argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill — House of Commons, 2019-10-22
Topic: Other
Jeremy Bernard Corbyn (Labour, Centre-left): I believe in the powers of persuasion and tonight I would like to persuade my hon. Friend: come with us, vote against this Bill and vote against the programme motion, because I believe, and I think he may agree with me, that that is in the interests of his constituents.
European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill — House of Commons, 2019-10-22
Topic: Other
Jeremy Bernard Corbyn (Labour, Centre-left): Yes, I understand and accept the hon. Lady’s concerns on that. She is eloquently making the case for far more scrutiny of this Bill, so I am sure she will be joining me in opposing the programme motion this evening, because it will prevent just that kind of scrutiny. I note that the programme motion allows just one hour for consideration of all Lords amendments, however many there may or may not be.
European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill — House of Commons, 2019-10-22
Topic: Other
Karl Turner (Labour, Centre-left): I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition for eventually giving way. I was incredibly concerned when I was reminded by my wife earlier today that we spent longer choosing a sofa than this House has to debate this incredibly important Bill. The important point is this: the Prime Minister’s own legislative adviser, Nikki da Costa, has said and advised him that she thinks this House needs at least four weeks to debate this important legislation in order for it to go through both Houses. We have just not got enough time to debate this—does my right hon. Friend agree?
European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill — House of Commons, 2019-10-22
Topic: Mixed Topics
Jeremy Bernard Corbyn (Labour, Centre-left): My hon. Friend makes a strong point. We got the Bill at 8.15 last night and this afternoon at 1 pm we start debating it—that is utterly ludicrous. We are then going into Committee stage. The Bill then goes to the Lords and comes back, as I said in response to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion, for a one- hour debate on Lords amendments. These are serious issues that have huge implications for communities, factories, jobs and people. This should not be dealt with in this way.
European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill — House of Commons, 2019-10-22
Topic: Other
Yvette Cooper (Labour, Centre-left): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Home Affairs Committee was due to take evidence from the Home Secretary tomorrow afternoon. I have been trying to speak to the Home Secretary today, because she has now informed the Committee that she does not want to give evidence tomorrow. We have offered to change the timing of the sitting to tomorrow morning—
European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill — House of Commons, 2019-10-22
Topic: Mixed Topics
Kevin Denis Brennan (Labour, Centre-left): The right hon. Gentleman has been very generous in giving way. There have been some press reports that the SNP is abandoning the idea of having a second referendum, but in the joint letter he cited from the First Minister of Wales and the First Minister of Scotland I am pleased to say that they both called for such a referendum and for an extension to allow it to happen. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that that is still the SNP’s position?
European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill — House of Commons, 2019-10-22
Topic: Mixed Topics
Hilary James Benn (Labour, Centre-left): I was surprised when I read that in the impact assessment, and the truth is that a whole load of questions remain about how the system will work. How will we identify goods at risk, as it is described, of passing into the Republic of Ireland? That is for another day.
European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill — House of Commons, 2019-10-22
Topic: Other
Benjamin Peter James Bradshaw (Labour, Centre-left): My right hon. Friend refers to people feeling frustrated, bored and fatigued. Does he agree that none of those things is an excuse for making what could be a very, very bad decision in haste, which is what the Government are trying to make us do today?
European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill — House of Commons, 2019-10-22
Topic: Mixed Topics
David Lindon Lammy (Labour, Centre-left): My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. As much as this decision is one that needs to be taken, we should not make it haste and we should think very, very carefully about the implications for our country.
European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill — House of Commons, 2019-10-22
Topic: Other
Nicholas Dakin (Labour, Centre-left): In the end, we have to try to make this work. There is an obligation for us to work through it and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Gloria De Piero) said earlier, there will be an opportunity to do so if the Bill goes into Committee and if we have a decent programme motion Frankly, what has been said about the programme motion is outrageous. As the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) said, bully boy tactics have been used to try to thrust the programme motion down the House’s throat when we should have civilized, British behaviour. Members should sit down to agree a sensible programme motion. That is what the Labour Chief Whip wants, so the Government Chief Whip should sit down and do it so that we can work through the Bill properly and see whether we can improve it to make sure it is a good Bill for the people of this country Yes, people voted to come out, but they did not vote to lose out. It is our duty to square that circle, and that is what we should do.
European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill — House of Commons, 2019-10-22
Topic: Mixed Topics
Nicklaus Thomas-Symonds (Labour, Centre-left): My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The damage that the Bill does to workers’ rights is just the tip of the iceberg. It will create a border in the Irish sea and impose burdens on Northern Ireland-Great Britain trade, something that the Prime Minister himself promised would never happen. Clause 21 makes that explicit, yet, extraordinarily, the Prime Minister continued to deny it when he opened the debate. What did he talk about? Light-touch measures to deal with illegal trade in endangered animal species and to ban firearms. That completely contradicts what the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union eventually told the House of Lords European Union Committee yesterday: "The exit summary declarations will be required in terms of NI to GB" I do not know why the Prime Minister is shaking his head. That is what the Bill says. The Prime Minister should read the Bill.
