30/11/2017 Question Time

Tonight, we are in Scarborough,

and welcome to Question Time.

And with us tonight, a one-time

Labour leadership hopeful,

now leading the charge

against Brexit, Chuka Umunna.

The Conservative Minister

for Prisons, Sam Gyimah.

The newly elected leader

of Ukip, Henry Bolton.

The deputy editor of

the Sunday Times, Sarah Baxter.

And the former finance minister

of Greece, who tried and failed

to negotiate a way out of debt

with the EU and accused them of

naked blackmail, Yanis Varoufakis.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

As ever, of course, at home

you can have your say.

Our hashtag is BBCQT

on Twitter and Facebook.

You can text us on 83981,

you can push the red button to see

what others are saying.

And just before we take our first

question, we did say

Priti Patel, the former

International Development Secretary,

would be here on the panel.

But after her resignation,

she resigned, I'm glad

Sam Gyimah has managed to get

here in her place.

And one other thing,

if you were watching last

week's Question Time,

you know it was rather curtailed.

You might like to know

that the audience member

who collapsed is back home

and feeling much better.

Good.

Let's take our first

question, and it comes

from Joanne Ribey, please.

How far would Donald Trump have

to go before our government formally

rescinded his invitation

for a state visit?

Yanis Varoufakis.

He has already crossed

the line, some time ago.

APPLAUSE

He is the President

of the United States of America,

which is a great ally

of the United Kingdom.

But he's not a great

ally of his own people.

And this visit would be greatly

divisive, in this country.

It would create an incongruity in

the House, the Houses of Parliament.

And there is absolutely no

reason why he should be

invited at this stage.

Would you formally rescind

an invitation that was formally

given on behalf of the Queen?

Yes, absolutely.

You'd withdraw it.

All right.

Sam Gyimah.

I think Yanis makes

a very good point.

What Donald Trump did

recently, I think has

definitely crossed a line.

And it takes great bravery

to stand up to your enemies.

It takes even more bravery

to stand up to your friends.

And I think Theresa May

was right to rebuke him

on Twitter for his comments,

in his retweets of Britain First.

We are a tolerant

and decent country.

We are open.

And I think it's right

that she did that.

In terms of whether or not

Donald Trump comes to this country,

I am personally deeply

uncomfortable about it.

I am deeply uncomfortable

because he is deliberately divisive,

and this would be divisive at a time

that we are trying

to unite our country.

The invitation has been sent,

it has been accepted.

It's above my pay grade in terms

of what happens next,

but I think I am deeply

uncomfortable about it.

APPLAUSE

Chuka.

I think the first thing to say,

I think we've got to acknowledge

that the US is bigger

than Donald Trump and there

are a huge number of Americans -

I have American family -

who find him as abhorrent as we do.

Let's just be frank about it.

This guy is a racist,

he is a misogynist,

he's an Islamophobe.

APPLAUSE

I mean, he campaigned promoting

hate, and what he's now doing

in retweeting Britain First

is basically doing so

in our country as well.

And I think what I find most

concerning is this kind of sense,

"Oh, well, it's Donald Trump".

You know, "This is what he does,

it's another shocking

thing that he does".

But the problem with that is

you are normalising hatred

if you approach it in that way,

just because he is the

President of the USA.

And I think if you normalise hatred,

and the kinds of things that he has

said, the kind of things

that he stands for and promotes,

you are going down a very

dangerous road indeed,

which is why I think

the Prime Minister should

be big enough to say,

"Look, I got this wrong.

"In fact, I probably shouldn't have

invited him in the first place".

Rescind the invitation.

Carrying on with it

makes us look needy,

and I fear normalises

hatred, which is not

what we should be doing.

APPLAUSE

It doesn't normalise it.

The Prime Minister rebuked him

on Twitter and today

she went even further.

She's made it very clear that, yes,

the United States as a country

is our ally but Donald Trump

retweeting those tweets

from Britain First is unacceptable.

And I think that is what we want our

Prime Minister to be doing.

Why not disinvite him?

That is the ultimate rebuke.

That would make

a statement to the world.

Is there a slight problem

that we are dependent

on the United States for a trade

deal when we leave the EU?

Well, I wish we weren't

in that situation.

We are in that situation.

Let me get to the point.

Would you take the risk of offending

him so much that he said,

and started tweeting,

"Forget Britain and the deal"?

He stood on the basis,

David, of America first.

The idea that he's suddenly

going to ride to the rescue

if suddenly all our trade goes,

is for the stars.

Henry Bolton.

First of all, he's crossed a line,

perhaps, in some people's minds,

but this is a state visit.

This is not a personal invitation

from Her Majesty to Donald Trump.

This is a state visit.

The United States and Great Britain

have a long and shared history.

We have supported each other

through thick and thin.

And like any family,

we are going to have points in time

when we have disagreements and where

we don't have disagreements,

when we get on very well

and when we don't get on very well.

And it is about taking care

of that relationship,

and that is an important thing.

This is not just the

United States President.

He is also commander-in-chief

and he is a significant

leader in the world,

of the world's largest superpower.

Now, what I find interesting

about this is that Britain First,

by the way, is proscribed

by my own party.

You cannot join Ukip if you have

been a member of Britain First,

along with a number

of right-wing parties.

