argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Russian Interference in UK Politics — House of Commons, 2017-12-21
Topic: International Affairs
Edward Julian Egerton Leigh (Conservative, Centre-right): I will not give way; I have got to finish now. The paranoid tendency to see a red under every bed is very much alive, albeit changed, and there is an explanation for such paranoia. Look at Trump’s victory, and look at the success of Brexit in the referendum. Things are not going the way of the liberals’ world view, and they cannot accept that the people—the workers, even—are abandoning their ideology, presuming that they ever agreed with it in the first place. The left knows that the people are never wrong, so when the people are wrong, as with Brexit or Trump, the left has a psychological need to find some excuse for the people’s misbehaviour.
Russian Interference in UK Politics — House of Commons, 2017-12-21
Topic: International Affairs
Edward Julian Egerton Leigh (Conservative, Centre-right): No, I will not give way to the hon. Lady. Russia is that excuse today. Perhaps the reality is that voters might not agree with the established liberal consensus on Brexit. Perhaps voters in Britain, America, Poland, Hungary and elsewhere have legitimate concerns that they feel are not being addressed. Those concerns must be addressed, and we in this House must be the ones to address them. Such was the wisdom shown by Disraeli and others in expanding the electorate. Such is the British constitution that it adapts, evolves and bends instead of breaking The fact is that the referendum was a free and fair vote of the British people. If there was foreign interference, it was so ineffective that I doubt it made any difference at all to the final result. It was not the work of foreigners somewhere distant, plugging away at computers and unleashing Twitterbots. Authority comes from above but power comes from below, and it came from the people in our referendum. If we do not accommodate the legitimate concerns of ordinary people, we undermine the very foundations of our parliamentary democracy. We might find ourselves being replaced and irrelevant, as Mr Gorbachev did on 26 December 1991.
Russian Interference in UK Politics — House of Commons, 2017-12-21
Topic: International Affairs
Bernard Christison Jenkin (Conservative, Centre-right): I congratulate the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) on securing this debate There are some very serious issues to discuss and to bring into the public domain, but I think we need to keep a sense of proportion. I agree with the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) that Russia has not changed its character fundamentally since the days of the Tsar. It has always been somewhat paranoid about the outside world and aggressively defensive, and we see the same characteristics today. However, to describe, as he put it, "the kind of tweets put out by the Russian embassy" in the same terms as the threat we faced during the cold war is to get things a little out of proportion. There are serious issues to discuss, but we should do so responsibly. I want to explain what I mean.
Russian Interference in UK Politics — House of Commons, 2017-12-21
Topic: International Affairs
Julian Murray Lewis (Conservative, Centre-right): In the light of what you have said, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will not take any interventions I wish to ask whether any hon. Member in the Chamber—other than perhaps the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) and the right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar)—feels a flicker of recognition when they hear the names of the following organisations: the World Federation of Trade Unions, the International Union of Students, the World Federation of Scientific Workers, the World Federation of Democratic Youth, and —above all—the World Peace Council. Those were part of a magnificent array of Soviet international propaganda front organisations that plied their disreputable trade through half a century from the end of the 1940s right up until the downfall of the Soviet Union. They were well funded, very active and almost wholly—at least as far as the United Kingdom was concerned—ineffective, because they were clunky and did not really understand the way that British people and parliamentarians think and operate I have heard something in every speech and intervention made today with which I agreed. We are all on the same page. We all understand that Russia is not a modern constitutional democracy and that it will do everything within its power to promote its messages and undermine the messages of those whom it perceives to be its adversaries. I always hesitate to cite one of the most evil men who ever walked the face of the earth—Dr Joseph Goebbels—but he knew a thing or two about propaganda, and one of his central tenets was that the purpose of propaganda is not to change people’s minds; it is to find out what they already believe, and reinforce it There is a very good reason for that. Except when dealing with young minds that have not had a chance to form their value systems and opinions—that is a big and important exception—I have come to the conclusion, through working in this field for a long time before I first entered the House, that people are much more resistant to the effect of propaganda than they are given credit for when it comes to changing their minds. The effect of barrages of propaganda might be to dishearten them, but it will not generally convert them unless they are impressionable, and most people are not.
