Ms Stella Creasy
MP for Walthamstow · Labour (Co-op) · United Kingdom
“I thank the Foreign Secretary for his clear-sighted commitment not only to talk about a two-state solution, but to actually try to act to achieve it, as the only foundation of a safe Israel and a free Palestine.”
“Could he reassure the House that we will not acquiesce and bend to such pressure, and that the only action that could ever be acceptable to us to make us contemplate reversing this ban would be a halt on the E1 development and a permanent end to settler violence?”
“I start by paying tribute to the new Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), for all the work she did on the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee on these issues. I know that she will do a brilliant job in this role.”
“I do not really understand the technology, but I know that he does, and I understand and share his fear accordingly. We come here today to debate this Bill because we all know that trust is a bygone issue in our politics.”
“We would welcome her having that conversation, which might be more illuminating than whether she is concerned about Zach Goldmsith’s leaflets. I add my support to the amendments tabled by my hon.”
“From today, if we do not take a stand with this Bill to tackle the ways that money has infiltrated our politics, the risk is that they will think we are acting in the interests of our own back pockets.”
The complete record
Every one of 4,976 lines we hold for Ms Stella Creasy, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 67 of 100.
“We are talking about Afghan children running from the Taliban, Sudanese children running from rape and murder, and Oromo children running from political persecution. They are pulled to our shore for safety. Closing the Dubs scheme will not stop that pull factor, but it will make the traffickers the most attractive proposition those children have. Crucially, amendment 1 and new clause 14 identify our responsibility for involvement in the safeguarding process; we should involve not just the Home Office but the Department for Education. That is where amendment 2 comes from.”
“We agreed as a House that we would do our bit for them, but what kind of a “bit” are we doing? We are talking about 350 children, which equates to 0.002% of all unaccompanied child refugees in Europe. When we debated Dubs, we talked about 3,000 children, which would be just 0.025% of them. It is right that people should be concerned about what other countries are doing and that we hold the French, Greeks and Italians accountable for their treatment of these children, but Turkey alone is taking 2.8 million Syrian refugees; how can we hold our heads high if we do not do our bit as well? The Dubs scheme is about us doing our bit. New clause 14 is explicit about safeguarding the children who have applications for transfer—the children in the camps now. I agree with Members who talk about pull factors; the pull factor is safety.”
“Let us make sure that when we make progressive legislation, it is truly progressive. It is important that we have inclusivity when it comes to child refugees. That is why I want to raise amendment 1 and speak in support of new clause 14 and amendment 2. In October, I asked the Prime Minister to tell us what had happened to the 178 children of whom her Government had been notified who would qualify, under the Dubs amendment, to come to our country but had gone missing from France. Six months on, I am still waiting for a response, but those 178 children are just a fraction of the 10,000 children who have been reported missing in Europe over the refugee crisis. Some 120,000 unaccompanied children—orphans—have come to Europe since 2015. The Dubs amendment is designed to help those children.”
“The Minister knows my concern that use of the word “appropriate” in his legislation may raise that worry for teachers, so today I look for him to say explicitly that he expects same-sex relationships to be part of the curriculum; that he expects that when bullying is talked about in schools, homophobic bullying will be addressed, at both primary and secondary level; and that we will find a sensitive and religiously inclusive way to cover issues around same-sex relationships, in line with the Equality Act 2010. We should not trade off making progress on some areas of society—through bringing in an ability to talk about consent and domestic abuse—against not making progress on gay rights in other sections of our society. The Minister will point to the 1996 wording that the legislation echoes, but we had section 28 in 1996; this is 2017.”
“I ask the Minister to look at the wording of new clause 1, its explicit reference to same-sex relationships and the importance of being clear during the consultation that we will make sure that children are able to talk about every relationship that they have or may come across in life, and be taught to value them equally. That matters, because 95% of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender children say that they were not talked to at school about same-sex relationships. When that is so much part of the modern world, it is important that we include it in the modern training that we give our children. Not least, I want to raise the concerns of teachers from Walthamstow, who said to me that they still live under the spectre of section 28 and the idea that there are things that they cannot talk to children about.”
