Oh, he's quitting, too.
Follow the latest developments and
analysis on the BBC News Channel online
and the BBC News app.
[Music]
So, in his late night lounge, that is
this week, Andrew Neil looking back on
the past seven days in an hour on BBC 1.
Before that, slightly later than build,
it's you, the panel, and David Dimbleby.
Chilcott Brexit party leadership.
Another turbulent week in politics and a
chance for voters to have their say.
We're in Brighton tonight and welcome
and our panel. The Labour peer who was
justice secretary under Tony Blair,
Charles Falconer. The Conservative MP,
former Army officer who served alongside
the Royal Marines in Iraq, Tom Tugnut.
the president of the Liberal Democrats,
Sal Brenton, the former Respect Party
MP, George Galloway, and the editor of
Private Eye, Ian Hisrock.
Thank you very much. Thank you very
much. You can use Facebook, remember,
Twitter to comment on what you hear. our
hashtag BBCQT
83981 is the number to text. Push the
red button to see what others are
saying. Our first question from Mark
Turner, please. Colonel Mark Turner.
Aren't we better off with Saddam Hussein
gone?
Tom Dugen.
Yes. Unquestionably, we're better off
without
But I'm going to assume that you're
actually asking a question about the
Chilcot report, sir.
And the reality is that the Chilcot
report has opened up an extraordinary
pack of information that shows us that
the decision-making of the United
Kingdom was not great. It's shown us
that the grand strategy, the the ability
to create a strategy for the United
Kingdom that would serve not only our
people but our interests overseas was
woeful.
And so we've what we've really got to
look at in the Chilcot report is not
only what it points to in what happened
but also how it points to the future
because for me the most important thing
about Chilcot is how do we learn the
lessons so that we don't commit such
blunders again.
Okay George Galloway not on a
costbenefit analysis. No, if you look at
the cost, a million people dead, some of
them our own,
billions of pounds, maybe hundreds of
billions of pounds, burned, Iraq in
flames, Syria in flames, Libya in
flames, Yemen in flames, Saudi Arabia in
flames, Bahrain in flames. If you look
at the fanatic extremism,
heart eating, head chopping, fanatics
cascading everywhere in the world,
including, and this is the anniversary
of what happened here in our own country
on 77. If you just begin to add up the
cost, then the answer has to be no. Of
course, it would be good to see
a world without dictators,
but if you go around the world invading
and occupying the countries of every
dictator, we won't have a world left.
And for many people, there is no world
left. A imagine a mountain of 1 million
dead people. and look at the faces of
the wives and the parents and the
children of our own soldiers yesterday
as they listened to the Chilcott report.
I'll tell you this, Sir John Chilcott,
if he hadn't already been kned by Tony
Blair, would definitely deserve one
because he recovered some national honor
for us with his report yesterday.
Okay,
Charles Faulner. Yes, we are better off
with Saddam Hussein going gone. But uh
as George has referred to, the Chilcot
report made it clear and it was already
clear that we shouldn't have used force
in Iraq because there weren't weapons of
mass destruction which is the reason
that we went and I am really sorry that
we made that decision. I am sorry about
the decision. I can't be sorry that
Saddam has gone because the way that he
retained power in Iraq was by murderous
brutality in particular to the Shia
majority and the Kurds. We have got to
learn the lessons about when we
intervene because it can make the
position very much worse.
You think with hindsight it was wrong to
do it period?
I think with hindsight it was wrong to
do it. Period. And that is made clear by
what
by what
can I just say one thing I I don't
accept that all the deaths and the
confrations in the Middle East have been
caused by the invasion in 2003. Uh for
example ISIS started in Syria where as
everybody knows there was no
intervention and then came over the
border into Iraq. There have been a
whole range of contributing uh uh
sources to that and we've got to be
careful not to blame everything that has
happened in the Middle East on the
invasion.
Let's just hear from some members of our
audience, you in the front there. Um but
I think it's also important you say
about learning lessons but couldn't you
argue in very simplistic terms that ISIS
has kind of come up through the power
vacuum of getting rid of um Saddam
Hussein and then kind of people again
are just seeing war as the only option
uh where there are so many other options
kind of intervening and then again it's
then the response of going into
and then we're ending up with all these
immigrants that people are kind of then
critiquing when it's our fault that
they're kind of running away from their
own homeland
in in Islam.
I'm I'm just interested in the defense
of hindsight which has been offered by
Blair and Alistister Campbell this week
and now here again. Why do you need um
hindsight in 2003? I was looking back at
privatized coverage. I mean we got it
right. George got it right. A million
people m marching past parliament got it
right.
There's there's nothing in the Chilcot
report that everyone didn't say at the
time. Every single one of those stories
from the fact that the you know the
snatch rovers didn't work properly.
Every single bit of what was going to
happen was relayed including um the the
legal position which you were in the
cabinet. Um you were not in the cabinet.
Not at that time. No.
You were not offering advice?
I was not.
None at all. What do you think of it
then now? Uh it was the attorney general
to decide. I agree with the advice that
he gave.
Well, on both occasions.
Which advice? He gave two advice?
The one that the better view was that it
was lawful.
Well, is that written down anywhere?
That is written down. Yes. In a
parliamentary answer he gave on the 17th
of March.
Well, he gave one. I know you can get a
lawyer to give you any answer you pay
for.
But the attorney general first opined
that it would not be legal. the entire
legal team of the British Foreign Office
to a man and woman said that the
invasion would be illegal.
Is legality the important point over the
morality of it?
Oh, for me it's both. If we are a
country that says we stand up for values
including the rule of law and the United
Nations when Chilcott has just found
that we undermine the United Nations and
the process by which legality was
established was and I quote him very far
from satisfactory then frankly Charlie
there's something wrong with the legal
advice that was given to Tony Blair.
