Britain after Brexit Question Time

Well, at 20 minutes to five, we can now say the decision taken in 1975

by this country to join the Common market has been reversed by this

referendum, to leave the EU. The British people have spoken and the

answer is, we're out. On Wednesday, we give formal notice

to the EU that we're leaving ? with two years

to negotiate the terms. Our panel is divided between those

who wanted to Leave or Remain. The Secretary of State for Exiting

the EU, the man leading the negotiations on behalf

of the Government, David Davis. Labour's Shadow Secretary of State

for Brexit, Keir Starmer. The former Deputy Prime Minister

in the Coalition, when he was Leader of the Liberal Democrats,

Nick Clegg. The Deputy Chair of Ukip

who was part of the official Vote Leave campaign,

Suzanne Evans. The Times columnist

Melanie Phillips. And the former First Minister

of Scotland, the SNP's International Affairs spokesman

at Westminster, Alex Salmond. Our audience here in Birmingham

is divided pretty much like the country itself

was in June, 48-52. If you want to join the debate

from home, we're on Facebook, And if you push the red button, you

will see what people are texting. The first question to get started

from Rachel Harbour. Should we expect to pay a large

Brexit payment to the EU A figure of 50 billion has been put

on it. David Davis, should we expect to pay a large Brexit payment, first

question, before you negotiate? I don't know about 50 billion, I've

seen 40, 50, 60 and no explanation for any of them. The Prime Minister

said we are coming to the end of the time when we are paying enormous

sums to the European Union. Of course we will meet our

international obligations but we also expect our rights to be

respected. I don't think we are going to be seen that kind of money

change hands. Not that sort of money but some sort of money? Look, we

have said before that we will meet our international obligations,

whatever that turns out to be but that is nothing like what we are

talking about. Indeed, the House of Lords committee on this subject

reckoned that was zero a few weeks ago. So you are thinking you might

pay zero? We will wait and see. I'm not going to do the negotiation on

this programme, David, attractive as that might be and it might even hold

the ratings up but the simple truth is, we are yet to engage in

negotiation and when I go in a few weeks' time, no doubt I will hear

what they think. The lead negotiator says this has to be sorted before

other talks can start and do you agree with that? We also take the

view that Article 50, the law, in the treaty, says that we resolve the

departure arrangements taking into account the ongoing relationship.

That means the ongoing relationship as do exist. Alex Salmond? I'm glad

David is calling the negotiator Michel which is the only positive

thing I can see in the negotiations to date. Should we expect to have a

bill like that? The answer is yes and the reason is all the

negotiating cards are in the hands of the European Union. We are going

into a time-limited Brexit of two years and if there is no deal, then

you go out on World Trade Organisation terms which despite

what the Prime Minister says, would be totally disastrous, if you go

into negotiations where the cards are in the other person's and,

whatever you call them, you end up paying the bill. One thing I would

say, we should expect to see the 50 billion paid into the EU long before

we ever see the 350 million for the National Health Service that was

promised by the Brexit camp. Melanie Phillips? We should

definitely meet our international obligations but it's a question of

what they are. Lawyers cannot agree about this as far as I can see. It

is interesting that he is making this kind of pre-requisite for the

negotiations to start from it is almost like we are getting into a

situation where we have to negotiate about the negotiations before we can

start the negotiations. Do you think he means you have to agree that bit

of money before we talk about anything else because there is the

old thing they always say, nothing is agreed until everything is agreed

finally? Indeed, the negotiation has not started yet, Michel Barnier has

made a very aggressive pitch and I see it as the opening negotiating

pitch and it is up to us to wear him down. David Davis mentioned the

House of Lords report. It was quite interesting, although as I say,

lawyers do disagree but that said, if there is no deal, then bearing

turbot eight of the relevant statutes, relevant treaty law is

that if there is no deal, then we don't have to pay anything at all.

Maybe that is why Michel Barnier is so keen to get this sorted

straightaway. So we could have no deal and walk out and say... Go

away? Lawyers disagree... Do you agree? I've no idea if it is the

case or not but it seems to me, as in so many of these things in

relation to Brexit, we actually have a strong card to play. Anyone who

seems so overanxious, as Michel Barnier does, to get this done and

dusted so quickly, is obviously quite nervous about his position.

Rachel, what do you think? Are you worried about a big bill? I have

some reservations because of the economy especially, that is the one

thing I'm concerned about and I would like to see it go forward.

Both members of my family work in the car industry and I'm concerned

about the future of the industry. And the person in purple up there

and then I will come to you, what is your view? I don't want to see our

country get bullied into paying some money to the EU. I don't think it is

fair. It is just the playground bully taking our lunch money and I

don't think we should do it. APPLAUSE

Nick Clegg, are we being bullied at the opening stage of this affair? Of

course we are going to have to pay money, if he ran up a tab behind the

bar for years and years and you haven't paid when you want to leave,

you settle up. The EU has been very clear, they are not going to ask the

UK for a single penny after we have left. They are simply going to ask

us to settle the tab before we leave. It would be really odd for

us, and I have to say to David Davis and the government am extremely

unwise of the government on top of all the other unrealistic

expectations they have already raised about this negotiation, that

it's all going to be done and dusted in two years, it won't be, that

there will be a cornucopia, a paradise of new trade deals with the

rest of the world in 18 months, they won't. That we will have the same

benefits of the single market even as we leave it. This week is when

things change, when we stop talking to ourselves, lots of wishful

thinking and reality bites. We are going to have to negotiate with 27

other governments and parliaments and when you quit a club of which we

have been a member for over 40 years, of course you settle up

before you leave. It is what we do in the rest of our lives and we

should do it now and we shouldn't pretend otherwise because all we

will do by doing that if it will make you feel angry and disappointed

when it doesn't happen. But do you anticipate as the president of the

EU commission, Jean-Claude Juncker said, that the Bill will be, to put

it a bit crudely, very hefty? Are you expecting 50 billion? I don't

know the numbers but my prediction is this summer, David Davis and his

friend Michel will agree not to put a number on it but they will agree a

series of principles on how to decide the final bill and the final

number probably won't be decided until the very end. That is what I

think will happen but please let's not delude ourselves. You can't

leave a club without paying... The commitment you have made other

member. If I may, this is not a club... APPLAUSE

It is often, when you are looking at a negotiating bid, it is often

insightful to spin it around and look at it from the other side.

Imagine if instead of being huge donor, a sizeable donor to the

European Union, we were a beneficiary, instead of putting in

10 billion per year, we received let's say 3 billion per year back

and then we left, do you think you would insist on paying us for the

next five years? We are a donor. APPLAUSE

It is not a golf club. David, you can't pretend we are something we

are not, we are a major economy in the European Union and we've paid

money into it and made a number of commitment and pledges and promises

in the European Union and all they are asking, if I understand it, is

to say that we settle up before we leave and they won't ask for a penny

more. We shouldn't fight this battle if we won't win. The man there,

please, sir. I think we should meet our international obligations but I

think the country is facing huge debt, public services are suffering

and 50 billion is too much to pay. Do you agree with him, Suzanne

Evans? Absolutely, we should not be paying them a penny. APPLAUSE

I don't know what kind of weird clubs you are a member of, Nick, but

you only have to settle the bill for a club if you are in debt to that

club and we are not in debt. We should be in credit. Since we joined

the European Union, we have given them over ?500 billion of our money.

They have used that money to invest in all kinds of swanky new buildings

which have no doubt gone up in value. I think they probably owe us.

