01/02/2018 Question Time

Tonight we are in Grantham,

and welcome to Question Time.

And with us tonight,

the former Education Secretary

who chose to leave the Cabinet

in the January reshuffle rather

than take a different job,

Conservative MP Justine Greening.

The Labour MP John Mann,

who voted in favour of Brexit

and who thinks Jeremy Corbyn may not

lead Labour into the next election.

The Deputy Leader of

the Liberal Democrats,

Business and Equalities Minister

in David Cameron's coalition

government, Jo Swinson.

And economist and former

adviser to Ed Miliband,

who came to this country

as an asylum seeker fleeing the war

in Liberia, Miatta Fahnbulleh.

And the columnist and writer

for the Daily Telegraph

and the Catholic Herald,

Tim Stanley.

Good.

Good.

Thanks very much.

Remember, at home, of course,

if you want to take issue

with what's being said here,

#BBCQT on Twitter, Facebook,

and you can engage in the debate.

Let's have our first question.

Amanda Byrne, let's

have your question, please.

Are Theresa May's days numbered,

and who is fit to take her place?

Are Theresa May's days...

Tim Stanley?

Yes, I think they are,

and I would listen to the growing

chorus among MPs and the growing

feeling that she hasn't quite got

what it takes to see this country

through to a very successful Brexit,

and a Brexit which seizes

all opportunities that come with it.

I'll put my cards on the table.

I'm a Brexiteer.

I supported her when she said

Brexit means Brexit.

That was good enough for me.

But we have seen, the last

year, that she didn't

really believe in it.

There was a basic tragedy.

Brexiteers won the referendum

but they lost the Tory

leadership election.

And the Tory party was taken over

and the government was taken over

by someone who saw Brexit not

as an opportunity but as a risk

that they had to guide

the country through.

And that lost momentum

in the general election.

It lost the Tories their majority.

It led to a very, very poor

performance at the conference,

and increasingly there is growing

disquiet among MPs that she simply

hasn't got what it takes to see

the country through this.

Now, her counterargument is,

precisely because the arithmetic

in Parliament is so close,

you need someone like her,

who can swim between the soft

and hard options of Brexit,

someone who simply isn't

as offensive as either alternative.

But that's not the right approach

to take towards Brexit.

You don't just chase

a consensus in this country,

you try and build one.

And I'm afraid everything we've

discovered in the last year is that

Theresa May simply doesn't

have the political skills necessary

to explain Brexit to people

and to achieve the best

outcome from it.

APPLAUSE

Justine Greening.

You had a run-in with

her just last month.

What do you think?

I think she's got an incredibly

challenging job as Prime Minister

and I think people need

to get behind her.

APPLAUSE

It is a unique time for our country.

People want a Prime Minister that

will steer us through this

period of uncertainty,

but I'm afraid those soundings off

that we hear just make

that harder, frankly.

So I think people need to get

behind her and I think

that we need to remember,

frankly, and I've been

in Parliament for 12 years,

that whether it was Tony Blair,

Gordon Brown, people like John Major

before my time,

there are always going to be MPs

that will run off to the papers

and bad-mouth a PM.

That is part of the territory

of the job, but frankly,

I think we need to get

behind her and support her doing

an incredibly important job

on behalf of our country.

The obvious question to ask then is,

if you feel that strongly,

why didn't you accept

what she offered you and stay

in the Cabinet to support her

from inside government?

APPLAUSE

Because in the end, for me,

it was not about having a job.

I didn't come into politics in terms

of whether I had a role or not.

I came into politics because I care

passionately that it shouldn't

matter where you are growing up

in this country, you have the same

equal opportunities to make

the most of yourself.

That's what I was able to pursue

in the Department for Education,

but I've been very clear,

frankly, that you can do that

from outside government as well.

But if you were supporting

the Prime Minister, if you feel

she's in difficulty,

if you feel Brexit is a big problem,

if you feel everybody

should be behind her,

you didn't do your bit

by publicly refusing to do

what she asked you to do.

That's the question.

I don't agree with that at all,

and actually there was no rancour

whatsoever between myself

and the Prime Minister.

It's not rancour between

you and the Prime Minister,

it's the public image

of you refusing to do

what she wanted, like the Secretary

of State for Health refused to do

what she wanted.

It gave exactly the impression

of a Prime Minister who wasn't

completely in control.

I don't...

I do not agree that a member

of Parliament that comes

into Parliament in order to achieve

things for their community

and their country, and puts

that, frankly, ahead

of any particular role...

I've done four ministerial roles,

I could have had a fifth ministerial

role, a fourth role in Cabinet.

But that's not what I was interested

in doing and, frankly,

I could have put that first

but I preferred to continue working

on the issues that I think

matter to this country.

And dare I say, David, as well,

I think for all of the debate

that we are having on Brexit,

the sorts of fundamental challenges

around the fact that where you grow

up still determines how

well you can do in life,

those challenges absolutely need

to be confronted and dealt with.

And part of the problem

in government is people

do get moved around.

That is one of the reasons why

we never have the kind

of stickability on this sort

of policy to really see it through.

And I'm prepared to be somebody

who takes a decision about seeing

through the fact that we have

to become a country where there

is equality of opportunity

for all of our young people wherever

they are growing up.