We'll come back to you, sir, there in
the
Can I just ask if you all agree that it
was wrong? Don't you think then today
that Tony Blair and Bush stand trial for
what they've done?
Well done. I wanted to go. Yeah, we'll
come to that. I wanted to go to the man
in the 1 2 3 4 5 fifth row. I said that
man there. Yes, please. Far away. I
wonder why the whole world was quiet
when Saddam Hussein in 1980s
used chemical weapon against Turkish
Kurdish people his own people and in
Iraq Iran war why didn't they overthrow
him then Sal
I think that that's an extremely
important point and the original
question was about was it right for
Saddam Hussein to go and the answer is
yes but was the invasion of Iraq in 2003
the right way to do it absolutely
Absolutely not. And he enlisted um
people who had very clearly said in 2003
that it was the wrong thing to do. And
Charles Kennedy led the Liberal
Democrats and was almost a soul voice in
Parliament fighting to say we must have
a second UN resolution.
And the son put him on the front page
and called him a traitor
with a snake alongside him.
So I I the one in the front here. Yes.
Yes. You
me?
Yes. I was just about to say the public
were behind, you know, were were not in
agreeing with it, but the press behaved
disgracefully. The Daily Mail led it on
and on and on and they were mostly,
apart from the Daily Mirror, I believe,
mainly behind it.
What's your view of Mark Turner's
question? Are we better off with Saddam
G?
I don't think we are to be honest.
Mark Turner, what do you think? You
asked the question. What's your view?
Um, well, I'm no fan of Tony Blair, but
I'm less of a fan of Saddam Hussein, who
was clearly a tyrant. He abused his own
people. But I think the Chilcott report
is just one element of a a much bigger
picture of Middle East stability.
There's a a key timing issue. Um, the
Labour Party failed to resource defense
correctly for the whole time they were
in power. There are issues of prime
ministerial decision-making and
political honesty. And I think when you
wrap all those up, it was a disaster
waiting to happen.
Can I just Yes. Come to the just to pick
up Ian's.
Sorry. Could I could I finish by giving
you my my response, which is a qualified
one. I think the world is better off
that Saddam Hussein has gone.
Okay.
I was going to say Ian makes the point
rightly that there was a real division
of opinion at the time and the arguments
that were being advanced against war
were right out there in the open. The
best exponent of those arguments in
parliament was Robin Cook who resigned
and he and he set it all out as did
Charles Kendi. But there was a decision
that had to be made and the prime
minister honestly thought that the right
view a view that turns out to be the
wrong view was
I mean that's not in the report that he
honestly thought this that's not there
that there was no deception. There's no
suggestion in the report.
He doesn't say that. He just doesn't say
that there was deception. That's not the
same thing. The absence of evidence is
not the evidence of absence. Let me tell
you
surely one of the most important things
that Chilcot has brought out is the way
decisions were made in the cabinet with
often private meetings between Tony
Blair and individual members of the
cabinet. Very little open discussion in
cabinet. The cabinet members then had to
go back into parliament and persuade
others and it wasn't the sort of place I
mean we're called parliament. It's meant
to be the place where people come
together to speak and debate and get to
the bottom of an issue. And parliament
claimed they weren't given the
intelligence.
Parliament absolutely
David it turns out it was a sorry excuse
for a cabinet because Blair is able
actually to say well I didn't give them
an options uh paper because they never
asked for one. I didn't actually show
them uh the legal advice because they
never asked for it. And Claire Short
says that she sat in the cabinet and the
actual decision to go to war wasn't even
taken by the cabinet. But before you we
lose sight of this, far be it from me to
leap to the defense of the Daily Mail.
The Daily Mail was actually extremely
skeptical about the war. But the great
majority of the broadcast media, more
than the print media actually, the BBC
and others provided a drum beat to war
and they treated those of us who were
against it as mad or bad or both. When
are they going to take responsibility
for this disaster?
Well, as I hear these conversations
about the debate, I remember listening
to them on the World Service of the BBC
from a a desert base uh just outside
Iraq uh back in 2003. And I remember
looking at uh my unit and my friends and
wondering how the next few days, months
were going to hold for what they were
going to hold for the for us who were
there. I do remember being, as you can
probably imagine, pretty terrified. Um,
and it really did focus my mind. But the
thing that has really struck me about
Chilcot, if I may, is not so much about
Tony Blair and the government. Funny
enough, I wasn't really surprised about
that. I kind of expected it to show that
he had made some rather silly decisions
in some rather bad and loose ways. What
really surprised me and what really
distressed me actually is what it said
about the senior commander of the armed
forces and our senior diplomats
because the report
is extremely harsh on them. Not just in
the preparation for war but in its
execution. If you look at the chapters
that cover the time after 20045
when the situation was getting worse and
as Ian quite rightly points to the
snatch Land Rover incidents. If you look
at the diplomatic messages that were
supporting the then government's
position, there are many voices that
should have spoken out and stayed
silent. There are many generals who
should have realized that the tactics
and strategy was not working and stayed
silent. And while it's not, or rather
while it wasn't, it is now, but while it
wasn't for me then to judge the actions
of politicians,
it is absolutely the duty of generals
and of senior diplomats to look after
the men and women who are there
executing the orders of her majesty's
government in the field.
[Applause]
Let me let me take a question from Siraj
Lani, please. Surj,
should Tony Blair face trial for war
crimes?
Should Tony Blair face trial for war
crimes?
