argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Prorogation (Disclosure of Communications) — House of Commons, 2019-09-09
Topic: International Affairs
Michael Andrew Gove (Conservative, Centre-right): No. In the evidence that I gave, I made it clear—I am grateful to the Chairman of that Committee for allowing me to do so—that we wanted to publish and would publish a revised Yellowhammer document. It is also important to recognise that the shadow Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), described Yellowhammer as both an "impact assessment" and a "likely scenario". I was clear in the evidence, which was accepted by the Chairman in that Committee, that it was neither an impact assessment nor a likely scenario. The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that he wants scrutiny of our no-deal assumptions, but when that scrutiny is given and when the facts are in front, he seems not to be interested, not to read it or not to know what has been said. He says he wants scrutiny, but when he gets scrutiny, he cannot be bothered to take account of it.
European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019 (Rule of Law) — House of Commons, 2019-09-09
Topic: International Affairs
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): We now come to the motion in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, to be moved under Standing Order No. 24. I remind the House, although I am sure that colleagues are keenly conscious of every word of it, that the motion is "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 call the Leader of the Opposition to move the motion.
European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019 (Rule of Law) — House of Commons, 2019-09-09
Topic: International Affairs
Peter William Bone (Conservative, Centre-right): The Leader of the Opposition is very generous in giving way. When talking about the rule of law, if we get to 31 October and one of the other European countries says that we cannot extend, would he support coming out with no deal, because that is the law?
European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019 (Rule of Law) — House of Commons, 2019-09-09
Topic: International Affairs
Victoria Grace Ford (Conservative, Centre-right): I would like to go back to the point that was just made about what happens if we reach the end of the October and one or more EU countries do not give an extension. The clock is ticking towards the end of October, and surely we should focus on supporting getting a deal now, rather than kicking the can further down the road. If there is no extension, what does the Leader of the Opposition suggest is done?
European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019 (Rule of Law) — House of Commons, 2019-09-09
Topic: Law and Crime
Robert William Henry Seely (Conservative, Centre-right): I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. On a point of clarification, he says how important the rule of law is, and I agree. How many paramilitary and terrorist organisations has he supported and how many murders have they committed?
European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019 (Rule of Law) — House of Commons, 2019-09-09
Topic: International Affairs
Peter William Bone (Conservative, Centre-right): Thank you, Mr Speaker. [Interruption.] I think it a slightly outrageous suggestion from the shadow Chancellor that I should speak for the Government. I do not know who is more offended, me or the Government I rise very briefly to say that I do not welcome the passage of a Bill that has been rushed through the House in a totally outrageous manner without proper scrutiny. [Interruption.] I have no idea whether it has received Royal Assent or not. If it has, it is the law of the land. It still does not make it a good law. It seems to me that every Government would abide by the law. The point I made to the Leader of the Opposition is that the idea we have passed an Act of Parliament that takes no deal off the table is blindingly obviously not true, because we do not have that power. You may say that this Parliament wants an extension—that is one thing—but to say that every single European Union member country has to grant that extension is just wrong.
European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019 (Rule of Law) — House of Commons, 2019-09-09
Topic: International Affairs
Anne Margaret Main (Conservative, Centre-right): Will my hon. Friend confirm that one of the special circumstances in which the European Union would decide to give an extension is if there is an election? If the Opposition were to vote for an election tonight—we might then have, if they are confident, a new Prime Minister—that would guarantee an extension. What has been done today, however, does not guarantee an extension.
European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019 (Rule of Law) — House of Commons, 2019-09-09
Topic: Government Operations
Peter William Bone (Conservative, Centre-right): The hon. Gentleman might want to withdraw that remark, because I have seen no comments from the Lord Chancellor that he in any way doubts the word of the Prime Minister—on reflection, he might wish to withdraw that The truth is that this is a general debate that is being held for political purposes. Nobody in this House for one moment thinks that any member of the Government is not going to obey the law of the land. My only reason for speaking in this debate was to say that I do not welcome the Act. It was pushed through in an extraordinarily unconstitutional way, and I say with all sincerity to the Leader of the Opposition that if he sits on this side of the House as Prime Minister, he will regret that constitutional outrage.