I think this country has got about ?9 billion invested in the European

investment bank. I think that would more than adequately settle any

bills, we should be getting that money back and Rachel, if I can come

back to you as you ask the original question, you are understandably

worried about your family and the car industry but let me tell you,

since the Brexit vote, we know that car production in this country is at

a 17 year high and that has got a lot to do with how manufacturing at

exporting is booming since the Brexit vote. The future is very

bright, very positive and if anything, the EU will be looking to

us and wanting us to bail them out, not the other way around. APPLAUSE

And let's just stick for a moment with the payment which is the 50

billion or whatever it is we have to pay supposedly before we start

negotiating, Keir Starmer, what is the latest view, Labour has spelt

out its position to some extent. Whichever way you voted in the room,

we need these negotiations to succeed, we all need them to succeed

because it is about the future of our country. And the worst possible

thing that could happen is that we have a big row about a big sum of

money at the start before we get to the real nitty-gritty of the

negotiations. I say that we shouldn't be bandying figures

around. We should agree that there will be principles which will decide

how much it is once they are agreed, of course we must honour our

obligations and anyone who says otherwise just needs to think about

the future. We want a comprehensive free trade agreement with the EU,

and whether we are going to get that if we are breaching the rules as we

leave... That is what Michel Barnier saying he wants. The government

wants free trade agreements with other countries across the world. If

we are going to be taken seriously in future negotiations, for the

future of our country, we cannot do that in breach of obligations that

we have already got. I'm not committing to a figure. I think

there's a lot to be said for reducing the figure. Obviously, we

should keep it as low as possible but once we have agreed the

principal, of course we are a country that honours our obligations

because if we don't do that, no country in the future is going to

want to deal with us, the worst outcome for all of us. APPLAUSE

Let's go on to the negotiations themselves. Matthew Martin, can we

have your question? Is Theresa May right to say that no

deal is better than a bad deal ahead Is Theresa May right to say that no

deal is better than a bad deal before things start, Nick Clegg? I

actually think no deal is about the worst possible deal you could

imagine. And no one should sort of soft soap this. If you had no deal,

the day after no deal, we would fall into a very peculiar economic and

legal limbo. You wouldn't be able to transport nuclear fuel to the UK.

You would have huge queues at Dover. We would have major questions about

how our financial system works because of the legal vacuum into

which we would topple. I think the way in which people are trying to

almost make it sound like a sort of cuddly alternative, and dare I say,

I think there are lots of people on the right-wing of the Conservative

Party and obviously Ukip you actively want this which is why they

want a great big spat on money in the early stages of the negotiation

because that is the perfect alibi to blow the whole thing... Do you not

think a bad deal would be one that would have to be accepted rather

than having no deal and just leaving? What I'm saying is that one

should think a no deal option is a satisfactory one for an economy the

size of ours. It is a very bad thing to fall off a cliff edge into

complete legal unknown, given the complexity of the economy. Rachel

next to you earlier said she was worried about the car industry. The

car industry will grind to a halt Intel's exports to the rest of the

European Union if we did not have a deal. -- in terms of export. Alex

Salmond, what did you make of what Theresa May said?

It's non-sensical. World Trade Organisation terms, which would mean

a 30% tariff of Scottish beef and Scotch salmon going into the single

market, for example, lesser tariffs on manufacturing goods, but a severe

economic shock. The Treasury estimated it at 50 billion a year as

a drop in taxation revenues across the UK. We've been arguing of a

one-off payment of ?60 billion to the EU, that's a big sum, but it's

nothing like 50 billion a year tax loss, which was the Treasury

estimate seen by the Cabinet, but not by the rest of us and reported

in Melanie Phillips' newspaper several months ago. Make no mistake,

no deal, WTO terms is the worst deal of all. That's exactly why the

European Union has the upper hand in negotiations. Because whatever David

tells you, he'll be desperate to avoid that circumstance. In avoiding

that circumstance, the UK Government will make concessions not only in

the bills to be paid, but on immigration, and on other matters to

avoid that going off the cliff edge, as the Prime Minister once described

it. Her view of a bad deal is better than no deal is simply non-sensical

and nobody across this continent believe it's. OK. You've had your

card marked David Davis. Yes, well, firstly before I answer the

question, let's say this: No deal is not what we're playing for. I know

that. That's why you'll make concessions. Be fair to the

questioner, the quotation is "no deal is better than a bad deal". The

point I want to make very plainly is what we're after is a good deal. The

response on no deal is better than a bad deal was after if you remember,

a number of people, in the immediate aftermath, the emotional aftermath

of the referendum, punishment deals and punishing the United Kingdom, of

course, no deal is better than that. In terms of what no deal is, I too

listen to Michel Barnier's comments and Nick repeated them on nuclear

fuel, I'm afraid that's not right. Overall authority on nuclear fuel is

international energy authority. What he said was we couldn't import or

export Newham leer fuel, it won't be -- nuclear fuel, it won't be true.

The other issues on queues at Dover, we have a huge contingency

plannerised across -- plan exercised across all these issues. No deal is

not as easy as some would have you believe, but it's a lot better than

Nick and Alec would tell you, I'm afraid. How do you know? Because

we've done work on exactly that. You said to Parliament a week ago you

haven't worked out how much it's going to be. We have spent nine

months putting together contingency plans - For queues in Dover? Not

because we don't expect it to happen but because a Government plans for

every possible outcome. Can you describe for us - That's what we've

done. Can you describe what no deal would mean then, since you've kept

it from us up till now. Nobody's kept anything from anybody. It's not

what we want, our aim is a comprehensive Free Trade Agreement.

That's what we're after. That is better than anything else. But no

deal is not as harmful as you say. Let's hear from one or two members

of the audience on this point. The woman there in red, yes. You've

talked about the effects of trade in the event of a no deal, what about

the reciprocal rights of EU citizens here and British set Zens who live

in the EU under a no deal? I did say we'd try to get through some of

these and we'll come to that later. You in the back. I think a no deal

is disaster for anyone. Not only the anxieties of the Remainers confirmed

and the expectations of those who want to leave will be denied. No

deal is not an option. APPLAUSE

Melanie Phillips, do you think no deal is not an option? I think no

deal is not a good option, definitely not a good option. But a

bad deal is worse. I should say that I don't think there's not going to

be a deal. I don't think there's going to be a no deal. If you look

at the remarks by Michel Barnier a few days ago, he went out of his way

to say he wanted a good deal to be negotiated between the EU and

Britain and he also said no deal would be a disaster not just for the

United Kingdom, but for the European Union. They know how bad for them no

deal would be and that is our strongest point. It's very important

in a negotiation to show that you are determined, that you are not

frightened, that you are not a supply kant, that you are on the

front foot not the back foot. It's vital that this country says we are

prepared to walk away and to mean it, because otherwise, the other

side will have the upper hand. If we were to walk away, in the last, in

the worst case scenario, if that should happen, I don't think it's

going to happen, if that should happen, I don't think it would be

the end of the world. It would not be good for all the reasons that

have been said. But there are many countries, talking about WTO rules,

the imposition of tariffs, many countries in the world have deals,

trade deals with the EU under WTO rules and they seem to do rather

well out of it. Melanie is right and Alec is wrong

because every single Foreign Secretary I've talked to in the last

several months wants a constructive outcome. They want the deal because

they know it's harmful to them. They have 290 billion of exports to us,

which they want to protect. We'll have a good deal.

No deal is the worst possible outcome and we shouldn't allow it to

be talked up. It's not just the economics and David Davis was asked

about the economics by Hilary Benn how much is the cost difference

between no deal and a bad deal and didn't have a clue. We have a

mantra, no deal is better than a bad deal. You look behind the guard and

there's nothing there. There's something more important, there are

two versions of the future of the je. Generation out there. One is a

crash out without a deal, severing relation was the EU all together.