Russian Interference in UK Politics — House of Commons, 2017-12-21
Topic: International Affairs
Julian Carlton Knight (Conservative, Centre-right): I concur with many of the speeches we have heard today. I believe this is a major threat to our democracy, to western democracy and to our way of life. It is probably the biggest threat I have experienced since the fall of the Berlin wall. At that time, there was a book written by an academic called Fukuyama about the end of history and suggesting that liberal democracy was effectively the final form of government. That now looks quite arrogant and hubristic as, over the years, Russia’s transformation has crept up on us There is, effectively, a type of war going on. It may not involve guns, armies and conventional threats, but it does involve bots and St Petersburg. In Russia, the state means society and society means the state. It feeds through many strata of Russian society. In many respects, Russia has been quite open about this. In 2013 and 2014, there were many public utterances from Russian generals who talked about information and the future being hybrid war. That is precisely what we have seen Russia is not the only country involved. As I understand it, about 25 to 28 countries are developing this type of global capability. If we all—even what we consider to be friendly nations—turn on one another and adopt these sorts of tactics, all could be lost. So we need to think about how we tackle this. The Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee is currently investigating fake news, but perhaps a bigger issue is the use of algorithms, which allow access to target those who will internalise fake news During the US elections, swing states were targeted, especially individuals who were particularly susceptible to this type of fake news. There is currently a major debate about whether Facebook and other social media platforms are publishers, but we need to concentrate on the algorithms and on how we can get into those black boxes that tell us precisely how they work. We need to understand them and to introduce regulation with proper oversight. The danger of making Facebook a publisher is that with responsibility can come enormous power. It decides what goes online and it can dictate the discourse. That is too much power to put into its hands Social media companies need to co-operate more with the Select Committee and with international bodies. They, too, are invested in our society and our western ways. Unless they come to the party in this respect, there could be some real problems down the line On Brexit, I do not think the evidence is quite there at the moment in terms of the level of interference seen in the French elections, but it seeped in almost by osmosis. In Germany, a lot of fake stories appeared in relation to immigration. They affected people’s outlook and had an impact.
Russian Interference in UK Politics — House of Commons, 2017-12-21
Topic: International Affairs
Matthew John David Hancock (Conservative, Centre-right): I am grateful for this opportunity to speak today, and I thank the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) for bringing forward this topic for debate It is of course the first role of Government to protect the nation and its people and to safeguard our democracy, and we recognise and acknowledge the concern expressed by the House today about the threat posed to our politics and society by the exploitation of digital technology and platforms. We are happy to work with Members across the House on this. Of course, digital technology brings huge benefits and we celebrate the freedom that they bestow, but they also allow malign actors new means by which to communicate. We are committed to defending the UK from all forms of malign state interference, whether from Russia or anywhere else. When there is any suggestion that the Kremlin has sought to interfere in the political process, we treat such allegations seriously and carefully. The position is that, to date, we have not yet seen evidence of successful interference in UK democratic processes by a foreign Government.
Russian Interference in UK Politics — House of Commons, 2017-12-21
Topic: International Affairs
Matthew John David Hancock (Conservative, Centre-right): I will come on to that important point in relation to the cyber-attacks As the Prime Minister made clear in her speech at the Guildhall in November, we want to build a more productive relationship with Russia, but we also want to see Russia play its full and proper role in the rules-based international order. We will therefore not hesitate in calling out behaviour that undermines that order or threatens our interests at home and overseas.
Russian Interference in UK Politics — House of Commons, 2017-12-21
Topic: International Affairs
Matthew John David Hancock (Conservative, Centre-right): Some evidence has already been declared, such as Facebook’s declaration that there had been some paid-for advertising by organisations that were also involved in US democratic processes. However, as we know, the scale of the activity that has been declared by Facebook is extremely small, amounting to $0.97. I will get on to the point about the transparency of information, because we do not think that that amount credibly represents the whole gamut of activity We have identified Russia as responsible for a sustained campaign of cyber-espionage and disruption around the world. When we have seen the Kremlin deploy disinformation in an attempt to sow division and meddle in overseas elections, and to deflect attention away from international incidents, such as the downing of MH17 or the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime, we have rightly raised those concerns on the international stage. However challenging our relationship might sometimes be, it is also essential that we keep the channels of communication open to the Kremlin and the Russian people. To that end, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will be in Moscow tomorrow. While there, he will firmly and clearly raise our concerns over the use of disinformation and cyber, and he will reaffirm the Prime Minister’s message, given at the Guildhall, about wanting to see a more productive relationship, built on mutual trust.
Security Situation — House of Commons, 2017-12-20
Topic: Law and Crime
James Peter Brokenshire (Conservative, Centre-right): The threat from Northern Ireland-related terrorism continues to be severe within Northern Ireland, meaning an attack is highly likely. This Government will always give the fullest possible support to the brave men and women of the Police Service of Northern Ireland and MI5. We remain fully committed to keeping people safe and secure, and to ensuring that terrorism never succeeds.