Ian Hisop. Well, I mean, there is going
to be a section of the public that will
only be satisfied if Chilcott's first
statement had said he should be strung
up um outside Parliament Square with a
huge baying mob. Um that isn't going to
happen. Uh the International Criminal
Court said they deal with battlefield
atrocities. We're trying to talk about
keeping it within legal structures. It
would have to be a legal structure that
tried Tony Blair. There's talk of MPs
arraigning him. There's, you know, talk
of uh legal challenges. Um the whole
point of the very first question is
should we have toppled Saddam? The idea
is it's possible to say yes but it
should have been been done legally under
international law with sufficient
planning. So should we just say yes
let's string him up? I think probably uh
no. I think we should wait for the um
legal procedure to pan out of what you
can do with him. But look at him. You
gave a speech. This is a haunted man. I
mean the toxicity of his legacy is
extraordinary and Chilcott has now
banged it in. I mean he is literally
going to wander the earth doing after
dinners for Kazakhstan toilet companies.
Um you know that
that is his punishment.
Um so I think not and I I think Tom's
absolutely right. We shouldn't make it
all about Blair. Um essentially the
British army lost two wars. We don't
make a big deal about that, but we lost
um in Iraq and we lost in Afghanistan
and that's not great. I mean, that is
worth an inquiry.
Okay.
Both the shadow chancellor and the
Labour leader said there should be legal
action. Uh do you think there should be
legal action taken against Blair?
No, I don't think legal action should be
taken against Blair. He was the prime
minister at the time. He had to make
incredibly difficult decisions about
what to do at the time when the world
was in flux because of the of 911 and
the pressures that that created. He made
a decision honestly in what he believed
to be the best interests of the United
Kingdom. He may have got it wrong, but
it was honestly in the best interest as
he saw it of the United Kingdom. He
wasn't acting in any way deceptively or
dishonestly for what he thought was best
for the country.
That's not what the report says.
The report makes it clear that he did
not deceive anybody. It makes it clear
that he did not know with George Bush.
He had discussions with George Bush, but
at no stage did he keep secret from the
country what the issues were. And Ian
was right when he said what the issues
were about whether we went to war or not
were apparent to the country. and it was
a difficult decision and the country was
divided but he had a clear view.
He didn't know that he'd already
committed to a decision which didn't
involve that.
[Applause]
The John Chilcott's report finds that
there was no secret agreement to go to
war. He made it clear that he would not
go unless there was proper authorization
from the United Nations which he
believed that he had from resolution
1441.
Please but no no but just just what
about I will be with you whatever.
He says I will be with you whatever in
that memo in July. But then he he says
but it he then sets out a basis
I will be with you whatever but this
this and this and this. But
but actually let's not let that lie be
written into the record. They they're
saying that the next word is but.
Yeah.
But the next word isn't but. There are a
series of things to sell it that Blair
then suggests.
I think the next word actually is but. I
think it is but.
But, unfortunately, it is but. I know
the next word is but.
But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But.
But. But. But. But. It doesn't matter.
But it doesn't matter.
There's no qualification to the word
whatever.
Whatever.
All right. The position. The position.
All right. Come to the war crimes. Yeah.
Can I Can you answer that one? Do you
think he should face criminal charges?
Charlie used to be his flatmate, but you
don't have to hide his dirty laundry any
longer. You're a grown man now.
He is already facing legal action. The
families of the bererieved uh the the
bereaveved families of the soldiers are
right now sitting with their lawyers
preparing legal actions for the loss of
their children or husbands through his
recklessness and negligence and misuse
of public office malfcence in public
office.
Do you think that that's the way to go?
Not through the courts, not through the
ICC has said they won't take the case.
Do you think they're right thing? No, I
think they're wrong to say it and I
think it will be challenged.
So the Hag should say that it is a
criminal offense under international
law.
I believe the only proper place where
Tony Blair should be talking about the
war is in the dock at the H. That's what
I come back. The man man up there you
say the third back. Yes.
Uh Tony Blair took responsibility for
the legal decision and that's a debate
as well, but he also has to take
responsibility for the the campaign as a
whole, which the planning both prior to
and after the conflict was absolutely
abysmal. It was more dangerous in the
years after Iraq than it was in 2003
when I was there.
And you were there as a soldier?
I was there in the army as a soldier.
That's right.
For how long? Uh, I was in Kuwait from
January and went into Iraq, came back in
June of 2003.
What do you make of what Tom said a
moment ago about the leadership of the
army and that it was letting you down?
I think he makes a very fair point and I
think it was the responsibility of the
army generals to raise the issue because
fundamentally there were
unconscionable events that occurred,
even small ones such as the lack of body
armor that have exacerbated this whole
thing. That's not that small if you're
facing
Indeed. As as Yes. indeed.
His exact words were, "I will be with
you no matter what." There were no WMDs
found. He lied to us. He lied to the
government. And as a direct result of
his lives, 149 soldiers blood are now on
his hands. He should pay the price and
he should be done for war crimes. and
off.
I think the problem is if the ICC have
already said that they're not going to
do that. But I do believe that
everything that you said just now is
correct. Um Tony Blair was absolutely
determined to make the case for war
regardless of the legality, the evidence
and the strategy including the post
invasion planning which was not just
woeful but catastrophic for the region
as a whole. And absolutely there are
problems there. He's not the only
person. Um I suspect that the families
bringing cases is probably the only
formal way that there will be any
action. But I think the moral side Tony
Blair absolutely understands that the
majority of people in this country were
appalled by the actions both of him and
of some of his colleagues. And Chilcot
has made plain those actions, the
failure of government and the failure of
planning. Um and yet again we fought a
war using the last weapons from the
previous war. The Northern Ireland
equipment was wrong. It took us too long
in Afghanistan to learn that lesson as
well. We absolutely have to make sure
that our armed forces have learned those
lessons for the future.