The other is to accept we're leaving, not members, but in

partnership with the EU so we can use collaboration and cooperation to

meet challenges and to take opportunities. Now the second of

those opportunities, the second of those version ises the version of

history that I want to fight for. I think it's a version whichever way

people voted we should fight for. Crashing out, severing our relations

with the EU would be a terrible thing to do and one last thing on

the wider issue, because it's not just economics, I was five years as

Director of Public Prosecutions. We were involved in serious criminal

investigations across Europe, be it terrorism, sexual exploitation etc,

that's happening all of the time. Criminal justice tools are used all

the time. If we crash out without a deal, midnight on day whichever, we

lose all that. Rubbish. We will lose that because we won't be in an

agreement Before the referendum we had project fear and that's a

trnction of project fear, all that high Welsh Cuply about cliff edges,

crashing out, severing our relationships with the European

Union. In case you haven't noticed, there are only 27 members of the

European Union. And other countries seem to have very good relationships

with the European Union even though they're not tied into a political

union. Joint prosecutions we are using - Let's be serious here. Are

you saying as a former Director of Public Prosecutions a responsible

position that you held - We used them all the time. Are you saying

because we leave the European Union we are not going to - we are going

to stop sharing information about cross-border crime, about terrorism,

that is utter nonsense. APPLAUSE

Suzanne Evans, where do you stand on what's going to happen on Wednesday?

Article 50? What Melanie said is right. We want to have a deal. I

think we will get a deal. If ultimately if push comes to shove,

if that deal doesn't involve what the British people voted for, which

is to take back full control of our legal system from the European

courts, to have full border control when it comes to immigration, to get

our fishing waters back, then if that deal doesn't actually grant us

all those things, and others that are prioritised and Theresa May and

David have spelled out those priorities, which align with what

Ukip wants to some extent, if we don't get those things, no deal

would be beneficial. I want to hear from members of the audience, who've

had their hands up patiently. The man there, yes, Sir, who've been

waving since the beginning of the programme. I want to take issue with

the belief that the EU have the upper hand in this. Bearing in mind

that we are a huge export market for most of the EU countries,

particularly Germany, France and Spain where there are a lot of

expats. Big businesses in their countries will be putting pressure

on their governments to make sure that they do a satisfactory deal

with us to stop us going to India, Australia, the USA. Their big

businesses will want to keep the business they do with us.

APPLAUSE Brief answer, Nick. Unlike everybody

on the panel, I used to work in trade negotiations. Self-confidence

and talking tough everybody does that at the beginning. You need to

be realistic. This petulant foot stamping and saying we can do you

harm if we stalk off isn't impressing anyone elsewhere in

Europe. The facts, I'm afraid, suggest that it isn't as

straightforward as Melanie and David have suggested. 44% of exports go to

the EU. Only 8% of their exports come this way. 13% of our GDP is

down to exports to the EU. Only 3% of their GDP. What would you do? You

know how the British people voted. What would you do if you were Prime

Minister, or even - I would have not, I would have sought to try and

bridge the differences between what is a very, very evenly divided

population on this issue in the United Kingdom and particularly huge

differences of attitude between the old and the young. I would have

tried to do that by yes, leaving the European Union, because that's what

the British people said, but not in a hard Brexit way, quitting the sing

the market and the customs unit. -- union.

APPLAUSE The man behind you. Yeah you. Keir

accuses David of not doing his home work with regards to numbers. So

obviously you have, so you know how bad it's going to be and you've done

the numbers. There have been a number of reports that have set out

what the economic cost is. But as a say, it's not just the economic

cost. What is the economic cost? Precisely how many of the economic

forecasts about Brexit have been right so far? How many? None.

APPLAUSE You make your point. What's your

point? My point is that it's project fear again. It's just anti-news.

There is nothing coming from your side that says this is the cost.

What is the cost? We are going into - What is the cost? We are going

into the most important negotiations since the Second World War. Every

time a reasonable question is asked it's dismissed as unreasonable

denial. Every time a challenge is made it's branded frustrating the

progress. It's not healthy in a democracy if we want the right

outcome for our cub tri. There has to be challenge.

APPLAUSE As Gordon Brown once said, I agree

with Nick. I never thought I'd say it. I'm saying it now because we

know what the Treasury forecast was before Brexit. Over a 15-year

period, not the Apocalypse now that George Osborne said in project fear,

but over a period of time. If you're out of the single market, it was 9.

5% loss of GDP and about two million jobs, if that was the situation. The

same economists are in the same treasury, they haven't sacked any of

them. You've got to distinguish between the presentation of George

Osborne who wanted to scare everybody to bejesus like he did in

Scotland in 2014, and the reality behind it, which is what happens if

you go out a major trading block. Right Suzanne, there are 170

countries in this world who are not part of the European Union, but just

about every single one of them is part of a trading block. So we'll be

like Singapore. Singapore is a small country in a large trading block

called ASIAN. If you have a hard Brexit, you go out of your trading

block before you're back into any other. That's where the loss comes

in. I don't think there'll be no deal. David will have to make so

many concessions that the people looking for Brexit are going to be

really, really disappointed. The woman there, yes, you.

Throughout the campaign as Suzanne Evans just said, apparently a big

portion of the referendum was about taking back ownership of our

Parliamentary democracy. What did the panel made of Suzanne Evans'

calls for High Court judges to be sacked when the judgment was handed

down? It was disgraceful and the reaction, you did say that judges

ought to be more controlled. Democratic scrutiny. The whole point

of judges is that they independently decide cases and the backlash

against the judges when they made the judgment in the Article 50 case

should have been consent to everybody across the country, again,

char way we voted. We have some of the best judges in the world making

decisions independently. We should Cherish that. Let's stick with trade

at the moment. You Sir In the grey there. All this talk about deal

making, I would like to ask what's happened to diplomacy.

I think there is a moral side to what's going on, whatever the deal

is, I think that the guiding principle for both sides, that both

sides are going to do the right thing.

I agree with that and I think that is a very good point, sir. Nick was

right, if you read all of's speech, not just the headlines picked out by

the newspaper, a lot of it was incredible constructive. We want to

see a deal on both sides and the same thing is being said around

Europe. That is why in a way, this fear of this no deal is misplaced

because there will be a deal because everybody wants a deal and that is

where diplomacy comes in, finding the bridge. People often think

negotiation is about some kind of Matt Jones stand-off. It is not, it

is about finding the best outcome for everyone and the best outcome

for everybody is one that preserves their market here is one of our

market there. Where you have got your work cut out is that in almost

all trade negotiations I have ever been part of, the starting point is

that the parties on either side of the table want more trade as a

conclusion of the negotiation than they had before. This is the first

major trade negotiation I've ever encountered where the outcome will,

for sure, we don't know how much, be less trade because the UK is pulling

out of the customs union. You cannot bowl... Let me explain why. The

single market... Let me explain, the single market created by Margaret

Thatcher has very little to do with tariffs and levies, it is a

marketplace of rules. You can't, it is logically impossible to do what

David and Theresa May and the rest of the government are saying, that

they want frictionless access to the single market and in the same

breath, that they won't abide by the rulings of the market. It is

impossible. Come on, Nick you know is. You want to comment on that? We

have a worldwide market which is queueing up to do deals with us.

Absolutely, yes. What you said regarding our exports to Europe will

not quantify our exports and our imports with the rest of the world.