APPLAUSE

Miatta Fahnbulleh.

You've worked in Downing Street,

you worked for Blair,

worked for Brown, you've seen

what it's like from the inside.

Do you think her days

are numbered as Prime Minister?

Look, I don't think it's for me

to say whether Theresa May

should stay or not.

I think it's a decision for her...

It's a question for observation,

whether you think...

And those in the Conservative Party

that may or may not nudge her out.

But for me the real tragedy

in all of this is that

I remember her on the streets

of Downing Street and I remember her

talking to the country,

talking about the struggles that

people were facing, talking

about the fact the people she called

the just about managing,

the fact that they were

struggling to make ends meet,

struggling to pay their bills,

the prospects for their kids

weren't getting better.

And I was quite encouraged by that.

And I think the real frustration

is that she has absolutely failed

to tackle any of those issues.

And time and time again she talks

the talk, and then when it

comes to actually acting,

she completely bottles it.

So on housing, and social

mobility, on pay,

the rhetoric has just not matched up

to the reality.

So if she wants to stay,

if she wants to lead the country,

if she wants to govern the country,

fine, but get on with it.

Lead, govern, take action.

APPLAUSE

I'll come back to

the panel in a moment.

The man in the spectacles up

there, what do you think?

You've come to Grantham

this evening, the home

of Margaret Thatcher.

She once said, "I don't mind how

much my ministers talk,

so long as they do what I say".

Would even Margaret Thatcher

have been able to lead

the Conservative Party that don't

know whether they want

Brexit or Breno?

And what do you think?

I think she would have had

difficulty with the party

as it is at the moment.

And you, sir.

I think the main problem she's got

is she's not delivering a clear

message about Brexit.

Nobody in Europe

understands what she wants.

The British people voted.

We know what we want.

We want control of immigration,

control of our own laws,

and we want to work with Europe

but we don't want to be

dictated to by Europe.

Europe's become a dictatorship.

We may come to a bit of that later,

but do you think her days

are numbered as Prime Minister?

No.

If she comes out with a clear

message and whips them

all into line and follow her.

She needs to come out

and tell them what we want,

because they don't know

what we want.

They know what they want.

They want our money and they want

to keep us on the sort of strings

that we are on at the minute.

They're not going

to give us anything.

They're going to give us as little

as they can get away with and take

as much money as they can.

John Mann.

I feel sorry for her.

I mean she is an ardent Remainer.

Ardent.

And she hasn't changed

her view on that.

One of the ironies is, of course,

that Jeremy has always

been very Eurosceptical,

so you've got this ardent

Remainer trying to push

through what the people have,

rightly in my view, voted for.

But whether she thinks it's right

or not, that's the mandate

that we have as politicians.

And the vultures are now circling

around her Defence Secretary,

Gavin Williamson, with the media

running around demanding

answers from him.

So let's see whether he gets

answers, whether he remains.

She's accident prone.

However, I think her weakness

is actually her strength

in terms of staying on.

The Tory party's terrified

of getting rid of her.

They know what will happen

if there's an election

in the foreseeable future.

They will lose.

And they are absolutely

terrified, of her going.

None of them have got

the bottle to get rid of her.

They all want to brief against,

they all want rid of her,

they all think she's no good.

Actually, in the real

political world, that's her

strength in surviving.

But you're not better

for Jeremy Corbyn, are you?

You're always saying, "You're too

old, he won't make it through".

Now, David, if you believe

everything you read

in the Daily Mail...

You should be better

prepared than that.

OK, don't try that game on me.

I'm reading what you said

on the 27th of January to the Jewish

Labour Movement conference.

"The next election in 2022,

by which stage", I hope

you are blushing, "Jeremy Corbyn

will be 73 and facing the prospect

of being Prime Minister at 78,

so I don't think he'll be doing it".

And that was...

It wasn't in January,

that was in September.

It was the 3rd of September

and it was in response to a question

of, "Do you think you'll

be there or not"?

And my view is that politicians

are finding it harder

and harder to continue.

I certainly don't intend to be

there at the age of 75.

But that's his choice.

And he'll decide that.

No one in the Labour Party

is going to be getting rid of him.

And when it comes to the election,

people are going to be looking

at everything else that hasn't

happened, as well as the mess that

Theresa May is making of Brexit.

They're going to be looking

at the NHS, at the economy,

at their own standards of living

and coming to a judgment.

And I tell you, the Tory party

is terrified of getting rid of her,

and therefore, actually,

I think the likelihood

of her being got rid of by then

in the next year is virtually nil.

They'll keep her

because of her weakness.

The woman in the fourth row.

She's a woman with

an impossible task.

It's impossible

to get a good Brexit.

Under the government's own analysis

on the best case scenario,

700,000 job losses.

That's what we're facing.

It's absolutely not nonsense.

It's not nonsense.

That is the government's

own analysis that was

leaked recently.

Yes, because they are too

scared to bring it out.

I'll come to you.

David Davis, he lied.

He lied about the

government's own analysis.

It was there.

He did not bring it out.

He should not be in government.

700,000 jobless.

Jo Swinson.

