In-depth investigation and analysis of the stories behind the day's headlines with Evan Davis. With an exclusive RBS investigation and reaction to the US presidential debate.
Browse content similar to 10/10/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!
Or a Rotten Bank for Small businesses?
Damning new evidence that RBS penalised distressed firms
to make money for itself, ignored warnings of potential
conflicts of interest, and mistreated healthy businesses.
But there's nothing worse when you know that you're - it sounds really
arrogant - you know you're good at what you do. This was, this was 35
years of my life and I knew I'd got it right.
We'll hear what the bank did, and what we should do in return.
Also tonight, we are leaving the EU partly to restore power
So should our Parliament not be allowed some say
It's a new a battle in the Brexit war.
It's not been a good week for clowns.
Donald Trump has had his troubles too - but did the debate
If I win, I am going to instruct my Attorney-General to get a special
prosecutor to look into your situation, because there has never
been so many lies, so much deception. There has never been
anything like it. To my mind, she's wrong about
everything, but she's wrong within the normal parameters of wrong. It's
the kind of wrong we've had before. It's a wrong we can endure. With
him, who knows. You don't need to get bogged down
in the details of the RBS story. RBS lent money to
lots of businesses. Some of them had problems -
maybe minor, maybe But then a cash-strapped RBS decided
to use business distress It would pretend it was there
to help the firms, put them into special measures
in its supportive turnaround And then, in some cases,
it fleeced them, tipping RBS even appeared willing to force
perfectly sound companies Now these allegations are not new,
but Newsnight and Buzzfeed have obtained a cache of interesting
documents the bank did not want Andrew Verity has
been through them. It has been another extraordinary
day of fast moving developments for Britain's financial world, so with
an economy eatering on the edge of recession and a squeeze on other
Government spending, where is all the money coming from?
2008, overborrowed, overlent and bailed out, RBS was under pressure
from its shock new owner, the Government, to get bad debts off the
books and boost its depleted cash. A fair goal, perhaps, but it was
accused of using foul means to achieve it, looking for ways to trip
up business customers so it could drain them of cash and get their
assets on the cheap, for a disregard for the owners who created them. RBS
furiously denied it. Now there's evidence these highly sensitive RBS
documents were leaked by a whistle-blower prompting an
investigation by Buzzfeed news and BBC Newsnight. They contain secret
information and internal e Mails, showing that while one part of the
bank was claiming to help business customers, another part of the bank
was collaborating with it, looking to buy up customers' property when
they got in trouble and extract maximum economic value. I'm sorry.
What I've always held onto is that I - I know what I'm doing. In what one
e-mail described as a dash for cash, RBS commercial bank staff could
boost their bonuses by scouring their loan books for defaulting
customers. Even if they'd never missed a payment, the bank had ways
of finding them in default. Imagine your mortgage lender telling you
it's revalued your property, the price has dropped and it's now worth
too little compared to your loan. Even though you may never have
missed a payment, it wants its mortgage money back. Then later you
find out that all along it had a property division that wanted to buy
your property for a gain. That wouldn't happen with residential
mortgages, they're regulated. But it's very much like what happened to
many business customers. This was the old back of the shop... Andy
Gibbs aan entrepreneur and architect. He made his dream real,
designing and building a thriving hub for creative companies. A lot of
my work is giving a hand rail to the past... In May 2008 RBS mis-sold him
a financial product, supposed to protect against rising interest
rates. When rates fell, it started draining cash from the business. The
bank's response to his business trouble was to put it in what it
says ways turn around division, the global restructuring group, GRG.
Then he was told the property had been revalued. It was now worth too
little compared to the loan. Tell us about the fees and interest rates.
