argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019 (Rule of Law) — House of Commons, 2019-09-09
Topic: International Affairs
Jeremy Bernard Corbyn (Labour, Centre-left): I beg to move, That this House has considered the welcome completion of all parliamentary stages of the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 6) Bill and has considered the matter of the importance of the rule of law and Ministers’ obligation to comply with the law I welcome the decision that the House has just reached, and I look forward to the Government abiding by and accepting that decision, and the necessary documents being released I begin by welcoming the cross-party efforts of many Members of the House in getting the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act passed into law, particularly those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) and the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin). Parliament has passed a law to ensure that the will of Parliament is upheld. The fact that Parliament is compelled to pass a law to ensure that its will is upheld shows what extraordinary times we live in. The House has rejected no deal. Businesses and trade unions are united in rejecting no deal, and there is no majority for it across the country. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the co-convenor of the Vote Leave campaign, said in March this year: "We didn’t vote to leave without a deal" It is clear—there is no mandate for no deal In trying to diminish the Act, the Government’s spin doctors have branded it the surrender Bill, and Ministers have dutifully trotted out that phrase in the media. The Minister who is going to reply has already replied, like Pavlov’s dogs always do I remind the House again: we are not at war. The Prime Minister seems obsessed with hyperbole and aggressive language: "surrender Bill"; "do or die"; "rather be dead in a ditch"; and the list goes on. We are supposed to be having negotiations with our European partners. The lives at stake as a result of all this are not those of the Prime Minister or his Cabinet.
European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019 (Rule of Law) — House of Commons, 2019-09-09
Topic: Law and Crime
Angela Eagle (Labour, Centre-left): Last week, I asked the Prime Minister whether, if the Bill became law, he, as the Prime Minister of our country, would obey the law. He said that he would, and so would the Government. The next day he announced that he would rather be dead in a ditch than obey the law. Which does my right hon. Friend think it is?
European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019 (Rule of Law) — House of Commons, 2019-09-09
Topic: Government Operations
Jeremy Bernard Corbyn (Labour, Centre-left): I do not really wish anyone dead in a ditch, even if that is their own wish. The first answer that the Prime Minister gave ought to have been that he accepted the will of the democratically elected Parliament. This is a parliamentary democracy—we do not have an executive president who can rule over us. We have to make it very clear that we expect the Prime Minister to abide by the details and specifics of the law that has been passed, which makes specific requirements of him.
European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019 (Rule of Law) — House of Commons, 2019-09-09
Topic: Government Operations
Jeremy Bernard Corbyn (Labour, Centre-left): I am glad the hon. Gentleman managed to read out his intervention that was given to him earlier This is a debate about a Government saying that they will not abide by a law passed by this Parliament. I would have thought it was very straightforward. The Prime Minister should simply say, "This House voted. Of course the Executive must accept the decision." This weekend the right hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd) resigned.
European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019 (Rule of Law) — House of Commons, 2019-09-09
Topic: International Affairs
Jeremy Bernard Corbyn (Labour, Centre-left): No, I will not give way any more The right hon. Member for Hastings and Rye resigned, saying that she had not seen any intensity of work going into negotiations with the EU. She stated: "I no longer believe leaving with a deal is the Government’s main objective." That is a pretty big statement for a member of the Cabinet to make on resigning. Many of us had suspected that for a month or more, but perhaps a five-week delay is par for the course for the former Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. This week, the Chancellor could give no response to what was being negotiated, and not one shred of evidence that the Government have made any proposals whatsoever. Just this morning the Taoiseach, Leo Varadkar, said he has yet to receive "realistic, legally-binding and workable" plans to replace the backstop. The former Work and Pensions Secretary is therefore right to be concerned that only minimal effort, at best, is going into finding a negotiated deal It would be unusual for a Prime Minister to lose the confidence of the House so early in his tenure. It is extraordinary that he is already losing the confidence of his own Cabinet Ministers. If his own Cabinet members cannot have faith in his words, it explains why this House has found it necessary to legislate. For all the many criticisms I had of the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), as Prime Minister she welcomed scrutiny, and, as much as I often disagreed with the policy positions she set out, she saw herself as a public servant. If the Government have a position on Brexit, I hope they will publish it. This House and the people of this country deserve to be able to discuss it, and I am a strong believer that policies are improved by scrutiny.
