the Committee regularly, just as I will attend the Lords Committee—its equivalent, effectively. We do not shy away from scrutiny; we welcome it. Members will know that I have continually welcomed and championed the extension of Select Committee powers since the publication of the Wright Committee report in 2009. The public expect Ministers to engage with Parliament in this way, and we will continue to do so.
Parliamentary Scrutiny of Leaving the EU — House of Commons, 2016-10-12
Topic: International Affairs
David Michael Davis (Conservative, Centre-right): In a moment I also made a commitment in September that this Parliament will be at least as informed of progress in our negotiations as the European Parliament. The hon. and learned Gentleman did not appear to believe it when I told the Lords, but it was also made plain to the Foreign Affairs Committee. We are setting up administrative procedures to ensure that, when this becomes relevant in a month or two, these things happen and happen quickly, so that we do not have to go to an EU website to find what we want to know. That will be the minimum, but Members should understand that we will be going considerably beyond that.
Parliamentary Scrutiny of Leaving the EU — House of Commons, 2016-10-12
Topic: Foreign Trade
David Michael Davis (Conservative, Centre-right): It is astonishing how linear, or black and white, some Members think this is. We have Norway, which is inside the single market and outside the customs union; we have Turkey, which is inside the customs union and outside the single market; and we have Switzerland, which is not in the single market but has equivalent access to all of its productive and manufacturing services. There is not a single entity, but a spectrum of outcomes, and we will be seeking to get the best of that spectrum of outcomes.
Parliamentary Scrutiny of Leaving the EU — House of Commons, 2016-10-12
Topic: International Affairs
David Michael Davis (Conservative, Centre-right): In a moment—I have a lady over here who wants to make an intervention Similarly, if someone makes pre-emptive indications that they are willing to make a concession on something, they reduce the value of that concession. Therefore, in many, many ways, we cannot give details about how we will run the negotiation.
Parliamentary Scrutiny of Leaving the EU — House of Commons, 2016-10-12
Topic: International Affairs
David Michael Davis (Conservative, Centre-right): I see no reason not to help the Select Committee on that basis; that seems an eminently sensible use of time and of the Select Committee’s expertise, so of course we will do that. However, this will be an issue right across the board; pretty much every Select Committee in the House of Commons will have an interest, one way or another, in the progress of Brexit and in what the outcome will be.
Parliamentary Scrutiny of Leaving the EU — House of Commons, 2016-10-12
Topic: Agriculture
David Michael Davis (Conservative, Centre-right): That is why we made it plain at the beginning of this process that we would have the great repeal Bill, which will put into UK law—or domestic law, more accurately—what is currently the acquis communautaire. That is the start position. Then it comes down to the House to amend that under the guidance of the individual Departments. There may be, for example, a fisheries Bill; there may be some other legislation of that nature. That will have to be argued through at the time. It is pretty straightforward.
Parliamentary Scrutiny of Leaving the EU — House of Commons, 2016-10-12
Topic: International Affairs
David Michael Davis (Conservative, Centre-right): That, frankly, will be within our own control. If you leave the European Union, that gives you control over that issue. How you deal with the European Union, and trade with it, then comes on from there, so that is not an issue that actually meets that The simple demonstration of the point I am making is this: in Northern Ireland, where we have the really important issue of soft borders to resolve, both sides of the decision-making process—the Northern Ireland Executive and the Irish Government—have a similar interest. As a result, we can be very open about that issue, and we have indeed been very open about it; indeed, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland was quoted in The Guardian on Monday in detail about what he is trying to achieve in terms of customs arrangements, cross-border arrangements and the common travel area. All of those things were very straightforwardly laid out in some detail. Why? Because that does not give away any of our negotiating cards, as this is between two people with the same aim. That is a much better example of how we have to be careful about what we say as we go into the negotiations.
Parliamentary Scrutiny of Leaving the EU — House of Commons, 2016-10-12
Topic: Agriculture
David Michael Davis (Conservative, Centre-right): I would not expect that as part of the Brexit process. To take the serious point, we need to discuss with all the devolved Administrations how to address sectors—such as fisheries, farming, hill farming—the legal basis of which will alter as we bring things back to the United Kingdom.
