European Union (Withdrawal) Act

Debate between Jeremy Corbyn and Angus Brendan MacNeil
Tuesday 4th December 2018

(6 years ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jeremy Corbyn Portrait Jeremy Corbyn
- Hansard - -

rose—

Angus Brendan MacNeil Portrait Angus Brendan MacNeil
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I distinctly heard Donald Tusk say at the weekend that the options are no Brexit, no deal or this deal, so to say that it is a binary choice is not right.

John Bercow Portrait Mr Speaker
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

We are extraordinarily grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his elucidation, but that intervention suffers from one notable disadvantage: it was not even tangential to a point of order. His intervention and points of order are not even nodding acquaintances, in my experience.

--- Later in debate ---
Jeremy Corbyn Portrait Jeremy Corbyn
- Hansard - -

I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman read the Labour manifesto with great caution and detail. [Interruption.] Oh, he did. We were quite clear that we respected the result of the referendum. In our conference motion we discussed the whole issue at great length, and at the largest Labour party conference in our history, our party agreed unanimously to back the composite motion that we put forward. That motion opposed the process that the Government are bringing forward, and suggests that if the Government cannot govern—and it looks increasingly like they cannot—they should make way and have an election. That is our priority.

Should the backstop come into force, there is no time limit or end point. It locks Britain into a deal from which it cannot leave. As was said during proceedings on the Attorney General’s statement yesterday, this is the first time ever in the history of this country that we have signed up to a treaty that we could not leave of our own volition. That is quite a serious indictment of this Government. In the backstop, restrictions on state aid are hard-wired with an arbitration mechanism, but no such guarantee exists for workers’ rights, and new state aid rules could be brought in, whether they were in Britain’s interests or not. The Attorney General made that very clear yesterday.

Angus Brendan MacNeil Portrait Angus Brendan MacNeil
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Patricia Gibson Portrait Patricia Gibson
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Jeremy Corbyn Portrait Jeremy Corbyn
- Hansard - -

I give way.

--- Later in debate ---
Angus Brendan MacNeil Portrait Angus Brendan MacNeil
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

The Leader of the Opposition talks about respecting the referendum. Fair enough—that is his point of view. I have a different perspective in Scotland. Will he respect the mandate of the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament’s will to have a second independence referendum? How far does his respect go?

Jeremy Corbyn Portrait Jeremy Corbyn
- Hansard - -

That is not actually relevant to today’s debate. We are talking about the deal that the Government have brought back, and that is what the debate is about. In the backstop, regulatory frameworks dealt with by non-regression clauses are non-enforceable by EU institutions or by arbitration arrangements, and would give the Government the power to tear up workers’ rights and damage environmental protections and consumer safeguards.

Debate on the Address

Debate between Jeremy Corbyn and Angus Brendan MacNeil
Wednesday 21st June 2017

(7 years, 5 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Angus Brendan MacNeil Portrait Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

The Tory position on the single market and the customs union is clear: we are out of both. What is the Labour position on the single market and the customs union?

Jeremy Corbyn Portrait Jeremy Corbyn
- Hansard - -

Again, our position has been absolutely clear. Our position is that we need tariff-free access to the European market to protect industries and jobs in this country. Let us have a little bit less from Conservative Members on the dangerous threat to turn Britain into a tax haven, which would threaten jobs and public services here far more than in mainland Europe.

We do not yet know the official title of the Government’s much-trumpeted great repeal Bill, but if we are talking about taking back control, Parliament must be able to scrutinise legislation. Thankfully, the thin gruel of this Gracious Speech allows plenty of time for longer debates and greater scrutiny. That must include ensuring that the Human Rights Act and our commitment to the European convention on human rights and the human rights of everyone in this country remain completely and totally intact. We will ensure that they do.

It is our determination that by working with devolved Administrations, responsibilities such as agriculture and fisheries will be devolved to those Administrations and not hoarded in Whitehall. On the subject of devolved Administrations, may I also wish the Prime Minister every success in reconvening talks with all parties to restore the Stormont Assembly in Belfast as soon as possible? We also very much hope that any done deal with the DUP in this place respects the overriding priority of the Good Friday agreement to maintain peace in Northern Ireland.

A state visit from the Spanish Head of State was announced for July, but can the Prime Minister update the House on whether she can still expect the United States’ Head of State to visit any time this year, or any time in the future? It is just a question.

