argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Leaving the EU: Parliamentary Vote — House of Commons, 2017-10-26
Topic: International Affairs
Nicky Morgan (Conservative, Centre-right): There is a way for the Government to put this matter completely beyond doubt and that is to accept amendment 7 to the withdrawal Bill tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve). Reports have reached Government Back Benchers that the Secretary of State does not think that those Conservative Members who have signed the amendment are serious about supporting it if we need to. May I tell him that we are deadly serious? It would be better for all concerned if the Government were to adopt a concession strategy and have the withdrawal agreement secured by statute sooner rather than later.
Leaving the EU: Parliamentary Vote — House of Commons, 2017-10-26
Topic: International Affairs
David Michael Davis (Conservative, Centre-right): No, I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman on that. His description of events is also wrong. It is one thing to give an undertaking, which is binding, and another to say that these are the probabilities and the difficulties that we face together, which is what I said yesterday. I treated the Exiting the EU Committee chaired by the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) with absolute respect in outlining what had happened previously—not what we expect, not what we intend, not what the Union intends, but what had happened previously and the risks that we have to take on board. We intend to meet all our undertakings, and I do not take it very well that the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) suggests that we will not.
Leaving the EU: Parliamentary Vote — House of Commons, 2017-10-26
Topic: International Affairs
David Michael Davis (Conservative, Centre-right): I am afraid that I have lost count of the questions. As the hon. Lady is challenging the status of statements from this Dispatch Box, I will repeat this to her. The choice will be meaningful: whether to accept that deal or to move ahead without a deal. Full stop. That was the promise that was made.
Leaving the EU: Parliamentary Vote — House of Commons, 2017-10-26
Topic: International Affairs
Peter William Bone (Conservative, Centre-right): Well, in the past, Sir, Select Committee Chairmen have come to this House to represent the Committee, not their own personal views. [Interruption.] I am diverging and wasting the House’s time. [Interruption.] Sorry, let me get to the point. I would like the Secretary of State to agree with Labour Members that, if we do not have agreement by October 2018, it will be impossible to do a deal. Will he go back to Brussels and say, "If we do not have a deal by 26 October 2018, there will not be a deal and we will be coming out without one"?
Leaving the EU: Parliamentary Vote — House of Commons, 2017-10-26
Topic: International Affairs
David Michael Davis (Conservative, Centre-right): As I understand it, the hon. Gentleman’s first two comments referred to the leave campaign. Those remarks were not made at this Dispatch Box or by Government Ministers in this context, so I afraid that he is not correct. The undertaking that I gave will stand and does stand.
Leaving the EU: Parliamentary Vote — House of Commons, 2017-10-26
Topic: International Affairs
Sarah James (Wollaston) (Conservative, Centre-right): No deal would be a very bad deal indeed for this country. What if the House votes on the final deal and rejects it? Is the Secretary of State implying that those who voted against it would be saying that they would like to leave with no deal at all?
Leaving the EU: Parliamentary Vote — House of Commons, 2017-10-26
Topic: International Affairs
David Ian Jones (Conservative, Centre-right): Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it remains his intention and that of the Prime Minister to make regular reports to this House on the progress of the negotiations with the European Union? Does he agree that it is always open to this House to subject those negotiations to the minutest possible scrutiny, as this urgent question amply demonstrates?
Leaving the EU: Parliamentary Vote — House of Commons, 2017-10-26
Topic: International Affairs
David Michael Davis (Conservative, Centre-right): My right hon. Friend is, of course, right. He knows this subject rather better than most, given that I have been quoting him throughout my contributions today. During the course of the article 50 Bill, I made the point a number of times to the House that there will be many votes on many aspects of the deal—on the Bills before the House now such as the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill and the Nuclear Safeguards Bill, and on a number of other pieces of primary legislation. In addition, the undertakings to this Chamber were given over and above the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. I remind the House that that means that any treaty—there may well be a number, as the Chair of the Select Committee said—is subject to being denied ratification by a vote of this House. That point should not be forgotten.
Leaving the EU: Parliamentary Vote — House of Commons, 2017-10-26
Topic: International Affairs
Philip Thomas Hollobone (Conservative, Centre-right): There was a meaningful vote. It was in June 2016. On a 78% turnout, 61% of voters in Kettering voted to leave. People in Kettering are honest, straightforward and plain-speaking. Will the Secretary of State reassure them that we are leaving the European Union in March 2019?
Leaving the EU: Parliamentary Vote — House of Commons, 2017-10-26
Topic: International Affairs
David Michael Davis (Conservative, Centre-right): Yes. My task is to respect that vote because, as my hon. Friend said, it is the biggest mandate given to a modern Government. It is also my task to deliver the best deal possible—which means a deal, not no deal—respecting that vote.