“In the light of your request for brevity, Mr Speaker, let me be clear that there is a common thread through my points and the amendments that I have tabled: inclusivity, which Members across the House probably support in principle, but in practice, the devil is in the detail of the amendments, and that is why I want to speak. First, on sex and relationship education, I welcome the moves being made by the Government. It has taken seven years, but finally we will right the wrong whereby while composting and compound interest are on the curriculum, consent is not.”
“Grieving does not stop at 18 months, so why should the support that we offer to families affected by this sort of tragedy? As Ros points out, these payments are a recognition of the contribution her husband made to the system when he was alive, through his national insurance payments. Indeed, as she points out, that creates quirks; a friend who has four children gets £50 less a week than Ros because her husband was 10 years younger. If we accept the principle that these payments are based on what the partner has paid into the system, surely what matters is whether those payments have been made and whether the partner was part of that relationship. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field) supports terminating the support at 18 months. I disagree with him. I do not understand why 18 months is an appropriate cut-off date.”
“Ros and her family would, under the new scheme, have lost out on more than £100,000 over the lifetime of her children. That money allows her to look after her children, keep her family and household going, be a mother to two children who are grieving for their father and start to put her family’s life back together again. When she looks at what the new scheme would mean, she points out that the new lump sum would probably have been taken up by the funeral costs straight away. That is not a more welcome situation. The pressure of not having a consistent income and worrying about what would happen after 18 months would have consumed her. As she says, after six months she was still drowning in paperwork relating to the death of her husband and trying to cope with the impact on her children.”
“Ros suddenly became a single parent to two children and found that widowed parent’s allowance was, as she described it to me, a lifeline. The work that she did, in the theatre, was not easy to combine with being a full-time carer for her young children, and she was struggling with the grief of losing her husband. Ros has done the calculations for what the Government’s proposed changes in the scheme would have meant for her and her family. The Minister claims that this is not about making money, but is a fair change in the system. When I look at the figures and how Ros is affected, I do not think that that is the case. I think this is clearly a cut in the budget designed to save the Government money, but it is a short-term saving with a long-term loss.”
“There are so many challenges when it comes to inequality and we must fight them all. What is happening with widowed parent’s allowance feels to me like one of the most basic examples of that and of the unintended consequences of the Minister’s and the Government’s thinking. In reading into the record some of my constituents’ experiences, I hope the Minister will think again about some of the choices the Government have made and the devastating consequences they are likely to have. I will talk first about Ros. Her husband sadly died in 2014. He had been ill for some time before that, so Ros had given up work to support her children as their father deteriorated. That is an horrific experience for anyone to deal with at a young age. To then have to deal with the financial consequences only compounded her family’s grief.”
“I am delighted to take part in the debate. I would normally have been in the Chamber for the debate on International Women’s Day, but I am here to speak about widowed parent’s allowance on behalf of two of my constituents in particular. They are here today, and their voices need to be heard in debates such as this. Theirs are the voices of women who never wanted to be in the position they are in and who never expected to claim widowed parent’s allowance—one is not, which I will come to. Tragedy struck their families in the most cruel and horrific way, and their partners were taken from them. The strength and courage they have shown in campaigning on the issue has inspired me as their MP, so I am proud to be here to talk about their experiences and why they should be heard, instead of taking part in the debate on International Women’s Day.”
“They could bring debt, because the fear of what will happen will force people who are still grieving after a mere 18 months to make decisions that may be against the best interests of their family because they are short of cash. As Ros said, this money has been a lifeline for her. She is one of the lucky ones because she qualified under the old scheme, but none of these people are lucky, because after all, they have lost a loved one. That is what we are trying to get at here. Ros, Joanna and all the women and men involved in this campaign deserve better from us. I hope that the Minister will at least commit today to meet them, to understand better the situation they will be in when these changes are introduced.”
“I have been lucky enough, through the organisation Widowed & Young, to see other examples that are similar to the stories of my two constituents, Ros and Joanna. Their cases are no less compelling. Will the Minister reconsider this 18-month bar and look again at the actual people behind the statistics by meeting them and hearing their stories, to understand the reality of being widowed at a young age and what impact that has on a family? Will the Minister ask again how we can do what we all want the welfare system to do—to support people and be a lifeline at a critical time, to help get these families back on their feet? The changes that the Government are making, I fear, will not simply not help; they could actually make things worse for these families.”