However, there is an underlying

issue here which is,

what is actually going on and why

has this become such a big issue?

And that's another debate,

an important debate.

Sorry, why is what going on?

Why are people so

concerned about this?

About what, about

Trump's retweeting?

Why is Trump able to be

divisive about this?

There are two things about this.

There is the fact that Britain First

are an outrageous right-wing party,

but there is also, which I suspect

he didn't know, and I hope

that we don't see this again.

But the other aspect of it is that

people are concerned about a rising

tide of Islam in their communities.

Now, we cannot ignore that.

And I am not anti-Islamic.

I have got a lot of Muslim friends.

I think that's just playing

up to Trump's bait.

It's absolutely true.

That is appalling.

You do not deal with

hate by inciting hate.

I'm not inciting hate.

No, I'm not.

APPLAUSE

What I'm actually saying

is that we have to bear in mind

that there are communities in this

country and across the

European Union that have

concerns about the rate

at which their communities

are changing.

And some international organisations

that deal with security

and fully recognise...

I just don't get...

How do you go from peddling racism,

misogyny, hate, and carrying

on with the pattern of behaviour

we see from the President

of the United States,

to where you're coming from,

is beyond me.

Hold on.

Sarah Baxter.

Well, I think Henry's

talking nonsense.

He's just responding...

APPLAUSE

In a really, really wrong

way to a very crass action

by the American President.

That said, I think that

Donald Trump should come here.

He is the American President,

and we should all tell him

what we think about retweeting

such vile, racist stuff.

I don't think that Britain should be

turned into a giant safe space

where we can't allow

the President come.

Let him come, you tell him

what we think of his tweet,

and he can go home with our words

of condemnation about it

ringing in his ears.

The man in the red pullover.

Isn't Trump just right wing

politics without the filter?

Trump has never had a filter,

and he does betray himself somewhat.

I must say, I think it's very

unfortunate that he hasn't found it

in his heart to congratulate

Meghan Markle and Prince Harry

on their engagement but can retweet

horrible racist stuff.

The woman up there on the left.

I've just got a question

for the leader of the Ukip and I'm

just wondering why he doesn't show

the same loyalty to the EU

as he does to America,

and why we shouldn't stick

by them as family?

And also, don't we always get told

that we are to ignore

bullies to stop them

from continuing to bully?

The person in the back row.

The very back row.

As a teacher, all the time I have

to be a role model for my students,

as do my colleagues,

and I think it's appalling

that we are in the situation today

where we have the leader of the most

powerful nation in the world

being able to offend so many people

and to actually create tension,

to create aggression and to create

the very things that we,

our society, are trying to prevent.

How on earth can we justify anything

like that in the 21st century?

I don't understand why we can even

try and explain it or,

as Mr Bolton's tried

to do, excuse it.

You can't excuse that

sort of behaviour.

Henry Bolton, do you want to reply?

I'm not excusing it.

What I said was that I think

there is an underlying issue as well

that needs to be addressed.

But not like that.

And in that respect,

I did say I do hope that we don't

see that from Donald Trump again.

I said that.

But there is also a deeper

issue here that we do

need to have a frank,

honest and decent

conversation about.

The President of the United States

is supposed to be the leader

of the free world.

And there is a reason for that,

because the United States has been

a beacon for freedom,

tolerance, democracy,

the values that this

country cherishes so much.

He diminishes and undermines that

role and that responsibility

when he does the sorts of things

we see him doing.

And that is why we've

got to call this out.

Henry, you've got this

sort of allusion you're

making to other things.

We do deal with extremism

in this country.

We have got our troops fighting

people like Daesh and putting

young lives on the line,

but do not confuse that

with inciting hatred,

division in our society.

That is not the same.

APPLAUSE

I know that, Sam,

because I've done it.

I've done it, Sam, I know.

What I'm saying is that there

is a decent conversation we can have

about the concern people have

at the rate at which their

communities are changing.

There is no reason why we can't

have that discussion.

But there is a profound difference,

if I may say, between addressing

concerns that people have,

and speaking to their worst fears,

trying to incite hatred out

of fears, in order to put them

into the use, to invest them

into a wave of discord

which on the one hand gives people

like Donald Trump political power,

while at the very same time

worsening the causes of the discord

and the causes of concern

within those communities.

One last point.

Of course Britain is going to have

to deal with Mr Trump.

But to issue this invitation

and to fete him in London

at Buckingham Palace and the House

of Commons, that is an honour

which goes beyond the demands

of proper relationship

between the Prime Minister of this

country and the President

of the United States.

APPLAUSE

Can I go back to the questioner?

What do you think of what you heard?

I agree with Sarah.

I think he should come.

I think he's poison,

but he is the democratically elected

President of the United States,

and I think he ought to come

here and face people and be

asked tough questions.

I think non-platforming,

I'm not comfortable with that.

I think he should come.

Of course, he might not

want to come if he thinks he's

going to be protested against.

He doesn't seem to like people

protesting against him very much.

One last point, you, sir.

I was just going to say

that I totally agree.

For me, we're not just

inviting Donald Trump,

we are inviting the democratically

elected President of one

of our largest allies.

And just to come back on Chuka's

point, if the figures I've seen

recently are accurate,

we have actually a trade surplus

at the moment with America.

Although it's a fairly modest

sum of money involved.

