07/07/2016 Question Time

Chilcot, 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 and former Army officer who served alongside

the Royal Marines in Iraq, Tom Tugendhat.

The President of the Liberal Democrats, Sal Brinton.

The former Respect Party MP, George Galloway,

and the editor of Private Eye, Ian Hislop.

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 Tugendhat.

Yes. Unquestionably, we're better off without...

APPLAUSE

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 ability to create a strategy for the United Kingdom

that would serve not only our people

but our interests overseas, was woeful.

And so 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?

OK.

George Galloway.

Not on a cost-benefit 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 7/7 -

if you just begin to add up the cost,

then the answer has to be, no.

Of course it would be good to see...

APPLAUSE

..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.

Imagine a mountain of one 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 Chilcot report.

I'll tell you this -

Sir John Chilcot, if he hadn't already been knighted by Tony Blair,

would definitely deserve one,

because he recovered some national honour for us

-with his report yesterday.

-OK.

Charles Falconer.

Yes, we are better off with Saddam Hussein gone.

But 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.

Do 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...

APPLAUSE

By what Chilcot says.

But can I just say one thing?

I don't accept that all the deaths and the conflagrations

in the Middle East have been caused by the invasion in 2003.

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 sources to that

and we've got to be careful not to blame everything

that's happened in the Middle East on the invasion.

Let's just hear from some members of the audience. You in the front.

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 Saddam Hussein,

and then people again are just seeing war as the only option

where there are so many other options?

Kind of intervening. And then, again,

-it's in the response to intervene with war...

-Ian Hislop.

-We'll keep with this.

-..and then we're ending up

with all these immigrants that people are then critiquing,

when it's our fault that they're running away

from their own homeland.

-Ian Hislop.

-I'm just interested in the defence of hindsight,

which has been offered by Blair and Alastair Campbell this week,

and now here again. Why do you need hindsight?

In 2003 - I was looking back at Private Eye's coverage.

I mean, we got it right, George got it right,

a million people marching past Parliament got it right.

APPLAUSE

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, you know, the Snatch Rovers didn't work properly -

every single bit of what was going to happen was relayed,

including the legal position, which you were in the Cabinet...

-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?

It was for the Attorney General to decide.

-I agree with the advice that he gave.

-What, on both occasions?

Which advice? He gave two advice.

The one that the better view was that it was lawful.

Is that written down anywhere?

That is written down, yes, in a Parliamentary answer

-he gave on 17 March.

-Well, he gave one...

I know you can get a lawyer to give any answer you pay for.

-LAUGHTER

-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, or 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 Chilcot has just found that we undermined 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.

OK, we'll come back to you. You, sir, there, in the fifth row.

APPLAUSE

Yes.

Can I just ask, if you all agree that it was wrong,

don't you think then today that Tony Blair and Bush

should stand trial for what they've done?

Hold on, I wanted to get... Yeah, we'll come to that.

I wanted to go to the man in the - one, two, three, four, five -

fifth row, I said, that man there. Yes, please.

-Fire away.

-I wonder why the whole world was quiet

when Saddam Hussein, 1980s, used chemical weapons

against Kurdish people, his own people,

in the Iraq-Iran war.

Why didn't they overthrow him, then?

Sal Brinton?

I think 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 not.

And Ian listed 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 sole voice in Parliament

fighting to say, "We must have a second UN resolution."

And the Sun put him on the front page and called him a traitor.

With a snake alongside him.

APPLAUSE

So...

The woman in the front here.

Yes, you.

-Me?

-Yes.

I was just about to say, the public were behind, you know,

were not 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.

-Going to war.

-What's your view of Mark Turner's question,

are we better off with Saddam gone?

-I don't think we are, to be honest.

-Mark Turner, what do you think?

You asked the question. What's your view?

Well, I'm no fan of Tony Blair,

but I am less of a fan of Saddam Hussein,

who was clearly a tyrant.

He abused his own people.