Parliamentary Scrutiny of Leaving the EU — House of Commons, 2016-10-12
Topic: International Affairs
David Michael Davis (Conservative, Centre-right): This is an area on which we have not talked to the devolved Administration yet. We will do so before we get to bringing such things back Such an attitude on the details of the negotiations is not taken simply by the Government. The Lords European Union Committee concluded: "It is clear…that parliamentary scrutiny of the negotiations will have to strike a balance between, on the one hand, the desire for transparency, and on the other, the need to avoid undermining the UK’s negotiating position." This is hardly rocket science. It should hardly be controversial; it should be straightforward. At every stage of this process, I want this House to be engaged and updated. As I have made clear, we will observe the constitutional and legal conventions that apply to any new treaty on a new relationship with the European Union.
Parliamentary Scrutiny of Leaving the EU — House of Commons, 2016-10-12
Topic: International Affairs
David Michael Davis (Conservative, Centre-right): I will give way in a moment I want to address the final part of the motion about this House being able properly to scrutinise Government plans for leaving the EU before article 50 is invoked. Article 50 sets out the process by which we leave the EU, which has been decided by the British people. Invoking it is a job for the Government. Leaving the EU is what the British people voted for on 23 June, and article 50 is how we do it.
Parliamentary Scrutiny of Leaving the EU — House of Commons, 2016-10-12
Topic: International Affairs
Nick Herbert (Conservative, Centre-right): I welcome the terms of the Government amendment, which seems entirely sensible. Does my right hon. Friend therefore agree, and is my understanding right, that he now accepts that those of us raising concerns about the level of debate necessary ahead of the triggering of article 50 are by no means seeking to frustrate the will of the people—we recognise the instruction from the British people that we should leave the European Union—but seeking a full understanding of the Government’s broad negotiating aims?
Parliamentary Scrutiny of Leaving the EU — House of Commons, 2016-10-12
Topic: International Affairs
David Michael Davis (Conservative, Centre-right): I am glad to hear my right hon. Friend say that. In truth, scrutiny of our strategic aims is what debates such as this are about, as is parliamentary engagement of the kind I have mentioned—debating the issues that will inform our negotiating position, and holding the Government to account. However, such scrutiny has to be at the strategic level; it cannot be at the tactical level or enter into the detailed negotiation.
Parliamentary Scrutiny of Leaving the EU — House of Commons, 2016-10-12
Topic: Government Operations
Peter William Bone (Conservative, Centre-right): Is this not one of those strange debates in which both sides actually agree with each other—in this case, that we will have parliamentary scrutiny? If the Opposition are against such an approach, they can have Opposition days, hold Back-Bench business debates, table urgent questions, ask questions during statements and have Westminster Hall debates. All those are in the power of Parliament. We are absolutely not disagreeing; in the end, we will all agree with the amended motion. There is a lot of general noise, but Parliament is actually agreeing that the process should go forward, and we will scrutinise it properly. Does the Secretary of State agree that that is the gist of it?
Parliamentary Scrutiny of Leaving the EU — House of Commons, 2016-10-12
Topic: Macroeconomics
David Michael Davis (Conservative, Centre-right): I think the hon. Gentleman will know that we have already made undertakings in relation to the 2020 round, which is of course the end of the European guarantee. Beyond that, I am quite sure the Treasury will be looking very hard at the necessary economics of such industries in all the devolved Administrations and, indeed, in England.
Parliamentary Scrutiny of Leaving the EU — House of Commons, 2016-10-12
Topic: International Affairs
David Michael Davis (Conservative, Centre-right): No, I will not give way Let me be clear: the Opposition spokesman said that the British people did not vote for any particular model of Brexit—I think that is pretty much what he said—but they voted to "leave the European Union", which were the words on the ballot paper. It is reasonable to think that they did not make an assumption about soft Brexit or hard Brexit, or any other specification of Brexit; they assumed that the British Government would set about negotiating to get the best possible result for all parts of society, all parts of the United Kingdom—including all the devolved Administrations—and all industries, sectors, services, manufacturers and so on. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) says, "Yeah, yeah". We know her view of the British working class. She has really had a very good time on that, has she not? I take a much more serious view of the fate of the British working class under a Government that she would support.