“They are no less a family because they do not have a piece of paper. In 2017, surely we should recognise those children’s need for the support that widowed parent’s allowance would provide to their family. That money would help not only to keep a roof above their head but to remove the pressure of debt, so that Joanna could be a mum to her two lovely daughters and start to put their lives back together following the sudden death of their father. It is those sorts of real issues and real people that our welfare system has to be able to work with. The cuts that the Government are making, particularly when it comes to widowed parent’s allowance, make no sense to me at all because they do not see the people behind these cases.”
“One of her daughters was born, sadly, after her partner suddenly died. Joanna had to fight to get her partner’s name, David, on to the baby’s birth certificate because they were not married. They were clearly in a loving relationship. They had been together for a long period and had chosen not to be married. That should surely be their choice. The state should not use that to penalise Joanna and her family yet, as far as I can see, over the past couple of years we have penalised Joanna in many different ways. She had to pay £1,500 for a DNA test to prove that this gentleman was the father of her daughter and to have his name on the birth certificate. She does not receive a penny in widowed parent’s allowance, despite her partner paying into the system, just as Ros’s partner did.”
“I understand that. I hope to make the case that we should support families who are in grief. We should not ask them to take on poverty and possible debt on top of dealing with grief, and we should not put a time limit on grief in these sorts of cases. We are not talking about hundreds of thousands of families, but we are talking about families facing one of the most horrific, soul-destroying experiences one can have. I agree with my right hon. Friend about the need to update the way in which our welfare system works. The second case I want to talk about is, I hope, familiar, because I have written to the Minister before about this lady. Joanna has two beautiful young girls. I am lucky enough to see their pictures on Facebook and feel as if I am watching them grow up vicariously.”
“The Minister just said that the reforms are designed to provide targeted help when it is needed most. On what evidence has the concept of “most” been based, in his calculations? What does he define as a time when less help might be needed, as opposed to the most help? It would be helpful to understand the Government’s thinking.”
“I thank the Minister for trying to clarify the Government’s thinking, but as he goes along, he is making rather a different case. He says that the changes needed to happen because women are now entering the workforce. The old system was taxed, so if he is concerned that women might have additional income, continuing the old system might deal with that challenge better. The Minister talks as well about people needing it most, but surely he recognises that although the loss of a partner is emotionally difficult, the practical financial concerns are paramount here. Does he recognise that the picture that he is painting of the issues is slightly askew from the reality of what the issues are for these women?”
“Let me be absolutely clear: the support is predicated on the contributions that the partner will have paid into the national insurance system, just as they might get a pension from their partner. We are talking about fairness to the children so that they benefit from the contributions that their father made and about the impact on the family’s income. Actually, it is not about replacing income support; it is about the fact that the father has paid in a contribution that should be recognised to the children’s benefit.”
“I was simply going to ask whether the Minister will clarify whether he considers children to be a joint outgoing. If he does, the contributions that a partner would make to a household would also be eligible. The idea that if people are not married, their relationship to those joint outgoings somehow stops at their death seems rather misplaced, does it not? I have certainly heard that children are expensive.”
“Does the Minister recognise that the smugglers’ best sales technique is to say that there is no alternative safe, legal route for children to get to safety in the United Kingdom?”
“Member for Mid Derbyshire has to tell herself about this issue so that she can sleep at night, let her tell herself that. Let us not decry these children but stand up for them, because that is the best tradition, that is what will keep them safe and that is what will do justice to this House and this country.”
“We did not listen to the French authorities when they said that the scheme should continue or to the UK’s Independent Anti-slavery Commissioner, who confirmed that he knows of cases in which the Dubs amendment has helped and of children who were being exploited but are now safe. We cannot be confident that there are not more of those children, just as we cannot be confident that there are not more local authorities that will step up to the plate. Indeed, when I spoke to my own local authority today, I was proud to hear of the work it is doing to take refugees and its commitment to working with other local authorities. We have to confront the fact that our nation has to do its bit, alongside other European nations. We can either be followers or leaders in that process. Whatever the hon.”