To Amanda's initial question,

are Theresa May's days numbered,

undoubtedly, yes, because there

is a very simple truth,

which is that the Conservative Party

is not going to let Theresa May

fight another election.

But I would just say be

careful what you wish for,

because the lady in the audience

just now has said,

about what David Davis did,

I think he misled Parliament

about these impact assessments.

He said they are an

excruciating detail.

We've got Boris Johnson,

who can't even read his brief

when the life of a British woman

in an Iranian jail depends on it.

And we've got Jacob Rees-Mogg,

who used to be something of a funny

anomaly and now is a frightening

prospect, really extreme views.

The basic truth is, as various

people have pointed out,

the Tory party will not be

led on Europe.

Every previous Conservative Party

leader has struggled to lead

the Conservative Party on Europe

and Theresa May is struggling

to lead the Tory party on Europe.

And the tragedy is that it would be

a sideshow if they were just

squabbling over there and it didn't

matter, but the future

of the country depends on it.

This is the most complicated,

huge change that this country

is facing for decades,

and we need a government

that is up to the job.

I think what the Tory party

is doing is self-indulgent

and the country deserves better.

APPLAUSE

Just to clarify, the

country voted Brexit.

You didn't.

You criticise the Prime Minister.

Presumably you'd like,

from what you've just said,

her to be an ardent Brexiteer.

No, what I'm saying...

That would be doing

what the country wanted.

I think actually if we look at

the result there was a 52-48 split.

What you saw was a very

divided country.

What you have not seen

is a government that is determined

to bring people together.

What you've not seen

is a government that said,

here is a very close result.

The country voted to leave,

so let's try to respect that result

and to leave in a way that also

respects the wishes of the 48%

of people who voted to remain

in the European Union and that's

not been the approach

of this government.

They've gone for the most extreme

Brexit possible and it's

going to really damage the country.

We will come to Brexit and I will

come to you when we come to Brexit.

Let's just talk about

the leadership of the Tory Party.

Who do you want to see

lead the Tory party,

since you want her to go?

By the way, some people might have

found my tone in my first answer

somewhat difficult and harsh,

but I feel one has to be precisely

because, when everyone

discusses Theresa May,

words like 'sympathy' come up.

That is what's keeping her in place.

What makes you think that anybody

thought you were being harsh?

Because I don't like saying it

myself -

Well, you said it.

..because I respect the woman.

I respect her because I think it's

taken a remarkable degree

of personal and political will -

What I asked you is who...

Well, leaving that aside,

who do you want to see replace her?

Whoever it is, they must be

someone who is capable

of leading the country

towards the opportunities

that Brexit offer.

Therefore, I support a Brexiteer.

It might be Boris Johnson.

Oh!

And precisely because you react that

way, it might not be Boris Johnson.

LAUGHTER.

Because I can tell you,

that if I had said that in front

of a group of Tory MPs,

I probably would have heard

exactly the same noises.

And far from being an extremist,

if you look at Paddy Power

and if you look at Ladbrokes,

the person...

the Tory currently -

which is the bookies favourite

to take over from Theresa May -

is Jacob Rees-Mogg.

Oh!

Yeah, it's frightening.

It's frightening.

That is because he is intelligent.

He is intelligent, he is civil

and prepared to do something

Theresa May will not do,

which is make the case,

make the case for the Tory Party

on the basis of the philosophy

of the liberty of the individual.

Why are we not hearing that?

We're in Grantham, let's have

some Thatcherism back.

All right.

APPLAUSE

The man in the spectacles there.

I think this is a vanity project

on the part of certain MPs.

There's been Cabinet departures,

there's always leadership contests.

I think people are just getting

fed-up and parliament needs to stop

acting like some sort of grotesque

House of Cards and do

what it's supposed to do.

It is.

What would that be?

Just scrutinise legislation instead

of going weak and constantly

throwing people out,

scrutinise legislation properly.

It's doing exactly that.

All right.

The man over there, on the side

there, then I'll come over here.

You, sir.

A change of leadership of this

country at such a crucial

time would be disastrous

for the Brexit negotiations.

I think the Prime Minister

could have taken an easy option

last year of resigning,

as David Cameron did

after the referendum result,

but she has hung on.

She must be committed to Brexit

because I don't think anybody

would want to put themselves

through that personal trauma

of leading the country through it.

I think she's committed.

I think the country needs

to support her and get

behind her to bring that best

possible deal back for this country.

All right.

And you sir, over

there, one last point.

I'm really sorry, but Theresa May

came into the job because no

Brexiteer stood in the Tory Party

leadership election

after David Cameron resigned.

They all fell by the wayside

and gave her a clear run

at it because they knew

that it was a poison chalice

because that party will never unite

behind someone on Europe.

OK, thank you.

I think what we'll do at this stage

is to move on to the next question,

which is pertinent to all of this.

Just before we do, I have to say

where we're going to be

next week is Darlington,

the week after that in Yeovil.

Darlington then Yeovil,

on the screen how to apply.

But let's keep this theme

going and have this question

from Lisa O'Neill, please.

When will Remainers realise

this our Brexit decision

was always much more

than about the economy?

APPLAUSE

So this goes in the light

of these figures that

were released this week,

to the heart of what

the whole thing is about?

Justine Greening?