At one stage, I found out that they'd cancelled my professional
indemnity insurance premium, which I have to have and could have damaged
me professionally. Foreignly I manage -- fortunately, I imagined to
sort that without a gap of time. They cancelled small Energy Bills,
the smallest one something like 6. ?6.53. It was all the time taking
away, taking away the control of what I had which was a beautiful and
energetic business really. Andy was warned he may have to sell assets or
go into insolvency. He raised more than ?500,000 selling the family
homement That money was swallowed up by GRG and it didn't change any
course of action whatsoever for a ten month period. So ?500,000 was
wasted? ?537,000 completely wasted and the family home gone. GRG wrote
demanding repayment of its loan. They continued to support his
business if they sold a stake in the business to West Register, the
bank's property company. He decloind and within days the bank called in
the receivers. He and his staff were thrown out. Andy lost his business,
then his health and then his marriage. I'd had a breakdown. At
one point, I'd lost four-and-a-half stone in hospital. I didn't actually
know when I was going to get out of hospital. What, for you, was the GRG
treatment? Sorry... Oh, God. Sorry. What I've always held onto is that I
erm...... I'm a good... I know what I'm doing. RBS says it's winding
down GRG but agreed business customers are now clubbing together
to try and sue the bank. I've spoken to a lot of people and I've heard a
lot of stories and I can hear within them a great repetition of the same
kinds of activities and actions. These are very unsavoury. These are
not the behaviour of a normal banking process to deal with
customers in stress. These appear to be the activities of an organisation
trying to acquire the assets of people who otherwise seem to have a
perfectly solid business. The bank's claimed for years GRG was an
intensive care unit to help stricken businesses recover. The documents
show that you didn't even have to be distressed. Falling out with the
bank or just wanting to leave and bank elsewhere, could mean a
referral to GRG. I've not seen one case where the evidence points to
the fact that they were artificially distressed to transfer to GRG. It
wasn't true. Just because of a break down in relationship with the bank.
No, there are a range of factors that point to financial distress. In
one e-mail they discuss provoking a default event for a customer. All
businesses that were transferred to GRG were in financial difficulty.
That's contradicted by an e-mail I have here. Would you look at it? It
might enlighten you to your bank's practises. It says they could
provoke a default event. This is in relation to GRG customer, provoke a
default event. Doesn't that suggest that GRG was engineering defaults?
No, look, I've spent two-and-a-half years looking at all the cases in
terms of GRG - You don't seem to want to look at this. I know what
your document says. You've seen the e-mail? I'm clear - Doesn't that
bother you. If you let me finish my answer, I'm really clear in all the
evidence I've seen over two-and-a-half years, looking at
millions of documents, there was no artificial distressing of businesses
to put them to GRG. Alison Loveday a litigation lawyer says RBS goes to
great lengths to stifle customers claims of wrongdoing. They were a
necessary evil, that's how the bank saw it. They knew most business
owners wouldn't have the mental resilience or the finance to be able
to challenge them and they were typically acting aloan, so it took a
long time for people to realise they weren't the only ones treated like
that. Why would the bank behave this way? Well, it could charge customers
in its turn around division much higher interest and fees, much of
the debt could be written off with a taxpayer supported the bank.
Crucially, capital, held against the risk that the loan went bad, could
be released, because it already had gone bad. Then there was what the
bank called its upside. If it could take a stake in the business or some
of its property, when the market bounced back, there should be big
gains. The Financial Conduct Authority ordered a report by two
firms of consultants checking out the allegations of mistreatment.
Nearly three years later, it's completed and with the FCA. The
regulator won't say when it will be published.
With me now is Andy Keats, a former RBS customer, who,
like Andi in the film, has had problems with the bank.