Leaving the EU: Parliamentary Vote — House of Commons, 2017-10-26
Topic: Government Operations
David Michael Davis (Conservative, Centre-right): I am not here to preview the Committee stage of the Bill, but let me say this to the hon. Gentleman. I take very seriously the views of the House in this matter, and I expect that there will be any number of votes—I have just referred to the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act as one element of that, but it will not be the only one—which will give the House very strong influence on the outcome of this negotiation.
Leaving the EU: Parliamentary Vote — House of Commons, 2017-10-26
Topic: International Affairs
Stephen William Hammond (Conservative, Centre-right): In his answer to the shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend said that there would be a vote at the right time. Will he confirm that the right time is prior to a deal being signed and before we leave the European Union in March 2019?
Leaving the EU: Parliamentary Vote — House of Commons, 2017-10-26
Topic: International Affairs
David Michael Davis (Conservative, Centre-right): The right time has to be, first, when we have a draft treaty in front of us—not an actual treaty, because it will be prior to ratification by the European ratification process, starting with the European Parliament, and we have made that undertaking. It has to be after that is done, in order for the House to be informed. Otherwise, it will be as soon as possible, and as I have said, our intent and our expectation is that it will be before the European Parliament has its opportunity and, therefore, before the process goes ahead.
Leaving the EU: Parliamentary Vote — House of Commons, 2017-10-26
Topic: Government Operations
David Michael Davis (Conservative, Centre-right): Will I be signing somebody else’s amendment? I am not sure—I think not. The processes we are going through are designed to give the House a great deal of input into this process. That includes, as was said earlier, the sequences of statements, appearances before Select Committees, urgent questions and the like. In addition to that, as I said—it was ignored, of course—the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 gives the House the outright ability to reject out of hand, if it chooses.
Leaving the EU: Parliamentary Vote — House of Commons, 2017-10-26
Topic: Foreign Trade
Thomas Christopher John Pursglove (Conservative, Centre-right): The truth is that we run a £70 billion trade deficit with the European Union. Does my right hon. Friend believe that that will help to focus minds and keep these discussions and deliberations on timetable?
Leaving the EU: Parliamentary Vote — House of Commons, 2017-10-26
Topic: Foreign Trade
David Michael Davis (Conservative, Centre-right): My hon. Friend is right, in that it drives the views of the member states in terms of what they want out of this negotiation. One of the things that is happening between now and December is that the Council will lay down its guidelines for this process, and particularly about future trade arrangement. In those guidelines, it may well be that the Council actually says something about the timetable, which will relate to the issues in front of the House.
Leaving the EU: Parliamentary Vote — House of Commons, 2017-10-26
Topic: Foreign Trade
Miriam Jane Alice Davies (Conservative, Centre-right): My right hon. Friend will be aware of the 18 Labour MEPs who recently voted to hold up these key EU negotiations, showing, frankly, a distinct lack of ambition about moving forward on the key issue—our trading agreements. We should be pulling together in the national interest to secure the best possible deal and outcome. That is what all our constituents want.
Leaving the EU: Parliamentary Vote — House of Commons, 2017-10-26
Topic: International Affairs
David Michael Davis (Conservative, Centre-right): My hon. Friend is right: this House should be pulling together in the national interest, but let me say this. I have never, ever accused my opposite number of being anything other than interested in the national interest—of course, he has a political interest. While I am at it, by the way, I should also say to the Chairman of the Exiting the European Union Committee that I took his views as his views, not those of the Select Committee as well. It is very important in this exercise that we keep things on a proper, stable, rational and patriotic level, and I think everybody does.
Leaving the EU: Parliamentary Vote — House of Commons, 2017-10-26
Topic: International Affairs
Robert Alexander Courts (Conservative, Centre-right): Does the Secretary of State agree that since the Florence speech there has been a change of tone in EU capitals, and that Mr Barnier is far from alone in wanting to see progress towards a good deal as soon as possible?
Leaving the EU: Parliamentary Vote — House of Commons, 2017-10-26
Topic: International Affairs
David Michael Davis (Conservative, Centre-right): My hon. Friend is exactly right. The Florence speech had a massive impact, frankly, on the attitudes in the capitals of the European Union and, indeed, within the Commission. Certainly, Mr Barnier, Mr Juncker and Mr Tusk have all said as much.