Australia, New Zealand, Canada are on our side. If we pick up China and

India, we don't really need Europe. They need us! OK, David Davis, you

said interestingly that whatever you get, comprehensive free trade, you

want to deliver the exact same benefits as we have now, is that

your view, that it is a zero-sum game? No, no. On contrary, one of

the problems that happens when democracies negotiate is that the

politicians are afraid of raising expectations. Keir Starmer and Nick

were talking about this, raising expectations. The truth is, we are

negotiating for the future of the country and therefore, we want to

raise the expectations as much as we possibly can. We want to aim as high

as we possibly can. I make no apology for being ambitious about

what we achieved. We are aiming to get the best possible deal with

Europe and the best possible deal with the rest of the world. That is

what this country needs. APPLAUSE You, sir, over there, with

spectacles. We hear a lot of talk about team fear but all we are

hearing from the Leaves side is cloud cuckoo land. You expect us to

walk away from the EU, pay no money but get unrestricted access to the

single market. If that is going to be the case, why is anyone else in

the EU? Surely they will walk away then have unrestricted access. What

do you think David Davis you do? Own up and say that is going to hurt us

and Europe, no one is going to come out a winner, Europe will hurt

because we are not part of it and we are going to hurt because we are not

in Europe. I personally work in the car industry. I'm worried that if we

walk out with no deal, suddenly, 10% tariffs slapped on every car coming

out of this country. What is to stop the manufacturers moving production

abroad? We already have to fight for every model we build in this

country. We are just going to give that business away if we have no

deal. If you take that out of the West Midlands, you will finish this

economy. APPLAUSE What do you say to that? Google,

Facebook, WhatsApp, Toyota, LTC, all of those companies, GSK, are putting

more money into Britain this year. 16 billion since Brexit. Huge sums

of money. The head of Peugeot, in your industry, says whatever

happens, Britain will be a good place to invest whether it is with

transnational supply networks or bringing supply networks into

Britain, creating more jobs and investment. I'm afraid you are not

right to be so pessimistic. The options are there. The rest of the

world is there. 60% of our trade almost is now with the rest of the

world. We have huge... Admit to the audience that you can't make up

through negotiations with far-flung countries the much larger trade

relationships we have with our neighbours. There's a reason why

geography still matters in trade. We trade more with Ireland than we do

with China, twice as much with Belgium than India, three times as

much with Sweden than Brazil. There's a reason because they are

nearby. This illusion that somehow we can make up for what we lose on

our own doorstep by having new trade deals in far-flung places...

APPLAUSE Keir Starmer. David rattles off a

list of companies that have invested and that is a good thing, that is a

good thing. And they pay their taxes. But we cannot be complacent

about the risks to other companies. I've been going around the UK,

talking to hundreds of businesses and they are really concerned about

tariffs, about customs duties. So you think the man in the motor

industry out there is right? Yes, the motor industry in particular and

that is why the exact same benefits of the single market is one of the

tests the Labour Party have set out for the deal, and it's really

important. David Davis said the packaging hopes to negotiate will

deliver the exact same benefits. We need to hold into that because this

is not about a discussion tonight, this is about people's jobs, their

future, the businesses they are working in. It is really serious

stuff, exact same benefits, hold the government to account on this

because it really matters to businesses and people who work in

those businesses across our country. As a matter of interest, how can

Glade hold the government to account seeing as the Tories have a majority

and Labour seems divided on these issues? APPLAUSE

One of the things... I'm glad you have raised that because what we

have been doing in the last three months... Is trying out a number of

different positions? LAUGHTER Three things, getting a white paper

out of the government which they did not want to publish, no running

commentary was the starting position, getting them to report

back regularly so we know the direction of travel, and now they

have committed to that, and having a vote in two years' time on the deal

before designed by the European Parliament. Actually, Labour has

achieved all of those things that matters because otherwise we have no

grip and that is why went David Davis says he's going to get the

exact same benefits, we will judge that at the end of the exercise. It

might be a bit boring and process data more what I've been up to a

nasty months on behalf of the Labour Party and others in opposition but

actually, it really matters and the government did not want to give it,

no running commentary, can't possibly have a vote on the final

deal because it will undermine everything but now they have

conceded all that, we've got it and that should please everybody because

Parliament needs to be involved in this process. APPLAUSE

We will talk about that a bit more later. Let's go on to another key

topic. Will there be a cap on the number

of EU nationals allowed in the UK, once the Brexit negotiations

have been concluded? A cap on the number of EU National

is allowed into the UK once the negotiations have been concluded.

Suzanne Evans, what would you like to see what do you think will

happen? I think everybody, well, not everybody but the vast majority of

people in this country, whatever they voted on every single poll ever

done shows around 70% in this country regularly think immigration

is too high. I suspect we could have a long debate about how high it

should be, or how low it should be. I think we need to have a level of

immigration to this country which is sustainable, so we can plan for

population growth accordingly, so we can make sure there are school

places available, we can make sure the NHS isn't overstretched, we can

cope with new migrants coming to the country. At the moment, we have a

situation where the number of EU migrants coming to Britain is

approximately the size of Newcastle, a city of that size, every year

which is clearly not sustainable. I would be very interested to hear

what sort of immigration policy the government decide... Do you want to

see a cap, is the question, and actual cap on the number from the

EU? A cap is tricky, isn't it? Why? It allows for no flexibility and at

the moment, a lot of companies struggle in the country because they

have a cap on the number of people they can bring in from outside the

European Union. Do you want to see? What I want to see is a sensible

immigration system which actually treats everybody around the world

equally and one of the reasons I don't like the current immigration

policy that we have is because it gives priority to EU nationals and I

think that is grossly unfair. I think we should be taking people who

can benefit this country and be self-supporting, which I think is

very important as well, personally I think people should have a job to

come to when they come here. They should not be allowed to come if

they don't have a job to come to or they can't support themselves and

their families. But, you know, nobody in the Leave campaign ever

said we wanted to stop immigration so let me put those lights out.

LAUGHTER Of course, the reason Ukip were

telling people they wanted to control immigration from the EU was

to have more people from outside the EU, if we listen to what we are

hearing tonight. We did say that, Alex! This is so unfair. This was a

secret plot by Ukip to get more people immigrating to this country

from outside the European Union. APPLAUSE

Of course, that is the fallacy behind all of this. The 165,000

people from outwith the European Union who came into this country,

Theresa May was Home Secretary for all of these years, a hardline Home

Secretary and she didn't stop that. That is right. There was no

systematic attempt to stop that all the attempt failed. David asked a

few minutes ago, what should we do now? You know the first thing we

should do to try to improve the tenor of these negotiations? We said

the 3 million of our fellow citizens from the European Union work among

last, do valuable things across our public services, pay their taxes,

that they are welcome, should not be used as bargaining chips. We should

take a unilateral move to try to improve the tenor of negotiations

and say to these people, as they are entitled to hear, that they are

welcome in this country and we appreciate everything they have done

for us. CHEERING AND APPLAUSE What I would say... David Davis,

sorry, no. No, that was in our... Will you wait your turn? Alexander's

just accused me so I would like to reply. We can't share it around six

people. It wasn't in the SNP manifesto but it was in hours. David

Davis, the question is, will there be a cap on the number of EU

nationals? I agree with Alex about one thing and that is European Union

citizens in the UK, doing a good job, supporting the NHS, social

welfare, all sorts of industries, are very important should be made to

feel welcome, should not be made to feel unwelcome, the other side of

that, which is unfortunate. So what about what Alec suggests, the first

thing should be to say they can stay? I will come to that in a

second, well, let me deal with it now. There are about 4 million, I

think, Michel Barnier referred to it, about 4 million people we have

to worry about in this context and we have to be generous to and we

have to make sure that their rights are entrenched. 3 million of them

are European citizens here and about 1 million are British citizens

abroad. We don't want to make any of them bargaining chips and by

treating them together, no one is treated as a bargaining chip. Again

in terms of talking to the diplomacy, in terms of talking to

the Foreign secretaries and prime ministers in the rest of Europe,

almost every single one of them raised it as the first issue, they

agreed the approach we are taking was right, they agreed that we

should try and resolve this as fast as possible and I should say that

Theresa May did try to get it resolved in December but could not

do so but we will resolve it pretty quickly, certainly, the first thing

on the batting order of the negotiation when it starts stop the

man in the blue shirt, there. How on earth can use it therein say that

when the Conservative Party voted down the right to remain? This was

an amendment to the Article 50 Bill we laid which was to say to the

government unilaterally, give protection to those that are in this

country, EU nationals, who are not just contributing to our society but

they are our society and the government voted that down and then

they voted down the amendment when they came back from the House of

Lords. I accept there are, of course, UK nationals across Europe

and we need to be concerned about them as well. We have a legal

responsibility for them. I completely accept that, of course

but they are being used as bargaining chips because what David

is saying is, we will hold this group of people, those that are

here, so we can secure a better deal for someone else. That is to bargain

with groups of people, whether you like it or not. I accept the Prime

Minister tried to get this sorted. She did not succeed but she should

have acted unilaterally. I think had she done so, she would have set a

very good tone for the beginning of the negotiations and got us off to a

good start. Coming back to the question, will there be a cap on the

number of EU nationals? The first issue is to bring this

back under the control of the UK Government and Parliament, to bring

migration under control. I don't think most people oppose migration.