Okay. You share the second I
was in I was in Northern Ireland for a
long time and I lived there. I was in a
war in in Northern Ireland as well. But
while I was there, I met a lot of U
refugees from Iraq. And going back to
the first question, do you think it's
right to have got rid of Saddam Hussein?
No, I don't think it's right to have got
rid of him because I met these refugees
and they were they were refugees from
there from as I said he he was a
dictator but he was in control of the
country. There was Shiites and and
Sunnis fighting against each other and
the families who were in Northern
Ireland, they were better off and they
they were But I tell you something, when
when Britain invaded Kuwait, um uh Iraq,
the the the the refugees, the refugee
families, the the students who were
starting here, doctors, they were they
were locked up. They were in worse they
were in a worse state for just for being
Iraqis.
in in in the country.
Okay, Tom Juggernaut, just a last point
on war trial.
Well, look, I'm I'm not a lawyer. Um,
but I think you'd be hardressed to say
that the 2.6 million words that make up
the Chilcot report do not condemn him
very very severely already.
And I find myself
thinking very hard actually these days
again about the 179 servicemen who who
were killed because of course for those
of us who served as you did sir it's not
a list of numbers it's a list of names
some of whom are our friends
and of course for each one who was
injured there were many more sorry who
for each one who was killed there were
many more who were injured and many of
my friends now are living with the
injuries of that war. Some of them are
physical, some of them are mental.
And I find it very difficult, very
difficult
to look dispassionately at it.
But I do appreciate that my job now is
not as a judge and jury. I'll leave that
to the lawyers, but it's to make sure
that we never find ourselves in a
situation like that again. which is why
I'm very glad that a few changes have
happened already and I will be asking
for more that we've got a national
security council at which senior
diplomats, senior military officers and
the attorney general are all expected to
speak up. They're all expected to
challenge.
I think that's a really important
change.
But he will be the jury if there's an
impeachment in the house. And I think
that there will be in the house.
Yes. I think that Alex Amond and others
are going to bring forward a motion to
impeach Tony Blair at the bar of the
house huckled in under manners by Black
Rod and the sergeant to arms. Wouldn't
that be a fine day indeed?
I take a couple more points and then we
move on to another topic. You sir waving
your hand at me with the gray hair there
and the spectacle thing.
Right. Um yeah. Isn't it outrageous that
we see Tony Blair with armed police
officers and a protection squad and a
bulletproof and a and a bomb-proof car
when the the troops had none of that
equipment?
Okay. And and you, sir, the last point.
Yes. You both got your hands up both
briefly if you would and then we'll go
on. Uh yeah, I was in the army at that
time when um I was in the household
cavalary based in Nightsbridge and a lot
of the guys that were going out there
who were based in Windsor didn't want to
go out. Didn't believe in the war, but
they did it because it was their job and
because they had to do it. So you've got
this fall down from all of that. We went
to war to hold Saddam Hussein
accountable for his actions. So who's
going to be accountable for these
actions? Tony Blair? Someone else,
what do you what do you make of of of
what Chil cut said?
Um, I haven't read the report to be
honest. I've only seen
the information that's been fed to me by
the media, but um it seemed honest and
quite straightforward to what the the
how it began in the first place. thing.
And the man on your left there,
I find it unbelievable that one of your
panel members is sat here still
defending Tony Blair after all the
information been given by this audience
and the rest of the panel. I think it's
disgusting that you defend him.
You're welcome.
I do defend him for the reasons that
I've given already. I've made it clear I
thought the decision was wrong and I
still speak up for him because he
achieved a lot but this issue is a
really really difficult issue and I
accept the findings
of Tilkot.
Okay, I just say I mean I accept all the
points everyone's making but I think
it's it's just worth remembering that
250 people died last weekend in one bomb
blast in Baghdad. One.
Yes, we've got to learn lessons about
ourselves, but I mean there's there's
pretty huge repercussions in Iraq. And
there's some very good foreign
correspondents reports at the moment
saying, "Do you know they're not that
bothered by our soularching? They're
just still angry." Okay,
we go on to another We'll go on to a
completely a completely different topic.
One on which we had as many questions as
we did on that first one this week.
Khloe Garrett Dyke. Khloe Garrett Dyke.
Um, in light of the misleading leave
campaign and a complete lack of a plan,
is the referendum result really a
legitimate mandate for us to leave the
EU?
In light of the misleading leave
campaign and a lack of a plan, Salton,
lack of a plan, have we not just been
talking about lack of a plan in the
previous question? I mean, I think there
is there is a real issue. There was no
threshold on this referendum which meant
that although it was 52% of those who
voted, it was only 37% of people
entitled to vote. But as Liberal
Democrats, we say we have to accept the
result of the referendum. But we remain
a pro- Europe party. We absolutely see
the importance of Britain having a key
role in Europe and we will go into the
next general election saying that we
should still be there. In the meantime,
we will be absolutely a strong voice in
parliament and in the country to try and
get the best deal we can. It's it's
interesting that we're here at a
university. The university sector has
already really felt the chill in two
weeks about a third of research monies
are likely to go. There's a number of
projects been put on hold and there's
certainly worries about PhD students who
have been jointly funded by European
projects. So we are living with the real
consequences of no plan.
The word the words of the question
though you said you would stand against
this in the general election. The
question was whether it was a legitimate
mandate to leave the EU that referendum.
Are you saying it wasn't?
I think I'm saying it's extremely
borderline but it fell within the rules.
And unfortunately democracy means you've
got to go by the rules that are played
at the time. But as clearly those many
of us including 70% in the Brighton area
who voted remain feel extremely
concerned that people voted for
something not understanding what it was.
And now they're beginning to see the
reality of the lack of plan. The lack of
plan. Where's the 350 million a week for
the NHS suddenly gone? Jobs already
beginning to disappear from the city.