European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill — House of Commons, 2019-10-22
Topic: Other
James McMahon (Labour, Centre-left): On that point, how does the right hon. and learned Gentleman feel our negotiating partners look on this Parliament, which was prorogued at a time when we could have been spending time on this issue? We would have had more than 21 days to debate it in that circumstance.
European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill — House of Commons, 2019-10-22
Topic: Mixed Topics
Lucy Maria Powell (Labour, Centre-left): Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I wondered if you could clarify for me how "getting Brexit done" sits with pausing Brexit. This feels like a very churlish reaction to what is a straightforward request, which is for the House to have a short amount of time. Do those two things equate in your mind?
European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill — House of Commons, 2019-10-22
Topic: Other
Angela Eagle (Labour, Centre-left): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition offered the Conservative party a proper discussion on a different programme motion, which would have given us more time for the release of impact assessments and so on, and more time to discuss a very complex and important Bill. That has not been addressed. It is correct that we cannot proceed tonight, but if an agreement was reached between Front Benchers we could surely re-establish a timetable and scrutinise the Bill properly—if we did not have a Prime Minister who was behaving like a two year old and playing silly games?
Prime Minister’s Statement — House of Commons, 2019-10-19
Topic: Mixed Topics
Patrick Bosco McFadden (Labour, Centre-left): There is a philosophical problem at the core of the Prime Minister’s argument today: he is promising his colleagues—particularly his most ardent Brexit-supporting colleagues—that the proposals before us offer a pathway to the deregulated future of which they have always dreamed, and at the same time, he is saying to Labour colleagues that he now has a new-found love for all the European workers’ rights that he built a journalistic career slagging off in the strongest terms. Both of these things cannot be true, so which one is?
Prime Minister’s Statement — House of Commons, 2019-10-19
Topic: Immigration
Tulip Rizwana Siddiq (Labour, Centre-left): The Prime Minister used the phrase "European friends" over and over again in his statement, and we in this House know that he likes to treat his friends with great generosity. Bearing that in mind, will he distance himself from the comments last week of the Security Minister, who said that our European friends in this country could face deportation if they did not get settled status by next year?
European Union (Withdrawal) Acts — House of Commons, 2019-10-19
Topic: Other
Keir Starmer (Labour, Centre-left): The Secretary of State and I were in the same room at the time; he knows very well that that is not true—the idea that I would not know our own proposal. He knows that; he was there. Withdraw it!
European Union (Withdrawal) Acts — House of Commons, 2019-10-19
Topic: Mixed Topics
Keir Starmer (Labour, Centre-left): I will make one more point and then I will give way. I just want to reinforce my point and then I will pause Not only have the aspiration for "as close as possible" and the references to alignment been taken out, but the new text removes the backstop as the basis of the future relationship—not the backstop in its own right, but as the basis for the future relationship. That is very important because it means that the starting point for the next stage is a baseline FTA with no safety net for workplace rights, consumer rights and environmental standards. They have gone from the binding legal withdrawal agreement altogether. They are found—I will come back to them—in the political declaration. They have gone out of the binding agreement and into the political declaration.
European Union (Withdrawal) Acts — House of Commons, 2019-10-19
Topic: Mixed Topics
David George Hanson (Labour, Centre-left): Will my right hon. and learned Friend explore further the customs checks issue? If a lorry leaves Dumfries or north Wales for Northern Ireland, and its ultimate destination is the Republic of Ireland, where and when will the customs checks take place?
European Union (Withdrawal) Acts — House of Commons, 2019-10-19
Topic: Mixed Topics
Keir Starmer (Labour, Centre-left): There have to be checks, and they have to be done at the border with England, Scotland and Wales, or Northern Ireland—there is no getting away from that. The argument that the Prime Minister tried to deploy earlier that he is not putting a border in the Irish sea is just wrong—it is absolutely wrong. Any goods that do not fall within the restricted category of goods proven not to be going any further than Northern Ireland and not to be going into manufacturing will be subject to checks, because that is the test written into the deal.