European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019 (Rule of Law) — House of Commons, 2019-09-09
Topic: International Affairs
John Alan Redwood (Conservative, Centre-right): Of course the Government and all Members of Parliament must obey the law, but Parliament must also pass wise laws and pass them according to our traditions, practices and rules. I wish to concentrate briefly on the question of the wisdom of the law and urge those who sponsored it to think again in the national interest This is no normal law. A normal law applies to everyone in the country equally, there are criminal penalties for those who break the law, and we wish to see the law enforced. This is not that kind of a law. This Act of Parliament is a political instruction to our Prime Minister about how he should behave in an international negotiation. Normally, this Parliament takes the view that international negotiations are best handled in detail by the Government, and we the Parliament judge the result by either approving or disapproving of it I urge colleagues to think again, because two things follow from Parliament instructing the Prime Minister in the way it has sought to do over this negotiation. The first is that the EU, the counterparties to the negotiation, can see that this Parliament has deliberately undermined the position of the lead negotiator for our country. It will take note of that, and instead of giving things it will say, "There is no point in giving things." The second thing—even worse—is that the EU will take note that our Prime Minister under this Act is to seek an extension on any terms the EU cares to dictate. How can anyone in this House say that is good law or justice or makes sense for the British people? Those of the remain persuasion, just as those of the leave persuasion, must surely see that this is not the way to treat our lead negotiator—putting our country naked into the negotiating chamber with the EU. It puts the country in a farcical and extremely weak position I thought that the Labour party wanted us to leave the EU. Labour Members did not like the withdrawal agreement—I have sympathy with that—but they do not like leaving without the withdrawal agreement—I have less sympathy with that—so they are looking for a third way. They presumably think they could do some other kind of renegotiation, but they have never explained to us what that renegotiation would be like, and they have never explained how the EU would even start talking about it, given that it has consistently said we either take the withdrawal agreement or just leave.
European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019 (Rule of Law) — House of Commons, 2019-09-09
Topic: International Affairs
Adam Afriyie (Conservative, Centre-right): The Opposition have taken a really bizarre position. They have said that, even if they did manage to negotiate a new deal with the EU, they would campaign against it. It is a really odd position for this nation to be in.
European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019 (Rule of Law) — House of Commons, 2019-09-09
Topic: International Affairs
John Alan Redwood (Conservative, Centre-right): That is even more bizarre. Normally, Governments do their best negotiation and then come back and recommend it to the House of Commons. It would indeed be fatuous if we ever had a Government in this country who negotiated a deal they knew they wanted to reject. They should not waste everybody’s time and just say, "Let’s leave without a deal." We are wandering a little from the point of this debate, which is about the rule of law. This House of Commons should think again. This is an extremely unwise law. It undermines the Prime Minister, but, more importantly, it undermines our country. It makes it extremely unlikely that those remain-supporting MPs who could live with our exit with a variant of the withdrawal agreement will get that because they have deliberately undermined the pressure our Prime Minister may place on the EU in the negotiations he is trying to undertake. Even worse, they have invited the EU to dictate terrible terms for a few months’ extension, and why would the EU not do it? Please, Parliament, reconsider. Parliament has a duty to put through wise laws and to represent the national interest. This miserable Act is a an act of great political folly and is undermining our country in a very desperate way.
European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019 (Rule of Law) — House of Commons, 2019-09-09
Topic: International Affairs
John Alan Redwood (Conservative, Centre-right): Is there any limit on the conditions that the EU could impose on us to get the extension that the hon. Lady would find unacceptable? Let us say that it wanted billions of pounds that we need for schools and hospitals in Britain. The hon. Lady wants us to just pay that.
