Israel and Palestine

Debate between Wayne David and Andrew Percy

Monday 11th December 2023 Westminster Hall

[Wayne David]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point indeed. It is very important that if we are going to move towards a two-state solution—I will say a little bit more about that in the future—it is necessary for us to recognise that political change and moderation is needed on both sides. We cannot have a situation where Hamas are seen to be the dominant Palestinian voice—they are not, incidentally, but many people believe that to be the case—when they want the destruction of the state of Israel.

We have to make sure we have strong connections with, and give support to, more reasonable Palestinian people who want to have a compromise with Israel and a two-state solution; but that applies equally to Israel as well. Unfortunately, Netanyahu is on record as being against a two-state solution, and there are elements in his war cabinet who want to see the encroachment of Israeli settlers into much of the west bank—some people have even suggested into Gaza as well.

It is extremely important that the international community begins to think about those issues, and begins to work towards a consensus on what needs to be achieved in the future. That is very important for ensuring we have a longer-term perspective, even in these dark days of conflict.

[Andrew Percy]

I am the only Conservative Member on this side of the Chamber, so hopefully I can be indulged a little. I hope the hon. Gentleman was not trying to draw any equivalence between democratically elected politicians in Israel—whether we agree with them or not—and desire for political change involving Hamas. On that point, would he share my concern that while we all want to see increased co-operation, Palestinian pollsters the Arab World for Research and Development—that is based in Ramallah, and I have met with its staff—show that, I think, 83% of Palestinians across the west bank currently reject co-existence with Israel, and 75% of them support the attacks of 7 October. How are we going to affect that political change when the views on the other side seem so intransigent on the issue?

[Wayne David]

First, I do recognise that Israel is a democratic state, but at the same time I recognise that a minority of politicians—albeit duly elected—do not articulate what is the view of most Israeli people; that is why it is important for us to stress moderation. I am someone who has been to both the west bank and Israel, and I strongly believe that the vast majority of everyone I met wants peace, and to live together in peaceful co-existence. It is our duty to work towards that, and to make sure they have the context in which they can work out that long-term peaceful settlement.

I want to say something about looking to the future. The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) made a very good point when she stressed the importance of international humanitarian law—it is absolutely essential. We cannot be in a situation where we pick and choose which international laws we like; they must apply to everyone in all situations. It is incumbent on us as an international community, and as a country that upholds international law, to make sure that the International Criminal Court is able to look into the conduct of this conflict by all sides and come to some very firm conclusions that must influence our politics in the future.

It is also important that the Government play a very proactive role in the future of the middle east. I might be wrong, but I get the impression that over the last few years our Government have tended to downgrade the importance of their engagement with the middle east—that needs to change. There needs to be far greater emphasis, consistency and real commitment from the Government, and I hope we will see that in the future. It is important we see that in the near future, because once this conflict is over what we cannot see is another Nakba occurring. We cannot see the population of Gaza being forced into Egypt: that is totally unacceptable. That is why I want a meaningful cessation of hostilities, so that we can begin to talk materially about these issues. I want to see Gaza being rebuilt, which will require greater investment by the international community. It will mean Britain and others working with the Arab states to make sure that there is sufficient investment and security, both for Palestinians and for Israelis, as soon as the conflict is over.

My final point is that it is very important that in this difficult situation we hold out a clear vision for the future, and it is also very important that that future must rest on a two-state solution. To achieve that, we need to have hope; we need to have hope that it is better for people to live together than to engage in perpetual conflict. The choice for the international community is very clear. One possibility is pretending that, once the conflict is over, “There you are, we can pack our bags, forget about it and go on to the next conflict.” We cannot do that. We must learn the lesson of history, which is that if the international community, working with everybody in the region, does not do its level best to make sure that there is a two-state solution, this terrible conflict will be replicated in 20 years’ time, another 20 years after that and so on.

We have to make sure that the issue is addressed in a systematic and coherent way. I very much hope that the Government share that perspective and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to this debate.

European Union (Approval of Treaty Amendment Decision) Bill [Lords]

Debate between Wayne David and Andrew Percy

Monday 10th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Wayne David]

As the Minister explained, the Bill is narrow and specific. It is very short, but very important. I should like to say a few words to put it in a broader context. I was a Member of the European Parliament for 10 years. I was elected in 1989, so I saw the completion of the single market. I well remember Lord Cockfield, Commissioner for the internal market from 1984 to 1988, arguing forcefully for the completion of the single market. I also remember the Cecchini report, which was essential in winning the necessary ideological battle for progress to be made on the single market.