Also here is Sir Vince Cable, former Business Secretary,
with responsibility for overseeing the regulation of
Can I start with you, you represent many of the victims of what we've
seen described there, the SME alliances, you're involved with
that. How many of the businesses that were dragged into this GRG
group, how many were fundamentally bad businesses, had got into trouble
or needed help? As you say, I deal with hundreds, we support and
investigate hundreds of businesses and I'm one of those businesses
myself. It really annoys me actually to hear RBS saying what they've just
said that - They say no-one was made a distressed business that wasn't a
distressed business. I can tell you categorically that I've dealt with
literally tens of businesses myself, investigated them and found that
they were honest, proper businesses, properly run, with no defaults, no
distress and they were put into GRG just like me. Your case is an
interesting one. You weren't put into GRG... I was put into the
intensive care exposure committee and I didn't even realise for five
years that I was in it. You say that's because you were selling your
business and it was going to move the account to Barclays. Then they
started cutting up rough basically. We told them we were moving to
Barclays and four weeks later we had our merchant account terminated with
30 days' notice. They said that we were financially distressed. We were
moving to Barclays. Why would they say that? 14 days before that, we'd
had an offer for the purchase of the business, after four months of due
diligence. What was going on? You lost that offer and you lost the
move to Barclays because Barclays said, hang on, RBS has found
something dodgy here. Exactly. Then this has got caught up into your
personal life as opposed to your business life because now, they're
trying to repossess your house. What they did in the business, they then
took all my money. So they retained all of my business money until we
went bust. After we went bust, I unfortunately had a mortgage with
RBS and said to them, what do you want me to do, do you want me to
sell. They said no, they didn't want that. Wait until later
down-the-line. We entered into more borrowing facilities on the basis
that I was a good customer. We have so little time. Basically it ended
up with them saying, we're claiming money back from you and we need to
repossess the house. They said I was in arrears of ?50,000 when I was in
borrowing facilities. They've obviously been playing quite a rough
game with a lot of small businesses. What do you see today that you
didn't know when you were Business Secretary? Well, I discovered,
partly through lots of individual cases, but partly as a result of a
report that was done by somebody called Lawrence Tom Lynnson, who I
appointed. He collected case material which was exactly the kind
you've just heard and is corroborated in your report. The
problem we had was that there wasn't a smoking gun. There were a lot of
people who had been shot but we couldn't see the evidence within the
bank itself. I asked the bank to investigate this properly. They
called in Clifford Chance, who as far as I know, did a fairly
professional job, that they didn't have access to the material you've
now got. Crucially, I asked the regulator, the Financial Conduct
Authority, to do a proper investigation. They should have
published last year, but they haven't. It's worse than that
because I think they started the report back in the third quarter,
the end of 2013. And they said it would be ready in the third quarter
of 2014. I think we're now in the third quarter of 2016. What is going
on? Well, the conspiracy theories or just inefficiency, I don't know.
What would the conspiracy theory be? That they're covering tracks from -
Why would they cover the tracks of RBS? I don't know. From my point of
view, I was the minister who asked them to investigate. I'm very, very
disappointed that they haven't published it. Why they haven't
published it I don't know. Looking at the documents that we've got,
they lock a smoking gun because they are the conversations going on
internally. That's what we lacked before. There were a lot of people
damaged, there was circumstantial evidence that the bank were
profiting from these activities. But the other people would looked at it
have hitherto said well there's bad practice, but there's no evidence
it's been done systematically. Now this evidence you've acquired,
suggests that it may well have been. It is possible, the bank would say,
we are just people who are not understanding the game they are in,
they are trying to retrieve money for a taxpayer, incidentally, and
businesses who are in trouble are probably making the money in fees
and interest rates but are losing money on the fact they are writing
off chunks of their loan, and they are entitled to say they are going
to play hardball and by going to get everything they can? We are talking
about events in the aftermath of the financial crisis, there is a long
time lag, you are right, they are acting in the interests of the
taxpayer and even if they are found at fault, they will be fine, with
the taxpayer taking the fine, ludicrous situation. The fact is
many thousand companies will have been affected and many people will
have been ruined, marriages and mental health will have been
affected, and when it has happened on this scale, we cannot let this
matter drop. Thanks for joining us. Who in Britain should decide
what Brexit looks like? The Government is clear,
and it reiterated its position again today in a statement to the Commons:
it has to negotiate withdrawal and it has to decide
what we negotiate. It says the mandate for Britain
to leave the European Union is It also says it doesn't want any
kind of obstruction from So get out the way, leave the three
Brexiteers and Theresa May to it. But there is another view,
which is that Parliament should have the say on what kind
of deal we aim for. Now it is mostly Remainers who want
that, but not exclusively. This Conservative MP voted to Leave
and trenchantly made Nearly half of those who voted
wanted no substantive change at all in the relationship
between this country Their voices, although they did not
chime with my own, appear entirely to have been forgotten
in the rhetoric of hard Brexit which has somehow become
received wisdom on the part The government has
no mandate for that. You cannot extrapolate
from the result of the referendum the specific terms upon
which the majority of those in this country wish their relations
with the European Union And that can only be done by seeking
a mandate from this House to which the citizens of this
country return honourable members Our political editor,
Nick Watt, is with me. Are the government going to stick to
this? Very much. That in passionate plea from Stephen Phillips was
rebuffed by the speaker on the grounds that the Labour Party is
having a debate on this matter on Wednesday, so let them get on with
it. Some people were taken by Stephen Phillips who say maybe that
is a better option, if he had got his way he would have knocked out
the Labour debate and there would have just been a vote on a
generalised motion instead. But now with the Labour debate we have a
vote afterwards on a specific motion which is likely to call on the
government to seek the consent of MPs in Parliament regarding its
Brexit negotiations and there are some Labour MPs and a small number
of Conservative MPs who said they will maybe defeat the government and
that will not use David Davis who had ruled out a vote in parliament
on those Article 50 negotiations. It is a non-binding vote on Wednesday.