The Footsie 250 down over 10%. the pound
down uh to below 130 and staying there
at time of broadcast. It's probably
lower now.
Who who All right. Who was complain? You
were complaining in the front row there.
Yes. Your you go. You
Yes.
70% of the population of Brighton voted
to stay in, but the majority of the
people in the Southeast voted come out.
So I mean it's you're just picking on
Brighton because
No, I'm just saying because we are in
Brighton tonight and there are areas
like this that have for example.
But so so what?
So so what?
Well, it was just
the Southeast voted to come out and
London did as well and the Northeast
obviously voted out.
Well, everybody apart from London, uh
Northern Ireland and Scotland. The rest
of the country voted to come out.
But it was No, no, no. the rest of the
country who voted.
5248. You can't just say every
not exactly a massive majority.
All right. The question is whether it
was a misleading leave campaign with no
plan. If the vote was Brexit, yes,
you're waving at me. I will come to you.
But the the man there with spectacles
had his hand up first. You, sir.
We've had the referendum. Everyone's had
the opportunity to put their voice
forward. Um it it's about time we just
crack on with getting uh the deal.
Okay.
And you and you at the back in the
second row in the back, the young man
there. Yes.
The question was whether the referendum
result was legitimate and the answer is
yes. The job of government
the job of government is to plan for
every eventuality and most of them
pinned their m their mask to remain. Now
the the only person who had a plan was
Mark Carney. Despite saying it was a
massive risk to leave, he had a plan.
Now, why is he the only person who's had
a plan? What was cabinet doing? That's
the question I
[Applause]
Yes, I think it is a legitimate basis
and indeed it is a mandate from the
people to leave the European Union which
the politicians I think have got to
accept. I think lots and lots of
misleading things were said in the
course of the campaign, but when a
misleading thing was said like this£350
million pound figure, it was pointed out
and it was for the public to make a
judgment about it. And they did make a
judgment about it.
It's it's for recommending that it's for
the public to decide how they react to
what people say about it. And they've
made their decision. It's now for the
politicians to do something about it.
The absence of a plan means if in the
course of negotiations we failed to get
a result which is free access to the
single market on the same terms as now
can I and I accept that I accept we
voted out and I've accepted we've now
got to try and negotiate our way to a
situation where we're out. If we get
close to the situation where we've got
the single market control over
immigration no contributions to the EU
then that's fine. There'll be no need
for anybody to be asked again whether
that's okay. But if it's far away from
that,
you would accept.
Hold on. Wait a minute. Wait a minute.
If it's far away from that, then the
public will need to express a view in
it. That's what I think.
All right. The woman in red in the
second row from the back.
Um, people keep saying it's a misleading
campaign both about the referendum and
about Chilcop and the rock campaign. And
then you keep saying it's for the public
to decide, but I sort of think is in it
also for politicians to be honest. And
why do we not have some kind of system
of accountability? Not that takes seven
years and 10 million pounds. But you
know when politicians are found to have
lied or to have been incompetent on the
other hand they are unfit to lead us and
why do we not have some kind of system
that holds them to account?
Elections elections aren't enough for
you.
I mean we have a system of proportional
record.
Would you like to see prosecuted? No,
not prosecuted, but you know,
350 million which was on the side of his
bus, which he knew wasn't true. He was
told it wasn't true. He kept pointing to
it throughout. Should he be arrested?
Not arrested, but maybe barred from
holding public office, maybe. You know,
you say we have an electoral system. We
have an electoral system based on
proportional rep based on, you know,
first pass the post. You have a choice
of two candidates. It's often a choice
of the least bad option. And if someone
is found to have lied, but you disagree
with the politics of the other
candidate, what choice do you have?
All right. The woman there in white with
spectacles there.
What makes you think that Britain would
be able to negotiate both access to the
single market and um um controlled
immigration?
Well, let me tell you, is that is that
is that the message you picked up from
the Brexit case? I don't I don't think
there is point of Brexit if we uh cannot
control immigration and if we cannot
have access to the single market
otherwise uh what is the point of Brexit
if we cannot have both.
Okay, George Galloway.
Well, if you took all the liars and the
incompetence out of parliament, it would
be pretty empty. Uh let me tell you that
first of all
the both campaigns both campaigns were
misleading. You were there repeatedly,
weren't you?
Yeah, but
you
I said it would be pretty empty, not
entirely empty.
The the
campaigns on both sides were misleading.
The remain camp painted a picture of us
who wanted out of the European Union as
some kind of racist mob because we don't
accept that in the kind of society we
have that there can be uncontrolled free
movement of labor which drives the wages
down of the workers already here.
whatever country they come from,
whatever color they are, whatever creed
they are, there's nothing racist about
wanting to control your borders and
about wanting to have a controlled and
managed immigration system, which is
impossible under the European Union. I'm
a follower until now, though he's dead,
of the late and great Tony Ben. There
was nothing racist or reactionary about
his opposition to the European Union. So
there were lies on both sides. Boris
Johnson, I wish they would uh put him in
jail. So So, so, so does some.
So for what exactly?
Just for fun. No, for
just for fun.
Maybe in the stock jail here.
Maybe in the stocks where we can throw
buns at him, though he'd probably gobble
them down. But the the the reality is
the public made a decision. 17 million
people, more than 17 million people,
more people voted to leave the EU than
have ever voted for anything in the
entire history.
The question is, was it was it a
mistake?
But but Khloe's question was was the
campaign of the leave side misleading
both and and therefore they got an
unfair advantage over the people who
wanted to remain whatever they
if every government that was elected was
unelected because they'd been misleading
the public would never say should happen
but we would never have had a government
the Tories get into power every time
misleading the people with respect to
you uh taking they're constantly
misleading polit politicians mislead.