Whereas obviously we have something

in the region of 65-70 billion trade

deficit on an annual basis

with the EU, I believe.

Well, you may be running

ahead of the programme,

as we may be about to come to that.

So let's pause there and go

on to our next question.

Just before we do, we are going

to be in Swansea next Thursday

and the week after that we're

going to be in Barnsley.

Swansea and then Barnsley.

On screen is how to apply

to come to Question Time,

which I hope you may be able to do.

Let's go on to Leslie

Fisher's question, please.

Which way would the country have

voted if they knew the divorce bill

would be £50 billion?

Which way would the country have

voted if they knew the divorce bill

would be £50 billion?

Chuka Umunna.

I think the country would

have voted to remain.

Let me explain why.

APPLAUSE

It's interesting actually,

the audience here is very

representative of the country

because there are strong

views on both sides.

I'll tell you the reason I say

I think we would have voted

for remain is that the vote leave

campaign and its head

Dominic Cummings was absolutely

clear that they wouldn't have won

the referendum if they hadn't made

or seemingly made this pledge to put

£350 million extra per week

into the NHS.

Obviously, if you are going to be

paying a large divorce bill,

you are not going to have that money

to put into the NHS.

And that is why I think

that the divorce bill is very

significant because you've got these

two new facts which are right,

we didn't really know about in 2016.

Big divorce bill, Boris Johnson

didn't say anything about that,

that wasn't emblazoned

across that bus.

And now you are not going to get

that £350 million extra

per week going to the NHS.

And in a way, I think it's symbolic

for what is happening on Brexit.

I think a lot of people bought this

thing, maybe if I make

the analogy of a car,

nice shiny Audi, leather seats,

alloy wheels, all the added extras,

now you've got the car,

you are sitting in this thing,

it's actually not an Audi,

it's a clapped out old banger

and looks like it might break down.

There should be nothing inevitable

about you having to buy that car

if at the end of the process it's

not going anywhere.

So that is why I think this

is important and I think we should

have an open mind about what happens

on all of this.

What would you like to see?

APPLAUSE.

What would you like to see happen

on all of this, as you put it?

Nobody on this panel

will say anything different,

they want to see the best deal

for the British people.

Increasingly, I think that Brexit

in the terms that it was sold

to the British people is proving

impossible to deliver.

Now, what we have to do,

as Parliamentarians,

is try and deliver it in the terms

that it was sold, try and give

you that Audi, if you like.

But you can't change

a banger into an Audi.

No, but you want to stop

Brexit, don't you?

That is your principal political

ambition at the moment, to stop it?

I certainly wish it

wasn't happening...

I didn't say that, I said you

actually want to stop it happening?

I would prefer it

wasn't happening but...

I know that, you want

to stop it happening?

I want to stop a hard Brexit

but at the moment we haven't

exhausted this process.

I can't say for certain

what is going to happen but I wish

it wasn't happening.

I think it will be bad

for this country, bad

for our economy and yes,

look we've got problems in this

country but I don't think

leaving the European Union

is going to solve them.

Sam Gyimah, Let's just go back

to Lesley's question,

if people knew it was going to be

£50 billion would they

have voted that way.

What do you say?

I think looking at the polls,

people would have voted exactly how

they voted in the referendum.

I voted remain because I thought

it was going to be costly

and complicated, but I think it's

patronising to say to the British

people what somehow they didn't go

into the referendum with their eyes

wide-open and somehow Chuka Umunna

says it's better than all of that.

knows better than all of them.

I didn't say that, you are taking

words out of my mouth.

That is not what I said.

So I think people went into it

with their eyes wide-open,

there is a price to pay.

Now, what is disingenuous

obviously and my position is,

the referendum's happened,

we can either keep refighting

the referendum or we can move

forward and do the best that we can

and that's why I'm committed

to delivering this referendum.

It's disingenuous as Chuka

is saying, that the £50 billion

and no figure's actually been

published by the government,

this is the figure that's

being speculated about,

it's disingenuous to say,

if we pay a sum of money between now

and transition which we would have

paid anyway for all the benefits

that we already receive,

without really knowing

will be conditional,

we'll probably hand it over

only if we get what we want,

that somehow is not right.

So Chuka is trying to have it both

ways, we would have paid the money

anyway but we wouldn't get it

for the NHS.

No, no, no.

David Davis said £50

billion was rubbish a few

weeks ago and wasn't

there a Government White Paper that

says, as we'll no longer be members

of the market we won't be required

to make vast contributions?

Is £50 billion not

a vast contribution?

The Government hasn't

put forward a figure,

this £50 billion is speculation

in the press.

What I am saying is,

it's disingenuous to say that

if we were to pay a divorce

settlement, that we would have paid

anyway if we were still in the EU

and part of settling our accounts

to make sure that we got the deal

that we wanted given

that the British people have voted

to leave, that is wrong.

I'll come to you, then you?

Britain is a country that respects

contract law and it was never

going to be the case that it

would not pay its dues

to the European Union.

I really do not believe

that the good people who voted

in favour of Brexit,

I'm saying this as a Remainor,

were ever fooled about that or ever

expected not to pay the bill.

Britain's not a strategic defaulter

but this is irrelevant.

The overall effects of Brexit

will have nothing to do

with the divorce bill.