European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019 (Rule of Law) — House of Commons, 2019-09-09
Topic: International Affairs
Jeremy Bernard Corbyn (Labour, Centre-left): No, I will not give way. I have made that clear already In her resignation letter, the right hon. Member for Hastings and Rye said the Prime Minister had committed an "assault on democracy and decency" I would go further: the Prime Minister is also threatening an assault on the rule of law. He was asked on Friday whether he would abide by the provisions of the European Union (Withdrawal) (No.6) Bill, as it then was, and said he would rather die in a ditch. I do not wish him any ill. I do, however, wish that he would come to the Dispatch Box, set out his detailed plan for Brexit and confirm that he will abide by the law. More than that, the people of this country deserve, and democracy demands, up-front answers from the Prime Minister. So far, no answers have been forthcoming I hope the Prime Minister will live up to the office he holds, accept the decisions made by this Parliament, and carry out the wishes of the Act to ensure an application is made to prevent this country crashing out on 31 October, with all the damage that will do to food supplies, medicine supplies, and industrial supplies, and prevent his longer-term ambitions of heading this country in a totally different direction which many, many people are truly frightened of. The Prime Minister could sort this out very quickly if he just had the courtesy to come to the House and confirm he will accept all the provisions of the Act the House has just passed.
European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019 (Rule of Law) — House of Commons, 2019-09-09
Topic: Government Operations
Vernon Coaker (Labour, Centre-left): This debate is important because it is about the Prime Minister obeying the law. This is not just about the Leader of the Opposition. Is the hon. Gentleman not surprised, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) said, that the Law Officers of the Government are not here to hear the debate, given, quite astonishingly, that the Lord Chancellor—the chief Law Officer of Her Majesty’s Government—had to see the Prime Minister to seek reassurances about the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom obeying the law passed by the legislature of the United Kingdom? Does the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) not agree that that is astonishing? Frankly, the importance of this debate is reflected in the fact that the Lord Chancellor had doubts about whether the Prime Minister is going to obey the law.
European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019 (Rule of Law) — House of Commons, 2019-09-09
Topic: International Affairs
Stephen James McCabe (Labour, Centre-left): We rightly heard earlier today several tributes recognising your role, Mr Speaker, in protecting Parliament and parliamentarians and making Parliament relevant and accessible to ordinary people, and I associate myself with those comments When my constituents ask me about what might happen down here tonight, they are recognising our role in making our laws. They are recognising that it is Parliament’s job to seek solutions. They are acknowledging that this where we argue, debate and pass laws, but people up and down the country have been shocked to discover the Prime Minister putting so much effort into a no-deal Brexit at the expense of seeking a solution, not least because that was never what he told us was his intention back in 2016. People do not understand how the leader of the Brexit campaign, who is now the Prime Minister, is closing down Parliament, pursuing no deal with such vigour, and encouraging media briefings to confirm that he will not abide by the latest Act of Parliament.
European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019 (Rule of Law) — House of Commons, 2019-09-09
Topic: International Affairs
Stephen James McCabe (Labour, Centre-left): I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. I fear the attempts to silence and close down this House. Can any of us really talk about the rule of law and expect our constituents to respect it when those at the top of our democratic institutions are showing such disrespect for Parliament and the law on such a crucial issue The Prime Minister’s behaviour is simply wrong. He is treating Parliament—the people’s Parliament—with utter contempt. The Prime Minister and those around him are using language that we normally associate with repressive, dictatorial, anti-democratic regimes around the globe. In trashing the reputation of Parliament and parliamentarians and threatening to disobey the law, the Prime Minister is calling into question his fitness for office. This man led the Brexit campaign, and he was Foreign Secretary when the negotiations commenced. He is now the Prime Minister, and he should be using every waking hour to conclude the deal on which he sold his Brexit plans. He should not be closing down Parliament and running away from his responsibilities.
European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019 (Rule of Law) — House of Commons, 2019-09-09
Topic: Foreign Trade
Lilian Rachel Greenwood (Labour, Centre-left): Does my hon. Friend agree that if we do not reach a deal with the European Union while we are a member of it, we will inevitably have to reach a trade deal from outside, where we will be negotiating from a position of abject weakness and therefore will be unable to get a good deal?