“Children got on buses to go to centres on a promise and a pledge from the British authorities to treat them fairly, but just two days later the Home Office sneaked out guidance saying that half of them would not even be considered due to their nationality, not their need. Those children are languishing in Dunkirk because they have lost all hope. That is not British. That is not a popular opinion that we should uphold. I will join other Members in tabling amendments to the Children and Social Work Bill to try to reopen the Dubs scheme, to try to hold the Government to account for what we promised a year ago that we would do, and not to let the Minister get away with claiming that it was said in the small print that we should leave these children languishing in the mud and that we would abandon them in Italy and in Greece.”
“We should call it a refugee crisis and not pretend that it is the same as people coming here to work. Above all, after the Government voted down proposals in Committee to treat children using the UN convention on the rights of the child, we should ask ourselves why closing the Dubs scheme took our moral purpose forwards, not backwards—it did not. The hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire talked about other countries and their responsibilities, and I agree with her. We should all be doing more, but because one country is not doing enough does not absolve us of doing our bit. That is the problem. How can we look Turkey in the eye when it is taking 2.8 million Syrian refugees and just 3,000 have come to the UK in the past year alone? The promise of the Dubs scheme is what we should speak up for.”
“When our politics might feel so futile, children should not suffer, and I agree with much of what the hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox) said about that. When we passed the Dubs amendment, that was the best of this House. No matter how unpopular the issue might have seemed on social media, we knew in our hearts and in our heads that it was the right thing to do. That is why closing the Dubs scheme prematurely is the wrong thing to do. There is no evidence that closing the scheme early will do justice to those children and their needs. There is no evidence for the push or pull factors in this process; there is only supposition. We are not talking about a migrant crisis; we are talking about a refugee crisis—60 million people are fleeing persecution.”
“The same is true in Italy, where thousands are passing through the camps, and there are widespread reports of children suffering human rights abuses. Yet just three have been reunited with family here. While the motion refers to Greece, Italy, and France, we should not forget the children who are travelling through Europe, because the Dubs scheme was about children who are in Europe and about our responsibility, as part of Europe and as part of the modern world, to those children alongside our European counterparts. We all know that we will probably get abuse on Twitter or Facebook for taking part in this debate, but we sometimes have to advocate what might seem an unpopular opinion. I am saddened that doing our bit is now an unpopular opinion in this country, but that is the debate that we are having.”
“I also want to discuss what the Dubs scheme and what has happened to it says about us as a country. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham) is no longer here, because she talked about having had no experience at all of visiting the European refugee camps. I spent quite a bit of time in Calais last summer, but I have not been to Greece or Italy. I do not know where the Minister has visited, but we know that a million refugees have come to Europe in the past two years alone and that 2,500 children are in Greece, 1,000 of whom are sleeping rough. There are widespread reports of the poor quality of the conditions in which those children and their families are living. We also know just how few have been transferred here to the UK despite their family links.”
“It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) because although I passionately disagree with his approach to the motion I respect his commitment to tackling trafficking. That echoes what my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) said: this is not a partisan issue. Members on both sides of the House feel strongly about this matter. Arthur Helton, a well-known American refugee advocate, once said: “Refugees embody misery and suffering, and they force us to confront terrible chaos and evil.” In the time available to me, I will argue that refugees also force us to confront something about ourselves and our nationhood. That is why I disagree with the approach advocated by the hon. Member for Wellingborough.”
“Ordered , That James Berry, Bob Blackman, Paul Scully, Bob Stewart, Dr Tania Mathias, Stephen Hammond, Robert Neill, Chris Philp, Mike Freer, Victoria Borwick and Mrs Theresa Villiers present the Bill. James Berry accordingly presented the Bill. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on 24 March, and to be printed (Bill 144).”
“They deserve some strategic thinking, so that we invest in regional parks such as Lee valley. We should see London as an urban green park in the future. We need to invest in our green spaces and, for the small amount of funding that that entails, recognise the benefits that exist for us all. We should also make a decent case for the funding of local government. As his Bill would do neither of those things, I do not believe that it should proceed further in the House, and I suspect that there others from different parts of London, and indeed from across the country, who will benefit from the Walthamstow wetlands, who would agree with me. Question put (Standing Order No. 23) and agreed to .”