I think that what's important now

is we actually find a broad

settlement on Brexit that can work,

not necessarily for the ardent

Remainers, I don't think that's ever

going to be possible or indeed

for the people who are right

on the hard edge of a hard Brexit.

I think we've got to find

something that actually most

people in our country feel

is a sensible approach.

And I agree it's not just

about the economy and jobs,

that's absolutely vital,

and we needed to bear that in mind.

But it's about the links we've got

between people in our country

and people in the rest of Europe.

I represent a very young

constituency based in London

and we have to make Brexit work

for young people.

And of course, many of them

did not vote for this.

But I think if we -

What about those who did?

What about those who did?

So what I'm saying, sir,

if we want to actually get

a sustainable Brexit,

then we're going to have to have

some give-and-take and we're

going to have to find a way

of approaching Brexit that

genuinely can bring -

You are characterising

Brexiteers as extreme.

Brexit is Brexit, it's not

difficult to understand.

It's Brexit.

Don't tell us - I'm fed-up

of hearing this from politicians -

don't tell us 'those ardent

Brexiteers'.

We just want Brexit,

it meens getting out

of the single market,

governing ourselves,

controlling our borders.

This is not rocket science,

it's called Brexit!

APPLAUSE

But it needs to be -

Hang on a second.

You've heard this talk

about what Theresa May's up to,

whether there should be a change.

What's going wrong from your point

of view, in the way

that the Government is handling it?

I completely agree with Tim.

I have to say, Justine,

I would almost always agree

with you when you say get behind

the Prime Minister.

This is not the time to get behind

the lame duck who does

not believe in Brexit.

We need to get rid of her now,

get someone in who believes in it

and fight for this country.

OK.

Do you want to reply to that?

I just reiterate the points I made

which is, if we want a Brexit

that is going to stick

for the long-term, it has to be

a Brexit that works for the broad

population and it absolutely has

to work for young people

growing up in our country.

And they do care about jobs.

It is going to be about housing.

It is going to be about their

ability to still feel like they're

part of a broader Europe that,

frankly, we will remain part

of purely because of geography

as much as anything else.

They want it handling

sensibly and pragmatically

and not ideologically.

All right.

John Mann, what can do you make

of these figures that came out this

week about the damage that Brexit

would do to the economy

and all that?

Do you agree with the man over

there, that people are failing

to realise that Brexit is more

than about the economy,

it's about something more important?

Well David, I'm kind of the nerds

nerd in parliament because I've been

on the Treasury Committee longer

than anyone in the

history of the world.

Of the world!

Extraordinarily, it's

my one claim to fame.

How many years is that?

That's about 10 years.

The history of the world.

What that means is...

Well, the Treasury Committee

is not that old.

No.

But I get to scrutinise these

reports all the time, constantly.

At the base of the so-called

problems is the Treasury's logic

on how the economy works.

The fundamental difference

between the different models,

these secret models,

is how much net migration,

ie immigration, is coming

into the country.

Because the Treasury's

model is based on poverty

if you don't have immigration.

What they've done is they've scaled

down their estimate -

because of Brexit -

of the numbers of

new people coming in.

They scaled it from 1.2 million down

to 800,000, and some are suggesting

it will be lower than that.

800,000 more people

coming into the country

in the next five years.

What they're concluding therefore

is, that will damage the economy.

I say that their logic

on the economy is fundamentally

wrong and the reason

for that is because the idea that

you boost an economy simply

by bringing more and more people

into the labour market is flawed.

There's a report out today

on robotics, which says how many

jobs we're going to lose by robots.

Actually, if we were the first

country to take advantage

of the freedoms we've got and build

up that industry, actually let's

have lots of robots doing the jobs,

but not replacing people,

but building productivity

and building wealth.

So the Treasury model

is what is behind every single

one of these estimates.

Just to interrupt you.

This figure, that if we were under

WTO rules, the economy would be 8%

lower, the growth in the economy 8%

lower over the next 15 years.

That's the figure you dispute?

I dispute the Treasury model.

OK.

The Treasury model is based

on trade and it's based

on net migration inwards,

and it's been argued

about on the Treasury

Committee over the years.

They over estimated grossly

what the problems would be

immediately after the referendum.

They got it totally wrong.

OK.

They're getting it

totally wrong again.

What we should be doing is joining

together as a country

in what the advantages are.

We ought to be looking

into the fourth industry revolution

of how we can protect,

as the Americans did

in Silicon Valley,

their new industries.

Where we can build high skills,

not cheap labour, low skills.

Which is the way we've gone.

We've taken the easy option.

This is the big opportunity

that we now have.

A high skilled economy,

protecting those new industries.

That's what we should go for.

I have to stop you there.

OK, thank you.

Miatta.

So look, John, these impact

assessments, all they do

is that they look at the information

that we have available

to us and they make

an assessment of what they think

is likely to happen.

And, quite frankly, I think for most

people they're not surprised that

Brexit is going to have a knock-on

effect to the economy.

I don't think there's anyone

that thinks it's not

going to have a knock-on effect

to the economy.

So for me, you know,

the bigger issue, to take

the question that Lisa

asked - yes...

So when you say knock-on

effect, obviously going

to have a knock-on effect,

but a deleterious or beneficial?