Security Situation — House of Commons, 2017-12-20
Topic: Law and Crime
Damien Moore (Conservative, Centre-right): Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although much of our time and focus are spent on international terrorism threats, it is vital that we do not lose sight of the very real and continuing threat from dissidents in Northern Ireland? In that context, will he commend the ongoing work of the Police Service of Northern Ireland in disrupting their activities?
Security Situation — House of Commons, 2017-12-20
Topic: Law and Crime
James Peter Brokenshire (Conservative, Centre-right): I absolutely will. There have been five confirmed national security attacks so far in 2017, and a small number of dissident republican terrorist groupings continue their campaign of violence. The threat is suppressed by the brave efforts of the PSNI and others, and by the strategic approach that we pursue. The PSNI and others who work to keep people safe have our full support for the public service they give.
Security Situation — House of Commons, 2017-12-20
Topic: Law and Crime
James Peter Brokenshire (Conservative, Centre-right): The right hon. Gentleman may know that we have committed specific funds—an extra £32 million a year over the five-year spending review period—to deal with Northern Ireland-related terrorism. His point about legacy is valid and important, which is why we both want to see the Stormont House bodies take forward a new approach to legacy. That is what I want to see in the new year.
Leaving the EU: Alignment — House of Commons, 2017-12-20
Topic: International Affairs
Questions: What assessment he has made of the potential economic benefits to Northern Ireland of maintaining full alignment with the rules of the customs union and single market after the UK leaves the EU.; What assessment he has made of the potential economic benefits to Northern Ireland of maintaining full alignment with the rules of the customs union and single market after the UK leaves the EU.
James Peter Brokenshire (Conservative, Centre-right): We have been clear that the UK as a whole will be leaving the customs union and single market. We want our future relationship with the EU to be a deep and special partnership that works for all parts of the UK, while recognising Northern Ireland’s unique circumstances.
Leaving the EU: Alignment — House of Commons, 2017-12-20
Topic: Foreign Trade
Questions: What assessment he has made of the potential economic benefits to Northern Ireland of maintaining full alignment with the rules of the customs union and single market after the UK leaves the EU.; What assessment he has made of the potential economic benefits to Northern Ireland of maintaining full alignment with the rules of the customs union and single market after the UK leaves the EU.
James Peter Brokenshire (Conservative, Centre-right): As the joint report highlighted last week, there are three steps: reaching a free trade agreement; then providing responses that meet the unique circumstances of Northern Ireland; and, finally, the issue of alignment. We believe that it is possible and that we will address all these issues to ensure that we have not a hard border but a frictionless border that maximises the trading relationship without creating any new barriers between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, where there is a reliance on trade, which is so important to the economy.
Leaving the EU: Alignment — House of Commons, 2017-12-20
Topic: International Affairs
Questions: What assessment he has made of the potential economic benefits to Northern Ireland of maintaining full alignment with the rules of the customs union and single market after the UK leaves the EU.; What assessment he has made of the potential economic benefits to Northern Ireland of maintaining full alignment with the rules of the customs union and single market after the UK leaves the EU.
James Peter Brokenshire (Conservative, Centre-right): I know this issue of impact assessments has been debated in this House previously. There are no formal impact assessments. Obviously, the Department for Exiting the European Union has provided detailed reports for the Select Committee, and it will be for the Committee to determine what happens with them. I can assure the hon. Gentleman of the joint working across government of assessing the implications and informing those negotiations, so that we get the right deal for Northern Ireland and for the UK as a whole.
Leaving the EU: Alignment — House of Commons, 2017-12-20
Topic: Foreign Trade
Questions: What assessment he has made of the potential economic benefits to Northern Ireland of maintaining full alignment with the rules of the customs union and single market after the UK leaves the EU.; What assessment he has made of the potential economic benefits to Northern Ireland of maintaining full alignment with the rules of the customs union and single market after the UK leaves the EU.
James Peter Brokenshire (Conservative, Centre-right): Yes, trade—economic activity—between Northern Ireland and Great Britain is several times more than that in relation to Ireland. But the point is that we look to strengthen the whole economy. Indeed, as the UK leaves the European Union, we want to see the Irish economy equally having that access to Great Britain. A reliance is placed upon that. We want to succeed and prosper as we leave the European Union.
Leaving the EU: Alignment — House of Commons, 2017-12-20
Topic: International Affairs
Questions: What assessment he has made of the potential economic benefits to Northern Ireland of maintaining full alignment with the rules of the customs union and single market after the UK leaves the EU.; What assessment he has made of the potential economic benefits to Northern Ireland of maintaining full alignment with the rules of the customs union and single market after the UK leaves the EU.
