Ken Clarke: 'There are very serious issues that were not addressed in the referendum',Article 50 Debate against Brexit - 2018

I am very fortunate to be called this early. I apologise to my right hon. Friend—my old friend—but 93 other Members are still waiting to be called, so if he will forgive me, I will not give way.

The Conservative Governments in which I served made very positive contributions to the development of the European Union. There were two areas in which we were the leading contender and made a big difference. The first was when the Thatcher Government led the way in the creation of the single market. The customs union—the so-called common market—had served its purpose, but regulatory barriers matter more than tariffs in the modern world. But for the Thatcher Government, the others would not have been induced to remove those barriers, and I think that the British benefited more from the single market than any other member state. It has contributed to our comparative economic success today.

We were always the leading Government after the fall of the Soviet Union in the process of enlargement to eastern Europe, taking in the former Soviet states. That was an extremely important political contribution. After the surprising collapse of the Soviet Union, eastern and central Europe could have collapsed into its traditional anarchy, nationalist rivalry and military regimes that preceded the second world war. We pressed the urgency of bringing in these new independent nations, giving them the goal of the European Union, which meant liberal democracy, free market trade and so forth. We made Europe a much more stable place.

That has been our role in the European Union, and I believe that it is a very bad move, particularly for our children and grandchildren, that we are all sitting here now saying that we are embarking on a new unknown future. I shall touch on that in a moment, because I think the position is simply baffling to every friend of the British and of the United Kingdom throughout the world. That is why I shall vote against the Bill.

Let me deal with the arguments that I should not vote in that way, that I am being undemocratic, that I am quite wrong, and that, as an elected Member of Parliament, I am under a duty to vote contrary to the views I have just given. I am told that this is because we held a referendum. First, I am in the happy situation that my opposition to referendums as an instrument of government is quite well known and has been frequently repeated throughout my political career. I have made no commitment to accept a referendum, and particularly this referendum, when such an enormous question, with hundreds of complex issues wrapped up within it, was to be decided by a simple yes/no answer on one day. That was particularly unsuitable for a plebiscite of that kind, and that point was reinforced by the nature of the debate.

Constitutionally, when the Government tried to stop the House from having a vote, they did not go to the Supreme Court arguing that a referendum bound the House and that that was why we should not have a vote. The referendum had always been described as advisory in everything that the Government put out. There is no constitutional standing for referendums in this country. No sensible country has referendums—the United States and Germany do not have them in their political systems. The Government went to the Supreme Court arguing for the archaic constitutional principle of the royal prerogative—that the Executive somehow had absolute power when it came to dealing with treaties. Not surprisingly, they lost.

What about the position of Members of Parliament? There is no doubt that by an adequate but narrow majority, leave won the referendum campaign. I will not comment on the nature of the campaign. Those arguments that got publicity in the national media on both sides were, on the whole, fairly pathetic. I have agreed in conversation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union that he and I can both tell ourselves that neither of us used the dafter arguments that were put forward by the people we were allied with. It was not a very serious debate on the subject. I do not recall the view that £350 million a week would be available for the health service coming from the Brexit Secretary, and I did not say that we going to have a Budget to put up income tax and all that kind of thing. It was all quite pathetic.

Let me provide an analogy—a loose one but, I think, not totally loose—explaining the position of Members of Parliament after this referendum. I have fought Lord knows how many elections over the past 50 years, and I have always advocated voting Conservative. The British public, in their wisdom, have occasionally failed to take my advice and have by a majority voted Labour. I have thus found myself here facing a Labour Government, but I do not recall an occasion when I was told that it was my democratic duty to support Labour policies and the Labour Government on the other side of the House. That proposition, if put to Mr Skinner in opposition or myself, would have been treated with ridicule and scorn. Apparently, I am now being told that despite voting as I did in the referendum, I am somehow an enemy of the people for ignoring my instructions and for sticking to the opinions that I expressed rather strongly, at least in my meetings, when I urged people to vote the other way.

I have no intention of changing my opinion on the ground. Indeed, I am personally convinced that the hard-core Eurosceptics in my party, with whom I have enjoyed debating this issue for decades, would not have felt bound in the slightest by the outcome of the referendum to abandon their arguments—[Interruption.] I do not say that as criticism; I am actually on good terms with the hard-line Eurosceptics because I respect their sincerity and the passionate nature of their beliefs. If I ever live to see my hon. Friend Sir William Cash turn up here and vote in favour of Britain remaining in the European Union, I will retract what I say, but hot tongs would not make him vote for membership of the EU.