A negative knock-on effect.

I don't think there's anyone that...

I don't think there's anyone

that thinks it's not

going to have a negative knock-on

effect and, certainly,

all the work that we've done

you New Economics Foundation

supports that.

Sorry, what was that?

Nothing's changed so far.

Yeah, but we have not

left the European Union.

We have not left the European Union.

Sorry, what was the remark,

in the referendum?

Go on, speak up.

The economists for free trade have

published figures which some eminent

economists behind them,

who have been very correct

with economic forecasts

over the past 30 years,

that are predicting the opposite

of what these Treasury

reports are saying.

They're saying it would be

positive on WTO terms.

All right.

Yes.

So I think the majority of economic

analysis suggests that there be

a negative knock-on impact,

certainly in the short-term and then

I think there's a question

about the long-term because there's

lots of different factors

that come into play.

To go back to Lisa's question,

there were lots of different reasons

why people voted to leave

the European Union.

All of them legitimate.

But for a lot of people, you know,

they voted to leave because,

quite frankly, they were sick

and tired of the state

of the economy.

They were fed up with seeing

their pay packages squeezed.

They were tired of

the housing crisis.

They were worried about

the prospect of their children.

I think in all of this we've

got to hold on to that.

It's absolutely beholden

on the politicians to ask

themselves the question,

when they're dealing with things

like Brexit or some of the real

complex tech issues,

like the single market

or the customs union,

will it make easier or will it make

harder to improve our living

standards, to create jobs for us,

to make things better

for our young people?

That has to be the litmus

test of all of this.

My big worry is that we leave

the European Union and actually it

doesn't solve all those problems,

not least because we will have

a decade where the politicians

and the Government are dealing

with the ins and outs

of Brexit and they're not

focussing on these massive,

massive challenges that we

absolutely must deal with.

APPLAUSE

Let me hear from the woman there.

So the gentleman over there just

said - why do people reduce people

down to hard line Brexiteers

and exactly why the thing that

you just said, you know,

you think that everything

is so simple and straight-forward,

and it's not.

The issues of why people

voted for Brexit are,

as the lady just said,

are far more complicated and more

to do with our own internal domestic

politics and policies that aren't

going to change overnight, the day

after we leave the European Union.

APPLAUSE

What's your feeling

about the way that it's

being negotiated at the moment?

I think it's embarrassing.

I think it's really

embarrassing, you know.

Why?

It's just a waste of time.

It feels like it's just

such a waste of time.

There are far bigger

problems in our society

that we should be focussing on.

We talked about the housing crisis.

We've talked about the productivity

issues that we've got.

Brexit just seems to be this big

side track that's kind of been

manufactured by the media and some

really angry people on social media.

All right.

Actually, the EU isn't the problem.

I won't come to you straight Jo,

because you've been nodding

in agreement on that point.

Let me go to Tim Stanley,

perhaps you would like

to pick up that point?

I don't think it's just about what's

going on on social media,

the choice is so big and important.

When it comes to the Treasury's

forecast, don't forget this

is the same Treasury that said that

just a vote to leave would itself

create 500,000 job losses and lead

to the economy shrinking by 3.6%

and neither of those

things happened.

The other problem is the Treasury,

a lot of its predictions -

which are 15 years hence by the way

- are based upon the assumption

that the EU is going

to continue to grow.

It's enjoying an upturn

at the moment, but that might not

last, and even if the EU

will survive in the form

that it's currently in.

We're always talking

about predictions of how things

will go down in Britain,

we make assumptions about the future

prosperity of the EU,

which I think are unreasonable.

But the first question was,

was this primarily about democracy?

Yes, you're absolutely right,

it's very complicated and many

people had many different reasons -

as a protest vote, about

immigration, about free trade -

but for me, personally,

it was about democracy.

What's interesting, as we've seen it

evolve from a question

about the nature of democracy

with the EU, to a debate about

democracy in this country itself.

It's so important I think

for democracy in Britain

that the democratic will

of the people is implemented.

That, to me, is what the discussion

has now moved on to,

whether or not we can do that.

But how do you define

the implementation because everybody

seems to have a different view

about how the vote

can be implemented?

Very simply, because there are many

different kinds of Brexit

and there are many different ways

of going about it.

Precisely.

So how do you define them?

Very simply, that we do indeed leave

the EU and restore the ability

to make our own laws and that that

process is not undermined by anyone.

But it's not just a test of that,

it's also a test about how we do

democracy in this country.

I'm really tired of the labelling

of hard Brexiteers or Remoaners

or things like that.

Don't get me wrong, I do it myself

sometimes, and I regret that,

but I'm tired of it.

You keep regretting

things you've said.

It would be nice if we could...

That's because I listen

to myself back sometimes,

like I will do later

on and I'm sure I will cringe

all the way through it.

But it's so important that we get

through this moment in our democracy

with civility and we come out

the other side together,

because that's what matters,

is that we are in this together

and that we respect the decision

that was taken and we come

out of it a stronger,

richer and freer country.

APPLAUSE

The woman in purple,

did you want to speak?

You had your hand up before.

I mean, Brexiteers are talking

about strategies, wars and fights

all the time with Europe.

I'm European.