At that time, many of us in the socialist group at the European Parliament had reservations about how it was envisaged that the single market would develop and concerns about the widening gap between the rich and poor parts of the European Union. The response then was to enhance the structural funds. In particular, cohesion funding was brought forward to address initially the concerns of the four poorest member states and it expanded in size to encompass some of the new countries coming into the European Union. As we all know, the Maastricht treaty was in many ways the logical conclusion of what people saw as a journey from the creation of the single market into a fully fledged economic and monetary union.

Britain, of course, had its famous opt-out and that was probably right. That was certainly recognised by the Labour Government elected in 1997. The five economic tests came forward. A judgment had to be made on joining economic and monetary union. Would it provide the United Kingdom with higher growth, stability and a lasting increase in the number of jobs? It was decided that those criteria would have to be met if Britain were to join EMU.

It is important to stress that although there were economic concerns and reservations, there was a tremendous political impetus in favour of economic and monetary union. That was clearly demonstrated when Greece was allowed to join EMU in 2001. Everything was okay as long as the world economy, and the eurozone economy as it developed, were doing well. But the chickens came home to roost with the monetary collapse of 2008 and the consequences that emanated from it. With the benefit of hindsight, many people would probably argue with the way in which a single currency was created and the speed at which that movement was made, and with the fact that many countries, particularly Greece, were allowed to join it without proper economic consideration being given to that. Nevertheless, the political impetus was there.

Now, of course, the question is how we deal with the problems that have arisen in recent times. It would be a huge mistake if the voices of the Eurosceptics were taken seriously and we stepped back into splendid isolation and not only refused to participate in the European venture but wished the end of the eurozone. I say that not because of any ideological commitment to the idea of the eurozone but because I realise pragmatically that a successful eurozone is important for the British economy and the British people.

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

I was not planning to intervene in this debate, but I do so because the hon. Gentleman refers to ignoring the voices of Eurosceptics. Those are the voices of what appears to be the majority of people in this country, if one believes the polls. Perhaps we should allow the public to have a say in a proper referendum, and then it would be for them to decide whether we want to draw back from the EU rather than having pro-Europeans patronising the country about what we should or should not do in relation to Europe.

[Wayne David]

I think that most people in this country are concerned about its economic well-being. Yes, they are concerned about our national sovereignty; even people who describe themselves as pro-European do not want to give up British sovereignty. Many people see the European Union as essentially a mechanism to pool sovereignty in the collective best interests of those who live on that continent. It is important for that spirit to be carried forward in how we relate to the current difficulties in the eurozone.

I generally welcome the pragmatic way in which the Government have gone about establishing the ESM. As the Minister said, nobody would claim for one moment that the ESM, by itself, will solve the problems of the eurozone—it will not—but it is one important step towards resolving them. I therefore hope that this House will give its endorsement to it. However, to take his comments further, the ESM is not enough. It must be monitored, examined and possibly extended in some way if there is a need for that in future, but we must also pursue policies collectively that will enhance the competitiveness of the European Union.

Just as importantly, we need a growth strategy. That is the crucial issue that faces the peoples of all countries within the European Union. If recent history teaches us anything, it is that austerity by itself is not enough. It is not enough in this country—that is why we are in a double-dip recessions—or in the eurozone. I very much hope that there will be an increasing question mark over the German-led policy of austerity above all else. We need to make sure not only that we have reasonable public finances, that the debt burden on our neighbour countries is reduced and that there is competitiveness, but that our economies are collectively stimulated. That is in the best interests of this country. I believe that if the ESM is agreed, it will be an important step towards a more prosperous Europe for us—but it is only one step.

National Referendum on the European Union

Debate between Wayne David and Andrew Percy

Monday 24th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

Let me be clear: I do not support today’s motion because I believe that it is in Britain’s national interest for us to be involved in the European Union. As has been widely acknowledged by many in this debate and elsewhere, half of Britain’s exports go to the rest of the European Union, and 3.5 million jobs in this country are dependent on our trade with our partners in the European Union. My own constituency is a former mining constituency where manufacturing is now very important. If Britain were to withdraw from the European Union, or even substantially to renegotiate its terms of membership, it would be bad economic news for the people I represent.

[Andrew Percy]

I am interested to hear what the hon. Gentleman says. However, the argument is not about whether we are in or out of Europe but whether we have a referendum. If he is so convinced of his argument, why is he frightened to allow the British people to express their view?