I must move on, but I am told that I should vote for my party as we are on a three-line Whip. I am a Conservative; I have been a decently loyal Conservative over the years. The last time I kicked over the traces was on the Lisbon treaty, when for some peculiar reason my party got itself on the wrong side of the argument, but we will pass over that. I would point out to those who say that I am somehow being disloyal to my party by not voting in favour of this Bill that I am merely propounding the official policy of the Conservative party for 50 years until 23 June 2016. I admire my colleagues who can suddenly become enthusiastic Brexiteers, having seen a light on the road to Damascus on the day that the vote was cast, but I am afraid that that light has been denied me.

I feel the spirit of my former colleague, Enoch Powell—I rather respected him, aside from one or two of his extreme views—who was probably the best speaker for the Eurosceptic cause I ever heard in this House of Commons. If he were here, he would probably find it amazing that his party had become Eurosceptic and rather mildly anti-immigrant, in a very strange way, in 2016. Well, I am afraid that, on that issue, I have not followed it, and I do not intend to do so.

There are very serious issues that were not addressed in the referendum: the single market and the customs union. They must be properly debated. It is absurd to say that every elector knew the difference between the customs union and the single market, and that they took a careful and studied view of the basis for our future trading relations with Europe.

The fact is that I admire the Prime Minister and her colleagues for their constant propounding of the principles of free trade. My party has not changed on that. We are believers in free trade and see it as a win-win situation. We were the leading advocate of liberal economic policies among the European powers for many years, so we are free traders. It seems to me unarguable that if we put between us and the biggest free market in the world new tariffs, new regulatory barriers, new customs procedures, certificates of origin and so on, we are bound to be weakening the economic position from what it would otherwise have been, other things being equal, in future. That is why it is important that this issue is addressed in particular.

I am told that that view is pessimistic, and that we are combining withdrawal from the single market and the customs union with a great new globalised future that offers tremendous opportunities for us. Apparently, when we follow the rabbit down the hole, we will emerge in a wonderland where, suddenly, countries throughout the world are queuing up to give us trading advantages and access to their markets that we were never able to achieve as part of the European Union. Nice men like President Trump and President Erdogan are impatient to abandon their normal protectionism and give us access. Let me not be too cynical; I hope that that is right. I do want the best outcome for the United Kingdom from this process. No doubt somewhere a hatter is holding a tea party with a dormouse in the teapot.

We need success in these trade negotiations to recoup at least some of the losses that we will incur as a result of leaving the single market. If all is lost on the main principle, that is the big principle that the House must get control of and address seriously, in proper debates and votes, from now on.

I hope that I have adequately explained that my views on this issue have not been shaken very much over the decades—they have actually strengthened somewhat. Most Members, I trust, are familiar with Burke’s address to the electors of Bristol. I have always firmly believed that every MP should vote on an issue of this importance according to their view of the best national interest. I never quote Burke, but I shall paraphrase him. He said to his constituents, “If I no longer give you the benefit of my judgment and simply follow your orders, I am not serving you; I am betraying you.” I personally shall be voting with my conscience content, and when we see what unfolds hereafter as we leave the European Union, I hope that the consciences of other Members of Parliament will remain equally content.

Source: https://www.libdemvoice.org/kenneth-clarke...

Jordon Steele-John - 'Tonight I seek to speak their names', Demand for extension of royal commission into aged care to include people with disabilities - 2018

16 September 2018, Senate chamber, Canberra, Australia

In seeking to extend terms of royal commission into people abused and neglected in aged care, to include people with disabilities, Jordon Steele-John used parliamentary privilege to name Australians with disabilities who have died in institutional care. Speakola does not enjoy same privilege so will only provide initials.

Thank you Madam Acting Deputy President. Tonight our nation is caught within a moment of decision. Before us now is a question. Will justice be done for disabled people? Although we once again miss the opportunity to ensure that those in our nation who are so often made voiceless remain so. Tonight, I'd like to read from a passage from a speech given by my fellow disability activist and advocate Craig Wallace, who in 2015 as part of the White Flower Memorial to commemorate all those who have died institutional and residential care, spoke to the sorrow and pain of our community.

In concluding he said, "I call for those who have left us to be remembered. For their names and stories to be said out loud in the sunlight and amongst the people who love them." Well tonight, I seek to speak their names and through the sun does not shine in this place, I hope that their stories will move the hearts of those who have it within their power to see justice done. The following names are those who have died in the lead up or subsequent to the Royal Commission Inquiry.