I wasn't allowed to vote

here, after living 35

years, paying my taxes.

My child wasn't able to vote either.

This is like a Barcelona referendum.

This is an illegal

advisory referendum.

This is not democracy and this

is a shame of England,

which has always been a democratic

country to show, lead and show

example of a good...

So you're always talking

about fight, and in fact,

the gentleman there,

it is an example of a vociferous...

Have some manners and let

the lady speak, please!

Vociferous argument.

You always talk, also it's

glamorous to say Brexiteers,

it sounds a bit like musketeers.

I'm sick of hearing "You are

a Brexiteer, I am a Remoaner".

I'm not a Remoaner because I

was not allowed to vote.

All right, Jo Swinson.

I think the lady makes some

very good points there.

Clearly, this is about more

than just the economy.

I absolutely understand that,

and I think there's a very

straightforward and honest position

that says, "I want to leave

the European Union because I don't

like what that means for immigration

and for what that means

about the sharing of decisions

about regulations on trade

and so on.

And therefore, the most important

thing is that we leave

the European Union even though that

will have a negative

effect on the economy,

which is the economic consensus".

But that is not what has

been and is being said,

because instead people are sort

of being painted this vision around

a hard or a soft Brexit,

a cake and eat it Brexit.

It's a total fantasy.

It's to say that we can have

all of this and the economy won't be

impacted, we can come out

of the single market but nonetheless

we'll be able to have the exact same

access to it as we do at the moment

without having to obey any

of the rules that all the other

countries in the single market have

to abide by.

And to peddle that myth

to the public, I think,

is a dereliction of duty.

Because what the government

is saying they're going to be able

to negotiate with their European

partners is simply not on the table.

And the sooner we get some

real honesty and realism

into this debate, the better.

We cannot have our cake and eat it.

There are some hard choices here.

It's a perfectly respectable

position to say, fair enough,

I'd rather just reduce immigration

and I'm not so fussed

about the economy.

But that is the position

and we should be honest about it.

APPLAUSE

Just before we leave this,

the former Chancellor

of the Exchequer George Osborne

seemed to be saying today

that he didn't think

the numbers stacked up.

You have to count in the House

of Commons and the numbers wouldn't

stack up for leaving

the customs union.

Do you think he's right?

I'm not sure he is.

I think that's the debate

that we will be having

over the coming weeks.

And in the end, we are going to have

to find a way through this.

But we are not going to do it,

I think, particularly my view

is by listening to the outer fringes

of this discussion.

I think you'll find a way

through by perhaps listening

to the silent centre ground majority

of public opinion in our country.

The worst thing that we could have

happen to us now is that we leave

the EU, we are not happy with that

settlement and then we revisit

this all over again

in the next five to ten years.

And I very much doubt

that the younger generation

in our country will take 44 years

to come to another

referendum like the current

generation perhaps has done.

And we can't afford,

I agree with you, we can't afford

to spend the next ten, 15,

20 years of our lives

talking about Brexit.

We have to find a sustainable

approach, make sure it works and get

on to fixing some of these more

underlying challenges that can

unlock our country's success

in the future.

George Osborne's point

is that the House of Commons,

as it is currently constituted,

wouldn't allow a clear

result of the kind that

you're talking about,

that there will be problems.

Do you think he's right

that they won't be able to leave

entirely because the House

of Commons will vote against it?

The Labour Party wouldn't

like to leave this customs

union, would they?

I've rarely found George to be

right, and when he said

there would have to be an emergency

Budget immediately after Brexit,

it reminded me of when he said,

when he came in as Chancellor,

that he would get rid of the debt

within one Parliament,

and that's going up at £5,000

a second at the moment.

So that's George's legacy.

Frankly, anything George has to say

on the economy has to be taken

with a pinch of salt.

He's a journalist now.

That's probably where

he is best suited to be.

OK.

Right, we'll move on.

We'll move on.

Those of you who had your

hands up, I'm sorry.

We do talk about this

a lot everywhere we go,

but we don't want to do the whole

programme on it.

I'm going to come back to you.

You were talking, George Stoppard,

about something quite different,

but you've got the next question,

as it happens.

Given recent revelations

of a series of innocent men

being accused of rape and almost

losing their liberty, is it time

to name and shame false accusers?

APPLAUSE

I think there are four

rape cases that have

collapsed in recent weeks.

Liam Allan, of course,

was the one that received an apology

for it going to trial at all.

Jo Swinson.

I think we have to be pretty careful

in looking at what the justice

system actually says.

So the fact that a conviction

cannot be brought, yes,

it says under the law that that

person is innocent, but it doesn't

follow that the person that made

the allegation was making it up.

Because we rightly have a higher

standard for taking away someone's

liberty and pronouncing them guilty

of the crime of rape.

It is a high standard to meet,

and that basically means

we recognise that there will be some

people who did commit

the offence but who walk free,

to try to prevent the alternative,

which would be innocent

people being locked up.

APPLAUSE

So I would be very wary

about presuming in any circumstance

where there was a rape trial

and somebody is found innocent

that the person who made that

complaint in the first place somehow

was not doing so genuinely.

And I think also that the number

of false accusations,

of people who are making

an accusation when it

didn't actually happen,

is very, very small.