It's for the public and the media to
hold the politicians to account and I
believe that they did. So,
okay, let's try and do a bit more of
that then. The man with the white beard
there in the fifth row from the back,
sixth row, you say? Yes.
This has been in my view the most
humiliating and disgusting period in
British politics. the whole rea
[Applause]
in one way.
We have lost the friendship and support
of our closest allies in both words, in
both senses of the word. We have
endangered the special relationship
which we have with the United States
which has been our safeguard since the
middle of the second world war.
We have disenfranchised our youth in
this country from their future. Why have
we disenfranchised them?
Because they you almost overwhelmingly
would like to stay in the status quo. So
why didn't they vote? Can I just Why
didn't they vote?
Can I just make the main point?
No, don't make answer that one first.
Why didn't they vote? Why did they vote
in such small numbers with people?
I think regressively because
regressively because politicians have
not got their interest or their
confidence.
I see. Okay. I just want to clarify. All
right. One more point and then I want to
all of this all of this was unnecessary.
Because the EU is imploding and if we
had waited a while, we would have led
out the factions which are most
sympathetic to our causes and our needs
and their needs and causes instead of
being blamed for the collapse forever.
Okay, Ian.
Um,
applause for gentlemen. Um, again, I can
see the reaction in a couple of the rows
there. You know, sort of winging
metropolitan loss can't bear it. um
after um an election or a referendum,
even if you lose the vote, you are
entitled to go on making the argument.
When a government
when a government in this country wins
an election, the opposition does not
just say, "Oh, that's absolutely right.
I've got nothing to say for 5 years."
So
those of us who you know were trying
fairly hard in the last weeks to follow
what on earth is happening in this
country, the leave vote has left us with
a group of leaders who having lit the
fire have all run away saying someone
else can clear up the mess.
The prime minister who put us in the
mess has resigned. Everybody is gone.
All the people that put their cross down
for leave saying this is what we want.
They seem to be getting a group of
people who say we can't stop
immigration. We can't give 350 million.
Oh, and um by the way there might be
quite a lot of austerity. Sorry. Bye.
[Applause]
Um yeah, just bring it back to the
original question. Um, so because
everybody's sort of jumping on the
bandwagon saying both campaigns are
being misleading, should there be a
governing body that regulate political
marketing as we have elsewhere?
I want to control the way messages are
put across.
Yes, indeed.
Okay. Well, well, hold that point. And
the woman there uh in the third row,
yes, you
um I wanted to make a point about um
youth not voting. I feel like both sides
were just shouting at each other and
weren't making any good points and so we
didn't feel like we were in a position
to vote in a way that is informed. I
personally did vote despite the fact I
wasn't in the country. I got a um proxy
vote. I got my mother to vote for me.
But I met adults who were much older
than me and they didn't get a proxy vote
at all. They weren't even aware they
could do that. And I just feel like
people are blaming us a lot for not
representing what we believe in. But
it's not that we don't not representing
what we believe in. We're just not
informed because the campaigns haven't
presented themselves well enough. And
also they haven't tried to um reach out
to us at all.
Okay.
Like what do you say? What do you say to
that on either side of the argument?
Well, I I was just going to answer the
the question if I may. I know it's a
strange habit, but I do think
well you could no
politics long and you haven't been on
question time before the convention is
you the convention is you be quiet for a
moment and the question the questioner
there you can answer her question and
then the main question okay
because we keep trying to answer the
questions people put
well m I think you make some very
legitimate points but I would also argue
very strongly that democracy is
something we do together it's not
something that's done to us so I
wouldn't attack the British people's
intelligence or understanding of the
question. They understood. We all
understood exactly what the question
was. We're an intelligent and well
educated population.
And these debates have been happening
for years on the merits of being in or
out of the European Union. In the last
few months, true, the hyperbole has been
really quite spectacular. But there is a
fundamental understanding of the
question in this country that I think
means that the answer is legitimate. And
while some people didn't choose to vote,
which I wish they had, but I respect
their choice not to, I think it's also
incumbent on all of us to educate
ourselves, too. We're not sheep to be
fed.
Were you
were you a sheep?
Not at all. No, I you weren't a sheep.
I spent other people sheep.
No, no, no. I said we are not.
Okay. How did you vote?
I voted to remain. And I voted to remain
for a whole series of different reasons
that many people in this room will
understand. But many of my friends voted
to leave for a whole series of reasons.
Well, you bring us you bring us very
neatly to another question because the
result of your voting uh to remain but
not being in a majority is that the
prime minister stood down. We've got a
question from Mark Sherry, please. Mark
Sherry,
thank you. Should there be a general
election once the Conservative Party
membership elect our new leader?
Should there be a general election now
that we have the Tory party? What do you
think, Ian? Um yeah, I think there
should um in terms of basic democracy,
which you're, you know, very keen um on
the referendum, I mean, the choice of
prime minister as a result of this
string of sort of disasters um has been
that the next prime minister will be
decided by what 150,000 members of the
Conservative
um party membership. Now, they're
they're in a sense the equivalent of the
Labor Party membership. They're they
don't represent
smaller,
a little bit smaller. Um but there again
there is a split between what the party
um in parliament thinks and what the
membership thinks. And we have two
candidates. Um and if you voted leave,
you've got if say you voted leave
because you're worried about
immigration, you've got a choice of the
home secretary who was in charge of
cutting immigration from 300,000 to tens
of thousands and didn't do it. If you
voted leave because you're angry about
global capitalism, you've got a woman
who was funded by a hedge fund. She
worked in the banking industry. That'll
that'll really help all those left
behind around the country to help hedge
fund managers based in Gernzi.
What choice is that?
Charuction
or not? I
I I think not necessarily immediately.
