This portion of the debate is 25 minutes. Thank you very much. I think the move to be now read a second time. I want to say at the start that every Single Member of this house, whatever view they hold on the fundamental question, the thought is trying as they act in the National Interest of their constituents. The problem, the reason why we are here is because each of us has a slightly different view of what those best interests are. I hope that we can debate this in a short amount of time. I can do no better than to quote a member who, on the third of april, said it can only be done at high speed, because there is no time left. I think wherever we stand on this issue, we know there is little time left, and following the decision, there is even less time that would have been available previously. Therefore, i hope we will treat each other, recognizing we have strongly held views with respect and consideration during this debate. The purpose of the bill is very simple. It is to ensure t
This is about 25 minutes. With the ordere of yesterday, of this house, i the second reading of the European Union withdrawal number six. Mr. Hilary ben. Each of us has a different view of what those best interests are. I hope we can debate this bill and what is, i recognize, i can do no better than to quote the right honorable member who on the third of april in the house said it could only be done at high speed because there is no time left. I think wherever we stand on this issue, we know there is little time left and there is even less time that would have been available previously. Other,we will treat each recognizing we have strong views, with respect and consideration. The purpose of the bill is simple. It is to ensure the United Kingdom does not leave the European Union on the 31st of october without an agreement. The bill has wide cross party support. It is a pleasure to be above the and is backed by members who have very different views on how the matter of brexit should final
Enough times. Weve heard them enough times, they werent true then and they arent true now. The majority of economists have always agreed that there was another approach the government could have taken, rather than austerity, and we always argued, and we were right, that austerity was a political choice, not an economic necessity. As recently as march, the Party Opposite ploughed on, saying there was no alternative. To look at them how was no alternative. To look at them now suddenly proclaiming an end to austerity after 125,000 excess deaths as a result, after 100 billion taken out of the economy, after the worst decade for wage growth since the 19th century, just because there may be what . An election round the corner. And after all that, after all that, to deliver what is a pathetic sum to spending departments who are on their knees at the moment. Itsjust adding insult to injury. A government not just callous and uncaring, but hypocritical as well. This isnt a government, its a rack
Study the view about whether they wish to table amendments to a bill whose basic subject matter was wellknown to them, they would be able to do that probably at least closely to his own level of acceptability. His own standard. The second point is it is is here that the bill today and there are several precedents. Those bills are ordinarily been government bills and very often concerning Northern Ireland. It is unusual, except, what is isnt is disorderly. The honorable gentleman raised important questions about money resolution and the queens consent. Yes, this bill is different but i have of course consulted the clerk of legislation and other senior clerks on whose procedural expertise we regularly call. My ruling on wednesday the third of april, 2019 in respect to the earlier bill which the honorable atleman referenced was column131 that the European Union does not require a ways and means motion or a money resolution. Extending the theory under article 50 would continue the uks righ
Start thattay at the every Single Member of this house whatever view they hold on the fundamental physical question before us, is trying as they see best, to act in the National Interest and the interest of their constituents. The problem, the reason we are here today, is of course that each of us has a slightly different view of what those best interests are. So i hope that we can debate this bill in what is a, i recognize, a very short amount of time. If im a response to the point i can do no better than to quote the right honorable member for west dorsett who on the third of april in the house said, it could only be done at high speed. Because there is no time left. I think wherever we stand on this issue, we know there is very little time left. Following the decision on promulgation, there is even less time that would have been available previously. Therefore i hope that we will stronglyh other with held views with respect and consideration during this debate. The focus of the bill