Finance (No. 3) Bill

Debate between Jonathan Reynolds and Crispin Blunt

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 8th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. We all know that several members of the Government take that view, even though they may not be able to say it on the record. They are quite clear as to what no deal would mean, and they would not contemplate going down that route. It would be far simpler and far better to get to a position where ruling out no deal was clearly the Government’s intent.

New clause 3 would oblige the Government to publish a review of the fiscal and economic effects of the exercise of the powers in clause 89, as well as the differences between exercising those powers in Great Britain and in Northern Ireland. As we edge closer to the reality of crashing out without a deal, clause 89 is not simply hypothetical. We are now just two and a half months away from the UK’s exit without an agreement. It is therefore of critical importance that we have a full and transparent view of the implications of a clause of this kind.

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is going to have to do a bit better than this. He talks about crashing out without a deal, but he needs to get into the detail of the implications. Perhaps he is going to start talking about planes, but amazingly, the planes are going to keep flying. Amazingly, we are still going to have drugs supplied into the United Kingdom. He needs to get down into the detail of exactly what the implications will be, because if we are faced with the reality of no overall agreement, there will be a barrow-load of minor agreements to ensure that the common interests of the United Kingdom and the European Union survive the transfer to WTO terms on 29 March with minimum impact on the citizens of the EU and the UK. It is time he got real and stopped this nonsense—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order.

Israel and Palestinian Talks

Debate between Jonathan Reynolds and Crispin Blunt

Wednesday 5th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

2017 is a year of many historic anniversaries for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, so I welcome this chance for Members across the House to reflect on Britain’s past, present, and future role in the conflict. The events we mark are not relics of the past holding kernels of wisdom for the astute historian; they have directly structured the ongoing daily reality for the lives of millions of people.

This year marks the 50th anniversary of the six-day war and the Israeli occupation of the west bank that continues to this day. The occupation, and the settler movement that formed under its shadow, has created an unsustainable status quo that poses a fundamental threat to our shared ideals of a democratic and secure Israel alongside a viable and sovereign Palestinian state.

I remember taking part in a cricket tour of Israel five years ago, as part of the Lords and Commons cricket team, with my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (James Morris). One of the highlights was him hitting a ball into the middle of the Olympic stadium stand, in a piece of cricket playing that was otherwise largely unsuccessful on our part. On that tour, we witnessed some really interesting attempts to build peace from the bottom up. Under the auspices of the Peres Centre for Peace, we saw children from the occupied territories playing cricket together with Israeli Jewish children and Israeli Arab children. That was one of myriad projects designed to try to do something, in different walks of life, to bring peace.

Two other things really struck me on that tour. The first was that an Israeli general election campaign was in progress, and the conflict was barely an issue among the Israeli parties. It was simply behind the wire or the wall, both politically and in reality. The other was a comment made by the chair of the Israel Cricket Association, a South African Zionist who had been there since 1947, who said that 1967 was the time when Israel began to lose its moral authority.

There is something special about the Israeli story. Like many in my generation, I grew up learning about the horror of the holocaust and the building of a brave democratic state in Israel, which was assailed on all sides by its Arab neighbours. There was a sense of moral authority about the setting up of this state, following the appalling events in Jewish history in Europe over the previous 1,000 years or so. I hope that out of the talks that need to happen now, we can find a way to restore the specialness of the Israeli story and the moral purpose of the state of Israel. I think we all have expectations of the state of Israel—that she will aspire to the highest possible standards—but the way in which the conflict and policy have developed makes it very difficult for her to achieve them. I will return to that point.

Particularly significant for us this year is the 100th anniversary of the Balfour declaration on 2 November. I hope that this debate will not preclude further parliamentary consideration of that anniversary at the time. This is a touchstone issue for millions of Arabs and Muslims, and I do not think I am exaggerating when I say that their eyes will be on us. The centenary must be handled with the utmost care and consideration. In the conversations that I had with almost all Arab ambassadors in my former capacity as Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, it was clear that uncertainty and anxiety surround the centenary.