Obviously, some of these cases

make it into the media

but it is important that we keep

that in perspective.

And also remember the other side

of the problem here,

which is only a tiny proportion

of women and indeed men

who are raped in this country ever

reaches trial in the first place.

There is a huge problem

of underreporting.

And because it is very difficult

to secure a conviction,

we recognise that many people

will not get justice.

So I have huge sympathy with anybody

that goes through the experience

where they have not committed

a crime and go through that trial

experience, in particular

if they have actually then been

convicted of something.

And there are serious questions that

need to be asked in the criminal

justice system about this,

but we also need to make sure

that we keep a balanced approach

and recognise that there are very,

very many victims of sexual crimes

and do not get justice.

APPLAUSE

You, sir.

I think that although

picking up on your point,

although it's important to look

at when they are falsely accused,

that is only about 3-4% of all

cases. Like you just said,

when you actually look and breakdown

as to why they didn't get

to a decision, a lot of it is coming

down to the evidence

that is actually brought

to the case.

So why not make that the important

point that you're talking about,

the evidence that's brought

to people and how the justice system

can make a decision on that?

And it makes a broader point,

how as the public can we trust

the justice system to make

a decision with what has

actually come off in

the past couple of weeks?

We've seen cases where evidence has

just come up randomly two

years down the line,

15 months, 16 months down the line.

How has that possibly ever happened?

How is that even a thing?

How can we trust in that case?

The woman in red.

I think any questions around this

issue of rape need to be looked

at in the context of the subjugation

of women over thousands of years.

It's taken us a long time to get

to the point where rape is even

recognised as a crime,

including within marriage.

So we need to support women

and create an environment

where women feel able to go

to the authorities when something

like that happens.

Yes, there are the occasional cases

of false accusations actually

leading to imprisonment.

But these numbers are absolutely

tiny, and it's our responsibility

to overweight the experience

of the women in these cases.

You don't think if there is proven

false accusation that should lead

to the naming of the false accuser?

No, because I think it creates

an environment where it's even more

difficult for women,

the progress that we've made to get

to this point is going to be undone

if women feel that their accusations

aren't going to be believed,

and if that person doesn't get

the conviction that they could then

be publicly named.

It's just going to go backwards.

Justine Greening.

I think it's absolutely

a step too far to name

and shame false accusers.

I agree with the point

the lady just made.

These are actually quite rare

in relation to the broader

challenges I think we face on sexual

violence, which is making sure that

women, and indeed men,

who are victims, feel they can come

forward and talk to police

in the first place.

As MPs we do deal with people

who been victims of sexual violence.

So it's actually the reporting,

from my perspective,

that's the biggest issue,

combined then with making sure that

victims get their day in court,

but actually that process is handled

effectively by the police

and the prosecution service as well,

so that they know when they get

an outcome it's

genuinely the right one.

And I do think of course we need

to be fair to all parties in this

case, but I think the issues we've

seen recently are deeply,

deeply concerning.

This is probably one of the most

traumatic crimes that can be

committed against anyone,

any woman, and it's vital

that it is handled effectively.

The man there.

You mention women mainly,

but men do get raped, too.

And the problem is men are more

afraid to talk about it.

And if you're willing to lie

and possibly put a man's life

on the line to go to prison

for something he didn't do,

I think that's just disgusting

and you deserve to go to prison.

If you're going to take

someone else's life away,

you should have yours taken as well.

Tim Stanley.

The Crown Prosecution Service

is obviously trying to address

a serious problem, which is the low

conviction rate for rape.

So reading between the lines,

it's put a great deal

of pressure on to try to get

the conviction rate up.

That's a good thing.

The problem is that it seems

to have, it seems to relate to some

mistakes when it comes to procedure.

And the reason why a number

of trials, high profile trials,

have recently collapsed

is because crucial evidence has not

been submitted and has not

been made available.

That is a procedural mistake and it

has not only embarrassed the police

and the CPS but it also undermines

people's faith in

the justice system.

It undermines not just those

who are hurt by that,

and it's very hard to think

of something worse than being

accused of such a dreadful crime,

having to carry that around

for the rest of your life,

the stigma never quite going away,

because people say they feel

like it doesn't.

But it also undermines

the confidence of women and men

who have been assaulted to bring

an accusation, because they see

trials collapsing and it makes them

less likely to bring the accusation.

And what about the question?

The answer is, therefore,

but I feel that's slightly separate

from the issue of the correct

presentation of evidence.

The question is do

you name and shame.

I don't like the concept

of naming and shaming,

precisely for the reasons that Jo

has laid out.

But it might be time to withhold

the names of people who are accused.

APPLAUSE

As a journalist, if I can

very quickly explain...

Traditionally, journalists don't

support that, partly

because we have learned,

through what we cover,

that when an accusation goes public

it encourages other women and men

to come forward and can

help to bring an eventual

successful prosecution.

But I fear the sheer

number of people who have

been falsely accused,

the accuracy has collapsed,

it feels like an injustice

is being done in the pursuit

of justice, and that's not right.

Exactly.

The woman here in the front.

Currently, there are at least two

or three women per week

who are killed by their ex-partners

or current partners.

They have usually sustained decades

of abuse, sexual and violent abuse.