But I think the Chilcot report is just one element

of a much bigger picture of Middle East stability.

There's a key timing issue.

The Labour Party failed to resource defence 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.

-Just to pick up Ian's point...

Sorry, could I finish by giving you my response,

which is a qualified one?

-I think the world is better off that Saddam Hussein has gone.

-OK.

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, and the best exponent

of those arguments in Parliament was Robin Cook, who resigned.

And he set it all out, as did Charles Kennedy.

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...

That's your opinion. I mean, that's not in the report,

that he honestly thought this. That's not there.

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.

-Well, 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,

and it's meant to be the place where people come together to speak

and debate and get to the bottom of an issue. That couldn't happen.

-Parliament claimed they weren't given the intelligence.

-Absolutely.

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 paper

"because they never asked for one.

"I didn't actually show them the legal advice

"because they never asked for it."

And Clare 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 we lose sight of this,

far be it from me to leap to the defence of the Daily Mail -

the Daily Mail was actually extremely sceptical about the war.

But the great majority of the broadcast media,

more than the print media, actually,

the BBC and others, provided a drumbeat 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?

APPLAUSE

Tom Tugendhat.

As I hear these conversations about the debate,

I remember listening to them on the World Service of the BBC

from a desert base just outside Iraq back in 2003,

and I remember looking at my unit, my friends,

and wondering how the next few days, months, were going to...

what they were going to hold for us who were there.

I do remember being, as you can probably imagine, pretty terrified.

And it really did focus my mind.

But the thing that has struck me about Chilcot, if I may,

is not so much about Tony Blair and the Government.

Funnily 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 command 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 2004-05,

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 realised that the tactics

and strategy were 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 take a question from Suraj Lakhani, please. Suraj.

Should Tony Blair face trial for war crimes?

Should Tony Blair face trial for war crimes?

APPLAUSE

Ian Hislop.

Well, I mean, there is going to be a section of the public

that will only be satisfied if Chilcot's first statement had said

he should be strung up outside Parliament Square

with a huge baying mob.

That isn't going to happen. 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 talk of legal challenges.

The whole point, the very first question is,

should we have toppled Saddam?

The idea is, it's possible to say yes,

but it should have been done legally under international law,

with sufficient planning.

So should we just say, "Yes, let's string him up"?

I think, probably, no.

I think we should wait for the legal procedure

to pan out of what you can do with him.

But look at him. He gave a speech - this is a haunted man.

I mean, the toxicity of his legacy is extraordinary,

and Chilcot has now banged it in.

I mean, he is literally going to wander the earth

doing after-dinners for Kazakhstan toilet companies.

-LAUGHTER

-You know, that is his punishment.

APPLAUSE

So I think not. And I think Tom is absolutely right -

we shouldn't make it all about Blair.

Essentially, the British Army lost two wars.

We don't make a big deal about that,

but we lost in Iraq,

and we lost in Afghanistan, and that's not great.

I mean, that is worth an inquiry.

OK.

APPLAUSE

Both the Shadow Chancellor and the Labour leader

said there should be legal action.

Do you think there should there 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 9/11

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.

AUDIENCE CHATTERS

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...

-He had secret memos 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.

The country didn't know that he'd already committed to a decision

which didn't involve them.

APPLAUSE

Sir John Chilcot'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 authorisation

from the United Nations,

which he believed that he had from Resolution 1441.

-AUDIENCE CHATTERS

-Charlie, please...

-No, no, but just...

-What about, "I will be with you, whatever"?

He says, "I will be with you, whatever," in that memo in July...

-What does that mean?

-He says... He then sets out a basis...

"I will be with you, whatever, BUT, this, and this, and this."

-Exactly.

-But he didn't...

Actually, let's not let that lie be written into the record.

-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 is actually is "but".

-Yeah, I think it is.

-It is "but", unfortunately.

-Charlie...

-It is "but".

Sorry. The next word is "but". LAUGHTER

But it doesn't matter.