Mark James Harper (Conservative, Centre-right): Is the Secretary of State not right to highlight that Northern Ireland’s rightful place is to make sure it is aligned with the rules of the rest of the UK, which is why Conservative Members had a clear manifesto commitment to do nothing to damage the single market of the United Kingdom?
Leaving the EU: Alignment — House of Commons, 2017-12-20
Topic: International Affairs
Questions: What assessment he has made of the potential economic benefits to Northern Ireland of maintaining full alignment with the rules of the customs union and single market after the UK leaves the EU.; What assessment he has made of the potential economic benefits to Northern Ireland of maintaining full alignment with the rules of the customs union and single market after the UK leaves the EU.
James Peter Brokenshire (Conservative, Centre-right): I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend on that. Indeed, that principle was firmly enunciated through the provisions in the joint report, and that is the approach we will take as we move into phase 2 of the negotiations.
Leaving the EU: Alignment — House of Commons, 2017-12-20
Topic: Government Operations
Questions: What assessment he has made of the potential economic benefits to Northern Ireland of maintaining full alignment with the rules of the customs union and single market after the UK leaves the EU.; What assessment he has made of the potential economic benefits to Northern Ireland of maintaining full alignment with the rules of the customs union and single market after the UK leaves the EU.
James Peter Brokenshire (Conservative, Centre-right): I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we want to see the Executive restored, and we will be approaching this in earnest in the new year to seek to see that re-established. That matters on so many different levels. He highlights the issue raised in Trevor Rainey’s report. I commend Mr Rainey for providing the report and I will be considering the responses carefully.
Leaving the EU: Alignment — House of Commons, 2017-12-20
Topic: Macroeconomics
Questions: What assessment he has made of the potential economic benefits to Northern Ireland of maintaining full alignment with the rules of the customs union and single market after the UK leaves the EU.; What assessment he has made of the potential economic benefits to Northern Ireland of maintaining full alignment with the rules of the customs union and single market after the UK leaves the EU.
James Peter Brokenshire (Conservative, Centre-right): I know firmly that an increasing number of decisions need to be taken. That has been highlighted this week by the Northern Ireland civil service publishing a consultation on budgetary issues, showing some of the determinations that need to be made. I want to see Ministers and an Executive up and running as quickly as possible to do those things. Obviously, it needs to happen quickly, given the decisions that need to be taken.
Leaving the EU: Alignment — House of Commons, 2017-12-20
Topic: Foreign Trade
Questions: What assessment he has made of the potential economic benefits to Northern Ireland of maintaining full alignment with the rules of the customs union and single market after the UK leaves the EU.; What assessment he has made of the potential economic benefits to Northern Ireland of maintaining full alignment with the rules of the customs union and single market after the UK leaves the EU.
James Peter Brokenshire (Conservative, Centre-right): I know the Prime Minister dealt with this in her statement on Monday, but let me say that we will be leaving the customs union and the single market. The hon. Lady talks about divergence, but actually the joint report talks about alignment, which is about pursuing the same objectives. That could be the same way, but it could be different. That is the whole point. It is about achieving those positive objectives, and that is what we will do.
Leaving the EU: Alignment — House of Commons, 2017-12-20
Topic: Agriculture
Questions: What assessment he has made of the potential economic benefits to Northern Ireland of maintaining full alignment with the rules of the customs union and single market after the UK leaves the EU.; What assessment he has made of the potential economic benefits to Northern Ireland of maintaining full alignment with the rules of the customs union and single market after the UK leaves the EU.
James Peter Brokenshire (Conservative, Centre-right): They are both right. We have said clearly that yes, we are leaving the common agricultural policy, but we have also said that we will maintain payments in relation to those arrangements through to 2020. Indeed, if the hon. Gentleman wants to look back at what the Prime Minister said about maintaining the same arrangements during the implementation period, that will answer his question.
Leaving the EU: Alignment — House of Commons, 2017-12-20
Topic: International Affairs
Questions: What assessment he has made of the potential economic benefits to Northern Ireland of maintaining full alignment with the rules of the customs union and single market after the UK leaves the EU.; What assessment he has made of the potential economic benefits to Northern Ireland of maintaining full alignment with the rules of the customs union and single market after the UK leaves the EU.
James Peter Brokenshire (Conservative, Centre-right): The only shambles is the Opposition’s approach to Brexit. At this time of the year, many people will mark the 12 days of Christmas; we have had at least 12 different approaches to Brexit from Labour. Yes, we will be leaving the common agricultural policy, as the Prime Minister said on Monday, but she also underlined clearly our commitment in respect of those direct payments and, as I say, the transition and the need to provide certainty. The hon. Gentleman’s scaremongering does nothing to add to this—