European Union (Withdrawal) Acts — House of Commons, 2019-10-19
Topic: Mixed Topics
Keir Starmer (Labour, Centre-left): I am genuinely grateful for that intervention, which I wanted to take, but the fact remains that the hon. Gentleman is right when he says that if the trade deals "are not successful… then we could leave on no-deal terms." Before we rush into the Lobbies, let us explore what that means The decision on extending transition, under this deal, needs to be taken by the end of July next year. That is eight months away. It is very hard to see how any Government could negotiate a completed future relationship within such a short timeframe, particularly a Government who want to diverge. The Prime Minister brushed this away earlier by saying, "Well, we’re aligned." That is true, and if he wanted to stay aligned he could probably do a trade deal a lot more quickly, but this Prime Minister and this Government want to diverge. So, the idea that this does not lead to a no-deal Brexit is wrong, and nobody should vote for this deal on the basis that it is the way to ensure that we do not leave at the end of 2020 on WTO terms.
European Union (Withdrawal) Acts — House of Commons, 2019-10-19
Topic: Mixed Topics
Keir Starmer (Labour, Centre-left): I will make this point and then I will give way I know how important these issues are to many Members on the Opposition Benches, particularly the question of workplace rights, environmental rights and consumer standards. I remind all Members of this House that not a single trade union supports this deal. I urge everyone in the House to reflect on the likelihood of this Prime Minister keeping his promises This point has been made, but I am going to make it again. Last November, the Prime Minister told the DUP conference, in terms, that "regulatory checks and even customs controls between Great Britain and Northern Ireland" would be "damaging" to the "fabric of the Union" He went on to say that "no British Conservative government could or should sign up to any such arrangement" His words What does this deal do? It puts checks and controls between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It creates a customs border in the Irish sea. It does precisely what the Prime Minister told the DUP last November he would not do—typical of this Prime Minister. So, those who are considering today putting their trust in this Prime Minister need to reflect on how he has treated his supply and confidence partners—promise, then burn. I ask how anybody could trust any promise he is now making.
European Union (Withdrawal) Acts — House of Commons, 2019-10-19
Topic: Mixed Topics
Rushanara Ali (Labour, Centre-left): This deal not only rules out the customs union; it rules out a single market relationship, which affects service sector jobs, alongside the manufacturing jobs. As my right hon. and learned Friend said, it is going to be a bonfire of labour standards and environmental standards. Does he agree that this is a Trojan horse for a no-deal Brexit? That is why our colleagues on this side of the House must vote it down, as must others who believe in the national interest.
European Union (Withdrawal) Acts — House of Commons, 2019-10-19
Topic: Mixed Topics
Keir Starmer (Labour, Centre-left): I am grateful for that intervention. The point is this: the Prime Minister said that no British Conservative Government could or should sign up to any such arrangement, but now it is said that he could sign up to it. That is exactly why we should not trust that. It is why we should support amendment (a). [Interruption.] It is an important intervention, and I take it seriously. That is why amendment (a) is so important, because it gives the House an opportunity to know precisely what the commitment is and what words will go into the legislation I am not prepared, I am afraid—nor are the vast majority on the Opposition Benches—to take the Prime Minister’s word. There is more than enough evidence that his word does not mean anything and cannot be trusted.
European Union (Withdrawal) Acts — House of Commons, 2019-10-19
Topic: Other
Valerie Carol Marian Vaz (Labour, Centre-left): Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I thank the Leader of the House for making it, and in response I would like to ask him, through you, Mr Speaker, why we are having a rerun of the vote. If that is not the case, could the Bill be published and debated in an orderly way? And how discourteous this is to Her Majesty the Queen, when we are still debating the Queen’s Speech. When are we likely to have the remaining days of the Queen’s Speech debate?
European Union (Withdrawal) Acts — House of Commons, 2019-10-19
Topic: Other
Kevin Denis Brennan (Labour, Centre-left): Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Should the Leader of the House not have sought to make an emergency business statement, if that was what his intention was, so that we could do what the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) have just done and asked questions of the right hon. Gentleman about his intentions regarding what happens to the rest of the important business that we have before us?
European Union (Withdrawal) Acts — House of Commons, 2019-10-19
Topic: Other
Helen Catherine Goodman (Labour, Centre-left): Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. In light of the Leader of the House’s very brief remarks, I wonder whether it has been made clear to you when the Second Reading of the Bill that the Prime Minister said would be introduced will take place, and which days next week we will have as the two days to complete our debates, and vote, on the Queen’s Speech.
European Union (Withdrawal) Acts — House of Commons, 2019-10-19
Topic: Other
Mary Helen Creagh (Labour, Centre-left): Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it in order for the Government to put a motion before the House that is effectively defeated and then to re-table the exact same motion hoping for a different result, perhaps in anticipation of certain conversations happening over the weekend between the Prime Minister and people who voted one way, and perhaps on the basis of what appears in the Sunday papers? Is it in order to bring the same motion twice on consecutive days? Do we not have a duty to our constituents and to the country to let this matter rest?