The amount of money sounds

like a lot but it's puny compared

to the present value of the effects

of Brexit on this country over

the next five, ten, 20 years.

So what we should be

concentrating upon is,

firstly, as democrats,

to respect the referendum outcome,

even though I'm on the losing side

and I'm very, very saddened

by the fact that Britain is leaving

the EU, while at the very same time,

minimising what is a process

which I can only describe

as a dog's Brexit.

APPLAUSE.

Right.

Sarah?

I'll come to you in a moment,

let me go to one or two members

of the audience then we'll come

to you and Henry.

The man in the white shirt

and I would like to two back

to the questioner Lesley as well.

You, there?

Absolutely, even if we accept

that it's £50 billion,

it's a fact whether you voted remain

or leave, it's a fact

that we pay a net contribution

per year of £9 billion

and the European Commission has

talked about a 40-year payment

period, we don't know what that is,

but let's assume it's 40,

even 30 years, that's just

over £1 billion a year.

We pay £9 billion

net, that is a fact.

Whatever side you're on.

The second thing is,

if it's £50 billion,

not only does that appear a bargain

when you look at what we pay each

year, but this isn't

a gift for a trade deal,

this isn't us saying,

well we are going to give you this,

then you are going to give us

a trade deal.

This is us complying

with our contractual obligations

which we were always going to do.

The key point is...

Didn't the Foreign Secretary say

they could whistle for their money?

No, that is absolutely incorrect.

What Boris Johnson said,

and I would ask Chuka

to retract his comment that he made

today on Twitter, what he said

about that was that they can go

and whistle about an extortionate

amount, he didn't put the full

figure out there on Twitter.

He talked about an extortionate

amount, when he talks about go

whistle and that has to be

taken into account.

All right.

Let me go to the questioner,

Lesley, what do you think?

I think a lot of us on both sides

voted on the basis of insufficient

detailed information

and I do think that...

APPLAUSE.

I do think that maybe

it was our own responsibility

to look into it in a lot more detail

than we did.

But I do think now people

are thinking a lot more deeply.

We have had a lot more information

come out since we took the vote.

I voted for remain and I agree

with Chuka completely.

I wish we'd never had

the flaming referendum.

All right.

APPLAUSE.

If both sides voted on incomplete

information, the result

might have been the same

when they get full information.

Sarah Baxter?

I also voted remain.

A lot of remainers here tonight.

I think Chuka's completely wrong.

Nobody voted for the referendum

on the basis of £350 million

for the NHS, everyone knew

that was rubbish

right from the start.

The next thing is, Chuka says

he doesn't want a hard Brexit.

Now, if we say oh we are not

paying that money...

No, no.

That is the quickest way

to get a hard Brexit.

Britain's always been honourable

about its about its obligations.

Britain's always been honourable

about its obligations.

Yanis Varoufakis is right, we

haven't always had a good deal back.

So I would like to make that payment

contingent on getting a decent deal

from the EU and not handing over

the money without some sort of quid

pro quo so we'll see what we get

down the line in a trade deal.

Meanwhile, I think a lot

of the money is going to pay

eurocrats and MEPs for their pension

obligations, including Nigel Farage

who is going to be supported

for life by the rest of us.

So anyway...

I thought I would throw that in.

Henry Bolton?

It's interesting isn't it

from the point of the referendum

to the day we leave

the European Union, presuming

we leave in March 2019,

we will have paid £22 billion

to the European Union and then

there's the £50 billion

or thereabouts, which is £77 billion

and how much further is it

going to go up because also

we see that in the budget,

that Philip Hammond's allowed for,

I think it's £3 billion every year

with no end date to it.

So what does this

actually total up to?

To follow on, on Chuka's analogy,

would you consider buying a second

hand car when you don't even know

what make, colour or type of engine

it has, what condition it's in,

and yet you are still putting

the amount of money on the table.

Do you object to the

way the Government's

negotiating at the moment?

I do, yes and in fact

I would like to come

back to Yanni's point,

the dog's Brexit.

We gave the Government

a mandate to negotiate.

The unfortunate fact

of the matter is that

our Government seems

incapable of negotiating.

APPLAUSE.

At the moment, probably not very

many people in this room have read

the position papers that have been

sent by London to Brussels

but there is nothing,

nothing concrete in them whatsoever.

That's problem number one.

Problem number two is that they have

no negotiating objectives, it's not

clear what the British Government

is trying to achieve.

On the 24th June, 2016, they should

have started work on that.

They didn't.

We've lost a lot of time.

That is a problem for the Government

and now what the Government

is doings is trying to move takes

on by offering £50 billion.

is doings is trying to move talks

on by offering £50 billion.

They're trying to use your tax.

That's the equivalent

of about £1,650 on everybody's

income tax bill.

And then, to say that this

was foreseen, of course it wasn't

foreseen, we didn't foresee

that our Government would be

so incompetent as to not be able

to negotiate any other way.

It was foreseen.

In fact the Sunday Times said

it was going, there was a secret

deal to have this bill of 40 billion

to 50 billion euros

back in September and a lot

of what we have heard ever since has

been pure noise.

The EU asked for £90 billion,

we said £20 billion,

we are splitting the difference,

a lot of this is happening

in negotiations behind-the-scenes

by officials, not by politicians

and I think a lot of...

