It is now up to my party to become a great Church again and to identify the reasons why the communities that have voted for labour for decades have chosen a future outside the EU. We must find a cooperative and internationalist path for our country. Labour will not win votes in this Parliament, but if we choose to do so, we can lead the way in a different but always close relationship with our closest neighbours – one that avoids dealing with the most vulnerable and still tries to offer the next generation of young people the opportunities that so many of our generations have enjoyed. The agreement was revised as part of the Johnson Department renegotiation in 2019. The amendments amend about 5% of the text[22] It has been promised that the rights of vulnerable refugees – children whose rights have been removed from the EU Withdrawal Act – will be enshrined in the Immigration Act. Why remove from the law the reunification of children with their families? I am as perplexed and perplexed as everyone else on the opposition benches. Families go together. Politics had an agreement between the parties. There are not many children. I have seen the conditions in which young refugees live, and I have seen the traffickers go into orbit and exploit them. These kids are amazing.
Often my children can`t find their way from table to dishwasher to store their plates, but these children have found their way across Europe to other countries, desperate, to return to their families, who are just as desperate to see them. But we closed the door for them. I do not understand why, and I hope this is not a sign for the country we will become. We didn`t need to be there. The opposition agreed to Brexit taking place on 31 January. [Hon. members: “Hurrah!”] Triumphalism does not seem terrible in these circumstances. Nor did we need to be in a situation where we are abandoning refugee children. To indicate in the minutes that the opposition is committed to the benefit of refugee children. We are committed to supporting refugee children in order to maintain the government`s commitment to Lord Alf Dubs. You do not have a mandate for that. It is wicked and morally unjustified and politically unjustified.
I also hope that they will reinstate our amendment, which is in fact aimed at restoring the government`s own commitment, which the Prime Minister himself decided in the previous version of this withdrawal agreement. I hope that they will restore them and that we will commit ourselves to refugee children in this House and in this House. Members as “non-voters” may not have done so for a number of reasons. They may have wanted to abstain or have constituency or departmental matters. The spokesman and his deputies cannot vote, and Sinn Fein members do not traditionally vote. I would like to address the issue of political mandates, which are very important in this debate. To do this, we have to take into account the elections on 12 December, in which people were questioned and Brexit was the central theme of the campaign, certainly in most of the UK. Others have said – my friend Hon.
Angus Brendan MacNeil has said it many times – that a majority of those who voted in these elections across the UK voted for parties that either wanted to end Brexit or to thoroughly review the conditions under which it was proposed.