The [ascending 00:01:54] inquiry which called for a Royal Commission. S.W. , age 7. Found locked in a room without sunlight surrounded by faeces. S.W. died from starvation and thirst and weighed only nine kilograms, a third of her expected body weight. She had severe autism and was considered to be profoundly disabled.

L.B., seven years old. Found beaten tortured and finally killed by the people meant to care for him. H.D.B., eight, when she was found in 2013 she was starved suffering from pneumonia and her hair was infested with lice and matted with dirt. I.L., nine, died from a combination of internal injuries which paediatricians were said were caused by blunt force to the stomach, such as a fist. J, 11, who was left to freeze to death in a shed and that he had first been hosed in a water after having faeces rubbed in his face.

L.S. and his younger brother, C.S., 17, who was arrested for a minor driving offence and later bashed by another inmate at the [redacted], died in isolation from a massive brain haemorrhage. B.L., suffered severe learning difficulties and was killed by a family member. J.S., 18, died in state funded ACT care from drowning. L.M, , La.M., 20, returned to her parents' care at 19 despite stating that they could not look after her. Nine months before her death authorities were warned that she would die if the situation was not addressed. Two weeks before her death both of her legs were amputated to attempt to stem infection. She died covered in her own faeces and urine in a room infested with cockroaches.

S.H., 22, a disabled young woman who was unable to speak and reported half dragged and half carried herself from a taxi after a shocking incident, allegedly witnessed by community workers. Later died in hospital in 2016 of septesemia.

C.O., 22. N.S., R.L, found with multiple stab wounds in her chest and abdomen in a group care home. J.V.J. age undisclosed, his care plan stated that he should not be left alone with water because he would drink it without stopping. He died after being left alone in the shower.

C.S. died in a group home. She had a seizure at 2:23 AM that was documented by staff and was found dead seven hours later. S.H., 29 died as a result of medical neglect in an institutionalised setting. S.I., 29, a quadriplegic man who made complaint of sexual assault and misconduct by his carers. He was left face down and suffocated to death.

SL., M.C who died in the same hospital under similar circumstances as S.H. B.P., 33, died after being left unsupervised in a bathtub for an extended period of time. His carers were blamed for negligence.

D.K., died in his respite facility as a result of an unexplained incident in which he broke his neck. He was left of the floor for over an hour after his support workers gave up trying to pull him up. Saying that he was being noncompliant.

D.V.,, M.M. 22 and mother of two who was left naked and covered an faeces at [redacted[ Psychiatric Hospital. A.G., 47, who had a required brain injury as a result of attempted suicide and was placed in the [redacted] Psychiatric Care Centre in my home state of WA. She was raped and assaulted 111 times and died as a result of complications used in the medications used to sedate her. The WA coroner believes this to be an underestimation of the number of times that she was raped.

E.F. died when a pressure sore she had received in their care home became septic. The inquest heard about serious issues in the facility that she lived. J.J., a 51-year-old amputee who died a preventable, avoidable death after a private disability support provider withdrew essential supports. S.D., 55, J & R.F, 68 and 50. A family friend of the three people died in a shooting near [redacted] and says it was a mercy killing. C.T, J.M., J.B.C , 81-year-old, from [redacted] charged over his elderly partner’s apparent mercy killing. Described it as a ‘beautiful act of mercy for his wife’.

These are the names that don't get spoken. These are the reasons. These are the human beings. These are the loved ones, the mother, the father, the sons, the partners, who need justice, who demand justice, whose lives are worth living in whose memory I, tonight wear a white flower and whose passing fills me with an iron clad determination. I will not rest until they find the justice that is so desperately owed them.

Source: https://www.sbs.com.au/news/senator-breaks...

John F Kennedy: 'I hope all Americans will participate in the great process of democracy' 1962 Midterms, address to nation - 1962

November 1962, White House, Washington DC, USA

This was deliverered a few days after the Cuban Missile Crisis was resolved on 28 OIctober 1962.

In these difficult days in the life of our country, I know every American is going to ask what he can do for his country.

Not everyone can serve in our armed forces, or in our national government, but there is one thing that we all can do.

And that is to demonstrate our faith in democracy and our strong belief in freedom.

Next Tuesday, November 6th is Election Day.

I hope every American will vote. Will vote for the candidate and party of his choice, but vote!

In that way we can indicate to our country, to people our around the world who look to us, how strongly we value our freedom, how strongly we believe in democracy, how much we desire to indicate our faith in our country.

Tuesday November 6th. I hope all Americans will participate in the great process of democracy by voting.

In these difficult days in the life of our country, I know every American is going to ask what he can do for his country.

