argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-02-07
Topic: International Affairs
Yvette Cooper (Labour, Centre-left): My hon. and learned Friend may have heard what the Minister said in more detail than I did. Was it clear whether we would get a vote in this House if there was no deal? If the Government failed to get a deal with the EU—none of us wants that to happen, but if it did—was it clear to him from what the Minister said whether we would still get a vote in Parliament?
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-02-07
Topic: International Affairs
Keir Starmer (Labour, Centre-left): I am going to make some progress, because I barely got through two or three sentences before taking interventions. I do not think anybody could accuse me of not giving way In the end, there is stark choice for the House. If we are to have a vote, it will be either before the deal is concluded, or afterwards, in which case it will be a fait accompli. This concession appears to suggest that it will be before it is concluded. I recognise that there are other issues that flow off the back of that timing, but that is critical, because the sequence of events at the end of the exercise is extremely important to what the House can meaningfully say or do about the agreement that is put to us for a vote.
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-02-07
Topic: International Affairs
Elizabeth Louise Kendall (Labour, Centre-left): Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that we must consider not just the timing of the vote but what happens if the House declines to accept the deal that the Government have put forward? The Prime Minister said on 25 January: "If this Parliament is not willing to accept a deal that has been decided on…with the European Union, then, as I have said, we will have to fall back on other arrangements."—[Official Report, 25 January 2017; Vol. 620, c. 295.] That does not guarantee that this House will have the final decision on our future relationship with the EU.
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-02-07
Topic: International Affairs
Keir Starmer (Labour, Centre-left): I am grateful for that intervention. I think the exchange that my hon. Friend has referred to is the cause of the concern about the vote being held before the deal is concluded. We will need greater clarification about the extent of the vote.
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-02-07
Topic: International Affairs
Geraint Richard Davies (Labour, Centre-left): After we trigger article 50, the EU27 will decide a deal in their interests. If that deal comes to this House and we vote it down, and subsequently the Commission and the European Parliament agree it and say, "Like it or lump it," what will we do then?
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-02-07
Topic: International Affairs
Patrick Bosco McFadden (Labour, Centre-left): Timing is significant only if it further empowers Parliament to have a meaningful say on the negotiations. Can I ask the Minister again: what will happen if the House declines to approve the draft agreement that he intends to bring before us?
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-02-07
Topic: Foreign Trade
Chuka Harrison Umunna (Labour, Centre-left): The point is that if this is to be a meaningful concession, the House needs the opportunity to send the Government back to our EU partners to negotiate a deal if one has not been reached. Going to World Trade Organisation rules will be deeply damaging for our economy and wholly unacceptable.
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-02-07
Topic: International Affairs
Hilary James Benn (Labour, Centre-left): When the Minister first revealed his concession to the shadow Secretary of State, there was a bit, which he has not read out in the speech that he has just been giving, that referred to timing, intention and the position of the European Parliament. Will he please repeat what he said the first time round? I think it important that the House should be able to hear that.
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-02-07
Topic: International Affairs
Edward Samuel Miliband (Labour, Centre-left): I have a very brief question for the Minister. If the European Parliament votes down the deal, Europe will carry on negotiating. He is saying that if the British Parliament votes down the deal, that will be the end of the negotiations. We pride ourselves on our sovereignty in this House; the Minister’s position seems to be a denial of that sovereignty.
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-02-07
Topic: International Affairs
Geraint Richard Davies (Labour, Centre-left): Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that triggering article 50 on the basis of its possible revocability is like walking down the M4 in the middle of the night and hoping you will not get killed—you might not, but it is better not to walk down there in the first place?
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-02-07
Topic: International Affairs
Geraint Richard Davies (Labour, Centre-left): If the right hon. Gentleman wants to maximise negotiating leverage, would it not be better to delay article 50 until after the elections of the new German Government in October and the new French Government in May? We will have only two years, so that would give us the power of having more time to negotiate while we are member, instead of giving that up. If we were to offer a referendum to the people before we trigger article 50, European countries might think that we could stay in, so they might come to the table before article 50 was triggered.
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-02-07
Topic: International Affairs
Christopher Paul Farrelly (Labour, Centre-left): Is the right hon. Gentleman not assuming that, as we walk into the room, all the people we are negotiating with are our adversaries? Is that perhaps not the wrong standpoint to take? Is it not the case that a meaningful vote on the substance of any deal might equally focus the Government’s mind on what they can sell to this House to unite it, as well as the people we represent, in a very divided country?