I think most people are in favour of migration, so long as it's managed.

The point is it will need to be managed. My job is to bring the job

back and it's for the Home Secretary to decide the policy. I cannot

imagine that the policy will be anything other than that which is in

the national interest, which means that from time to time, we'll need

more and from time to time we'll need less migrants. That will be in

everybody's interest, the migrants and the citizens of the United

Kingdom. Sorry, just before we move on, sometimes it will be more and

sometimes less, more than now? Do you mean any number? What it will be

is whatever the Government judges to be sustainable. The tens of

thousands that the Tory Party has gone on about for a long time no

long applies? I think we will get there. We have to manage this

properly. You have industries dependent on migrants, social

welfare, the National Health Service. Let's take the National

Health Service, the registrations from Europe have dropped 75% since

Brexit. In a full year that will mean there will be 7,000 less

qualified nurses from elsewhere in the European Union working in our

National Health Service. I had a look at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital

A figures today - What do you attribute this to? They've dropped

by 75% because in the post-Brexit atmosphere people cannot be secure

about their position in this country. When they're heard what

David Davis has just said they will be. David is the acceptable face of

the Cabinet. He's not the one, it was Liam Fox who said people were to

be cards to be played, I quote him exactly. David wouldn't argue that.

But the reality is that our fellow citizens feel uncertain and the

reality is that nurse registrations have dropped by 75%. I do feel some

of the these 7,000 missing European Union nurses would come in very

handy in the Accident Emergency ward at Queen Elizabeth Hospital in

Birmingham right now. I'll come to you in a moment, Nick. Melanie

Phillips. Well, perhaps it's a bit of a diversion to talk specifically

about the Health Service, but since it's been raised, there is clearly a

major crisis of nursing in the, nurse numbers in the Health Service.

That crisis has been caused by the very short sighted policies, boom

and bust policies of the way the NHS is run. Some years ago, when it got

into difficulties, it cut nurse training. It cut nurse training for

British nurses. Then there was a panic because they didn't have

enough nurses. So they went abroad. That's why so many foreign-born

nurses were brought in, many of them paid less than British nurses. The

problem with the nursing situation is what's happening here, not the

problem - it's not specifically - the foundation of the problem does

not lie in Europe. As far as a cap is concerned, I can't see any reason

why European Union nationals should be capped specifically. We have a

problem of mass immigration in this country. We have too many people for

the public services to sustain that number of people. 50% to 60% of

those people are coming from the European Union. We have to deal with

the problem of immigration. We can only do that if we have control over

our immigration policy. That is the most crucial thing of all. Given

that, once we have control of our immigration policy we should bring

in people for the needs of the country in the public, skilled

workers from the EU certainly, we should be deciding that and

hopefully we will. Let me hear from one or two other people. The man

there. Then the person who was waving vaguely in the middle there.

Sorry the man in the red tie behind you. I work in the NHS, across the

NHS about 5% of all clinical posts are currently unfilled. 5% of all

NHS nurses are from the EU and about 10% of doctors. Rather than talk

about a cap on immigration, why don't we actually talk about how we

can entice these people to stay? Why can't the Government do the decent

people and tell those people who are worried about their future and their

security and tell them they have a right to stay? You have enough to

worry in your negotiations, this is a simple thing you could do up front

before your negotiation, why can't you just do the decent thing and do

that? APPLAUSE

This issue will be resolved as the first issue in the negotiation.

Let's be clear, the other heads of government, the Foreign Secretary,

who I've spoken to in the last few months, none have said we shouldn't

worry and indeed treat the status of British citizens the same. Indeed

the Polish Prime Minister said in public in Britain that they are the

same issue, not separate. We is said over and over again and I've said

so, in Parliament, over and over again in responses to questions from

Keir and many others and Alec and others that we view this as a moral

responsibility. I view this as a moral responsibility. People should

not worry about this. Well, they do. They should not. If I'm asked to

make a response to the public, that's what I'm doing. They should

not worry about this. Their position will be underwritten, will be - not

just their residency position, welfare, pensions, all of that is

what we're aiming to solve and that's what we're going to solve. Do

you feel reassured by what David Davis has said? I think there's a

lot of people who've been only here a few years and they're in a

different position to myself. I work in a department where about 20% of

our nurses are from the EU. I think the area that you are dreaming about

in the future that you have a global trade market with also different

countries is a reality in health care. In health care is a biassed

market, people will go where their skills are needed. If people feel

they are insecure here they will go elsewhere. I don't think you have

much time to sort this issue out. You don't feel more secure because

of what David Davis has said? No. Are you from the EU? Yes, I am.

Where are you from? Germany. Thank you.

The man up there. How long have you been here, by the way, I should have

said? This May, it will be 20 years. Oh, well you have residency rights

and indeed you can be a citizen if you want. I could be, but the

question of citizens isn't just decided in the head, it's also in

the heart. Immigration is just one side of the coin. We all, as a

country, agree that immigration is good. That's what we're hearing

continuously. But what the Government needs to do is think

about what is the underlying problem. The underlying problem is

the services, the pressure that uncontrolled immigration brings.

What I would like to hear from the Government is what they're doing as

well as getting control of immigration and the borders, what

they're doing to improve the services, like hospitals, other

public services, infrastructure. Nick Clegg. I struggle to be wholly

objective about this because I'm married to a Spanish lady and my mum

is Dutch. She's lived here for over half a century. She's now in her

80s. She used to be a teacher. She's raised four children here and paid

taxes. I think as her son, it's scandalous that an elderly lady in

her 80s is made to feel so unsure about her own status in a country

which she loves and has been loyal to for decades and had no say, at

all, about what happened to the future of her country and that of

her kids. Perhaps I can't be objective. But the thing I really

abhor is the dishonesty of this debate. Remember what Nigel Farage

did during the referendum, willfully confusing the refugee crisis in the

Mediterranean with Brexit, when the two are separate. Look at the wilful

distortion of statistics including students, when clearly they

shouldn't count much the worst this is this, for the last 40 yoorz more

people have come into this country from outside the European Union than

from the European Union. So somehow blaming it all on German workers in

the NHS or my mum or my wife is ridiculous. In fact, since 2000, in

terms of the total net migration into this country, only a quarter is

accounted for the European Union. So it is fundamentally dishonest to

claim that this problem and clearly many people do regard it as a

problem, can be solved by clamping down on French lawyers, German

engineers and Spanish nurses. I just think it's time we have a more

honest debate. APPLAUSE

Yes. Brief comment from you. I would, if you like, to say that I

feel the fact is we live in a liberal market economy that prop

gait a hire and fire culture. Leaving the EU and ridding ourselves

of protected citizens that have human rights to bring in cheap

labour from countries that do not have protected human rights is

really what is the discussion here. All right, we've heard a number of

voices like that. I'd like to hear from somebody who approves of

restrictions on immigration. You do, ma'am. Yes? The panel all seem to

think that what they call the EU nationals all come to say

professionals mainly, you forget that those coming in during the

summer, those EU people to come and being admitted in hospitals and they

don't pay a bill for their treatment. They go back. This is why

the National Health Service went down. The bill is enormous. You Sir,

behind. The question I get is the Government has been trying to get an

agreement for a while, we never see the European Union or the commission

trying to come forward and do this. It seems to be us trying to get athe

agreement, but the other countries seem to not want to comply. Why do

you think that is? It's politically difficult then for our parties, the

longer they leave it. They could easily come forward tomorrow and say

we agree, we'll sign On Tour both sides. It seems to be us that's

trying and not them. You think there's ill will towards Britain?