European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019 (Rule of Law) — House of Commons, 2019-09-09
Topic: Government Operations
Stephen James McCabe (Labour, Centre-left): I think that that is the conclusion that most rational people have come to. That seems the inevitability of where we are heading. The Prime Minister of this country should not be running from his responsibilities, and we should not even have to ask whether he will obey the law. It is unbelievable.
European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019 (Rule of Law) — House of Commons, 2019-09-09
Topic: Government Operations
Stephen James McCabe (Labour, Centre-left): The terrible fear is that the Prime Minister and other members of the Government are saying one thing and doing another, which is what the recent resignation of the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions seemed to reveal. It seems straightforward. If this man and this Government carry on like this, they will be responsible for destroying the very institutions in which the rule of law and democratic politics are based. We should all be fearful of a Government who are intent on moving down that road.
European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019 (Rule of Law) — House of Commons, 2019-09-09
Topic: International Affairs
Jeremy Bernard Corbyn (Labour, Centre-left): The Foreign Secretary shakes his head and does not wish to intervene The situation is simply this. The House has voted several times to say that a no-deal exit must be taken off the table, and it subsequently passed legislation to prevent no deal. The Government then apparently refused to accept the decision of the House, which is why this motion has been brought before us this evening. The Government’s response is to try to prorogue Parliament later this evening so that no Minister can be put under any scrutiny for more than a month, during what they themselves must accept is quite a significant point in our country’s history. The Government have now been forced to produce Operation Yellowhammer documents, as a result of a decision taken earlier by this House Surely the very least we deserve from the Prime Minister is a clear undertaking that a requirement that we ask for an extension until January to prevent us crashing out must be made at the appropriate time. Why can the Foreign Secretary not say that? Why can the Prime Minister not say that? All that we have left is the ability of this House to declare its view this evening, and I hope that is what we will do When the Government have made it clear that they will carry out the law and, if necessary, prevent a no-deal exit, we will then be very happy to debate all their policies in a general election, including ending austerity and the poverty and misery that the Government have brought to the people of this country. I look forward to that opportunity. The priority in this is that operations in hospitals will be damaged, the supply of medicines will be damaged, the supply of food will be damaged, and the supply to manufacturing will be damaged. If all this is a lot of scaremongering, why were the Government so unkeen to present Yellowhammer documents, which will show that truth to be the case? If they have nothing to hide, why are they hiding it? This House has forced them to put those documents out to the public, but, of course, the House will not be sitting. How convenient is that? I say to the Government: do not go ahead with the Prorogation of Parliament; do not go ahead with the threat of no deal. Instead, they should look after the interests of the people of this country which will not be served by our crashing out unless, of course, there is another agenda, which is to rush into the arms of Donald Trump and all the trade deals that they want to make with him There we have it. First of all, no Tory MPs want to speak. Now they have all turned out to have a bit of a shouting match. That is absolutely fine, I do not mind.
European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019 (Rule of Law) — House of Commons, 2019-09-09
Topic: International Affairs
Nicholas Hugh Brown (Labour, Centre-left): claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36). Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put Question agreed to. Main Question put accordingly. Resolved, That this House has considered the welcome completion of all parliamentary stages of the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 6) Bill and has considered the matter of the importance of the rule of law and Ministers’ obligation to comply with the law.
Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019 Section 3(2) — House of Commons, 2019-09-09
Topic: International Affairs
Vernon Coaker (Labour, Centre-left): The Secretary of State has just made a commitment that he will, in the next Session or whenever it may be, come forward with a report. I say gently to the Secretary of State that I am disappointed. A number of motions have been struck off, and for quite understandable reasons, but there is a massive amount to discuss. However we go forward in the next few months, I ask the Secretary of State or whoever holds that position to consider how we in this House of Commons and this Chamber can more properly give Northern Ireland the time it deserves to discuss these matters of major importance. The people of Northern Ireland need to hear that message. We should be talking about this for much longer than we are this evening.
Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019 Section 3(2) — House of Commons, 2019-09-09
Topic: Education
Michael Joseph Patrick Kane (Labour, Centre-left): I had the great honour of visiting Derry recently. The University of Ulster has been dilly-dallying and delaying about the medical school at the Magee campus. The city needs that medical school, which will help immensely with not only its regeneration but the whole peace process. What guarantees can the Secretary of State give that Derry will get that medical school?
Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019 Section 3(2) — House of Commons, 2019-09-09
Topic: International Affairs
Anthony Joseph Lloyd (Labour, Centre-left): I have some difficult news for the right hon. Gentleman. The disillusionment in democratic institutions stretches across all communities in Northern Ireland, including in his constituency. I talk to those people. Those who want to see Stormont working are desperately worried that the politicians—all politicians from all backgrounds—are not making the necessary progress I will conclude, because other Members want to speak. I want to finish by putting some specific points to the Minister. Prorogation has made it difficult for this House to make the decisions it will have to make. We will come back here on 14 October, and between then and 31 October, if we have no deal, we will have 11 sitting days. Some of those will be taken up by the Queen’s Speech. The Secretary of State rightly promised the House regular updates. The first will take place before the House returns. We need those updates to be meaningful to reassure not simply this House but the people of Northern Ireland that there is a plan and a strategy to move this forward. We need to know—the Opposition will co-operate with the Government on this—that there is the capacity to make the legal decisions that will be necessary to move the situation forward, but they have to be the right decisions and there has to be dialogue across the Chamber and an exchange of information. There also has to be—this is really important—a maintenance of the dialogue between Dublin and London, so that when we take action here we know there will be support from the Government in Dublin so that people from all communities can be reassured that a concerted effort is being made to bring this situation to an end.
Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019 Section 3(2) — House of Commons, 2019-09-09
Topic: International Affairs
Anthony Joseph Lloyd (Labour, Centre-left): I am grateful to the Secretary of State, because I am confident that he meant what he has said. I hope that, between us, we can see a move away from a no-deal Brexit, but in the event that that does not happen, we must ensure that we work together to avoid a catastrophe that would be disastrous not only for the economy but for the people and the future of Northern Ireland.
Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019 Section 3(2) — House of Commons, 2019-09-09
Topic: Social Welfare
Carolyn Harris (Labour, Centre-left): I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his passionate speech. Does he agree that, with the lack of a Government in Stormont, families in Northern Ireland are being disadvantaged because the children’s funeral fund is not available in Northern Ireland, despite the best efforts of local authorities? Parents in Northern Ireland still have to suffer the dreadful burden of covering the costs of their children’s funerals, unlike those in the rest of the United Kingdom?
Early Parliamentary General Election (No. 2) — House of Commons, 2019-09-09
Topic: International Affairs
Geraint Richard Davies (Labour, Centre-left): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister has just informed the House that on 31 October he will go to Brussels and ensure that we leave with or without a deal, in contravention of a motion we have just passed that we will obey the law in compliance with that law that has just been passed. Is that out of order?
Early Parliamentary General Election (No. 2) — House of Commons, 2019-09-09
Topic: International Affairs
Jeremy Bernard Corbyn (Labour, Centre-left): The only point of any importance that the Prime Minister has just included in his speech is his clear indication that he does not intend to follow the law that has just been passed that requires him to ask for an extension in certain circumstances. He also gave no answer on the two decisions this House has already made today concerning the publication of Yellowhammer documents and his own behaviour as Prime Minister in respect of laws agreed by this House. He seems to have failed to grasp that those on the Opposition Benches have actually been very clear and that the House has expressed its will: until the Act has been complied with and no deal has been taken off the table, we will not vote to support the Dissolution of this House and a general election I want an election, as the Prime Minister pointed out, and the Conservative party has very generously broadcast footage of me and my friends saying that we want an election. I do not retreat from that at all; we are eager for an election, but as keen as we are, we are not prepared to risk inflicting the disaster of no deal on our communities, our jobs, our services, or indeed our rights. [Interruption.] No deal would not be a clean break. It would not mean just getting on with it. It would start a whole new period of confusion and delay, but this time set against a backdrop of rising unemployment, further de-industrialisation and deepening poverty all across this country. [Interruption.]