“I gently suggest to him that, rather than trying to cut corners, he make the case to his Front-Bench team about proper investment and funding in local government. He should not try to cut the funding for this green lung to London from which his constituents can benefit. Rather than suggesting to his constituents that there is nothing of interest in Lee valley park, he should encourage them to come and use the facilities that they are paying for. They will certainly receive a warm welcome from us all in the north-east corner of London. In conclusion, although I recognise that the hon. Gentleman thinks that he is making the case for the residents of Kingston, he should consider that the residents of London, who include the residents of Kingston and Surbiton, deserve better from us all.”
“[Interruption.] I did listen to what he said, but I have looked at his legislation and he is not suggesting a similar cut in the royal parks’ funding to reflect his concern about whether residents from Kingston actually visit those parks. That is the point: we invest in these regional organisations for our mutual benefit. [Interruption.] I recognise the point that he made about local government cuts. I gently suggest to him that perhaps he should talk to his Front-Bench team about how they are funding local government, rather than trying to scrimp and save on such valuable regional assets. If we go down the route of only ever seeing parks as valuable to those people who live directly next to them—of whom I am one—we miss the point about how these amenities can benefit us all.”
“[Interruption.] Forgive me, I would like to invite all the Members on the Government Benches to visit the Walthamstow wetlands. They should come and see the herons and cormorants in London. [Interruption.] Members may chunter, but this is the point: sometimes we invest together because we benefit together. Lee Valley Regional Park Authority offers us exactly that opportunity. It was set up in the 1960s to recognise the mutual benefit of investing in green and recreational spaces in London, and in 2017, the case for those spaces grows ever bigger. The hon. Gentleman’s proposed legislation would have more merit if he was expressing an equally forensic concern about the visits by the residents of Kingston to, say, the royal parks and asking about their funding.”
“The quality of air in our city has never been worse. I am sure that, like me, he has constituents who are deeply concerned about air quality in London. The value of our green space therefore becomes paramount not just to those who live in the area— [Interruption.] I see the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr Mathias) jumping up and down. The same argument applies to her constituency, too. The value of such spaces is greater now as we face this crisis—I am talking about the quality of our air and of our natural environment in our city. We have 14 sites of special scientific interest in the Lee valley regional park. Rather than not visiting the area, I invite the hon. Gentleman to join me when we open the Walthamstow wetlands to see for himself the benefit of the site. It will be a national site of significance.”
“I wager that many of his constituents cheered on Joe Clarke as he won Britain’s first gold medal in the London Olympics at the Lee valley canoeing centre. The hon. Gentleman thinks that he is speaking up for his constituents, but what he may be doing is misunderstanding their pride in what the Lee valley regional park was able to deliver in the Olympics and what it continues to deliver today. Certainly, when the hon. Gentleman talks about visitor numbers, he is missing out on the fact that we have seen a 50% increase in the number of people visiting the Lee valley regional park. I suspect that that is directly because people saw the benefit of having these wonderful Olympic recreational facilities on their doorstep in London. But this is not just about whether people are visiting, but about this concept of a green lung.”
“Sir Patrick Abercrombie who argued the case for this park never saw it as simply benefiting those who lived nearby, but recognised that the investment in the park from all the regions would benefit every constituent. When the hon. Gentleman talks about visitor numbers, I share his concern that not as many of his residents regularly use the park, but I urge him to encourage them to come to the park and benefit from that green lung. The hon. Gentleman says that there are residents in Kingston who have not even heard of the Lee valley regional park. I suggest to him that that is simply not true. Many of them will have watched, or indeed have visited, the Olympics, in which the Lee valley regional park played a key role.”
“I am talking about the benefits of maintaining and developing beautiful spaces for recreation, nature and enjoyment for all our constituents. I hope that, in the time available, I can set out the five reasons why I believe that, although he might think that he is standing up for the residents of Kingston, he may be selling them short. First, the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority was set up to be a regional facility. It was established in the 1960s, before, I wager, both he and I were even born, to represent and reflect the fact that London needed green spaces. We refer to the Lee valley regional park as London’s lung; it is a beautiful park, providing 10,000 acres of green land that benefits every resident of London.”