Yes. In terms of the substance of the negotiations, anything we didn't
know? David Davis said he would update MPs, and to days word he
covered a large piece, you play down the significance of the fall in
sterling and he gave a strong indication that in his mind UK would
not remain a member of the single market and it would not remain a
member of the customs union, but eyebrows were raised when he had a
pop at the French president Francois Hollande and Angela Merkel, remember
last week Francois Hollande said the UK would have to pay a price for
leaving to discourage others and Angela Merkel said if the UK wanted
to remain in the single market outside the EU it would have to
accept free movement of people. This is what he said in his exchange with
Crispin Blunt about Francois Hollande.
What plans does he have to publicly to publicly ennumerate
the implications of there being no deal at the end of two
What I will say to him at this point, is that...
If the European Union adheres to a punishment plan and it fails,
as I believe it would, then that's an even bigger
incentive to countries that want to leave, than a punishment
One senior Whitehall source said that by taking on Europe's two most
powerful leaders, David Davis was displaying what this person said was
an unhelpful swagger. Thank you. Joining me now is the Shadow Foreign
Secretary, Emily Thornberry, and Bernard Jenkin, Conservative MP
who was one of the leading He also chairs the Commons Public
Administration Committee. How would the House of Commons
express a view on a complex multidimensional negotiation? What
form would that take? It has a commons is not very good at voting
for complex things, it is very binary -- the House of Commons. I
understand that, but we're getting no information from the government
about how it is they are going to negotiate Brexit. We start on the
basis that we have instructions on the British people that they want to
leave and we want to do our job properly and we want to leave in the
best interests of the British people. I don't think this is right.
That the Tories have a mandate to go into a locked room and fight it out
amongst themselves and then decide which way they are going to leave
Europe, it is the future of my children and my grandchildren at
stake, the future of the economy and we think the government should come
to Parliament and put forward a plan. A plan before they negotiate?
Yes. They say they are paying their cards close to their chest because
it could undermine their position, but we know they have a load of
different ideas for stop what Philip Hammond things is different to what
Theresa May things and is different to what Liam Fox things, so on what
basis are we going to Europe? And different to what Bernard Jenkin
thinks. I'm sure it is. What is the mandate for the government taking
this ahead and doing it? The biggest ever vote cast for any single
proposition in this country ever, that is the mandate, to leave the
EU. The Leave campaign was very clear that leaving the EU meant
leaving the single market and the Remain campaign said if you vote to
leave we will have to leave the single market, so I don't see why
there is any argument about this now. What you are relying on is
Michael Gove, on one television programme saying he was... Saying we
would have to leave the single market. During the Brexit vote,
there was no, it was not clear what the options were, yes, we were going
to leave, but there are different ways of leaving the European Union,
and those options were not made clear. If you are lying on Michael
Gove, remember he is the man whose wife said you are only supposed to
blow the doors. He was not even serious in terms of leaving. It is
an important point, we are holding the Leave campaign to its promises
because they are not giving us 350 in pounds a week for the NHS. -- 300
?50 million. Norway is not in the European Union, so that is
compatible, if we adopt their model, that would be compatible with the
vote? On the question of accountability. Just answer the
question. It would be compatible with what the public voted for?
Except the Leave campaign said the Norway option would not be our
choice and we made that clear, and the Remain campaign said it would be
the worst option of all possible worlds, so who was advocating for
the Norway option? Nobody. The Swiss model is compatible with what the
public voted for, and the Canadian model is compatible. All of these
models are compatible. If I can just make my point. If I could make one
point about accountability, in the introduction to this discussion, it
was pointed at their is a debate on Wednesday and there will be a vote.
You could have put down a vote about what kind of Brexit you want, but
you are not doing that, you are having a family row about procedure.