Not everyone can serve in our armed forces, or in our national government, but there is one thing that we all can do.

And that is to demonstrate our faith in democracy and our strong belief in freedom.

Next Tuesday, November 6th is Election Day.

I hope every American will vote. Will vote for the candidate and party of his choice, but vote!

In that way we can indicate to our country, to people our around the world who look to us, how strongly we value our freedom, how strongly we believe in democracy, how much we desire to indicate our faith in our country.

Tuesday November 6th. I hope all Americans will participate in the great process of democracy by voting.

Source: https://twitter.com/JFKLibrary/status/1058...

Jacinda Ardern: 'There is no you and us, there is only us' Teachers strike rally - 2018

15 August 2018, Wellington, New Zealand

And welcome to your place.

You know I wasn’t scheduled to be here. But I was sitting up in that office in a meeting, and I could see you streaming towards parliament, and I thought, I cannot not be here.

Because the thought that I had as a I watched you coming onto the forecourt, I didn’t have this sense of them and us, I just had this sense of us.

You know, you’re all here because you’re passionate about kids. And you know, as we know, that the education system has the power to overcome so many of the issues and challenges that we face as a country.

I mean you’re at the front line of that.

And we know that too.

There’s a reason that I put myself into the portfolio of Minister of Child Poverty Reduction, because I believe and I know that my main motivation in politics is kids.

Just like your motivation in what you do is kids.

There is no you and us, there is only us.

And if there is only us, that means we have to take on board every challenge that you have raised.

Now there are very few signs out there that I don’t agree with. I’m looking out there and I’m thinking, ‘yes, there is so much more work to do’

The last speaker said we need radical change. Yes! The only point we would make is that unfortunately sometimes radical change takes time.

So I’m here today to ask you to work with us as we try and move forward.

Yes when we came into office we tried to move as quickly as we could on the things that we knew that you’d been asking for for along time.

National standards, we got rid of that. Not for political ideology, but because teachers at the front line said this is not good for kids.

And we listened to you. And we believed it too.

And it’s not just about a framework, we know it was also putting a huge pressure on your workload.

And so one of the things that sometimes doesn’t get through in these debates and in these public discussions, is that yes, it’s about value, and when we value people we often equate that with money.

But it’s also about the time we give you with kids.

It’s about the professional development, it’s about that non contact time and it’s about the workload that you experience, it’s about all of that.

So I’m here with the Minister and the rest of my colleagues behind that to say we know that there’s a lot to do.  And we want to work with you as we do it.

Thank you for the work that you do. Thank you for joining with us, and pursuing lifting kids and #, you’re at the front of that, and there is a good reason why when I was sworn into parliament, it was my social studies teacher who was there with me.

And when I was made Prime Minister, it was my social studies teacher who stood with me when I signed that warrant of responsibility.

I know teachers how each and every one of us get to where we are today, this is about respecting your profession. We hear that. We will keep working with you. But in the meantime, thank you for what you for all of us.

 

Source: https://www.facebook.com/NZEITeRiuRoa/vide...

Shirley Chisholm: 'These have been prescribed roles for a very long time in our country'.

I think it’s very very important that all of us in this country today, regardless of our particular sex, realise that we’ve got to come together, in order to make the republic work for everyone, regardless of race, creed or colour.

St Paul said a long time ago, ‘let the woman learn in silence’ Aeschylus, the great Greek philosopher said ‘woman it is thy place to keep quiet, and stay within doors’.

And just one hundred years ago, Nietzsche, the German philosopher said, ‘when a woman is inclined to learning, there is something wrong with her sexual apparatus’.

Though of course all of these pronouncements were made by gentlemen, so we can understand, but I want to say to you very seriously, that the time has come in America when we must try to overcome the traditional feelings and attitudes towards the sexes in this country.

Because we have been prescribed roles for a very long time in our country. And we now know today, very sincerely and forthrightly that our nation needs the utilisation of its best brain power, whether said brain power can be found in men and /or women.

There is no psychological test as yet that indicates that man has a superior brain to woman, or vice versa.

The fact of the matter is that realistically, the talents that we have, are talents that have been given to us, if you will, by God, and that it is our responsibility to utilise these talents for the ameliorisation of humanity in a creative and constructive manner.

And I find in the United States of America and I’ve done quite a bit of travelling, that there are so many hang ups on sex. Sex, physically, educationally, psychologically and emotionally – that is a preoccupation, instead of utilising the full energies, in terms of seeing what it is that women and men together today in America can do to straighten out our republic, because our republic is in deep trouble.