“I rise to oppose this legislation— [Interruption.] I hope that the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (James Berry) will give me the opportunity to explain why. Let me declare straight away that, as a proud Member of Parliament for Waltham Forest, I am a regular user of the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority spaces. I have been to the ice rink, but I have not been on the horses. I certainly walk through the wetlands, and I look forward to enjoying the Walthamstow wetlands. As a young child with grandparents in Surbiton, I also enjoyed the parks of Kingston. The legislation that the hon. Gentleman proposes is fundamentally misguided, because he misses the point about the value of regional parks for London and other areas.”
“The Home Secretary says that she has talked to the French authorities and that they want to stop the Dubs scheme. An average of 50 children every day are going back to Calais and the camps. Does the Home Secretary recognise that the policy clearly is not working? What does she think will happen to those kids now that she has closed the door on them?”
“In the Prime Minister’s Lancaster House speech, she put on her wish list an entirely new form of membership of the customs union: an associate membership. Did she raise the idea with the other members of the European Council this weekend, and quite what did they make of it?”
“The hon. Gentleman has obviously made a personal decision on this matter. He uses the analogy of being a lawyer and going to negotiate a deal, but does he not accept that the Prime Minister could just settle and give every EU national in our country right now the right to be here, without any further delay? There is an alternative attitude that would also deliver for his client, is there not?”
“Is it not worth noting that when it came to debating the Lisbon treaty and the Maastricht treaty, 30 days were allocated to discuss the issues in the House of Commons alone? Five days is a very poor comparison.”
“The Minister talks about balancing the rights of the public against the rights of people in employment to withhold their labour. Over the past decade, we have seen a decline in the number of days taken in industrial action. None of these powers has been necessary. Before she finishes, will she tell us what assessment the Government have made of whether there are alternative, more constructive ways of resolving their concerns, which do not restrict people’s right to withhold their labour when they feel under pressure?”
“It is unusual and telling that such a restriction is being brought in. I know that the “r” word referendum is not a popular one in this House with many people, but were we to impose such a threshold on referendums, or indeed on general elections, I am sure that there would be debates about that. No such arguments have been made, yet when it comes to people’s working rights, somehow the Government feel that such measures are entirely appropriate. What does my hon. Friend think that says about their approach to democracy and genuine engagement with people?”
“Member for Windsor concerned that there might be an unnecessary effect on people’s basic human right to withdraw their labour when they are put in conditions they consider unacceptable?”
“Hon. Members appreciate that policy based on evidence is helpful. The impact assessment states clearly that there are number of sectors where it may be difficult to ascertain what 40% is, and therefore where the policy can be implemented. Does the hon. Gentleman have any concerns about that? The evidence is on the Table, and I am happy to get him a copy. It is clearly set out on page 36 that there may be problems in some units as to what the 40% threshold is— [ Interruption. ] We all know that the former Education Secretary is a proud defender of experts and the importance of data. I do not know why Members laugh at that. On the point about restrictions on people, if it is not clear who might be affected, is the hon.”
“I am not a regular reader of the Morning Star , because I prefer fact to fiction. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that as Government Members have already suggested that they would like to extend the 40% threshold to other industries but cannot clarify what the bargaining units might be, or whether they have considered other proportionate ways to resolve industrial disputes so that people’s rights are not curtailed, and given that we have no guarantees that any of the legislation on employment rights that they claim they will bring back from Europe will remain in UK legislation, this is a very worrying time for working people? That is why these regulations should be treated with extreme caution.”
“I am in the odd position in which I agree with the evidence put forward by the former Education Secretary, the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath. He said that there has been a reduction in the number of strike days—although that is not because the legislation was introduced. One of the problems with the debate is that it almost sounds as though striking is the only things that unions do. Good employment relations help good organisations to thrive. Legislation such as this risks that relationship, which helps with so many issues, whether changes in the workplace or helping people with learning and development, being lost in the fog of this almost provocative attitude from the Government in saying that all trade unions want is to strike.”
“Yesterday, my constituency neighbour, the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith), who sadly is not present, said that he would vote to trigger article 50 simply because of all the mistakes of the past. Well, I cannot green-light article 50 tonight because of all the opportunities for the future that it puts at stake. I am a proud patriot: I am proud of my country and I want the best for my country. We can and should be doing better. We cannot trigger this process now. We must rethink and go back to the drawing board, for the sake of everybody we represent, whether they were for leave or remain.”