Leaving the EU: Parliamentary Vote — House of Commons, 2017-10-26
Topic: International Affairs
Jeremy John Elton Lefroy (Conservative, Centre-right): I thank the Secretary of State for the tremendous amount of work that he and his team are doing to achieve the best possible outcome for the United Kingdom. I know that he, as a true parliamentarian, would expect us to vote on this matter before we leave the EU and not after. As the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) said, there are three issues: withdrawal; the transition, or implementation; and the final agreement. It should be quite possible to achieve the first two by sometime in the middle of next year, or hopefully earlier. On the third, a heads of agreement could perhaps be agreed on the European system of qualified majority voting so that it can come to this House and we know exactly what we are talking about even if all the details are not sorted out.
Leaving the EU: Parliamentary Vote — House of Commons, 2017-10-26
Topic: International Affairs
David Michael Davis (Conservative, Centre-right): As the Chairman of the Select Committee said, there are three components to this, but they are not unrelated, with article 50 itself taking into account the framework of the future relationship. We intend that they are broadly agreed at the same time and that they are conditional upon one another. That is because it would have a material impact on the negotiation to separate them completely. That is why we will bring the whole thing to the House. That was the undertaking given. Indeed, that was what was asked for during the passage of the article 50 Bill. With regard to the future relationship, of course, as the Prime Minister said in Florence, article 218 says that that agreement cannot be signed until we are a third country, in effect. It is also the case that there could well be more than one treaty, for reasons of interest and benefit to ourselves. The House will therefore have multiple occasions to look at that separately from the overall decision. That, I think, is in the interests of democracy.
Leaving the EU: Parliamentary Vote — House of Commons, 2017-10-26
Topic: International Affairs
Nigel Martin Evans (Conservative, Centre-right): I wish the Secretary of State well in his negotiations with Mr Barnier, and I pledge that I will do nothing that could ever be interpreted as trying to undermine those negotiations. We have had 11 referendums in this country since 1975. Can my right hon. Friend think of one in which we have gone against the wishes of the British people? Will he accept that, as a democrat, I am deadly serious that, at the end of this process, we will be leaving the European Union?
Leaving the EU: Parliamentary Vote — House of Commons, 2017-10-26
Topic: International Affairs
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): Order. May I gently say to the House that we must not, either calculatedly or inadvertently, allow this exchange to elide into a general discussion of the merits of EU membership or withdrawal? That is not the subject matter. The subject matter, as I have just been helpfully reminded by our procedural king, is the question whether there is a meaningful vote on a deal. That is the narrow question, and questions should focus on that matter.
Leaving the EU: Parliamentary Vote — House of Commons, 2017-10-26
Topic: International Affairs
David Michael Davis (Conservative, Centre-right): It will be before the deal—that is what I would expect anyway, unless it goes much faster than I expect. That is true not just of that Bill but of most of the other Bills my hon. Friend refers to.
Leaving the EU: Parliamentary Vote — House of Commons, 2017-10-26
Topic: International Affairs
David Michael Davis (Conservative, Centre-right): I agree that there is a degree of contrivance in the fuss and noise coming from the Opposition—there is no doubt about that, but that is not new, I guess. As for the ongoing transition or implementation period, the hon. Gentleman is right. That is why I said that if we let the negotiation go into that period, we will be at a disadvantage, because the EU will presumably be receiving money, if that is the arrangement, and will want to spin out the time it does so as much as possible. We have to be practical and sensible if we intend to respect the will of the British people and deliver the best outcome for them.
Leaving the EU: Parliamentary Vote — House of Commons, 2017-10-26
Topic: International Affairs
Matthew Robert Warman (Conservative, Centre-right): The Secretary of State will know that proportionately more people in my constituency than in any other in the country voted to get us out of the European Union. Does he agree that far more damaging than not having a meaningful vote in this House is the idea that we should have a second referendum, or indeed that we should talking about not leaving at all?
Leaving the EU: Parliamentary Vote — House of Commons, 2017-10-26
Topic: International Affairs
David Michael Davis (Conservative, Centre-right): I hear what the hon. Lady says and take it as it is meant. The Government’s intention is to create circumstances whereby this House has appropriate influence without undermining the negotiation. That is what we will try to do.
Leaving the EU: Parliamentary Vote — House of Commons, 2017-10-26
Topic: Foreign Trade
Kevin John Foster (Conservative, Centre-right): I am sure that the Secretary of State will have reflected on the fact that, unlike in many other trade negotiations, our starting point is that our regulatory position and much of our law are the same as those of the EU. Does he therefore agree that there is plenty of time not only for a full and frank negotiation resulting in a good and deep deal, but for a vote on it in this Parliament?