There's no qualification to the word "whatever".

"Whatever."

The position...

All right, come to the war crimes issue.

-Can you answer that one?

-Yes.

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.

APPLAUSE

He is already facing legal action.

The families of the bereaved...

The bereaved 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,

malfeasance in public office.

Do you think that's the way to go?

Not through the courts, not through the Hague...

The ICC has said they won't take the case.

Do you think they're right to say that?

No, I think they're wrong to say it, and I think it will be challenged.

So the Hague should say that it is a criminal offence

under international law to go to war on these grounds?

I believe the only proper place where Tony Blair

should be talking about the war is in the dock at the Hague.

That's what I believe.

APPLAUSE

The man up there. You, sir, in the third row from the back. Yes.

Tony Blair took responsibility for the legal position,

and that's a debate as well,

but he also has to take responsibility

for 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?

-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 armour,

that exacerbated this whole thing.

-That's not that small if you're facing bullets.

-Indeed.

Yes, indeed.

APPLAUSE

-You, in the...

-Tony Blair's 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 lies,

149 soldiers' blood is now on his hands. He should pay the price,

and he should be done for war crimes. End of.

APPLAUSE Sal Brinton.

I think the problem is if the ICC have already said

they're not going to do that. But I do believe

that everything that you said just now is correct.

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.

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 are 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.

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.

OK, you, sir, in the second row.

I was in Northern Ireland for a long time,

and I lived there.

I was in the war in Northern Ireland as well.

But while I was there,

I met a lot of 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 refugees from...

As they said, he was a dictator,

but he was in control of the country.

There were Shias and Sunnis fighting against each other,

and the families who were in Northern Ireland,

they were better off, and they...

But I'll tell you something -

when Britain invaded Kuwait... uh, Iraq,

the refugee families -

students were standing here, doctors, they were locked up.

They were in a worse state

-just for being Iraqis in the country.

-OK.

Tom Tugendhat, just last point on war trial.

Look, I'm not a lawyer,

but I think you'd be hard pressed 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 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, 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.

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.

-An impeachment in the House?

-Yes, I think that Alex Salmond 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 at arms.

Wouldn't that be a fine day indeed?

I'll take a couple more points and then we'll move on.

You, sir, waving your hand at me, with the grey hair there,

and the spectacles.

Isn't it outrageous that we see Tony Blair

with armed police officers and a protection squad

and a bulletproof and a bombproof car,

when the troops had none of that equipment?

APPLAUSE

And you, sir. A last point.

Yes. You've both got your hands up.

Both briefly, if you would, and then we'll go on.

Yeah, I was in the Army at that time.

I was in the Household Cavalry, based in Knightsbridge.

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?

APPLAUSE

What do you make of what Chilcot said?

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 it seemed honest and quite straightforward, to what...

how it began in the first place.

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 given by this audience

and the rest of the panel. I think it's disgusting that you defend him.

APPLAUSE

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...

-So wrong.

-..and I accept the findings of Chilcot.

-OK.

-Can I just say -

I mean, I accept all the points everyone's making,

but I think 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 pretty huge repercussions in Iraq,

and there are some very good foreign correspondents' reports

at the moment saying, do you know, they're not that bothered

by our soul-searching. They're just still angry.

OK.

APPLAUSE

We'll go onto another...

We'll go on to a completely different topic,

one on which we had as many questions

as we did on that first one this week.

Chloe Garrett-Dyke. Chloe Garrett-Dyke.

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....

-Sal Brinton.

-Lack of a plan?

Have we not just been talking about lacks of plans

in the previous question?

I mean, 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 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 had been jointly funded by European projects,

so we are living with the real consequences of no plan.

The words of the question...

APPLAUSE

Chloe's 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 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...

-AUDIENCE CHATTERS

-..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 FTSE 250 down over 10%,

the pound down to below 1.30 and staying there.

At time of broadcast. It's probably lower now.