The reason why not necessarily
immediately, I think once
Labour might lose.
No, I'm I'm sure Labour would win
handsomely. Uh the reason I think you
need to
That's why you resigned from the shadow
cabinet.
[Applause]
I think there are ways that one might
win more handsomely. As far as as far as
the general election is concerned, I
think before we have a general election,
we need to know what it is that the new
prime minister's stance is going to be
with Europe. So, we have something to
vote on. It's not just is it Theresa May
or Andrea Ledum, it's also what is the
pitch this person is going to take when
it comes to negotiating with the
European Union. Because going back to
the previous question, we do need now to
set about working out how we are going
to leave the European Union and what the
terms are if a new prime minister is
going to discharge the most pressing
responsibility on a prime minister now.
that is to work out what our strategy is
to leave the European Union and ask the
people whether they agree with it but
only once that strategy is ready.
So is you don't start negotiating but
you prepare a strategy and then go to
the country. If you prepare a strategy,
I think preparing
everybody knows your negotiating
position and then you go to
Yeah, you've got to have a negotiating
position and you've also
without without article 50
without article 50 in my view and also
first of all asking the European Union
uh capitals what they would be what
could be deliverable.
Okay. The the the woman there in the
third row from the back and then I come
to somebody else. Yeah. Oh, and with
talks of an early general election, I
just urge you to let 16 and 17 year olds
vote. Um, my peers and I showed that we
had a really healthy appetite for
political engagement in the EU
referendum. Yet, you chose to quite
blatantly ignore our view and we
therefore saw a result that is not
representative of my age group. And I
think it's now time the government lets
us vote and that's an opinion on our
future.
Thanks for the point. The men in the
third row here. I believe most people
alive in this world are outside of the
EU and there's a wider world um outside
of the EU and Britain.
[Music]
I think there's so many more
opportunities to target um markets in
China, in America, North America. And I
don't see why the the fairongering from
the remain side should continue. They
should just stop and let's move on.
Tom, let's come back to the the question
about a general election. Should there
be one once the Conservative Party
membership has elected a new leader on
September?
Following your example, I'm just going
to answer that gentleman say I agree
with it.
Suits you now.
Well, I agree with him. Look,
picking up the whole thing very well.
Getting very quickly,
I'm learning from
ignore the chairman. Just carry on.
The the reality is there is a wider
world out there. It isn't the decision I
would have made for a whole series of
reasons, but this is not the end of the
world by any means.
And shouldn't there be a general
election party has a new leader?
You're going to let me finish on.
No, no, because I think you've said that
before. But we've
you said it all before.
We've if you if you let me start then
that would at least get us somewhere
there.
We've got we've got an extraordinary
opportunity now. And the opportunity is
based on the manifesto that those of us
who stood in the election were elected
only about a year ago are going to
implement. It's a it's a conservative
manifesto for a conservative leader to
deliver. But I agree with Charlie. I
agree that actually we've got to go some
way down this negotiating road before we
go to an election again. And the reason
I say that is not for any other reason
that the country needs stability now. We
really need to have a little bit of
stability for businesses to know what
we're doing so that they can set up and
start employing again, start to get
foreign investment again, start to start
again. Because once we've got that
going, once we've got a negotiating
strategy ready and once we know what the
question is that we're actually asking
the British people to choose between,
then it's absolutely right that the
British people should have that choice.
Now, whether that choice comes in a
general election or whether it comes in
a separate referendum
or another another referendum,
I would much prefer a general election.
I would prefer it to be a government
position put forward in a general
election
before before the whole deal is done,
signed and sealed. Okay. Stubbornton.
I think part of the problem with Tom's
argument is that that implies the
country is in a good place at the moment
and it absolutely isn't. We've had real
problems before the referendum was
called, but particularly since and yes,
the country does need stability. Whilst
we are negotiating, it's going to be a
real problem. In terms of should we have
a second general election quickly, that
will absolutely be up to the next prime
minister to call, even though we have
legislation to make it harder for them
to achieve that. Yes, they will need a
mandate because there are many many
people who did not vote remain who will
want to know uh exactly what direction
the government's going in. But most
importantly, the government needs to
actually understand uh what it's
offering Europe when as it starts the
negotiations. Can I ask the question
about 16 and 17 year olds?
No, because I want No, no, that's
another question and we've only got five
minutes left. I want to get a question
about the Labour Party before we end.
But George Galloway on the general
election briefly and then we'll come to
the Labor Party. We need a general
election now. We are going to have in a
couple of months either John Major in
address or Janet Brown channeling
Margaret Thatcher and that's not
acceptable. Chosen by 150,000 members of
the Conservative Party. I said this when
Gordon Brown foolishly didn't go to the
country in a general election uh in
2008. I I demanded a general election
then and I even said it when James
Caligan took over from Harold Wilson. So
I'm not contradicting any previous uh
positions on this. The country is a new
country now after the Brexit vote. It
wasn't in your manifesto. It couldn't
have been because you didn't know we
were going to even have a referendum.
You didn't even want one. It was only
that the Liberals only that the Liberals
was in included the need. But you didn't
want to implement it. You hope the
Liberals platform specifically war.
Let's not fight that battle. Let's not
fight that battle. And we have only
in October. That's what I say.
And let's hear from Kevin.
And let's let's hear from from Kevin
from Kevin Cook, please.
Is the Labour Party in terminal decline?
Charles Forner.
No, it's not in terminal decline. There
is plainly.
There is plain
Why do you all laugh every time he says
this? Best joke of the evening.
It's not in there.
Sorry. Uh it's not in terminal decline.