I have say, I worked

in Brussels for three years.

So you know how that works?

I do and I've negotiated

for the European Union as well.

Not for Britain.

Who against?

I'm not going to say,

but for two countries.

The other day, I met with a very

high level European Commission

official who is involved in these

negotiations and his comment

was that they after years

of dealing with a country -

Britain - that has always

provided good, sound logical

common-sense in all its dealings

with the European Union has now

totally disappointed them.

OK.

We are dealing with a Government

that doesn't know what it's doing.

The man in the blue shirt?

We are all on about this referendum.

The actual vote was so near

and the majority so narrow,

the Parliamentary election

was so narrow and such a small

majority, she's damned if she does

and she's damned if she doesn't

because we've always

got this nit-picking

going on and I would imagine them

politicians over in Brussels

are laughing at how

we are conducting ourselves.

I voted to leave.

We are going to leave,

get on with it, OK.

APPLAUSE.

And you, Sir?

I would like to ask Chuka,

two of the things he's

said to far tonight,

one is that he disagrees

said so far tonight,

one is that he disagrees

with the £50 billion.

I never said that.

And the second being

that he disagrees with the lack

of detail that came out

at the beginning.

If you disagree with the fact

that we are going to pay this

£50 billion, will you please tell

us, in your opinion,

what that £50 billion

is going to get spent

on because I don't know and I can't

make an opinion on that until I know

what that is going to be,

but nobody is telling me that.

I'm really glad you asked me

the question, Sir, because I'm not

saying we are opposed

to meeting our legal liabilities

to the European Union.

If you are a member of a club,

you rack up a bill at the bar,

you can't just walk out of it

without settling it.

So I don't have a problem with that.

But the second thing I'd say

is this, the reason I bring up

the £350 million extra per week

for the NHS, which this

has a direct effect on,

is not to relitigate the referendum,

it's actually to hold

people to account for

the promises that were made.

This is the big difference

actually, if you like,

between where we are at now

and where we were last year.

When we were debating this

in the referendum last year,

it was based on the

hypotheticals on both sides.

None of us knew exactly

what was going to happen.

What we now see are facts.

We know facts are arising out

of this negotiation process and,

as the lady said at the back,

this is far much more complex

than anybody thought it would be.

You said something about the number

reremainers here and I think

You said something about the number

of remainers here and I think

there are two types of remainers.

There are remainers

like Chuka who're still stuck

in the groove of fighting.

I'm not.

APPLAUSE.

And there are remainers

who think the best thing

we can do for our country,

as that gentleman over there said,

is to recognise that now,

it is us versus the EU27.

It's not leave versus remain.

And therefore we should be looking

at our national interests and seeing

how best we support it.

Of course, both sides

in the referendum campaign came up

with some wild exaggerations

that we all knew the £350 million

was hugely illustrative.

But it is a fact and I say

this as a remainor,

But it is a fact and I say

this as a remainer,

when we come out of the EU,

eventually we'll be paying a lot

less to the EU than we do now.

That is true.

And so, Chuka, what we should be

doing is not fight the referendum

but actually focus on how we can get

the best deal for our country.

OK, enough.

Your government has taken

the best deal off the table.

That is the problem, Sam.

If you're going to rip us out

of the single market

and the customs union,

which you don't need to do

if you leave the European Union,

that's the best deal off the table.

The woman there, please.

I don't know how you can say

that the British public went into it

with their eyes open,

given the lies and misinformation

that were spread

during the referendum.

Also, I have to disagree

with Sarah's point,

because as somebody who works

in the NHS with boots

on the floor in our hospitals,

I can tell you that staff

and patients were influenced

by the 350 million thing.

Henry Bolton, one last word.

Your spokesman on this

accused the negotiators,

I've got the quote here,

of being quislings.

Is that how you think

of the people negotiating?

I wouldn't put it quite

as quislings, no.

Ukip did.

Ukip's man in charge of this did.

You're the boss of Ukip.

Should he withdraw this, then?

We could tone quislings

down slightly.

But let me answer this.

Quislings is the same as traitor.

Yes.

Let's tone that down somewhat.

But the point is that, indeed,

there is some tendency towards that.

Because, to answer this

gentleman's question, OK,

two of the things that some of this

50 billion is going to be spent

on are projects relating to free

wifi in Greek hotels.

Sorry, Yanis.

And the other thing is,

can you believe it, £450,000,

which is not much out of 50 billion,

I grant you, on projects

to challenge Euroscepticism.

Now that's what we're

going to be paying for,

ladies and gentlemen.

And what I'm saying here is if we're

negotiating to agree to go forward

with paying for things like that,

then Gerard Batten has a point.

You've already committed

to paying for those things,

however ludicrous they may

seem to you.

And you do not want to default

on your commitments with legal...

This country's government should

do exactly what it's

got a mandate to do,

take us out.

And the only way that we're

going to come out of this

on the trajectory that you suggest,

Sam, which is in the interests

of this country, is defending

the interests of this country

and making sure, to do that,

we need to make sure we exercise

a bit of British steel.

And we're not doing that.

All right.

Enough, enough, enough.

We must move on.

We're over halfway through and every

week we discuss this.

And those of you who are here know

that we discuss it every week

because you will have

heard it going on.

Pearl Bent, let's hear from you.

