15/03/2018 Question Time

Tonight we are at the port of Dover,

and welcome to Question Time.

With me here, the Secretary

of State for Transport,

who argued the case for Brexit,

and when that led to the fall

of Cameron ran Theresa May's

campaign for leadership of the Tory

party, Chris Grayling.

A lawyer who became Director

of Public Prosecutions before

being elected an MP,

the Shadow Secretary

for Brexit, Keir Starmer.

The Irish MEP who is now vice

President of the European

Parliament, Mairead McGuinness.

The broadcaster with

the Russian-funded TV channel RT,

and presenter of a weekly current

affairs programme on that

channel, Afshin Rattansi.

And the Shakespearean actor

and Hollywood star, born in Dundee,

a staunch supporter of Scottish

independence, Brian Cox.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Remember at home, of course,

if you want to get into these

arguments, use #BBCQT either

on Twitter or on Facebook.

Let's have our first question

from Paul Wilson, please.

How certain are you that

the Salisbury attack

is beyond doubt the responsibility

of the Russian state?

Keir Starmer.

Thank you for that question.

This was an appalling attack,

using military grade

nerve agents in a town,

Salisbury.

It could have been any town.

It could have been here,

and it deserves to be

condemned by all of us

without reservation,

without reservation.

Now, the Prime Minister

asked serious questions

of Russia earlier this week,

based on the investigation carried

out by our security and intelligence

services who work at Porton Down,

and no answers have been given.

No answers have been given.

And that led her to the conclusion

that there is no alternative

explanation other than that

responsibility lies with Russia.

And as you will have seen, Germany,

France and the US have joined

us in that conclusion.

And that is the right conclusion.

And for that reason I think it's

very important that we support

the action that the Prime Minister

laid out on Wednesday as a response

to this unprovoked attack,

an attack on our sovereignty,

on our rule of law, and not

for the first time.

As a lawyer I represented

Marina Litvinenko.

It was my privilege to bring a case

on her behalf against Russia

for that atrocious murder ten,

11 years ago now.

This is not the first time.

It needs to be called out,

no ifs and no buts, and we need

strong action as set out

by the Prime Minister on Wednesday.

APPLAUSE

Well now, you will know

there's been some criticism,

not least from the Labour Party,

of Jeremy Corbyn's response

to this and I want to quote

you what he writes in tomorrow's

Guardian newspaper.

"Rushing way ahead of the evidence

being gathered by the police

in a fevered parliamentary

atmosphere serves neither justice

nor our national security".

Do you agree with what

he says or disagree?

I think everything that everybody

pretty much has said,

Jeremy included, is you've got

to allow space for the police,

the security and intelligence

services do their job.

We all recognise that.

We absolutely recognise that,

and Jeremy is right to say let them

get on with their job.

I've worked, when I was Director

of Public Prosecutions,

close to the police,

close to the security

and intelligence services,

and I know the quality of their work

and I hold them in

the highest regard.

The accusation is that

the government was rushing

ahead of the evidence.

Do you think the government has

rushed ahead of the evidence?

No.

Of course the evidence has to come

out and be carefully assessed,

and we will do that.

The government will do it.

Theresa May, I hope,

will make further statements

setting out the evidence.

What has happened this week

is an initial response to this

attack, and a response based

on Russia being asked

serious questions and not

answering those questions.

This was military-grade material,

available only in Russia

and there were only two options.

Either it was directly from them

or they lost control of it.

Theresa May put serious

questions on the table

and they were not answered.

In those circumstances,

I really don't think that we should

be other than very clear

about the seriousness of this.

Was it right to expel the 23

diplomats in your view?

Absolutely.

OK, fine.

We'll come back to you in a moment.

Afshin Rattansi.

Obviously everyone

condemns this attack.

I mean, it's terrible for the police

officer and these two spies.

And can I just say, just before

that, thank you to the BBC

and to Mentorn for inviting me

because the head of the liaison

committee in Parliament,

Sarah Wollaston MP, the liaison

committee is the one that

quizzes the Prime Minister,

has told all these people

on the panel to walk off

the minute I sit here.

That's free speech in this country.

She's not had any discussions

with me whatsoever.

It's on Twitter.

I've not had a conversation

with her, she has not spoken to me.

She has tweeted that

the entire panel...

I don't care what she's tweeted.

I know she's not spoken to me.

I didn't say she spoke to you.

APPLAUSE

Hang on, hang on.

I never said that

she'd spoken to you.

We're not really dealing

with one person's tweets.

Let's deal with the question here.

The question is, how certain

are you the Salisbury attack

is beyond doubt the responsibility

of the Russian state?