There is plainly a very significant
division between the parliamentary Labor
Party on the one hand and the leadership
of the Labor Party on the other. I
joined the shadow cabinet uh when Jeremy
became leader of the Labor Party because
I was absolutely determined to make what
contribution I could to the unity of the
Labour Party. uh after the Brexit vote
when things very dramatically changed in
this country, I took the view that we
needed somebody who had an exceptional
leader to deal with exceptional times.
And although Jeremy has had a
fundamentally changing and beneficial
effect on the Labour Party, I don't
think he was the person for the times.
That's why I resigned. It doesn't mean
that we can't
reunify that is between the leadership
and the parliamentary labor party either
because agreement can be reached between
us or alternatively that can't happen by
a leadership election but the Labor
Party is most certainly not in terminal
decline because there will always need
to be a center-left alternative.
It could be someone else. But Sal
Brenton, are you hearing, as some people
think you might be hearing, uh,
suggestions from people who are
disaffected with Jeremy Corbyn, thinking
they might realign themselves with the
Liberal Democrats, or is that too psy a
question for you? You have to say yes.
Um, I I will quite happily say that
we've had some people from the Labour
Party who've joined us over the last few
weeks. Um, we're certainly talking to an
enormous number of people who want a
real progressive, open, and uh, very
tolerant center party of the future and
uh, if more people continue to join us,
we're delighted to be the flag head for
that.
Do you think there's a moment for a
realignment of parties to the left of
the Conservative Party?
I think there absolutely is. And I think
part of the problem I mean I' I've never
heard of somebody who's managed to
defend both Tony Blair and Jeremy Corbyn
uh, at the same time. Well done,
Charlie. It's a it's a he absolutely a
lawyer and it shows
but I think and labor
what I think what we are hearing is that
labor is not unified. It is absolutely
deeply split and there are many many
people in Labor who are unhappy. Um what
politics has been missing for some time
has been that voice that has been able
to speak up for the progressive things
that we want the proportional
representation that the lady spoke about
at the back so that everyone feels they
get a fair vote and they can can
actually go out and do that. They feel
that their MP means something to them.
All right, fair enough. Um, thank you.
Um, George Galloway,
Charlie, there are many ways of
describing uh, Angela Eagle, but an
exceptional leader she is not. They have
got an exceptional leader. Far from
being in terminal decline, Labor now has
600,000
members, the biggest membership since
the end of the Second World War. and
200,000 of those joined in the last 10
days. Jeremy Corbyn can fill halls up
and down this country. Hundreds of
thousands of people are joining the
Labor Party. And if people like Charlie
don't like it, why don't they clear off
and join the Liberal Democrat?
I'm not from the Labor Party. I'm not
joining the Liberal Democrats. And I'm
determined to stay in a Labor party that
can
stop stabbing the leader that was
elected just 9 months ago.
But he doesn't he doesn't he doesn't
left the Labour party. I didn't respect.
You were throwing.
I didn't I was expelled by Tony Blair
who never came back.
And and and Jeremy Corbin doesn't seem
very keen on you either. I thought the
tactics that you used against Naz Sha
were appalling. I'm quite shocked.
That's what he said.
Don't believe what you read in the New
Statesman written by him. Well, why not?
Except it wasn't written by him.
And he put his name to it. You know, the
conventions.
Oh, he didn't even put his name.
No, he didn't. Okay.
Being attacked in the New Statesman's
like being slandered in an empty room.
Well, again, George's reputation for
that. I can't I can't go there.
Labor is Labor in terminal decline.
Um, it's it's in a really serious
problem. I mean, the the parliamentary
party hates um the leadership. The
leadership says it's not going anywhere.
Jeremy Corbyn appears to be taken
hostage in a small room somewhere with a
group of carers um who are literally
saying things like, "Leave him alone. We
can't let people talk to him. They'll
bully him. He's 70."
Well, then don't be leader. What this
country needs, and it's really pathetic
at the moment, we don't have a
government. We don't have an opposition.
We need both. That's what I call
democracy.
Okay, Tom.
I'm very proud to be a conservative
politician. Of course I am, to stand on
a platform that I think is going to
change the life chances of so many. But
I also am more proud to be British. And
British democracy relies on a government
and an opposition. And sadly at the
moment we don't have an opposition that
is making the cases that need to be
made. And that isn't good for us. It's
not good for parliament. And most
importantly, it's not good for our
country.
Okay. I take a break from you, sir. And
I think we almost have to close. You had
both hands up, so I'm calling you.
Yeah. Maybe Labour needs a new uh
leader, and it should be George Galloway
in a cat suit.
[Applause]
All right. I think
he's he's up for it. All right. And a
point from the woman there.
Yes. Very brief. If you
I don't think there's any point in
having a general election because what
will happen is Murdoch will decide who
rules this country next. and nobody
else.
I would have to do what he says.
No, you can take private eyes view
instead.
Quite much much more reliable. We
we I'm sorry. We have we have to end um
we have to end the program here. It's
also the end of um this run of question
time tonight officially. We're going to
be back on the Thursday the 15th of
September in Salsbury and on the 22nd of
September in Wakefield. and the usual
arrangement just go to our website
there's the address there or call
0301239988
if you'd like to come now events may of
course um mean we come back earlier I
don't know what kind of events but
possibly the Tory leadership uh campaign
and if that happens we'll be announcing
that on our website on Twitter and on
our face page uh Facebook page so uh I
hope that all makes sense um radio 5
Live the debate goes on on question
time, extra time. I'd just like to thank
our panel here and all of you who came
to Brighton to take part and say that
until we meet again from question time,
good night.
As developments in British politics
continue following the EU referendum,
there's discussion and analysis on what
happens next with Andrew Mah. Sunday
morning at 9 on BBC1. Next tonight,
comedian Ahmed Janelli with Andrew Neil
on the subject of people power.