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-02-07
Topic: International Affairs
Helen Catherine Goodman (Labour, Centre-left): I rise to speak to new clauses 28, 54 and 99, standing in my name and those of other right hon. and hon. Members. New clause 28 deals with the sequencing of votes on the final terms—the issue on which we have had a concession this afternoon from the Minister; new clause 54 is about how to secure extra time if we need it in our negotiations with the EU; and new clause 99 embeds parliamentary sovereignty in the process I am pleased to follow the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood), but I am disappointed that he has not come clean to the Committee on the fact that he has identified an alternative process he hopes to use to secure the kind of Brexit he wants. He did not refer to another blog he wrote recently, in which he said: "Being in the EU is a bit like being a student in a College. All the time you belong to the College you have to pay fees... When you depart you have no further financial obligations" This is a somewhat outmoded view of the way student finances work, but putting that to one side, he evidently has not read the excellent paper by Alex Barker of the Financial Times pointing out that the obligations on us will fall into three categories: legally binding budget commitments; pension promises to EU officials; and contingent liabilities, which indeed are arguable.
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-02-07
Topic: International Affairs
Helen Catherine Goodman (Labour, Centre-left): I may wish to test the will of the Committee on this new clause when we reach the end of the debate I think most rational people would say that the new relationship is more important than the terms of withdrawal.
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-02-07
Topic: International Affairs
Helen Catherine Goodman (Labour, Centre-left): I do not think it does mean that. It would depend on whether or not extra time had been agreed with the European Union. If the right hon. Gentleman referred back to article 50, he would see that we might get an extension if the other member states agree to provide us with it unanimously. They may; they may not. As we stand here today, it is quite difficult to project ourselves forward into the situation we will find in two years’ time.
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-02-07
Topic: Government Operations
Helen Catherine Goodman (Labour, Centre-left): I do not think it does, because it leaves open the possibility of the Government’s going back to the drawing board and making a further new arrangement. As I say, for us now, when we have not yet embarked on the process and we do not know what the deals will be and what is going to be offered, it is extremely difficult for us to foresee.
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-02-07
Topic: International Affairs
Angela Eagle (Labour, Centre-left): Does my hon. Friend agree that many of the other 27 countries will be going to their Parliaments for approval with respect to their approach to these negotiations, so that it would surely strengthen our Government’s hands if they involved themselves in a process that could through this Parliament maximise the support coming on all sides for our Government’s approach? Why is that not seen as a strength?
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-02-07
Topic: International Affairs
Helen Catherine Goodman (Labour, Centre-left): I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. We know that Angela Merkel has to get a parliamentary mandate for how she conducts herself in all her negotiations in the European Union. Some of us have tried over the years to improve the quality of our European scrutiny, but it seems that we are focusing it now only on the moment when we are about to leave.
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-02-07
Topic: International Affairs
Geraint Richard Davies (Labour, Centre-left): Assuming that the Committee agrees to this amendment, that we trigger article 50 on 31 March and that we vote against the deal, what could we do about it if the Commission and the European Parliament said, "Sorry, but that’s the deal you’re going to get, like it or lump it"? They do not care; we do not have the sort of power necessary to stop them imposing the deal they want once article 50 has been triggered.
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-02-07
Topic: International Affairs
Helen Catherine Goodman (Labour, Centre-left): My hon. Friend is arguing along the same lines as the right hon. Member for Wokingham—that article 50 is irrevocable. It is the same point as was raised by the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) as well. As I have said, paragraph 3 of article 50 includes the words "unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period." That can happen, and it will depend on how the negotiations are undertaken, on where we have got to, and on their tone.
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-02-07
Topic: International Affairs
Helen Catherine Goodman (Labour, Centre-left): I do not think that the threat of the cliff edge is a positive in these negotiations. I note that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has described this as a second-best option and that the White Paper also says that crashing out is a second-best option. Actually, I think it is the worst option, and new clause 99 levels the playing field so that as well as having the vote on the terms of withdrawal and the money, this House will be able to have detailed scrutiny of the future relationship. I have consulted my constituents on the kind of Brexit they want: they do not want the cliff-edge option, and there are all sorts of things about Europe that they like, even though the majority voted to leave. They like the customs union; they like the social chapter; they like co-operation and collaboration; and they particularly like the European arrest warrant.