Well, this person to my right,

who has close contacts

with the intelligence services says

only Russia have these chemicals,

which is quite something given that

Britain vetoed in the past few hours

a UN Security Council resolution

asking for an investigation

into these atrocities in Wiltshire.

Why did Britain veto

that resolution?

That's interesting, isn't it?

Why is it that neo-con,

neo-liberal Labour Party members

continue to try and use WMD to push

us into war?

That is an implication, certainly,

of what your leader,

Jeremy Corbyn has been saying.

I know you didn't support

Jeremy Corbyn for the leadership.

As for your work at the CPS...

As for your work at the CPS,

let it not be in any doubt that

recent e-mails have shown

while you ran that department...

Sorry, we are getting off the point.

You were asked a very simple

question by Paul Wilson.

Do him the honour of

answering his question

as a member of the audience.

APPLAUSE

How certain are you that

the Salisbury attack

is beyond doubt the responsibility

of the Russian state?

Even the Prime Minister said

it was only highly likely,

so it's certainly not

beyond reasonable doubt.

We must have an urgent

investigation.

She said there was no alternative

conclusion, actually,

which is rather different.

She then followed that up.

The White House has now said no

"plausible", changing

what the Prime Minister said.

And you?

I really, really don't know.

I don't have that certainty.

And in a sense, RT is

a channel going underground.

We try and look at certainty

and question more.

We cannot believe our governments

any more the way we used to,

just because a Prime Minister stands

up and says the security services

have told us something.

Those days are gone.

APPLAUSE

Chris Grayling.

We wouldn't have taken the steps

that we have if we were not

completely satisfied

that the Russian state was either

behind the appalling

attack in Salisbury,

or refused to give an explanation

as to how those nerve gases

could have left their control.

We gave them the chance

to respond, properly.

They did not respond.

Of course, we are dealing

with a situation where we have seen

an attack on somebody who has

already been threatened

by the Russian state,

and we've had previous issues.

We are satisfied that

the action we have taken

is in response to a genuine act.

It is the right response.

And I am really pleased and grateful

to our allies around the world,

the United States and France

and Germany, for the statement

they have joined us in today,

making it clear that they also

support the British government

and the steps we have taken.

This is completely,

completely, absolutely

unreservedly unacceptable.

This is a violent act that has

affected members of the public.

APPLAUSE

In an English country city.

It is absolutely unacceptable

and we will stand up to this.

We cannot, as a Western world

and as democratic nations,

possibly countenance accepting such

wilfully reckless, hostile

acts against our nation.

APPLAUSE

How did you become so certain,

to use the Prime Minister's words

of yesterday, that there is no

alternative conclusion other

than the Russian state

being culpable for attempted murder?

What happened between

Monday when she was more

cautious, and Wednesday?

And are you, in your own mind,

absolutely certain it was,

so to speak, President Putin

who organised or allowed

this to happen?

Is that your view?

I don't know exactly what

the mechanics were at the other end.

But what I do know is that we have,

as Keir rightly says,

something we are both absolutely

agreed on, we have the finest,

in my view, intelligence

services in the world.

We have experts who've

looked into the nature

of the chemicals used,

have reached conclusions,

have provided information

to government and we've acted

on that information.

The Prime Minister's satisfied.

The finest intelligence

services in the world,

they should have protected

this man then.

Oh, don't be so trivial

about a really serious incident.

Mairead McGuinness.

It's interesting that

in the European Parliament today,

Clare Moody, the MEP who lives

in Salisbury, spoke very

passionately about this incident.

So there's huge support

from the colleagues

in the European Parliament,

because this is an

atrocious incident.

I mean, it is actually quite

unbelievable what happened.

And there are two people

very seriously ill.

But I knew nothing about these

chemicals until this incident.

And I've read quite a bit now.

It's very frightening.

We ought to be quite terrified

that they exist, and they do exist.

And beyond the detail of how

can I be certain, look,

I'm no expert in these issues

but I have to believe

what you're saying in terms

of the security services.

What troubles me about this incident

is that it will not blow over very

easily or very quickly.

And you know that the

European Union, because of Crimea,

put sanctions on Russia.

In a sense, we had to do that

but it has emboldened,

perhaps, the Russian spirit.

Europe took a hit at the time,

with products not being

allowed into Russia.

I'm not sure what will happen next

because of this incident.

I listened live to the Russian

ambassador to the UN,

and he didn't pull his punches last

night when he spoke.

And he used some very harsh words

about the British intelligence

service and rejected totally.

But if not Russia, who else?

And really, I think the big question

for us is, how are we going to stop

these type of chemicals

in existence, first of all,

and how do we get rid of them?

And that is the big challenge.