European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019 (Rule of Law) — House of Commons, 2019-09-09
Topic: International Affairs
Michael James Tomlinson-Mynors (Conservative, Centre-right): It a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson). I will start my speech by agreeing with two of the points that she made, although I fundamentally disagree with her points and her stance on Brexit First, I agree that it is truly astonishing that we are having this debate today. It is faintly ridiculous that there should be an accusation, an allegation, that anyone on the Government Benches, let alone the Prime Minister, would fail to obey the rule of law. Secondly, I agree that the Act does not take no deal off the table. The hon. Lady was absolutely right to say that and to point to other weaknesses in the Act. She was right to be open and straightforward about a matter on which other Members have been less than straightforward.
European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019 (Rule of Law) — House of Commons, 2019-09-09
Topic: International Affairs
Anne Margaret Main (Conservative, Centre-right): My hon. Friend is making some powerful points, and, like him, I completely agree with those points made by the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson). However, the hon. Lady also referred to a people’s vote on a deal. A deal would have to be negotiated to go to a people’s vote. There would have to be a considerable delay before that could happen if a deal was not secured.
European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019 (Rule of Law) — House of Commons, 2019-09-09
Topic: International Affairs
Michael James Tomlinson-Mynors (Conservative, Centre-right): I am delighted that the hon. Lady has turned up for the debate. However, she failed to hear a previous Liberal Democrat statement that if the vote was for leave on a second occasion, they would not abide by it and would not accept it.
European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019 (Rule of Law) — House of Commons, 2019-09-09
Topic: International Affairs
Michael James Tomlinson-Mynors (Conservative, Centre-right): I am going to make some progress We have said that we are going to leave on 31 October. It is imperative that we do so, and I will be encouraging the Prime Minister to do precisely that There is a sense of unreality in the Chamber. We have been having, endlessly, the same debate on Brexit for the past three years, and democrats have not accepted the democratic result of the referendum. The leader of the Labour party says that the Prime Minister should stick to his word, but I invite the leader of the Labour party to stick to his word directly in relation to this Act This is what the leader of the Labour party said during last week’s debate. He said: "I repeat what I said last night. Let this Bill pass and gain Royal Assent"— and, Mr Speaker, you yourself have confirmed that this Bill has received Royal Assent— "and then we will back an election".—[Official Report, 4 September 2019; Vol. 664, c. 292.] Those are the Leader of the Opposition’s own words, in Hansard, said from the Dispatch Box. He invites the Prime Minister to stick to his word: absolutely, and we must leave on 31 October, but the leader of the Labour party should stick to his words. He should have the courage of his convictions. He should stand up and doing what Opposition leaders should be doing, rather than chickening out and bottling it and failing to vote tonight for an election.
European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019 (Rule of Law) — House of Commons, 2019-09-09
Topic: Government Operations
William Nigel Paul Cash (Conservative, Centre-right): In examining the question of the rule of law does my hon. Friend agree that it is essential to look at the wording of the Act itself? Is there not a substantial degree of uncertainty in the duties that are being imposed upon the Prime Minister, not least because of the provisions contained in the so-called Kinnock amendment, and also because it is sometimes impossible to perform a duty if the framework of the duty that is to be complied with is itself incoherent and unclear, as it is in the Bill?
European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019 (Rule of Law) — House of Commons, 2019-09-09
Topic: International Affairs
Michael James Tomlinson-Mynors (Conservative, Centre-right): I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. So far no one has suggested during the course of this debate that it would be proper to disobey the rule of law, and I agree entirely, but does that prevent the Government from examining precisely what the law does and does not say while still abiding by the rule of law Labour’s position on Brexit is entirely incoherent. The shadow Foreign Secretary says she is going to negotiate a deal but then, having negotiated the deal, she is actually going to vote against the deal that she herself has negotiated. The Labour leader has said that he wants a general election to be called as soon as the Bill is passed; the Bill is passed, and he is still running away from a general election There is such a sense of unreality in this Chamber. We have had these debates for three years. My constituents are saying, "Get on with it." That is precisely what we should be doing.