Parliamentary Scrutiny of Leaving the EU — House of Commons, 2016-10-12
Topic: International Affairs
David Michael Davis (Conservative, Centre-right): No The simple truth is that the British Government are setting out to achieve the best possible outcome on security, on control of our borders and in democratic terms, as well as for access to markets across the whole world: the European Union and all the opportunities outside it. The British people voted for that—17.5 million of them.
Parliamentary Scrutiny of Leaving the EU — House of Commons, 2016-10-12
Topic: International Affairs
Kwasi Alfred Addo Kwarteng (Conservative, Centre-right): I am very grateful. The hon. Gentleman has mentioned that his party produced a 600-page dossier ahead of the Scottish vote, but when asked which currency would be used under independence, it simply had no idea, nor any clue about the consequences of independence.
Parliamentary Scrutiny of Leaving the EU — House of Commons, 2016-10-12
Topic: International Affairs
David Michael Davis (Conservative, Centre-right): I apologise for having to intervene to give this answer. The Prime Minister showed very clearly how important she considered the devolved Administration in Scotland. She went to Scotland first after coming to power, and said, plainly, two things. One was that we will consult and have detailed discussions with the Scottish Administration, and those in Wales and Northern Ireland, before we trigger article 50 and bring the great repeal Bill to the House. But we cannot give anyone a veto. We consider ourselves bound by the decision of the British people. No one can say, "No, you can’t do this", but we will do everything possible in our power to meet the needs of the Scottish people and the other devolved Administrations.
Parliamentary Scrutiny of Leaving the EU — House of Commons, 2016-10-12
Topic: Government Operations
Bernard Christison Jenkin (Conservative, Centre-right): I chair the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee. The hon. Gentleman is raising very legitimate points on the very legitimate basis that democracy exists in other parts of the United Kingdom somewhat independently of this House. We therefore need a respectful and constructive dialogue between the United Kingdom Government and the Administrations in the other parts of the UK, as well as between this Parliament and the other Parliaments of the United Kingdom. I have already visited the Scottish Parliament with my Committee to that end, and am offering to give evidence to the Scottish Parliament on those questions and how we should address them. I hope that the dialogue he wants will be in that spirit of co-operation.
Parliamentary Scrutiny of Leaving the EU — House of Commons, 2016-10-12
Topic: Macroeconomics
Jacob William Rees-Mogg (Conservative, Centre-right): The hon. Gentleman mentioned a moment ago that people wanted certainty beyond 2020. Is he aware that the multi-annual financial framework will not be renewed until 2020, and therefore that there is uncertainty even if we remain within the European Union as to how funding will continue after that date, including for the crofters of the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil)?
Parliamentary Scrutiny of Leaving the EU — House of Commons, 2016-10-12
Topic: International Affairs
Kenneth Clarke (Conservative, Centre-right): Sadly I was not able to attend the Conservative party conference this year, but I followed its proceedings very closely, or as closely as I could, through reports in the media. I was rather surprised to find that some very clear statements of policy on the subject of Europe were made from the platform that I was not totally expecting. One was that we would not trigger article 50 before the end of March at the latest. I rather approve of that. This is such a portentous decision that a long and careful preparation of a policy within the Government, whom I fear probably do not yet have an agreed policy, is important. When I say that they should take as long as possible about it, I do not mean to be sarcastic. I do not underestimate the sheer scale of the task facing them to agree the strategy Other announcements were made, however. It was made absolutely clear that freedom of movement of labour with other European countries will be over. That conjured up the vision of work permits and so on, and possibly quotas. It was made perfectly clear that the control of all the rules and regulations that currently enable free trade within the single market will be taken back into our jurisdiction. No Brexiteer at the moment is able to name any very important rule that they wish to change, but we are taking it back into the British Parliament, and will then be free to change such rules of the market as Parliament agrees it wants to change We will also no longer submit to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. The way in which the European Union has worked, and the reason it has lasted and still lasts as a 28 nation state organisation with common rules, is that there are institutions for enforcing those rules. Indeed, Britain used the European Court of Justice extremely successfully to preserve the passport for financial services when attempts were made to take it away by some of the new eurozone members.