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-02-07
Topic: International Affairs
Helen Catherine Goodman (Labour, Centre-left): In my experience of negotiation, one of the most important things is to understand what the people on the other side of the table think, and I believe that that is fundamental to our success in this negotiation. It is not to say that we are going to give the people on the other side of the table everything they want, but we need to be willing to listen to what they want as the negotiation proceeds.
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-02-07
Topic: International Affairs
Helen Catherine Goodman (Labour, Centre-left): I do not see this as an opportunity for a seminar on the political institutions of the Federal Republic. New clause 99 is about embedding what is basic to the British constitution, as found by the Supreme Court, which is parliamentary sovereignty throughout the process. In the end, the referendum was about trust. It was about the kind of settlement that most voters wanted. I know what kind of Brexit deal my voters want, and I think that new clause 99 provides the best way of giving it to them.
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-02-07
Topic: International Affairs
Christopher Paul Farrelly (Labour, Centre-left): The hon. Gentleman—my next-door neighbour from Stone—is clearly enjoying his days in the sun. Like the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), I did not vote for the referendum legislation. Will the hon. Gentleman tell us what regard he has had, over his 40 years of campaigning, for the two thirds of people who, at the time when he started his campaign, voted for the UK to remain in the European Union?
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-02-07
Topic: International Affairs
Christopher Michael Leslie (Labour, Centre-left): No. As we saw on Second Reading, it is quite clear to all concerned that we will be leaving the European Union. That was the judgment in the referendum, that was the question on the ballot paper and the House came to that point of view. But it is important that Parliament reserves the right, as the Prime Minister has sort of indicated, to have a say on the final deal. This is our opportunity—potentially our final opportunity— to set out on the face of the Bill precisely what the circumstances would be.
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-02-07
Topic: International Affairs
Christopher Michael Leslie (Labour, Centre-left): No, I will not give way, because a lot of hon. Members want to get in What was particularly disappointing and deflating in the Minister’s so-called concession, which now feels quite hollow, was that he went on to say that if Parliament did decide to vote against a draft deal, he would not go back into negotiations—that the Government would feel that this was somehow "a sign of weakness". I think that is entirely wrong; if Parliament says, "With respect to the Government, this is not quite good enough. Please go back and seek further points of clarification and further concessions in the negotiation," that should be a source of strength for the Government. Quite frankly, I believe it strengthens the arm of the Government for them to be able to say, "You know, we would like to do this, but Parliament is really keen for a better deal." It is quite useful for the Prime Minister to have that. New clause 110 is helpful to the Prime Minister. It is disappointing that the Minister did not just say this in response to pressure from hon. Members but had it in his script. He had pre-prepared the circumstances where he was going to say that he was not prepared to go back into negotiations if Parliament declined to give support to the new arrangements. We can see that the concession is not quite all that it was meant to be.
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-02-07
Topic: International Affairs
Christopher Michael Leslie (Labour, Centre-left): I commend the hon. Lady for making an incredibly important point in defence of the sovereignty of our Parliament. This is about putting Britain first, making sure that we defend and safeguard the rights of our constituents, and ensuring that the European Parliament does not have an advantage that we would not. If the European Parliament has the opportunity to reject the new arrangements, then so should we: it is a very simple point The Minister could make that verbal concession. He is a very able Minister, but Ministers can be here today and gone tomorrow; they come and they go. Having such clarity enshrined in the Bill is really important for hon. Members. This is a question that transcends party political issues. The Minister should hear the voice of Members in all parts of the Committee. We recognise that we are going to be leaving the European Union, but we want the best possible deal for Britain, and Parliament is sovereign here. Yes, we have Ministers who lead on the negotiations, but they cannot cut Parliament out of this altogether. That should be a source of strength for them.
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-02-07
Topic: International Affairs
Christopher Michael Leslie (Labour, Centre-left): My understanding is that we remain in the European Union until such time as the article 50 two-year period expires, after which, potentially, there is the famous cliff edge Now that we have had partial acceptance from the Government that the vote needs to take place in Parliament sufficiently early on the draft arrangements, I hope that Parliament would then have a sufficient period of time to say to Ministers, for example, "We like 90% of the deal that you’ve done, but we’d like you to go back again, within the time that remains, to get a slightly better deal." This is simply the role that Parliament should have. Taking Parliament out of that process altogether would be a great shame.