LAUGHTER Who was...?

You were complaining, in the front row there. Yes. Your go. You.

70% of the population of Brighton voted to stay in,

but the majority of people in the south-east voted to come out,

so I mean, 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...

-So what?

-So what, yeah?

It was just an example.

-The south-east voted to come out.

-And London did as well.

And the north-east obviously voted out.

Well, everybody apart from London, 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, you are correct.

-52-48, you can't just say everybody.

-It's 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 man there with the spectacles had his hand up first.

-You, sir.

-We've had the referendum.

Everyone's had the opportunity to put their voice forward.

It's about time we just crack on with getting the deal.

APPLAUSE

And you at the back, the second row from 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...

APPLAUSE

The job of government is to plan for every eventuality,

and most of them pinned their mast to Remain.

Now, the only person who had a plan was Mark Carney.

Despite saying it was a massive risk to leave, he had a plan.

Why is he the only person who had a plan?

What was Cabinet doing?

That's the question I'd ask.

APPLAUSE

Charles Falconer.

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 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.

-AUDIENCE MEMBER:

-Both sides lied.

Are you commending 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 politicians to do something about it.

The absence of a plan means if, in the course of negotiations,

we fail to get a result which is

free access to the single market on the same terms as now...

-AUDIENCE MEMBER:

-We voted out.

-I know, I accept that!

I accept we voted out.

And I accept that 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 OK.

But if it's far away from that...

But you would accept out in any condition, the gentleman here.

Wait a minute. If it's far from that, the public

will need to express a view on it. That's what I think.

All right, the woman in red, in the second row from the back.

People keep saying it's a misleading campaign,

both about the referendum and Chilcot and the Iraq campaign,

and then you keep saying it's for the public to decide.

But I sort of think, isn't it also for politicians to be honest?

And why do we not have some kind of system of accountability?

Not one that takes seven years and £10 million.

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.

Why do we not have some kind of system that holds them to account?

APPLAUSE

Elections aren't enough for you? LAUGHTER

I mean, we have a system of proportional representation...

-We don't.

-Would you like to see Boris prosecuted?

No, not prosecuted, but if...

The £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...

-Yes!

-LAUGHTER

..maybe barred from holding public office.

You say we have an electoral system.

-We have an electoral system based on proportional...

-No.

-We don't.

-Based on first past 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 controlled immigration?

Well, let me tell you...

APPLAUSE

-Is that the message you picked up from the Brexit case?

-Yes.

-I think he was being ironic.

-I don't think there is a point of Brexit

if we cannot control immigration

and if we cannot have access to the single market.

Otherwise, what is the point of Brexit if we cannot have both?

OK, George Galloway.

Well, if you took all of the liars and the incompetents

out of parliament, it would be pretty empty,

let me tell you that first of all.

APPLAUSE

Both campaigns... Both campaigns were misleading.

Careful, George. You were there repeatedly, weren't you?

-Yeah, but...

-You left.

I said pretty empty, not entirely empty.

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 labour

which drives the wages down of the workers already here.

-APPLAUSE

-Whatever country they come from,

whatever colour 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 am a follower, until now, though he's dead,

of the late and great Tony Benn.

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 put him in jail.

-So do some of the Conservative Party.

-For what, exactly?

-Just for fun, or for...?

-Nah, just for fun.

APPLAUSE

Maybe in the stocks, where we can throw buns at him,

though he'd probably gobble them down.

LAUGHTER

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 of this country.

-The question is, was it...?

-It is time to respect their decision.

But Chloe's question was,

-was the campaign of the Leave side misleading...

-Both.

..and therefore they got an unfair advantage

over the people who wanted to Remain?

If every government that was elected

was unelected because they'd been misleading the public,

-we would never have had...

-Well, that's what she says should happen.

But we would never have had a government.

The Tories get into power every time misleading the people,

-with respect to you, Tom.

-No offence taken, George.