Absolutely. At this stage about the negotiations? Yeah. Anybody else

feel strongly about that issue of the way that immigration is being

handled? I go to you, yes. The man here in the second row. I think it's

difficult because if we're going to have a cap, we almost need the help

of the EU to run with that. For example, the French, they're making

it pretty easy for people to come over here. We almost need the help

of those guys. On a separate matter, I actually run an international

business and the problem that we've got is a lot of these companies are

quite scared about a cap because we have a massive skills shortage in

the UK and getting the people over here is what these companies need.

If big companies can't attract talent from abroad, they'll end up

leaving. It's a really difficult issue because there's two sides to

it. Can I come in on that point? It's

really important. When I did the Shadow immigration role, I went

round the country talking to communities and to businesses about

immigration. Wherever I talked to businesses, I say to them - what's

the thing that's going to inhibit your success over the next three to

five years? Wherever I went in the you country, including here,

whatever the size of the business, and whatever the type of the

business, they all said skills and a lot of the recruitment they were

doing that has an effect on the numbers was because they couldn't

get the skills here. I started a discussion about immigration, ended

with a discussion about skills. That is a huge political failure that we

in this country don't have a way of making sure that the skills we need

are available in the UK. I don't want to stop companies recruiting

from other countries for the skills they need, of course. But they

shouldn't be required to do so because of the political veilure to

have a skills agenda in this country. You Sir In red. I agree

with Nick, it should be an honest debate, but not a scaremongering

debate. None of us know it would have carried on for years and years,

what the numbers would have been. Services, you know, all it is, all

we're saying is just control on who can come in and who can't. Not you

can't come in. You can't come in. It's just a debate and a control.

Not just, you know, there's lots of scaremongering. People saying people

can't come in and Alex is saying we are going to send off people. What

would you do if 300,000 come into Scotland every year, would you still

be greed? One of the reasons that Scotland voted so heavily for Remain

is that there isn't the same anxiety about immigration and people coming

from other countries. I think there's two reasons for that. One is

there's not a family in the whole of Scotland who doesn't have somebody

who emigrated to Australia or Canada, the United States or

whatever. It's not easy to sell a message like Ukip were trying to do.

That somehow he's immigrants were a burden, since every family has an

immigrant who has made a great success elsewhere. The second reason

is equally important. Parts of Scotland have suffered not from

immigration, but from emigration. If you've seen depopulation and what

the lack of people and the lack of services and the lack of schools and

empty Glenns and empty villages and towns, if you see what that does to

a community, then you'll never fear immigration again, because

emigration and depopulation is much, much worse. Why are they leaving

Alex, are you not doing a very good job? Alex mentions Scotland and

today there was what seemed to be a rather cool discussion between

Theresa May and Nicola Sturgeon about this whole issue of how the

Brexit negotiations are conducted. Let's have that question now.

Women Brexit unite or spell the end of the union? I don't think it will

spell the end of the union. I very much hope it won't. I think the

union is bigger than its constituent parts. The UK is stronger through

having its constituent nations belonging to it. Would it be a worry

to you if it did mean the end of the UK? Yes, it would worry me. On the

other hand, I think that democratic self-government cannot be held

hostage by the feelings of people in one part of this country. I have

great respect for Scotland. I have great sympathy with the aspirations

of a number of Scots for independence, but the question is

whether it will lead to the break up of the union. Personally, I don't

think it will, because I think that the Scots are extremely level headed

and sensible individuals and that when they look, as I think they

already are, at the hard facts of what would happen to Scotland, if it

were to gain independence from Britain, in the event of Britain

leaving the European Union, I think just on economic terms alone it is

to Scotland's disadvantage. They can see that the European Union is not

going to be overly enthusiastic about encouraging a similar

secessionary -- cessationy movement in Europe. It's jumping the gun. If

Scotland wants independence that's one issue. The issue is whether or

not it should be allowed to conduct a second referendum before the

Brexit negotiations are concluded. And the argument as I understand it

from Nicola Sturgeon is that it was always understood if there was a

material change in the circumstance of Scotland inside the United

Kingdom, then all bets would be off and another referendum would be

called. But no material change will have happened until the final deal

is done. The Scots will have no idea what they are voting for. Let's

leave aside the timing of a referendum. The question is whether

the deal done by Davis David is one that could satisfy opinion in

Scotland. You, sir, in the middle, yes? With

the glasses on. No, to the right. Yes. I'm just worried that the

Scottish referendum question has moved from being an issue about the

union, to being an issue of subtle political blackmail. I believe the

union of 300 years... APPLAUSE David Davis is being blackmailed by

Scotland? Yes, it has become used in every major UK Government decision

and if there is a second referendum, if they visit, there will be a third

and a fourth as soon as there are any major decisions. APPLAUSE

Alex Salmond? For the information of melanin, in the SNP manifesto last

year, Nicola Sturgeon, on page 23, put in the commitment that if there

were a material change in circumstances, such as Scotland

being taken out of the European Union against the will of the

Scottish people, then the Scottish parliament should have the right to

hold another referendum. That was a manifesto commitment. The last few

weeks around the budget and small business, we have seen what happens

to government to try to ditch their manifesto commitment. That was in

the manifesto and she was re-elected resoundingly with 47% of the vote

and the Scottish Parliament has every right to implement that

manifesto. We have heard a lot about that but what about what David Davis

will negotiate? Is there an outcome of those negotiations which could

satisfy Scotland so the issue of another referendum would not arise?

Maccabeus, there is and in answer to the gentleman, before Christmas,

Nicola Sturgeon put forward the position paper... Plateau gait

Scotland's place in Europe which led the way to resolve the

differences... And there is no way to do it just now, Ireland is in

stalemate, the Welsh Aileen aided, Scotland will have another

referendum and England is still split 50-50. -- the Welsh are in

limbo. Nicola Sturgeon said the way that the UK could do it was stay

within the single market place even if they left the EU and if that were

not possible, then for Northern Ireland or Scotland in particular,

in our document, for Scotland to have a special deal within the

single market place even if the UK were to leave. That was the position

paper and many other things, like protecting the rights of European

citizens in Scotland, workers' rights, really important issues in

this debate. That was the position paper. The government has had it for

more than three months and Nicola Sturgeon has not had an answer. She

was not even consulted about the Article 50 letter. The meetings of

the joint ministerial committee that were going to take place did not

take place, the Welsh delegation described them as being conducted

like a parish council meeting. The attitude towards not just Scotland

but the other devolved administrations has been

contemptuous from the Westminster government. She had every right to

go to the Scottish Parliament and increment the mandate. David Davis,

what do you say to this, there has been no serious negotiations

although we know there were promised at the beginning and can you deliver

a deal that will satisfy Scottish opinion? There has been to meetings

of the Council chaired by the Prime Minister, more there -- more than

there has been in most years of the last decade, there have been four

joint ministerial committee meetings on this subject alone, attended by

the Scottish Government, the gentleman I saw today, attended by

the Welsh government and the Northern Irish executive while it

existed. And what are you told by them? Quite a lot, take for example

that White Paper which was discussed and debated at the joint ministerial

committee, some aspects of it, protection of employees rights,

absolutely taken on board and made a major part of our policy. What about

being in the single market? That is a crucial one. The single market

issue, now, what is single market membership about? It is about

maintaining jobs and access to the single market, being able to sell

products and services into the single market. What are we trying to

get? A comprehensive free trade arrangement which does just that,

which allows us to sell into the single market so the distinction

becomes one of how you do it and the Scottish proposal is that they, now,

alone, should be a member of the single market while the rest of the

UK is not. That means they have got to sign up to free movement of

people, so you can have free movement of people to Edinburgh but

not London, they have to sign up to the European Court of Human Rights

and all of the elements, in other words, they want to break the

country in two. What a surprise! APPLAUSE

Yes? Can I just... Can we take a deep breath and acknowledge

something? In a general election or a by-election, people by and large

go by party lines, they may be swayed by the arguments of the time

but they go with the party they usually vote for. In the referendum,

it was completely different. Families voted differently,

immunities. I know from reading Craig Oliver's excellent book that

there were many surprises on both sides, all the way throughout.