Should we prioritise

getting aid to Yemen,

rather than pandering to the Saudis

and supplying them with arms?

Should we prioritise getting aid

to Yemen rather than pandering

to the Saudis and supplying

them with arms?

Sarah Baxter.

Well, the Yemen certainly

needs our aid and what's going

on there is an absolute scandal.

And the country has been caught up

in really a proxy war

between the Saudis and the Iranians.

And there is a big contest

going on between the Sunni

and Shia Muslims, and not one

that we often hear talked about.

That said, Theresa May, I think,

is right to be in Saudi Arabia

and visiting that country.

I think that at the moment

it has a new leader,

a very young leader.

He goes by the name of MBS,

Mohammad Bin Salman.

He is both interesting and quite

a potentially dangerous figure.

This is not a moment

to be alienating MBS.

It's a time to be watching

rather warily in which

direction he is going.

He says he's for human rights,

particularly for women,

which is a good thing.

But at the same time he's locking up

members of his own House of Saud

in the Ritz-Carlton hotel

and extorting money off them,

ostensibly as a way

of curing corruption.

Should we be providing three

quarters of a billion of arms

to the Saudi government?

I think this is not the time to make

an enemy of Saudi Arabia.

I don't approve of that...

So let's keep giving them the bombs.

No, I do not approve...

There's only one thing that we know.

Have we learned nothing from Iraq?

Have we learned nothing?

Do we want to have more blood

on our hands from the Middle East?

There's one thing worse than what's

going on in Saudi Arabia

at the moment, and that would be

Saudi going in the Isis-jihadist

direction, and it is

entirely possible that

Saudi Arabia could go that way.

And right now, I think it's better

that they remain our ally.

So we give them arms to kill

more people in Yemen,

to create more Islamic

fundamentalism in Yemen,

to destroy whatever is left

of the image of Western democracy

throughout the Middle East,

to perpetuate a humanitarian crisis

by becoming accomplices

to the Saudis, who are blockading

existing aid packages

going to the people of Yemen that

are starving, all that in order

not to undermine our

relationship with the Saudis.

APPLAUSE

I don't believe the UK should

have any further foreign

entanglements in the Middle East,

aid, military or otherwise.

I think we should finally withdraw

for good from that region entirely.

Sam Gyimah.

Can you answer his point?

The Prime Minister is travelling

in the Middle East at the moment

because we have a lot

of important relationships there.

We are a member of Nato, a leading

member of the UN Security Council.

We are one of the military

powers in the world.

We have an international

role to play for good.

In terms of the specific

question about Yemen,

which is a humanitarian catastrophe,

I think it was right

for the Prime Minister,

while she was on her travels,

to actually ask for the blockade

to be lifted so commercial vehicles

could get in there and you have

vital supplies sent

to the people of Yemen.

The UK Government does not supply

arms to Saudi Arabia.

There are UK companies...

You just lease them, you mean?

4.6 billion is the price

tag of the lease.

Very smart.

There are UK companies that

manufacture arms and sell them.

Obviously they have export licences

that are granted by the government.

Those export licences

are very carefully policed

so that they are not allowed

to sell our weapons where

they are going to be

used for repression,

or where they are going to be used

directly to harm people.

Does the government approve

of the use of the weapons

that we have sold to Saudi Arabia

being used in the Yemen?

Do you have agents there making sure

that these particular bombs cannot

be used on these particular targets?

Because that would be amazing.

You should bring them back

to negotiate Brexit.

There are strict terms...

APPLAUSE

There he goes again.

There are strict terms around

the export licences,

and we have relationships

with a lot of these.

I think what we've got to do is,

UK jobs depend on this,

is to make sure that at the highest

level our foreign policy,

our Foreign Secretary,

our Defence Secretary,

are diplomatically engaging

with these countries

so that our diplomatic and foreign

objectives are realised.

But the gentleman's point

about moving out of these countries

completely I don't think is right.

Can I just put the question

that I asked you?

You say the government issues

licences, and issues them with care,

where it believes...

Strict controls.

Strict controls, right.

Given that the arms have been sent

to Saudi Arabia in huge quantities

with strict controls,

one assumes you can control

their use, otherwise there's no

point in having these controls.

Do you think the British government,

by allowing these weapons

to be used in Yemen,

is implicitly supporting

Saudi policy in Yemen,

and indeed allowing weapons made

in this country to go there?

Not at all.

Not at all, I don't agree.

There were weapons sold

under certain strict

conditions to Saudi Arabia.

I do not know what weapons

Saudi Arabia is using...

All weapons we know are constantly

having to be repaired.

They have experts out

there explaining how

they should be used.

It's an industry.

And you can pull back

from it or you can...

I'm sorry.

Can you commit to their

non-use in Yemen?

Can you say, as a government

minister, that those bombs are not

being thrown in Yemen?

Can you say that?

I can't comment on that.

Well, that is the question.

You only have to look

at the television and see

those children starving,

dying of diphtheria and diseases

that no child should die from.

It's a disgrace.

Chuka Umunna.

I'll come back to you,

but I'll go to Chuka Umunna.

I think there is a big question mark

over whether the arms

which are being purchased,

albeit from British companies,

whether they are being

used to repress people.

And therefore I think at the very

least that the government should

pause and investigate

what is happening here.