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-02-07
Topic: International Affairs
Christopher Michael Leslie (Labour, Centre-left): I would like to move on because other hon. Members want to get into this discussion The wording of new clause 110 is very deliberate in talking about the new relationship as well as a new treaty. It is important that we take the opportunity that the Supreme Court has given us. Not only that, but we should listen to the entreaties of the Prime Minister herself in her own White Paper, where the 12th of her 12 points said that we would not aspire to a cliff edge—that we would try to get a deal. This new clause simply seeks to facilitate, in many ways, the role that Parliament could have in achieving the very thing that the Prime Minister has said that she wants I am afraid to say to the Minister that Hobson’s choice, take-it-or-leave-it style votes are not acceptable and not good enough for Parliament. We must have a continued say in this. I urge members of the Committee, across the parties, to consider the role that new clause 110 could play in making the vote meaningful.
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-02-07
Topic: International Affairs
Yvette Cooper (Labour, Centre-left): Was it the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s understanding that the Minister said that the deal would be presented to Parliament after it had been agreed by the Commission and the Council, but before it had been agreed by the European Parliament? If so, that sounds like a really late stage in the process. Does he think it is a problem if the European Parliament can send the deal back for negotiation, but the UK Parliament cannot?
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-02-07
Topic: International Affairs
Geraint Richard Davies (Labour, Centre-left): The right hon. and learned Gentleman’s whole speech seems to be predicated on the idea that the Government can go to and fro, and somehow finesse and negotiate something that Parliament might be happy with. Is it not the case, however, that it will be the EU27 that decide what we get? They will say, "You’ve triggered article 50, so here’s what you’re getting," so is not this whole discussion cloud cuckoo land?
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-02-07
Topic: International Affairs
Owen Smith (Labour, Centre-left): It is a genuine pleasure to follow the excellent and characteristically shrewd speech by the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve). I agree wholeheartedly with one point he made towards the beginning of his speech: we cannot allow the fact that there has been a referendum to absolve this House of its duty to scrutinise the Government’s progress in the negotiations, and to act in the national interest. I wholeheartedly agree with him on that. That view is conditioning my entire approach to this debate I disagreed with the right hon. and learned Gentleman, however, on the substantive point he made in respect of the concession made by the Brexit Minister. I disagree that the Government have made a substantive concession today. I confess that I am far less sanguine than some of my right hon. and hon. Friends about that. It does not feel to me that we have moved much beyond where we were in the Lancaster House speech. What is being offered to the House is a debate right at the end of the process, at a point—we do not know when exactly—seemingly in the dog days of the process. A choice at that point will be between the deal on offer, which in my view is likely to be a bad deal—one predicated on our leaving the single market and the customs union; the rock hard Brexit we all feared—and no deal. If there is no deal, the Minister confirmed today that the country will face exiting the European Union on WTO terms. What does that mean for the country? According to the director general of the WTO, it would mean a reduction in trade of around £9 billion per annum to the UK. Before the referendum, the Treasury thought it would mean an annual reduction in receipts of £45 billion per year. That was the reduction in GDP it foresaw. It is an eye-watering sum, equivalent to putting 10p on the basic rate of income tax. That is why, above all else, we have to consider where we are going incredibly carefully. If we end up there, it will be a disaster for Britain I said earlier that I wanted to speak in favour of amendment 43, tabled in the name of the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), but I would have liked to speak to my new clause 52, or even new clause 131, tabled by the Liberal Democrats, which would both have gone further and insisted on there being a second referendum. Apparently we cannot consider those amendments, however, because they would require a money commitment that the Bill does not have. That is ironic, given that the potential cost of falling out of the EU is £45 billion. Spending £100 million to make sure we do not do that seems like a pretty good deal.
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-02-07
Topic: International Affairs
Geraint Richard Davies (Labour, Centre-left): Amendment 44, to be voted on tomorrow, makes provision for a referendum and valuation that does not need to be costed and therefore is in order, so those who want a second referendum on the final deal can vote for that amendment.