European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019 (Rule of Law) — House of Commons, 2019-09-09
Topic: International Affairs
Geoffrey Robert Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Centre-right): The people of this country are angry. They will not understand what this debate is all about. The people of this country voted to leave the European Union, and numerous Members on both sides of the House said during the referendum debate that the result would be honoured. We have had a general election in which the two major parties stood on a platform stating the result would be honoured, and my party voted in overwhelming numbers to trigger article 50 and for both the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017 and the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. The people of this country will not understand these shenanigans I was at the Moreton-in-Marsh show last weekend, and there were angry people, both Brexiteers and remainers, who said, "For goodness’ sake, our businesses are suffering and our jobs are at risk. Just sort out this EU problem. We voted to leave the European Union." We are debating the hypothetical situation of whether the Prime Minister might break the law. It is inconceivable that he would break the law, but this Parliament has passed a rotten law. It has asked him to seek an extension on terms that we know not what they are or might be. We could face all sorts of terms in that extension. We could be asked to pay billions of pounds extra. We have no idea, yet this Parliament has mandated the Prime Minister to accept the terms, whatever they are The people cannot understand why our democratic Parliament has not sorted out this problem. The longer this whole matter goes on, the more they will hold this Parliament in contempt and the more that Parliament and its Members will lose their reputation for representing this country properly.
European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019 (Rule of Law) — House of Commons, 2019-09-09
Topic: International Affairs
Dominic Rennie Raab (Conservative, Centre-right): It is a great pleasure to wind up this debate, and I pay tribute to the interesting points that have been made on both sides of the House This Government will always respect the rule of law. That has consistently been our clear position and, frankly, it is outrageous that it is even in doubt. Of course, how the rule of law will be respected is normally straightforward, but sometimes it can be more complex because there are conflicting laws or competing legal advice. The Government usually get their interpretation right, but there have been many judicial reviews down the years, under many different Governments of different complexions. The Government cannot and would not wish to prevent that. Indeed, judicial review is part and parcel of the rule of law When, on occasion, the Government have lost a case on one or more contentious grounds—this has been true under successive Governments—of course they must correct their position accordingly and expeditiously. I am a lawyer by training, I have served twice in the Ministry of Justice and I can reassure hon. Members that I take this duty to respect the rule of law particularly seriously. At the same time, it is true to say that the country is appalled by what it is seeing in Parliament, not for the reasons given by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe), but because hon. Members voted for a referendum and promised repeatedly to respect the result, and yet now people see that the Leader of the Opposition and others have repeatedly tried to frustrate Brexit. The right hon. Gentleman has now made it clear that that is Labour party policy. The ballot paper in 2016 did not say, "Leave, if and only if Brussels agrees a deal"; it did not require us to seek permission from Brussels before departure. and it did not give the EU a veto over Brexit The Prime Minister and this Government have been working hard for a good deal—the Prime Minister has been at it again in Dublin today—but it must be an acceptable deal that Parliament can pass. We will continue that effort. But respecting the referendum must also mean that this House allows us to leave without a deal if Brussels leaves no other credible choice. Three years of experience, to date, demonstrates that taking that option off the table severely weakened our negotiating position in Brussels, yet last week this House voted for another delay, and in doing so it further weakened our position at a critical juncture in these negotiations, a point made powerfully and eloquently by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) So we are now in dangerous territory. Across the country, millions of voters are concluding that Parliament is refusing to allow Brexit to happen, because some MPs just do not like it and because some politicians think the voters got it wrong in 2016—that was the thrust of the comments made by the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford).
European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019 (Rule of Law) — House of Commons, 2019-09-09
Topic: International Affairs
John Alan Redwood (Conservative, Centre-right): Would my right hon. Friend like to comment on the way in which the Commons swept aside the idea that support is needed for the big financial consequences of this legislation—there was no money resolution—and swept away Queen’s consent, which is normally needed when encroaching on negotiations of an international treaty?
European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019 (Rule of Law) — House of Commons, 2019-09-09
Topic: International Affairs
Dominic Rennie Raab (Conservative, Centre-right): I thank my right hon. Friend for that. Of course, all the normal checks and balances that would apply if the Government were bringing forward a piece of legislation cannot apply—almost by definition—as a result of the way this was done. It has been done swiftly, without the normal scrutiny, and as a result it is a flawed piece of legislation and rightly dubbed the surrender Bill, because of its impact on our negotiations in Brussels.