Coming here tonight, watching in the audience for the first time,

watching at home, it is very hard for people to really decide what the

truth is because arguments seem to be made, still, on party lines by

people sat up there. I think it is very hard for people sat at home to

really decide and understand what is going on here, like for the

referendum, there was Project Fear, the Nigel Farage posters and people

heard the arguments made but it is still hard because everyone seems to

have diametrically opposed opinion. That is all well and good when there

is an election but the decision has already been made and we are sad

that I'm thinking we're pretty much powerless, and I personally don't

have a great deal of faith the people in power to exercise a

decision when you can't even agree on what is going to happen and the

decision is already out of our hands, it is up to you. Keir

Starmer? APPLAUSE I'm very grateful for you making

that point because we were split down the middle. It was a narrow

decision, 52-48, almost halfway down the country. Obviously, I campaigned

passionately to stay in the EU but I did it on the basis the outcome

would be binding which is why I and the Labour Party have accepted the

result but what we now need to do, it is harder than it seems, is to go

forward in a way that unifies the country and works both for those

that voted to leave and for those that voted to remain. One of the

concerns about the government 's approach is that those that voted to

remain feel they have been written out of their own future but we have

to have an agreement that actually works for both sides of the country,

as it were, and we have stood atop talking in the way that perpetuates

the division which is why I set out six tests today which are based on

the idea that if we can't be members of the EU because that was the

referendum question, how can we be close partners with EU countries and

colleagues and have something that works for future generations because

we are talking about generational change, here. That is why so

important to build consensus. David and the government set out months

ago saying they would try to build a consensus across the nations and

nations and regions and I'm afraid they have failed to do that, and

today is further evidence of that and they need to work harder. I

think the Prime Minister is taking quite an isolationist approach, not

wanting to be open with accountability and scrutiny. We

wanted to have Parliament more involved and at every twist and

turn, the Prime Minister said no but a collegiate approach is better. We

will talk about that in a moment but one or two more people on this

point. Yes? ... Access to the single market for them is a foregone

conclusion. You have no idea what is going to happen if you left the UK.

You have no idea what access to Europe you will get. I feel like it

is a foolish stunt, bringing the Scottish referendum earlier when

originally, it was only going to be if we couldn't get access to the

single market so it appears like you are moving the goalposts and aiming

towards a referendum regardless of the circumstances. APPLAUSE

Not everyone on the panel has spoken to this yet but since it is directed

at you, Alex, can you answer that? In 18 months, two years' time, we

will know the shape of the Brexit deal and the House of Commons and

every other Parliament across the EU will be given a choice, take it or

leave it, and it is not a real choice incidentally because leave

it, as we have already discussed, leaving the single market will be a

bad choice, so why shouldn't the people of Scotland have the same

ability to choose between a Brexiteer of David Davis or

independents from Europe? By that time, the proposition will go

forward to the Scottish people which will involve continuous membership

of the single market because the choice is not now a choice in 18

months' time. One last thing, the Prime Minister, which you came to

Scotland the week after she was elected, she gave a commitment that

she would not sign Article 50 until there was an agreed UK position

backed by Scotland. These were her words. There has been no such

agreement but she is intent on going ahead on Wednesday and invoking

Article 50. It is a clear breach of faith and breach of her word and

Nicola Sturgeon is quite entitled to go to the Scottish parliament and

ask for support. Do you agree with that? It is a breach of faith?

Before you do, answer that point if you can, if you can take the two,

the point there has been a breach of faith with Scotland. I think a

plague on both your houses, I don't think Scottish nationalism is

another... On the whole of the UK? In the UK, for those of us who are

not Scottish Nationalists or members of the Conservative Party or Ukip,

we are squeezed between a resurgent English nationalism between the

Conservative Party and Ukip nationalism in Westminster and

sluggish nationalism north of the border, I don't think nationalism is

a solution to the world's problems, north or south of the border. I

think it has been very unhelpful the SNP have jumped opportunistically to

trigger another independence referendum as it was, by the way,

totally predictable that by pursuing this cell farming hard Brexit and

yanking us out of the single market, yanking us out of the customs union,

choices we did not need to make as a country and choices that David Davis

before he went into government would argue against, by doing that of

course you provoke tensions within the family of nations. Quickly to

the gentleman earlier who said it is so difficult for the public to work

out what happens next, those who I feel... My heart goes out most two

is the youngsters who voted in very large numbers, 18-24 -year-olds,

over 60% of them voted on the 23rd of June last year and 70% of them

said they don't want this future. As a country, for better or worse, I

think for worse, we have taken a huge decision about our future

against the exquisite, stated wishes of those who have to inhabit that

future, in other words, the young. They have to live with the

consequences of this decision and that is what I think, when we

finally know what the deal is, of course it is right that the decision

about what whether we adopt the deal should not be left to David Davis,

Theresa May or the politicians, it should be given back to the people.

We will come to that. APPLAUSE We will come to that but Suzanne

Evans, on this point about the union? I think, you know, Alex, you

talk about Scotland and you talk about the people of Scotland but

what you mean is, you talk about the SNP. In the SNP does not

represent... APPLAUSE Just a couple of points, a third of

SNP voters voted for Brexit. And also, you know, what Melanie said

right at the beginning of the discussion is spot on, Scottish

people are very sensible. They know that Scotland economically is four

times as reliant on the UK as it is of the European Union. And it is

absolutely... So you believe in free trade? Not just for emotional

reasons, but for the country and the future as a united country and I

very much hope Scotland stays part of the UK but you know, it is a good

thing for Scotland to stay in because it is in their best

interests and at the end of the day, after Brexit, at least I know what

currency I'm going to have in my pocket. The SNP, you leave the UK,

you won't have a clue what currency will have. Wait a minute, wait a

minute, we will have a lot more in Scotland. Alex, if you could bring

yourself to be very brief. Briefly, Nicola Sturgeon can't get an SNP

majority for the referendum in the Scottish parliament, she has to get

a majority across the Parliament, she needs another political party to

agree to get the majority and she is not just speaking for the SNP, she's

trying to articulate the view of the nation and whatever the votes for

the SNP which incidentally, are 20 times the votes for Ukip, whatever

the for the SNP... APPLAUSE The vast, overwhelming majority of

people in Scotland want a say in the single market. -- want to stay. I

want David Davis to answer the point you made earlier that Scotland have

been betrayed in these discussions are ready by the Prime Minister,

promising she would do one thing and then not and then I want to go the

question you raised about what now because that is probably the last

area we are going to, how this proceeds and what control the

British public as a whole has over it. David?

When Alex said this in the House of Commons, he quote today from a

newspaper, rather than the original fact. Which one. He's answered

himself. The simple truth is what the Prime Minister said is that she

would seek consensus. She can't demand it. Frankly the Scottish

National Party doesn't want consensus. It wants to have it's all

so-called compromise solution, which is single market membership for is

of. Nick lectured us all on honesty earlier, and he started off by

saying, he started off by saying that I had made this argument

before, untrue. The argument he was now making. And he said we want to

have membership of the single market. He's ignoring something

important. To have that you have to accept free movement. You have to

accept the rule of the our peen court of justice, not human rights,

as I said earlier. The 6th April, 2014, you wrote, first we should

retain access to the EU single market. Access. Membership and

access are different things. That's the point. If the liberal party

can't realise that... APPLAUSE

No, no, no. That's wrong. Retain access. Jo it's a meaningless thing

to say. You've got to be honest about the facts you're talking to

now. And the last point about it is of course that being in the sing the

market, it's virtually impossible to be outside the European Union and be

in the single market, unless you're going to behave and accept all the

rules handed down from somebody else. So I'm afraid that simply does

not stand up. The British people voted to leave the European Union,

not stay half in, half out. APPLAUSE

Just to be clear, access to the sing the market and paying for access to

the single market is something you would go along with? I didn't say

that. Any contribution for access to the single market, of course, woed'

consider it? Considering. If you consider it, you're not ruling it

out. As the Prime Minister corrected me that day, yes, we'd consider it,

didn't mean we'd do it. I don't think he'd be at all pleased or

convinced. That's what I'm talking about. You don't understand it.