It is not a family row. -- phoney. Your party is more divided than we
were about Brexit. You guys are in government, you have a new leader
who is taking a new direction and she did not even stand for
leadership herself, she has no manifesto, she has no mandate. It is
not clear on what basis you are leaving and it is right for us as
the opposition to hold you to account, excuse me. We are saying,
tell us what your plan is, we want to have a debate, the British people
need to know. You owe it to them. At the moment the government is
developing a plan, and when they have a fully fledged band I've no
doubt it will be tabled. -- fully fledged plan. The idea is that
Parliament will not have a say on that plan. That is not the case,
there will be a second reading of the vote in May or June on the
repeal Bill. That is not the same point. By that stage you will have
triggered Brexit. We need to have it before you triggered Brexit. They
are a motion. We need to know on the basis on which you are going into
those negotiations, you have two years after triggering Brexit and we
want to know the basis on which you are doing it. What is the plan on
migration and the continuing relationship with Europe. The single
market. I can answer those questions. The Prime Minister made
clear in her speech two weeks ago that what migration policy we have
as a country after we leave is a matter for the British Parliament,
that is a separate matter from taking back control over migration
which is not negotiable, end of story. What you think the majority
view in would be? -- what do. If you take the spectrum of options, exit
options, where would the majority be? The majority in parliament and
in the country, I think whether they voted to remain or to leave, did not
vote to take someone else's job away, did not vote to undermine the
economy, that is the priority. Where do you think the majority in
parliament would be? When it becomes clearer what the government is
proposing, that is the only practical way forward, and when
people understand that there isn't this Armageddon black hole in front
of the country, because we are leaving the European Union, the
House of Commons will support the position of the government, that is
what I think. What ever they come up with they will support. And if they
welcome you when put it to a vote, anyway. There are lots of votes. --
and if they won't come at you when put it to a vote, anyway. We will
come back to this. It is a procedural point, she's arguing. It
is about substance. Or a debasement of American
democracy? Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump had
a messy 90-minute encounter, And if you thought it might be
the end of Trump, you were wrong. Mark Urban has been looking
at what we learned. Donald Trump went into the second
debate after a wretched weekend, where he is demeaning comments about
women resulted a one poll putting Hillary Clinton 14 points ahead. She
sought to capitalise on her advantage. I said starting back in
June that he was not fit to be president and commander-in-chief and
many Republicans and independents have said the same thing. What we
all saw and heard on Friday was Donald talking about women, what he
thinks about women, what he does to women, and he has said that the
video doesn't represent who he is. But I think it is clear to anyone
who heard it that it represents exactly who he is. With Republican
party bigwigs melting away, and facing widespread condemnation,
Donald Trump went on to the offensive, fighting on multiple
fronts, first off, his attitude to women. He called out Bill Clinton
for alleged sexual assaults but also attempted deflection, than Bastin
Hillary Clinton for breaching of secrecy laws with her private
e-mails -- than Bastin. And covering up afterwards. I did not think I
would say this, but I'm going to say this and I hate to say it, but if I
went, I am going to instruct my Attorney General to get a special
prosecutor to look into your situation, because there has never
been so many lies, so much deception, there has never been
anything like it, we're going to have a special prosecutor. In this
90 minute onslaught Donald Trump interrupted her or the moderator 27
times, she interrupted just three times. And at moments she was on the
ropes. Nobody wants dizzy Hillary Clinton thrown into a, but they do
want to see her held accountable for the e-mails and the foundation and
it is the reason why Trump has done so well in this campaign, voters
think that he is the only one that would actually hold Washington
accountable. As the debate moved past its first half-hour, it allowed
Trump to allow a second perceived weakness on policy substance where
he tried to make the running on health care tax and foreign affairs.
But he ran into problems here, as well, disavowing remarks on Syria by
his own vice president shall running mate. He and I haven't spoken and I
disagree. You disagree with your running mate? Right now Syria is
fighting ices and we have people that want to fight both at the
signed time. -- Isis. The sensor disarray means he hasn't done enough
to reassure the party grandees who now wonder if they should let him
hang out to dry. I'm not sure if they would publicly abandon him,
that would probably impact the down ticket just as badly so they are
trying to figure out the way they can triage the situation. As the
house bigger told its members, it is important to find out what is
important in your district. He is not going to defend Donald Trump,
but they do not think abandoning the nominee is going to get Republicans
to the polls. Here Trump has shown contempt for
the GOP elite, may delight his base but it could hurt him on polling
day. I definitely think it hurts him. There's no question about it.