Leaving the EU: Parliamentary Vote — House of Commons, 2017-10-26
Topic: Foreign Trade
David Michael Davis (Conservative, Centre-right): Yes, my hon. Friend is exactly right: this is a unique trade negotiation, about which I will say two things. First, we already have open trade and, secondly, a vast amount of trade is already going on—it is worth something like €600 billion—so there is a strong vested interest in protecting that.
Leaving the EU: Parliamentary Vote — House of Commons, 2017-10-26
Topic: International Affairs
Martin John Vickers (Conservative, Centre-right): Does the Secretary of State agree that if we are to have a meaningful vote on the final deal, it will be better if all Members engage constructively with the proceedings rather than seek to frustrate the will of the British people?
Leaving the EU: Parliamentary Vote — House of Commons, 2017-10-26
Topic: International Affairs
David Michael Davis (Conservative, Centre-right): To answer the first half of the hon. Gentleman’s question, one of the reasons we said that we would put a draft deal to the House is that we wanted to give the House the first say, before the European Parliament and other European institutions came to it. This is a treaty for the United Kingdom.
Leaving the EU: Parliamentary Vote — House of Commons, 2017-10-26
Topic: International Affairs
David Michael Davis (Conservative, Centre-right): As I said earlier, what Mr Barnier is aiming for is October next year as the outcome for the draft agreement. If we hit that, the likely timetable, as I think I said to the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), would be for the European Parliament to address that in December, January or even later, and the undertaking I gave was that we will come to this House before then.
Leaving the EU: Parliamentary Vote — House of Commons, 2017-10-26
Topic: International Affairs
David Michael Davis (Conservative, Centre-right): As I said in the Committee yesterday, at the last Joint Ministerial Committee we did actually discuss some of these matters with the devolved Administrations—at an official level—before we go into the negotiation, so that they can influence the negotiation, taking into account the impact by sector, by country.
Leaving the EU: Parliamentary Vote — House of Commons, 2017-10-26
Topic: International Affairs
David Michael Davis (Conservative, Centre-right): I would have thought that would have been self-evident. What we intend, however, is that the House will have put to it by the Government the deal that we negotiate, which will be the best deal we can obtain for this country, respecting the decision of 17.5 million people. In other words, it will bring back control to this House; it will being back control to this country; it will deal with the borders issue; it will deal with money; it will deal with the future relationship. All that will be put to the House and the House will decide whether it approves of that or not.
Modern Slavery Act 2015 — House of Commons, 2017-10-26
Topic: Law and Crime
Alexander John Gervase Chalk (Conservative, Centre-right): If I may. As somebody who has prosecuted offences of servitude in the past, I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the passion that he is showing regarding this horrible offence which robs people of their dignity. Raising awareness is vital. Will he join me in paying tribute to the Salvation Army in Cheltenham, who last week held an event on this? We need to get the message out to people that everyone needs to be on their guard.
Global LGBT Rights — House of Commons, 2017-10-26
Topic: International Affairs
Crispin Jeremy Rupert Blunt (Conservative, Centre-right): I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) for securing the debate and for the leadership he gives to the all-party group. He has taken the more voluntary route of taking himself off to the Back Benches to champion these causes and we all benefit from the quality of his leadership. I took a rather more compulsory route, but that does mean that I have the freedom to engage with these incredibly important issues. I want to reflect on why they are so important. What has brought us here today are the headline issues, raised by previous speakers, relating to what is happening in Azerbaijan, Egypt and Chechnya. We only have to go online to see horrific videos of mob justice in Nigeria, where gay men are being lynched, and the administration of ISIS justice, with gay people heaved off tall buildings I want to reflect briefly on some of the headline issues in Chechnya, because the cases there are truly appalling. My right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs talked about Maxim Lapunov. He was lucky enough to survive. There is, however, the story of popstar Zelimkhan Bakayev, who went back to Chechnya on 8 August for his sister’s wedding. By all the accounts I was able to get hold of, he was arrested within three hours and was dead within 10. This was a man whose picture taken with Ramzan Kadyrov, when the Chechen leader wanted to ride on the back of this popstar’s popularity. If that can happen to him in Chechnya, we can draw our own conclusions about how appalling the situation is and our expectations of the Russian authorities to do anything about it Headline atrocities have brought us here today: the dreadful scale of arrests in Azerbaijan and Egypt, and direct state repression. The number of people affected by direct oppression runs into many hundreds of thousands. There are people who are in relationships that they do not want to be in, people who have experienced "corrective rape", and people who are in forced marriages. There are millions of people—probably between 50 million and 100 million in India—who, because of the laws of their countries, are simply not able to be themselves.