European Union (Withdrawal) Acts — House of Commons, 2019-10-19
Topic: Other
Martin David Whitfield (Labour, Centre-left): Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I am cognisant of your recent comments, but it seems to me that we had a business statement setting out what was going to happen next week in the normal way. That has now been altered on a point of order. I am not convinced that that was an appropriate point of order. If it was not, we have not received notice in this House of what will happen on Monday. Can the Government alter the business on Monday using a point of order, or should an invite not be made for an emergency motion that we could listen and respond to?
European Union (Withdrawal) Acts — House of Commons, 2019-10-19
Topic: Mixed Topics
Hugh Lawrence Gaffney (Labour, Centre-left): Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Can you clarify whether the Queen’s Speech amendments—I have one on free TV licences—will still be considered on Monday? Will there be space in the timetable to hear those amendments?
European Union (Withdrawal) Acts — House of Commons, 2019-10-19
Topic: Other
Hilary James Benn (Labour, Centre-left): Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Further to your response to the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie) and your statement that you will make a ruling on Monday, I am anxious that, if a section 13(1)(b) motion were to be tabled for the House to consider on Monday—which seems to me to be what we have just chosen to amend today—there should be an opportunity for an amendment, or amendments, to be tabled to it. Depending on whether the Government may table such a motion, could you indicate whether you would be willing to accept a manuscript amendment once we know what your ruling is on Monday?
European Union (Withdrawal) Acts — House of Commons, 2019-10-19
Topic: Other
Catherine Elizabeth West (Labour, Centre-left): Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Could you clarify whether it would be in order for the Leader of the House to apologise to Back-Bench Members who were expecting some sort of explanation following today’s proceedings, and indeed to those who had been preparing to speak in Monday’s Queen’s Speech debate, and looking forward to it—they might be polishing their speeches as we speak—but who will now be unable to do so?
European Union (Withdrawal) Acts — House of Commons, 2019-10-19
Topic: Other
Susan Elan Jones (Labour, Centre-left): Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. When the Leader of the House was not making his business statement earlier, we had no suggestion of the timings of anything that might happen in Monday’s sitting. We presume that our proceedings will commence at 2.30 pm, but we have no idea as we are sitting today on Saturday. We are having to presume a lot of things. We are being left in the dark by a Government whose Leader of the House, frankly, is not sufficiently courteous to make a business statement. Could you please clarify the expected timings for Monday?
European Union (Withdrawal) Acts — House of Commons, 2019-10-19
Topic: Other
Kevin Denis Brennan (Labour, Centre-left): Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Further to the point I made in my earlier point of order, in respect of which you kindly ruled that this matter should have been dealt with through an emergency business statement, I think we all, if we have been in the House long enough, recognise low-rent jiggery-pokery from the Government, which is what this actually amounts to. I understand that that is not something you could say, Mr Speaker—I notice your head movements, but it is not my duty to comment on people’s head movements in the House If the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) were seeking to table what we might call an insurance amendment ahead of Monday’s proceedings, just in case a ruling should occur that allowed the Government to proceed as they suggested through the rather irregular point of order from the Leader of the House earlier, and that insurance amendment was not tabled by the time we finished these points of order, would you be minded overall to accept such an amendment as a manuscript amendment, prior to our proceedings on Monday?
Debate on the Address — House of Commons, 2019-10-14
Topic: Mixed Topics
Jeremy Bernard Corbyn (Labour, Centre-left): Quite simply because we do not trust the Prime Minister This Government have had three and a half years to get Brexit done and they have failed. The only legitimate way to sort Brexit now is to let the people decide with the final say. To pass this House, any deal needs to meet the needs of workers and businesses. That means including a new customs union—a close single market relationship—and guarantees of workers’ rights, consumer standards and environmental protection; and, if I may say so, guarantees that the Good Friday agreement will not be damaged or undermined in any way. A withdrawal agreement was announced, but we do not know yet if the Government have done a deal. What we are sure of is that this House has legislated against crashing out with no deal and that the Prime Minister must comply with the law if a deal does not pass this House The Queen’s Speech talked about the opportunities that arise from Brexit, but the Government’s own figures suggest that a free trade agreement approach would cause a near 7% hit to our economy, while a no-deal crash-out would cause a 10% hit. Those seem like opportunities that we could all live without. For many people, the economy of this country is fundamentally weak. Since 2010, there are more workers in poverty, more children in poverty, more pensioners in poverty, more families without a home to call their own and more people—fellow citizens—sleeping rough on our streets. Fewer people can afford their own home, and wages are still lower than they were a decade ago. Productivity is falling, and the economy contracted last month At the weekend I was in Hastings on the south coast, where last year food banks staffed by volunteers distributed 87,453 meals, and one in seven people in that town live in fuel poverty. Are those not shocking figures in this country in the 21st century? There was nothing in the Queen’s Speech to address our stagnant economy, nothing to address low pay and insecure work, and nothing to reverse the rising levels of child poverty or pensioner poverty.