Last November, the then Minister for the Middle East assured the House that the British Government would neither celebrate nor apologise for the Balfour declaration. I welcomed that position for its acknowledgement that although for many the declaration was the beginning of their deliverance from centuries of persecution, for others its unfulfilled passages were the root of their communal loss. In such a context, celebration or apology betrays the legitimate historical sensitivities of either party, when we should be focused on how to move the issue forward to the benefit of both parties.

I would welcome from the new Minister—the most admirable piece of recycling that it has been my pleasure to see; in his position as a Privy Counsellor and a Minister of State he has the authority of all the experience he gained when he previously held the role, for which he was widely held in high regard—a clarification of the Government’s position on the centenary and an assurance that Ministers will endeavour to ensure that their messages are properly synchronised, and that they open a particular dialogue with the Arab embassies and states about the Government’s position on the anniversary.

Talking of anniversaries, I am in my 21st year as a Member of the House; that is an anniversary that we share, Madam Deputy Speaker. It has been an honour to sit on these Benches, but it has been profoundly sad to witness these recurring debates on a frozen conflict, the position of which has got worse over the last 20 years. Amid the minefield of competing claims, we get bogged down in an epistemological challenge about how we balance so many unbalanced forces, how we treat fairly so many conflicting injustices and how we stand up to the wrongs of one without establishing the equivalence with those of the other, all supposedly in pursuit of effecting meaningful change to bring about a resolution and to put an end to the conflict.

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

I very much welcome the hon. Gentleman’s tone. I am a supporter of the state of Israel, and I am also desperate for some real progress to be made towards a Palestinian state and towards showing dignity and respect for the Palestinian people. I agree with earlier comments that debates such as this can get quite polarised and binary in the House of Commons. I believe we all wish to see progress, and we should look to the tone adopted by the hon. Gentleman.

[Crispin Blunt]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I am trying to make precisely the point that we all too often indulge in reinforcing our own respective positions.

No single problem is causing the stalemate, and there is therefore no single solution. Neither party holds a monopoly of power to make peace, and all sides have the capability to spoil it. Palestinians have been betrayed by years of factionalised leaderships that have failed to meet their people’s needs—from the basic governance necessary to live in dignity to the realisation of their legitimate political ambitions for self-determination. Now, possibly more than at any time in their history, the Palestinian people are trapped deep within a structural crisis of leadership, with almost all levels of democratic activity and elections suspended. This augurs badly for any efforts to address issues such as the incitement or commission of violence, and it denies Palestinians the opportunity to present their cause with the legal and moral authority that it deserves.

On the other hand, the continuation of the settlement programme, in contravention of international law—I welcome the Minister’s restatement of the British position—undermines the prospects for a viable Palestinian state in the future. Settlements are the physical embodiment of conflict between competing narratives of nationalism, in the context of a historic tragedy that has pitted entire peoples against each other in their respective searches for nationhood. Across the canvas of a biblical landscape, settlements paint a picture of a zero-sum paradigm from which no party has found the political will to escape. Aside from the practical impact that settlements have on the viability of a future Palestinian state, settlements and the multifaceted injustices that they represent are salt in the open wound of their collective dispossession.

Both sides complain that they lack partners for peace on the opposite side of the negotiating table. However, they all too often fail to think about what they themselves could do to nurture such partners. Any colleagues who have been able to spend time engaging with broader Israeli and Palestinian society will know that there are such partners, and they share many of the frustrations at their mutual predicament. These people need to be empowered to win their respective arguments in their societies. The Minister will recall that we both met Gideon Sa’ar during the election campaign. He took time out from frontline Israeli politics—he is a potential successor to Benjamin Netanyahu as the leader of Likud—to go to Northern Ireland with an organisation called Forward Thinking to see the peace and the resolution that we have made, and are trying to make, to the conflict there. He was prepared to learn lessons, and it is a sign of hope when Israeli leaders are taking time out to go and see routes to conflict resolution. We need to be able to do that with political leaders on both sides.