Parliamentary Scrutiny of Leaving the EU — House of Commons, 2016-10-12
Topic: Agriculture
John Alan Redwood (Conservative, Centre-right): I assure my right hon. and learned Friend that there are a number of things we want to change pretty quickly. The common fisheries policy needs to be changed in the interests of Britain, and we would like to impose our own VAT on the products we think appropriate.
Parliamentary Scrutiny of Leaving the EU — House of Commons, 2016-10-12
Topic: International Affairs
William Nigel Paul Cash (Conservative, Centre-right): I must say, in response to the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), that there are of course those who do not and never will accept the outcome of the referendum and who will use almost any means at their disposal to try to overturn it or mitigate the result, while constantly and disingenuously stating their respect for it. That is abundantly clear This historic vote was an emphatic vote to leave the European Union. That was what was on the ballot paper. It was clear, and it follows from the fact that we are going to leave the European Union that Brexit does not just mean Brexit; it means the repeal of the European Communities Act 1972, which incorporates and absorbs all the laws and all the judgments of the European Court and all the matters that have come into this House and been imposed upon us by the 1972 Act There has been some talk about the Conservative manifesto. I have it here, and I mention it because it is relevant not only to some remarks off by some of my colleagues but to the future conduct of this matter in relation to the House of Lords. Our manifesto states: "For too long, your voice has been ignored on Europe." That was stated in 2015 and put to the British people. It further stated that the Conservative party would "give you a say over whether we should stay in or leave the EU, with an in-out referendum by the end of 2017" It then qualifies that—the precise date of the referendum was not known in 2015—by making some perfectly reasonable comments. It commits in the meantime or in parenthesis, as it were—it does not say that, but that is what it implies—to "keeping the pound and staying out of the Eurozone", which is fair enough, and to "reform the workings of the EU" So long as we are in the EU, we obviously want to reform those workings, because it is "too big, too bossy and too bureaucratic" It goes on to state that the party will "reclaim power from Brussels on your behalf and safeguard British interests in the Single Market"— and I should hope that we would during that interim period, and "back businesses to create jobs in Britain by completing ambitious trade deals and reducing red tape." That is what the manifesto said, and it provided the basis on which not only the general election but the referendum took place. The words in the question were quite clear: "Do you want to ‘remain’ in or ‘leave’ the European Union?"
Parliamentary Scrutiny of Leaving the EU — House of Commons, 2016-10-12
Topic: International Affairs
William Nigel Paul Cash (Conservative, Centre-right): It is clear from the wording I read out that safeguarding British interests in the single market applies to the intervening period between the result of the general election, the introduction of the EU Referendum Bill and the referendum itself. Indeed, we are going to have to continue to do that until we get to the later stage.
Parliamentary Scrutiny of Leaving the EU — House of Commons, 2016-10-12
Topic: International Affairs
Nicky Morgan (Conservative, Centre-right): I must disagree with my hon. Friend. I have the manifesto with me, too, because I shall refer to it in my remarks. It very clearly states: "We say: yes to the Single Market"— and there is no mention in the wording that my hon. Friend cited of there being an interim period in which Britain remains in the single market.
Parliamentary Scrutiny of Leaving the EU — House of Commons, 2016-10-12
Topic: International Affairs
William Nigel Paul Cash (Conservative, Centre-right): I am not giving way for the moment. I am saying that we cannot both be in the single market and repeal the 1972 Act, whose laws are part of the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. I will give way now to the former Attorney-General.
Parliamentary Scrutiny of Leaving the EU — House of Commons, 2016-10-12
Topic: International Affairs
Dominic Charles Roberts Grieve (Conservative, Centre-right): My hon. Friend will doubtless agree with me that over the next three to four years we will get out of one treaty and replace it with at least another, if not a multiplicity of treaties—part of the 13,000 by which we are bound internationally at present. He might also agree that Norway provides an example of a country that participates in the single market without being a member of the European Union. Does that not completely destroy the argument that my hon. Friend has just put forward?