They're constantly misleading. Politicians mislead.

It's for the public and the media to hold the politicians to account,

and I believe that they did so.

OK. Let's try and do a bit more of that, then.

The man with the white beard,

in the fifth row from the back, sixth row, there. You, sir, yes.

This has been, in my view, the most humiliating

and disgusting period of British politics.

The whole referendum.

APPLAUSE

In what way?

We have lost the friendship and support of our closest allies,

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 almost overwhelmingly

would like to stay in the status quo.

-So why didn't they vote?

-Can I just make...

-Why didn't they vote?

-Can I just make the main point?

No, answer that one first. Why didn't they vote?

Why did they vote in such small numbers,

compared with people over 65?

I think, regrettably, because politicians

-have not got their interest or their confidence.

-I see.

OK, I just wanted to clarify that.

All right, one more point, and then I want to come to Hislop here.

All of this was unnecessary.

Because the EU is imploding.

And if we had waited a while,

we could 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.

OK, Ian Hislop.

APPLAUSE

Applause for the gentleman.

Again, I can see the reaction in a couple of the rows there -

you know, sort of whingeing metropolitan losers can't bear it.

After an election or a referendum, even if you lose the vote,

you are entitled to go on making the argument.

When a government...

APPLAUSE

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 five years."

APPLAUSE

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."

APPLAUSE

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 by the way, there might be quite a lot of austerity.

"Sorry. Bye!"

APPLAUSE

In the second row, yes.

Er, yeah, just bringing it back to the original question,

so because everybody's sort of jumping on the bandwagon

saying both campaigns have been misleading,

should there be a governing body that regulates political marketing

-as we have elsewhere?

-What, to control the way messages

-are put across?

-Yes, indeed.

-OK, we'll hold that point.

And the woman there in the third row. Yes, you.

Er, I wanted to make a point about youths 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 proxy vote, I got my mother to vote for me,

but I met adults who are much older than me

and they didn't get a proxy vote,

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're not representing what we believe in,

we're just not informed because

-the campaigns haven't presented themselves well enough.

-All right.

Also they haven't tried to, er, reach out to us at all.

OK. Tom Tugendhat, what do you say to that?

On either side of the argument.

Well, I was just going to answer the question, if I may.

-I know it's a strange habit. But I do think...

-Well, you could...

-IAN:

-You haven't been in politics long, have you?

And you haven't been on Question Time before!

-The convention is...

-That's what I'm talking about...

Will you be quiet for a moment?

The questioner there, you can answer her question,

-and then the main question.

-OK, I'm very happy to.

Because we keep trying to answer the questions people put.

I think you make 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,

and 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.

-You weren't a sheep...

-I spent...

-But other people are sheep.

No, I said we are not.

-OK. 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 series of reasons...

OK. You bring us very neatly to another question,

because the result of your voting 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 their new leader?

Should there be a general election now that we have the Tory party...?

What do you think, Ian?

Yeah, I think there should.

In terms of basic democracy, which you're very keen on, the referendum,

the choice of Prime Minister as a result of this string of disasters

has been that the next Prime Minister will be decided by,

what, 150,000 members of the Conservative Party membership.

They're, in a sense, the equivalent of the Labour Party membership.

-They don't...

-GEORGE:

-But much smaller.

A little bit smaller.

Er...but again, there is a split

between what the party in Parliament thinks

and what the membership thinks, and we have two candidates,

and if you voted Leave, you've got...

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 tends of thousands and didn't do it.

If you voted Leave cos 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 really help all those left behind round the country,

to help hedge-fund managers based in Guernsey.

What choice is that?!

Charlie Falconer.

-Election or not?

-I think not necessarily immediately.

-The reason why not immediately...

-Is that Labour might lose.

No, I'm sure Labour would win handsomely. The reason

-I think...

-Is that why you resigned from the Shadow Cabinet?

LAUGHTER AND APPLAUSE

I think there are ways that we might win more handsomely!