Where is the people that are dealing

with that situation?

These women are dying,

where nobody is even

addressing the situation.

There's been a big, big

quilt being made to try

and commemorate these women,

because their names are being lost.

They should not be lost.

Their cases should be taken up

and they should be remembered,

and we should be making sure

that these cases do

not happen any more.

John Mann.

There is a moral dilemma with this.

There's a man called Savile,

and until clear allegations

were made against him,

lots of people didn't come forward.

And when they did, vast numbers

of people, including some

of my constituents, came forward.

Now, I'm representing a large number

of survivors of childhood sexual

abuse in the Independent enquiry.

I was at the hearing,

sat alongside all the other QCs.

I'm not a QC, I'm representing

people who've never had any justice.

I'm representing people who will not

go to the police because they don't

want their name making public.

I'm talking to someone tomorrow

who hasn't told their own family.

I meet people in my constituency

office who've never told anybody

and come and tell me and say,

"What are you going to do about it?

How can you help?"

And in this, what I'm

seeing, I don't disbelieve

any of these people.

I hear the horrific,

grotesque things that have

destroyed their lives.

I see with some of them,

some of them are incapable

of properly speaking to me

because of the things that have

happened, and they're the ones

who haven't killed themselves.

That is part of what's not been

discussed properly in this country.

And so there is a dilemma,

of course there is.

I've dealt with people

where actually they're not sure,

when they were a tiny child,

who raped them.

And sometimes I'm fearful that

they're looking for a name,

and if they think they've got

a name, they'd like to get justice.

But actually what they know is that

somebody raped them repeatedly

when they were small,

and destroyed their lives.

That's part of the problem

that the police and the prosecution

service have got.

I tell you, I've been dealing

with this for about four years now.

It's not what I expected

to be doing as an MP.

I have seen a significant

improvement in how the police

and how the Crown Prosecution

understand these issues,

but it's only just come

in the last year or so.

And coming to the question that

George over there asked, is it time

to name and shame false accusers?

You would not be

sympathetic to that?

No, I wouldn't.

As well, I'm asked repeatedly,

will you name and shame some

of the MPs who are suspected

of child abuse?

Or some of the MPs who have sexually

assaulted and not been named, other

people who are still in Parliament.

I'd love to do it, but I think

that's fundamentally wrong,

and I don't think that's my remit

or anybody else's remit to do that.

I think we've got to stay

within the justice system we've got,

but also provide far more support

that encourages more people.

It is men as well as women,

but it's primarily women,

vast numbers of women.

I'm representing over 30

people of my constituents.

Would you come to me?

Why would you come to me?

Imagine how many more

people are out there

and no-one's representing them.

It's one of the biggest

issues this country's not

got its head round yet.

APPLAUSE

The woman there.

There seems to be a theme

emerging throughout the way

this topic is going.

There's a fault at the investigation

stage with the police.

There seems to be a massive

issue happening here.

Like the woman said down there,

there's women dying because police

aren't taking it seriously.

There's men and women

who are going to the police

for help and, like you said,

they've been named and shamed.

They can say, yeah,

their names can't be mentioned

while the case is happening,

but there's communities.

On social media we have a social

media group for our local town.

If someone's name gets put

on there, its tarnished.

The police need to have some kind

of thing in process.

Like when they're putting images

on of people on the internet where

they're at their most vulnerable.

They've got, like, things in place

to punish people for that.

They can't do that any more,

putting vulnerable images up

of people on the internet.

They are punished for that.

People need to be punished

in the communities for bringing up

people's names before it's even been

found if they're guilty or not.

There's faults with the police.

That's where it's happening

at the moment and that

needs to be sorted out.

OK.

The man there on the gangway there.

The woman there, I can't see.

Yes.

Yes, you, sorry.

We can't start naming and shaming

because we'll just have gangs

of vigilantes as soon as somebody

is named or their picture goes up

or their picture goes up

on social media.

They'll...

All right.

Let me go back to the questioner.

What do you make of what

you've heard so far?

Are you convinced

by what you've heard?

I agree with Tim.

If men's names and reputations get

dragged through the press,

that shouldn't happen

until they're found guilty.

And there is now in this era...

APPLAUSE

I think this era of witchhunting,

a man now is actually guilty

until proven innocent.

And so I think, let's

stop naming men.

If we're going to protect women

who make false accusations,

then at least protect men

until they're guilty.

APPLAUSE

Miatta.

So look, I agree with a lot

of the points that have been made.

I do think actually the key issue

here is the rape of both men

and women has been under reported.

Actually, for a really long time,

it wasn't taken seriously enough.

So the priority has to be to create

the conditions so people feel

that they can come forward and it

will be taken seriously and it

will be investigated.

And the worry with naming

and shaming and everything

that is sort of implicit with that,

is that you discourage

people from doing that

and we absolutely must avoid.

it.

But I do agree with you, actually.

I do agree with you that people

should be innocent until proven

guilty and a culture of witchhunt

of people before they've been proven

guilty I think is absolutely wrong.

APPLAUSE.

The person at the very back there.

I think it's important

that we don't blame the police

and the Crown Prosecution Service

for failings in a time of austerity.

A lot of the evidence that is not