Palestine

Roger Godsiff Excerpts

Monday 1st December 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mr Roger Godsiff (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) on securing the debate.

My hon. Friend called for an end to trade and investment with the illegal settlements in the west bank. I agree, of course, and everyone else who looks at the situation would agree. Some have called for a complete ban on arms sales to Israel and others have called for a complete embargo on trade. I have no problem with those ideas. My right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith) said, quite rightly, that the tourniquet around Gaza should be removed. I entirely agree.

We should be under no illusion, however. The Israeli Government are not in the slightest bit interested in what the British Government or the European Union say; their only interest is in not the words but the actions of the American Government, who will not allow Israel to go under.

The American Government provide more than $2.5 billion-worth of arms to Israel every year. They will never allow Israel to be wiped out. The people running Israel, such as Netanyahu, Bennett and Lieberman, are all “greater Israel” and settler people—Bennett is the leader of the settler movement and its spokesperson in Parliament—and they are out to colonise the west bank. Of course the Americans say again and again, “You’re wrong—you shouldn’t do it”, but in the Security Council they will always veto any proposals that could put Israel under threat in their eyes.

I used to believe in the two-state solution, but it is no longer viable. We have only to look at the geography on the ground: Gaza is totally populated by Palestinians; Israel is overwhelmingly Jewish; 40% of the west bank has been colonised by Israel; and there is a large Palestinian population in Jordan.

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend talks about the demographics of Israel and Palestine. May I please implore him not to forget the existing Christian communities there, such as the Armenian Orthodox and various other communities? The problem is not one of only two sides, but of many sides.

[Mr Godsiff]

I entirely accept what my hon. Friend says; of course there are many other religious groups. That is why Jerusalem is so vital: it is the main place of worship for a whole variety of religions.

Anyone looking in would say, “Well, Jerusalem ought to be like Rome.” It ought to be a holy city administered by all the religions, but the Israeli Government say that it is the capital of the state of Israel. We are dealing with people who, I regret to say, are not the same as previous leaders of Israel, most of whom were members of the Labour party and whom I had the opportunity to meet. The leaders of Israel now are not the same as Peres, Rabin or even Golda Meir. They are very different.

[Mr Burrowes]

The hon. Gentleman’s characterisation is completely wrong on religious freedom. I spoke to persecuted Christians in Jerusalem on a recent visit, which is recorded in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. They said that the only safe place for them in the middle east is Israel and Jerusalem.

[Mr Godsiff]

I hear what my colleague says and he is perfectly entitled to his opinion, but I repeat that the Israeli Government have no interest whatever in negotiating with the Palestinians or in trying to reach a settlement. I wish I could have better hope for the future of the middle east, but I despair—day by day, more and more—of whether there will be a solution. I fear that the only resolution will be through conflict. That is not what I want, and it is not what the people of the middle east want, but that is what is going to happen. I can see no desire on the part of the Israeli Government to negotiate and I cannot see the American Government doing anything to undermine the position of Israel.

I say again, therefore, that I view the situation in the middle east with despair. I hope that I am totally wrong, and that at the end of the day there will be negotiations—including with Hamas, which has to be involved—but I simply cannot see any of that happening. We may wring our hands in this Chamber, saying that we should do this or that, but I am afraid that people in Tel Aviv are not listening.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

National Referendum on the European Union

Roger Godsiff Excerpts

Monday 24th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Roger Godsiff (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab)]

I regret the fact that the Government’s business managers managed to turn inconvenience into a full-scale crisis vote this evening. I regret even more the fact that there is not a free vote across the House tonight. There should have been, and I rather suspect that those on both Front Benches will come to regret the fact that they did not allow a free vote.

I voted for a referendum on the Lisbon treaty, together with some of my hon. Friends. I will vote tonight in support of a referendum. Some of the suggestions that I have heard, that this debate is a distraction or, as somebody said, an irresponsible distraction, are both arrogant and insulting to the vast majority of the people of this country who feel that their views on Europe are not being heard.

Ever since the treaty of Rome was signed, its architects have had a clear objective of moving towards a united states of Europe and in doing so they have followed three steps. The first was ever-closer union, political and economic. The Single European Act, which Mrs Thatcher signed, was a massive step in that direction, as was the creation of a single currency. The second aim has been to move relentlessly forward—take two steps forward, a massive great row, go into denial, label objectors mad or worse, take one step back, wait for the fury to subside, then move two steps forward again.

The third and most important objective has been to avoid whenever possible giving the electorates of Europe a direct say in decision making. If some member states are legally obliged to have referendums, as happened in France and Holland, then the approach has been to play down the importance of the issues, say they are purely technical, just a tidying-up exercise, not something to bother the electorates of Europe. The reason is obvious. We all know that if we ask the people a question, we might get the answer that we do not want.

The creation of the eurozone is just another attempt to move forward the project of a federal united states of Europe. The creation of the euro was always economic nonsense. There has never in the history of the world been a successful monetary union without a fiscal union as well. It was a house built on quicksand, not a house that caught fire. It does not matter how much money is thrown at it to try to underpin it. It does not matter how much financial scaffolding is put around it. It will fail. It is not me saying this: the markets have already made their decision. They know that the euro is unsustainable. They know that it is built on quicksand. They know it is going to fail, and if the politicians are not on the same wavelength, that is their problem.

The only way out is full fiscal union. I agree with the Chancellor when he urged the members of the eurozone to move towards that. At least that is logical. But in doing so, members of the eurozone will have to cede all their tax-raising and all their spending powers to the Commission in Brussels. That will be a massive step towards the creation of a united states of Europe. Whether the member countries of the eurozone wish that to happen is a matter for them.

The reason why so many people are angry in this country and why the opinion polls seem to show that they are anti-Europe is that they feel that nobody is listening to them. That is bad for democracy. Today the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have set out their stalls and said where they stand. They should put that to the electorate and have it debated in the country. That is what democracy is about. At the end, they should allow the people to decide.