I actually think there

is a bigger question

here about our relationship

with the Saudi Arabian

regime overall.

Because the traditional argument

that is used against perhaps,

how could I say, deploying a more

robust approach to that relationship

is that we've got strategic military

and defence interests in the region,

and they are part of

protecting those interests.

But increasingly I've

found over the years,

you know, if you look

at so many of the problems

that we are faced with,

Saudi Arabia has very often been

an incubator for those problems.

If you look at the extreme

strain of Islamism...

Well, I'm probably not

describing it correctly,

but the more conservative strain

of Islamic thought, Wahhabism,

that was incubated in Saudi Arabia,

and that is one of the things that

has led to many of the

problems in the region.

So I do question whether our

approach, our foreign policy

approach to Saudi Arabia,

not just under this government,

frankly, but under different

governments, is actually

the right one.

And I certainly don't think

we should be putting jobs

before human rights.

I have a real issue with that.

APPLAUSE

You, sir, up there.

The problem with if we cease

providing weapons and military

training to Saudi Arabia

is what happens to that void?

Someone will fill it,

and that someone will be Russia,

China, a country of that nature

who will come in to supply weapons,

which aren't perhaps,

they may be a chemical nature

or some sort of weapon

which will actually cause greater

harm than weapons which we provide.

We just can't comprehend

what might happen.

So just because somebody

else will commit a crime

if you don't, you should.

Over here on the other side

of the gangway, and then

Henry Bolton I will come to you.

In terms of not sending

aid at all into Yemen,

what happens if everybody took that

responsibility and that standpoint?

There would be no aid going

into there, when there is already

a major humanitarian crisis.

Well, I don't think anyone's arguing

against aid going into Yemen.

Henry Bolton.

The question was, the point was,

I think, almost, that we should not

intervene in these places.

Based on past track record.

And I would entirely agree.

And it links across to the weaponry

that we provide with Saudi Arabia.

And as far as I'm concerned,

the weaponry that we are providing

Saudi Arabia, to equate that to,

as Sam did, to jobs, it's lives.

There are people dying

because of those weapons and you're

saying people's jobs depend on them.

But we are not good as a country

and we have not been for many years

in dealing with our interventionist

policies and approaches.

Iraq, Afghanistan.

Two cases in point.

In Afghanistan, the military

mission was accomplished

in probably about six months,

a year at most.

But we stayed there for years,

getting involved in state building,

in a society and in a political

background that we had no

understanding of what

we were dealing with.

And that's the problem.

And we have got policies of selling

arms to Saudi Arabia,

and people dying as a result,

without any real

in-depth understanding

of what's going on there.

And we are complicit,

therefore, in what is going

on and the humanitarian disaster.

We need to really re-evaluate how

we conduct our foreign

policy in such scenarios.

I'm going to move on.

Very briefly, if you would.

No one is equating jobs with lives.

What is going on in Yemen

is the responsibility

of the Saudi Arabian government,

not the British government.

If you're supplying

arms to somebody...

If I give you a weapon

and you go and shoot somebody,

who supplied you with the weapon?

Who has part of the culpability?

Would you be able to shoot

them without the weapon?

Of course not.

We are not responsible

for Saudi Arabian foreign policy.

We have to leave it there to move

onto another subject,

which we had many questions on.

Fiona Beardsley,

please, your question.

How would the panel tackle

the social deprivation,

the high unemployment,

low wages that are being faced by

many of our coastal towns in the UK?

That was revealed by

the commission report on social

mobility this very week.

Sarah Baxter.

Well, I'd start with looking

at education, because very often

the coastal towns are falling

behind in schools.

Now, there are ways to reform that,

and London's been pretty good at it,

actually, by introducing a variety

of types of schools,

free schools, academies, etc.

A lot of choice.

I think standards need to be raised

right from the start.

We heard the Ofsted chief this week

saying that early education is not

good in this country,

people aren't even learning

the basics of reading and writing.

Now that's just at

the very basic level.

It takes some time to work through.

I'd like to see more investment.

Maybe we'll come on to talk

about the railways, but I'd love

to see more infrastructure.

You can talk about it now.

You are free.

Answer the question

any way you choose.

You talk about the railways.

We are no longer living in that age

of the car foreseen by Beeching

and I think we should start

developing, not just more branch

lines but also the HS III connecting

Liverpool to Hull and regenerate

the whole of the North.

I would like to see

a Yorkshire Mayor, I don't know how

you guys feel about that,

but I think that Mayors can be...

Well in my experience

in London and in Manchester,

they can be a good way of providing

inward investment into a region

and also generating a kind

of cohesion and can-do spirit

so I'm for it.

Fiona Beardsley, what are

you actually driving at here,

what is it like, what is it

that this social mobility

report produced that

you feel strongly about.

I mean, I think, you know,

it's obvious to us in Scarborough

that we know this is happening

locally and we face

these problems daily.

Our young people can't

find employment, our

employment is very seasonal.

We are very isolated

by our transport links as well

which deters businesses from moving

here and investing in the town.

You, Sir, over there,

to you agree with that?

Yes, I agree, because the major road

that comes into Scarborough

is the A64 and if you go down that

road, there are single

carriageway section of it.