Doesn't make sense. I'm not the Prime Minister luckily. I'm going to

take another question. Should the British people

have a vote on the final Let's take this now, should the

British people have a vote on the final Brexit deal agreed, what

happens, David Davis, when you come back with your deal. It's said it's

going to be put to Parliament as a yes or No vote. That's where it

stands at the moment? Is that it? That's the end TV? Because the

decision taken by -- that's the end of it? Because the decision taken by

the British people on June 23 was the point of no return. We gave the

British people a referendum on this subject. It was said at the dispatch

box by the minister presenting the act of Parliament that this will be

a decision for the British people, not advice, decision. So yes, that's

the stance. Now you ask about a referendum. This is the liberal

party policy, a second referendum. If you want to encourage the

European negotiator in this to give us the worst possible deal, that's

the way to do it. Why so? Just explain it. I will. Because what

they want is to keep us in. They want to keep us in. If you had

another referendum, another run at the referendum, they would give us

the worst deal, in the hope that we would vote to stay in. For our

money, for our involvement, for the contribution we make to the European

Union, in all sorts of ways, that's what they would do. Come on, David.

APPLAUSE Keir Starmer. I think it's really

important that Parliament has a say in this. That's why we've been

arguing for what I termed a meaningful vote in Parliament, which

is the ability of MPs to vote on the deal that comes back in two years'

time. You've been offered that. Absolutely. We intend - and that's

why I said out tests today, we intend to use that because if the

Prime Minister comes back with a deal, which doesn't have the

confidence of Parliament, then that is not a good deal for our country.

That's a really important vote in Parliament. Now that, hopefully,

will be in the Autumn of 2018. If it's not good enough, the

instruction will be to the Prime Minister to go and negotiate some

more. This idea that it's a take it or leave it vote is a political

choice on the half of the Prime Minister. That's a very, very

important point of grip. As for a second referendum, I'm afraid that

lots of people make the argument for a second referendum are not being

honest about whether it's achievable. Because all that will

happen in two years' time, if this goes in the direction I hope it will

go in, is that we'll have a transitional arrangement in March

2019. Can't have a referendum on a transitional arrangement. The final

deal will be perhaps two or three after a transitional period, by

which time, we will have formally left the EU. In other words, what's

being put forward is the false promise, if you like, of a

referendum that isn't going to happen. Politically this is

important because either we stand up and face - I didn't want to leave

the EU, I passionately campaigned to stay in, now the decision is made,

we need to stand up and confront the challenges in front of us or we

spend the whole time looking behind us trying to rub out the decision

that was made. I don't think we're going to succeed if we do the

second. What happens if you have the vote and the Government comes back

and presents it, perhaps unlikely, but in view of the House of Commons,

but there is a vote against it, what happens then? Are you going to send

him back again to have another go - that's like the referendum. If they

think that's going to happen, they will take his referendum argument.

Is there any chance of it happening? This vote in the House of Commons is

artificial. It will come in two years' time - October 2018. Well,

October 2018, let's say it is, then it will be accepted or rejected.

Why? Because the Prime Minister says so? Because there's a two-year time

limit on these negotiations. I have put an amendment to make sure if it

was rejected we'd stay in, I can't remember if the Labour Party decided

to support that. It's an artificial chase, take or leave it. On the

question of the referendum, you'd have to have a general election, in

which people argued in the general election to hold another refer dumb

and got a mandate for doing. It unfortunately the past was sold on

the referendum, where the majority of the people, including the Labour

Party and the Liberal Democrats voted for this referendum two years

ago in the House of Commons. I think they were wrong to do so, but the

surpass was sold in that. The only way for another referendum is with a

general election to give a pert a mandate to reconsider the whole

referendum. Personally I'm not sure whether another referendum is the

right way to go, frankly, there are a lot of people in this country who

think how the hell can we trust a Government to have our best

interests at heart and get the best deal for us, when they haven't had

our best interests before. They say oh, Theresa May comes out and say

more funding for mental health, a week later, mental health is being

cut. How can we - There was a referendum. How can retrust someone

- There was a referendum. How can retrust someone who's deported

50,000 students. We leave right, we've got that, how can we trust

them to get the best deal for us when they haven't done it

beforehand. I see. I have great sympathy with that. We have been to

be quick now. It's a widespread problem. There's lack of trust in

Government. We are in a Parliamentary democracy. We had a

refer ditch on the constitutional -- referendum on the constitutional

issue. We voted out. Our system means we entrust the Government to

negotiate and Parliament rightly will have a say on the final

negotiation. So much of this argument is a coveted way of

Remainers trying to overturn the will of the British people.

APPLAUSE It sounds very seductive, let's

bridge the gap between Remainers and Brexiteers. If I hear these terms,

hard Brexit and soft Brexit, I shall throw up. There is no hard Brexit

and soft Brexit. There is simply Brexit.

APPLAUSE Keir Starmer is saying this is

rubbish. What is meant by soft Brexit is keeping us within the EU

rules, which means effectively half in, half out. It is an attempt by

Remainersto pretend to -- remainers to pretend to obey the will of

British people while in the detail trying to overturn it. We only have

a couple of minutes left. Very quickly. David Davis, this is

beneath you. We've known each other for many years. You cannot claim it

would be impossible for a democracy to be able to negotiate successfully

international agreement. By your logic, when David Davis said that

having another referendum on the final deal it would be an incentive

to give the United Kingdom a bad deal. By that reckoning, the only

governments that could successfully negotiate good international

agreements with each other are dictatorships, where you never allow

the people to have a say. Secondly, you used to make this argument. You

used to advocate a double referendum strategy. We also commit the country

to a decision referendum to be held when the EU negotiation is concluded

and then you said something rather wise, if a democracy cannot change

its mind, it ceases to be a democracy. And the question is, as

ever, who decides. Let's say we have a deal. Would decides? Is it Theresa

May on her own in Number Ten? Is it a bunch of politicians in

Westminster? Or is it you? I believe it should be you.

Suzanne Evans. APPLAUSE

You have to be very brief I'm afraid. We only have a minute or so

left. We had a referendum in 1975. We changed our mind, we've had

another one. We're leaving. APPLAUSE

Ukip is very much in favour. We can't carry on having referendums on

referendums on referendums. The vote leave campaign made it clear what we

want from Brexit. David, the country is looking to you to deliver. It

OK. -- to deliver it. Keir Starmer. I accept the result. I think I now

and many other people should have a role in shaping the future. There is

a role of difference between crashing out without a deal,

severing our ties with Europe and on the other hand having a partnership,

a collaborative, Co-operative future with Europe. I've got children and

the next generation require us and want us to shape the future for

them. Simply saying there's no choice, they are very different

futures. We've got it fight for the future that we want for the next

generation. I've got to stop because we have to make way for today's news

and the rest of it. I want to say to all of you here who had your hands

up and didn't get a chance, I'm sorry. I don't apologise to the

panel, because they've all had a good shout. We have the Article 50

on Wednesday. And the letter from the Prime Minister to Donald Tusk,

the president of the European Council, from Theresa May, and a

response apparently in 48 hours. Plenty more to talk about, Thursday,

the so-called great repeal bill will get the details of that and the

legislation moving here. My thanks to our panel, to all of you who came

here to Birmingham to take part, Question Time will be back on

Thursday at its usual time of 10. 45pm, here on BBC One. For now, from

Birmingham, good night.