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 Leadsom?

It's also, what is the pitch this person is going to take

when it comes to negotiating with the EU?

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 you don't start negotiating,

but prepare a strategy and go to the country.

-I think preparing...

-So everybody knows your negotiating position

-and then you go to the country.

-You've got to have a position

-and you've also...

-Built up without Article 50 being...?

Without Article 50, in my view,

and also first of all asking the European Union capitals

what they would be... What could be deliverable.

OK. The woman there in the third row from the back,

and then I'll come to... somebody else. Yeah, you.

Um, with talks of an early general election,

I just urge you to let 16 and 17-year-olds vote.

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 have an opinion on our future.

-The man in the third row here.

I believe most people alive in this world are outside the EU

and there's a wider world outside of the EU, and Britain...

APPLAUSE DROWNS SPEECH

I think we have so many more opportunities

to target markets in China,

in America, North America, and I don't see why

the fearmongering from the Remain side should continue.

They should just stop and let's move on.

Tom, let's come back to the question about a general election.

Should there be one once the Conservative Party membership

has elected a new leader on September 9th?

Following your example I'm just going to say I agree with that man.

-Suits you now.

-Well... I agree with him.

-CHARLES:

-He's picking the whole thing up very well.

-He's getting it very quickly, yes.

-I'm learning from the masters, yes.

The reality is, there is a wider world out there.

It isn't the decision I would have made,

but this is not the end of the world by any means.

Should there be a general election once there's a new Tory leader?

You're going to let me finish, aren't you?

-No, you've said that before.

-We...

-You said it all before.

-We...

If you'd let me start, that would at least get us some way there.

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 Conservative manifesto for a Conservative leader to deliver.

But I agree with Charlie.

I agree that we've got to go some way down this negotiating road

before we go to an election again. The reason I say that

is not for any other reason

than 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 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...

-What, 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 the whole deal

is done and signed and sealed. OK. Sal Brinton.

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.

Yes, the country does need stability,

and whilst we are negotiating it's going to be a real problem.

In terms of should we have a 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 exactly what direction the government's going in,

but most importantly, the government needs to actually understand

what it's offering Europe as it starts the negotiations.

-Can I answer the question about 16 and 17-year-olds?

-No.

-That is really...

-No, that's another question

and we've only got five minutes left and I want a question about Labour.

But George Galloway, on the general election, briefly,

-and then we'll come to that.

-We need a general election now.

We're going to have, in a couple of months,

either John Major in a dress

or Janet Brown channelling 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 in 2008.

I demanded a general election then, and I even said it

when James Callaghan took over from Harold Wilson,

so I'm not contradicting any previous 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...

Sorry, it was in... We included the need for a referendum.

But you didn't want to implement it. You hoped the Liberals...

I stood on a platform specifically wanting...

Let's not fight that battle. Let's not fight that battle.

-We have only a few minutes left.

-General election in October,

-that's what I say.

-Let's hear from Kevin...

APPLAUSE

Let's hear from Kevin Cook, please.

Is the Labour Party in terminal decline?

-Charles Falconer.

-No, it's not in terminal decline.

-There is plainly...

-LAUGHTER

-There is...

-Why do you all laugh every time he says this?!

-IAN:

-Best joke of the evening.

-It's not...

-AUDIENCE MEMBER SHOUTS

Sorry. It's not in terminal decline.

There is plainly a very significant division

between the Parliamentary Labour Party on the one hand

and the leadership of the Labour Party on the other.

I joined the Shadow Cabinet

when Jeremy became leader of the Labour Party

because I was absolutely determined to make what contribution I could

to the unity of the Labour Party. After the Brexit vote,

when things very dramatically changed in this country,

I took the view that we needed somebody

who was an exceptional leader to deal with exceptional times,

and although Jeremy has had a fundamentally 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 re-unify,

that is between the leadership and the Parliamentary Labour Party.