He needs to have as many people supporting him as possible. The
truth is Donald Trump is never really been a Republican in my view.
He's an independent. He's always really been an independent. After
nearly 90 minutes of slugging it out. They were asked to name one
thing they admired about the other. Hillary went first. Iery inspect his
children -- I respect his children. His children are incredibly able and
devoted and I think that says a lot about don oold. That hit Trump where
it hurts, with his lamentable attempts to improve his image with
women, where after the last few days, he has further to go than
ever. I don't believe he will have improved among women. His apology
wasn't well received. The comments that he made really bothered women
in particular. And frankly, in that debate, Hillary Clinton has run as a
champion of women. That's going to do well for her. What I do see
happening is that Trump continues to improve among men. You've got the
biggest gender gap in the history of American politics. Good night
everyone. The debate hardly revived Trump's fortune, but it did
supporters argue, show his refusal to buckle under pressure.
Well, this is clearly no ordinary election and Mr Trump does
not have the support of many natural Republicans.
He's in the UK at the moment, speaking at an Intelligence Squared
He has declared his support for Hillary -
I spoke to him earlier today, so does he think Donald Trump's
I would say yes, but I've been absolutely wrong
And so I think I may hex it if I just said yes.
Before this latest revelation of the inner Trump.
He was already slipping in the polls.
Now the thing to keep one's fingers across is, Hillary has
the electoral maths on her side, and yet she remains dependent
on groups of voters who are famous for not voting.
So, will she be able to get them out?
Of course, he's doing everything he can to help.
So my guess is, yes, I don't think his campaign is viable.
What portion of good college educated, professional
Generally speaking when pressed they will say, well,
he was my 18th choice for Republican candidate.
An office like the Presidency of the United States has to have
It is to the point for me, simply, that I would rather have
someone whose judgment I don't think greatly of and whose character
To my mind she is wrong about everything, but she is
wrong within the normal parameters of wrong.
It's a kind of wrong we've had before.
And I think a phenomenal like Trump is part of an underlying frustration
That has shown itself in all sorts of populist outbreaks
Trump, a rather comic version of that.
And if you want truly tragic, Vladimir Putin, too, is a populist.
And Brexit is a sort of example of it.
So is the rejection by the Colombians
So, you know, to what extent it is a comfort
What do you think of the Republican establishment?
Is there anything they could have done to stop him?
And a lot of them lined up to endorse him but were then
apparently shocked at this tape of sexual predatorship.
Did you find anything surprising in that tape?
Did you get a new insight into the real character
To be perfectly fair to Donald Trump, it was a weak field.
It may have looked good from afar but in point of fact
each of the candidates turned out to be lukewarm.
Dividing up the good sense vote, and leaving the poor sense vote
Then, not universally, but they lined up pretty quickly
to endorse him and then did Rick from Casablanca.
That this man should say those things.
Do you think impartial broadcasters and impartial newspapers should try
and cover this election in the way they would normally cover
an election between two candidates?
I think we just have to endeavour to do our best,
to find the best obtainable version of the truth.
To keep a straight face through some of this,
Would you use the phrase American politics is broken?
It's always had difficulties, hasn't it?
Are we in a particularly silly moment?
And is there danger in that silliness?
All of the above, yes. But, you know, democracy is always
It's a scary way to govern ourselves.
And the scariest part of it all of course being the famous
Churchill quote," it's worse than everything except everything
So, don't want to fall off that tightrope.
Now, you may have been following the rather worrying spate of people
dressed as knife-wielding clowns, terrifying unsuspecting punters
here's and abroad. The traditional view of the happy or at least sad
clown seems to have been consigned to history's rubbish bin. We've
tried to pin point the exact moment when clowns became irredeemably
scary for this generation. Our best guess is this: From the adaptation
of Stephen King's It from 1990. If you're afraid of clowns, look away
now. Good night. Come on up Richie. I've got a balloon for you. Don't
you want a balloon? What's the matter, one balloon not enough? Try
a bunch! LAUGHTER
Presented by Evan Davis.
With an exclusive RBS investigation, reaction to the US presidential debate, and a PJ O'Rourke interview. Plus, should parliament vote on Brexit?