If you go somewhere similar

like Blackpool, it is a major

motorway going into Blackpool so it

puts blocks of businesses off

because it's difficult to get

the transport in and out

of Scarborough and it's ridiculous

that a town like Scarborough has

such a ridiculous road

going into it.

You, Sir, what do you think?

It's about education.

We as a country are short

of skilled people.

Now, at school, if you,

when we were at school at 13, 14,

our teachers knew how far

we could go.

Now, I think at 14, most

of the teachers should be able to be

able to tell pupils and say,

you can go on or you

will go to university.

Some of the people who're not clever

enough to two to university,

who've got the hands

to go into trades.

We are short of electricians,

plasterers, joiners, chefs,

At 14, 15, you should

start to learn a trade.

Are you talking about the country

as a whole or Scarborough?

The country as a whole

but Scarborough would

obviously benefit as well.

The woman here?

My question was relating

to the £53 billion and rising

all the time, of HS II.

What benefit does the panel see

that for the north-east?

Chuka Umunna?

And HS III yes but for Hull.

When is that going to be?

I'm nervous in replying

to this question.

Why?

I'll explain why.

Part of the problem here

is we try to do everything in London

in Whitehall and to come and tell

a community like yours

here how to do things...

APPLAUSE.

And, you know, it seems to me,

I mean if you take an overview,

it's shocking, we are the sixth most

wealthy country in the world and yet

one in five people lives

in absolute poverty,

over 14 million people

are living in absolute poverty

in our country which I think

is a disgrace.

APPLAUSE.

But, how do you deal with that?

You need proper local

industrial strategies and,

when I say you need to decide that

here, is that you know

what it is about your unique

geography history and people that

givious a cutting edge and a niche

in a big global economy.

I visited another area

like this, Clacton-on-Sea,

a couple of years ago.

They are going through

change there as well.

It was massively based on tourism

before, there was a big Butlins

there that shut down in 1983

and then they were left with not

new industries and now

because of the geography

and the place, they've turned it

into this renewable energy

hub, big windfarms just

outside of Clacton-on-Sea.

But they know how to do that.

I think what we have to do,

people in the centre in government,

have to give you the tools

to do that.

I totally agree with the point

that the gentleman made about skills

and we have got to end the snobbery

in this country that says,

if you go to university,

that is better than becoming

an apprentice than doing

a vocational education

qualification.

APPLAUSE.

I'll tell you, there's

a really big problem,

there's a real crisis

on the apprenticeship front

because over the past quarter,

the number of apprenticeship starts

has fallen by 70%.

We are not going to solve

these problems with that

type of thing happening.

All right.

The woman here in the second row,

then we'll come to you, Yanis?

I don't necessarily think that

education is the answer.

I have three degrees

and today I nearly didn't get

here because I had to travel home

from Newcastle where I work

and the train got delayed.

I travel up and down to Newcastle

and up and down to London an also

around all of the coastal towns

and cities in England as part

of my job and it's the same,

it can take me ten hours on a train

to get from here to Cornwall.

I can fly to the Middle East in less

time than that takes.

APPLAUSE.

We do not have adequate

transport links.

The infrastructure, right.

How can you expect investment

to happen and businesses

to want to develop in areas

like this, regardless

of what the business is,

if they haven't got the ability

to get there, and therefore,

what's the point in being

educated if you can't work

where you live?

APPLAUSE.

Yanis Varoufakis ?

I agree with much of what I heard

about the importance of strong

regional governance,

whether this is a mayorship

or I would actually

like Regional Assemblies,

a more federal kingdom to emerge,

it's a complete devolution that

Tony Blair left incomplete,

infrastructure, education

is an end in itself,

and of course it has very

good side effects.

But I think what our

conversation is missing out

on is that the situation in towns

like Scarborough or Clacton-on-Sea

and so on is simply a symptom

of the chronic under-performance

of the UK business model.

You have a country which is

chronically under-investing

in research and development compared

to the main places around Europe

and the world in fixed

capital, in infrastructure.

You have wage stagnation,

you have the worst, the most

lob-sided geographical imbalances

of any major country in the world,

worse than Italy actually.

APPLAUSE.

Where does the blame for this lie?

Let's not play the blame game.

You have to play the blame

game if you are going

to resolve anything.

Mrs Thatcher on the basis

of what was a very clear attempt

to diminish the organisations

of the working

class in Britain...

APPLAUSE.

The fact that you had growth based

on financisations of the city,

The fact that you had growth based

on financialisations of the city,

financialisations of council house

sales which of course depleted

the stock of housing,

the fact that then you created

an educational system,

higher educational system,

university system where young people

have to become endebted before

they even begin to consider

entering the labour market.

But let's talk what about

what needs to be done.

We only have...

Allow me to say something good

about the government.

Say anything you like but be quick

about it, that's all.

I read the interesting policy

White Paper, it's actually quite

good except it's missing

an important point.

An important part.

Funding.

APPLAUSE.

What you have in this country

is about £900 billion slushing

around in the financial sector

needing to be invested

in all of the things

that you are discussing.

But in order to do that,

you need a public investment bank

and you need that public investment

bank to work side by side

with the Bank of England

through a particular kind

of quantitative easing.

Sorry, I have to speed you up.

I'm afraid only Jeremy Corbyn

will do this because your government

doesn't have what it takes

to realise the importance of closing

the loop that you started.