Either because agreement can be reached between us

or alternatively, if that can't happen, by a leadership election.

But the Labour Party is most certainly not in terminal decline

because there will always need to be a centre-left alternative.

-IAN:

-It could be someone else.

-Sal Brinton, are you hearing,

as some people think you might be hearing,

suggestions from people who are disaffected with Jeremy Corbyn

thinking they might realign themselves

with the Liberal Democrats, or is that too patsy a question for you?

-No...

-Because you have to say yes.

-I...I will quite happily say

that we've had some people from 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 very tolerant centre party of the future,

and 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've never heard of somebody defending both Tony Blair

and Jeremy Corbyn at the same time - well done, Charlie...

-He was a lawyer!

-He's absolutely a lawyer, and it shows.

-But I think...

-I'm Labour.

-I think what we are hearing

is that Labour is not unified. It is absolutely deeply split.

And there are many, many people in Labour who are unhappy.

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 can actually go out and do that.

-Their MP means something to them.

-All right.

Fair enough, thank you.

Er, George Galloway.

Charlie, there are many ways of describing Angela Eagle,

but an exceptional leader she is not.

You have got an exceptional leader.

Far from being in terminal decline,

Labour 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 ten days.

Jeremy Corbyn can fill halls up and down this country,

hundreds of thousands of people are joining the Labour Party,

and if people like Charlie don't like it,

why don't they clear off and join the Liberal Democrats?

-But...

-I'm not...

-APPLAUSE

I'm not clearing off from Labour,

I'm not joining the Liberal Democrats and I'm determined

to stay in a Labour Party...

Well, stop stabbing the leader that was elected just nine months ago.

APPLAUSE

-But he doesn't... IAN:

-This is George, who left the Labour Party...

-I didn't leave.

-..and joined Respect. You were thrown out.

I was expelled by Tony Blair.

-His flatmate.

-And you never came back!

APPLAUSE

And Jeremy Corbyn doesn't seem very keen on you, either.

He thought the tactics you used against Naz Shah were appalling -

"I'm quite shocked", he said.

-Don't believe what you read...

-In the New Statesman, written by him?

-Why not?

-Except it wasn't written by him.

He put his name to it. You know the convention.

-No, he didn't.

-He didn't even put his name to it?

-No.

-OK.

Being attacked in the New Statesman

is like being slandered in an empty room.

SCATTERED LAUGHTER

Well, again, George's reputation for that, I can't go there.

-The idea that Jeremy...

-Is Labour in terminal decline, was the question.

Er, it's in a really serious problem.

The parliamentary party hates 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

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.

OK. Tom.

APPLAUSE

Briefly, if you would.

Tom.

I'm very proud to be a Conservative politician,

of course, to stand on a platform

that I think is going to change the life chances of so many.

But also, I'm 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.

OK. We'll take a point from you, sir, then we have to close.

You had both hands up, so I'm calling on you.

Maybe Labour needs a new leader

and it should be George Galloway in a catsuit.

LAUGHTER

APPLAUSE

All right. I think he is up for it.

All right, and a point from the woman there. Yes.

-Very briefly.

-I don't think there's any point in a general election,

because what will happen is Murdoch will decide

who rules this country next, and nobody else.

APPLAUSE

-IAN:

-We don't have to do what he says!

-No, you can take Private Eye's view instead.

-Quite.

Much, much more reliable.

I'm sorry, we have to end. We have to end the programme here.

It's also the end of, er, this run of Question Time, tonight.

Officially we're going to be back on Thursday 15th September

in Salisbury and on 22nd September in Wakefield,

and the usual arrangement, just go to our website,

there's the address there, or call 0330 123 99 88,

if you'd like to come.

Events may, of course, mean we come back earlier.

I don't know what kind of events,

but possibly the Tory leadership campaign,

and if that happens we'll be announcing that on our website,

on Twitter, and on our Face page.

Er, Facebook page.

So I hope that all makes sense.

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, goodnight.