As I said earlier, public service workers, such as fire service, police and NHS staff, receive huge praise when they respond to terrorist attacks and other major incidents, but it is not good enough to be grateful to our public service workers only at a moment of crisis and disaster. They deserve dignity—the dignity of fully funded services, and the dignity of not seeing their jobs cut and living standards fall. There are now 20,000 fewer police officers than there were when the Conservatives came into office in 2010. When the police raised this subject with the then Home Secretary, do you know what, Mr Speaker? She accused the police officers of crying wolf.

I hope the current Prime Minister will correct the mistakes of the former Home Secretary. The Gracious Speech promises the police and security services

“all the powers they need”,

but what they deserve and what the public demand is that they have all the resources they need.

UK's Nuclear Deterrent

Debate between Jeremy Corbyn and Angus Brendan MacNeil
Monday 18th July 2016

(8 years, 4 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jeremy Corbyn Portrait Jeremy Corbyn
- Hansard - -

If this is all about controlling them, perhaps we should think for a moment about the obligations we have signed up to as a nation by signing the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, article VI of which says that the declared nuclear weapons states—of which we are one—must take steps towards disarmament, and others must not acquire nuclear weapons. It has not been easy, but the NPT has helped to reduce the level of nuclear weapons around the world.

Angus Brendan MacNeil Portrait Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I am stunned to hear the argument that has just been made from the Tory Benches that we cannot disinvent nuclear weapons. That argument could be employed for chemical and biological weapons.

Jeremy Corbyn Portrait Jeremy Corbyn
- Hansard - -

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We have achieved the chemical weapons convention, a ban on cluster weapons and other things around the world through serious long-term negotiation.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973

Debate between Jeremy Corbyn and Angus Brendan MacNeil
Monday 21st March 2011

(13 years, 8 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jeremy Corbyn Portrait Jeremy Corbyn
- Hansard - -

My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. I do not know the politics, aims, ambitions or anything else of the people in Benghazi any more than I suspect he does. We should be cautious about going to war on behalf of a group of people whom we do not know or understand and of whose aims we are not aware. Many were Ministers in the Gaddafi Government, again, only three weeks ago. It is a very short time.

There is a danger that we do nothing about Bahrain because of close economic and military involvement, despite the US fifth fleet being there. There is a danger that we say nothing about Saudi Arabia because of the vast arms market there. The former Prime Minister, Tony Blair, felt that Saudi Arabia was so important that he stopped the Serious Fraud Office investigation into the al-Yamamah arms contract. In Yemen and Oman, people are dying. They thirst for exactly the same thing. I was at a conference this morning of Bahraini opposition groups who made strong points. They said that they were not campaigning about human rights in Bahrain yesterday, but last year, the year before, the year before that and so on. Indeed, I first met Bahraini opposition groups who were concerned about the overwhelming power of the king in 1986 at a UN human rights conference in Copenhagen.

Angus Brendan MacNeil Portrait Mr MacNeil
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Does the hon. Gentleman believe that action in Libya now helps the case for action in the countries that he mentioned later?

Jeremy Corbyn Portrait Jeremy Corbyn
- Hansard - -

I do not believe that it does, because the economic interests in Saudi Arabia and Bahrain far outweigh any humanitarian concerns. I simply do not believe that it will happen.

However, we must use the opportunity to reassess our foreign policy, our arms sales policy and the way in which we get into bed with dictator after dictator around the world. We should also think for a moment about the message that goes out on the streets throughout north Africa and the middle east.

When Israeli planes bombed Gaza during Operation Cast Lead in 2008-09, I did not hear any calls for a no-fly zone over Gaza. F-16 jets pounded Palestinians, killing 1,500 civilians. We have to understand the bitterness of that period and the experience of the Palestinian people because many in the Palestinian diaspora, living out their lives in refugee camps in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Egypt—all over the region—want the right to return home. They see the double standards of the west: interested in supporting Israel at the expense of the Palestinian people; currently intervening in Libya but doing nothing to support the Palestinian people.

We are in an interesting period in history. There was an Arab revolution in the 1950s, supporting the principle of pan-Arab unity. Nasser was one of its leading figures. That degenerated into a series of fairly corrupt dictatorships that still run the Arab League. None feels very secure when they attend Arab League meetings. Indeed, they go home as quickly as possible afterwards, lest there be a coup.

We are seeing a popular revolution for accountable government, peace and democracy on the streets throughout the region. We have been on the wrong side in selling arms and supporting dictators. We have not thought through the implications of what we are doing now in Libya. I suspect that we might end up in a Libyan civil war for a long time and that this is not the only occasion on which we will debate the subject in the House. This is the easy bit; the hard part is yet to come.