But I would worry

about the consequences

in the medium and long-term.

This is going to drag

on quite a bit.

We'll come onto that

in just a moment.

You, sir, on gangway.

To echo your point, Mairead,

if this spy who has connections

with Russia is killed by chemicals,

attacked by chemicals that are known

to be in the hands of Russia,

and Russia refuses to answer

questions about it,

who else are we to blame?

Who else could possibly possess

these weapons, have a reason

to go after this person?

Do you just want to answer that?

16 countries are

supposed to have this.

Obviously Britain has this chemical

weapon at Porton Down.

Anyway, I think this

certainty is very dangerous.

And of course it's been said many

times before that Putin,

who has an election on Sunday,

about to have a World Cup,

trying to put Russia on the big

stage and stop this pariah status it

has in Nato nations.

Not very good timing for him, is it?

It's terrible timing for him.

It's a truly, truly appalling act.

There is no excuse

for it whatsoever.

But I'd like to address

the gentleman's question.

Could you say your

question again, sir?

I asked how can you be

certain beyond doubt

that it was the Russian state?

I think that's the key.

I am not so sure.

You see, one has to understand,

and there's a lot of ignorance

about how Russia, how it operates.

And there are various

agencies within Russia,

intelligence agencies,

such as the GRU, the MSV.

And they've had a kind of autonomy,

really since the Soviet times.

They've not been touched at all.

Now, one of these agencies

would probably have access to this

very nerve agent that

we're talking about.

And it seems to me that as good

a scenario is actually

of a rogue element.

And that's even more dangerous, much

more dangerous than what's going on.

A rogue element who decides

that they are going to...

And they have long memories.

This gentleman that's been attacked,

and his daughter, tragically,

he is not liked by certain people.

I don't want to interrupt you,

but if it's a rogue element,

was it right of the Prime Minister

and the government to expel

23 Russian diplomats?

And was it right of America

and the others to sign

the letter that they did?

I'm not sure about that.

I question it, but I accept it.

As an authority, I would say, OK,

fine, clearly there has been

scrupulousness in the decision

for that, so I won't question it.

But at the same time,

I do think there's a fundamental

element that is missing

in relationship to,

as this gentleman said,

was the state responsible?

Now, as has been said, the state,

Putin puts himself in a terrible

state by having this

incident happening now.

Why would he want it to happen now,

as he is heading up for an election,

as he's embracing the World Cup?

It doesn't make any sense.

If

All right.

Absolutely makes no sense.

You up there, in

the white shirt, sir.

Yes.

I find it quite ridiculous

that the bloke from

Russia Today is still

towing this line.

Given Russia's chequered history,

with chemical weapons,

they're backing the Assad

regime in Syria...

However, I'd probably toe the line

of Vladimir Putin given

what he does to his enemies.

I should just say

about chemical weapons.

I'm not actually saying Russia

didn't do it either.

I'm just saying, question

what you're being told by

the Prime Minister and

the intelligence she's receiving.

I'm not saying either -

the Russians could

have done it, it could

have been the Kremlin.

All right, person in blue there?

If Parliament really thinks

that this was Russia, should all UK

political parties give back any

donations given from Russia?

APPLAUSE

Chris Grayling, you know

that was a point raised by Jeremy

Corbyn on Monday.

Do you think the Tory Party should

give back donations from Russia?

There are strict laws on political

donations in this country.

They have to be given

by British citizens,

or British businesses.

The Defence Secretary

took money from Russia.

I think it's a really serious

question about money here

because it's really important

that we go after some of the money

that's here in this

country that's being used

for all sorts of purposes.

It shouldn't be.

There are measures in place

where the Labour Party have

been pushing the Government

to go even further.

I hope they now will.

I think there's an inclination to do

so but we've been forcing this issue

because it's very important.

There's a lot of money

around which ought to

be seized, which isn't

being seized at the moment.

We've got to crack down.

In every way I support the action

that's being taken but I think

we should go even further in some

respects and I think the Government

may go down that route

and I hope they do.

What does the effect of cutting

down, or finding this money

in terms of what happened in

Salisbury, does it have any effect

on that?

I'll come to you next.

I am sorry.

It doesn't have a direct effect.

I accept these are separate things

in the sense this was an

appalling attack.

There is and has been

for a long time a lot of

money that should have been tracked

down and used in this country and we

haven't been good enough at doing

that, particularly in relation to

Russian oligarchs.

That is why we need to...

It has been allowed to go

on for far too long.

What is the Defence Secretary

with 30,000 of Russian money,

Boris Johnson 20,000?

What are these ties of huge amounts

of money to your party?

Is that the question

you want to put?

Chris Grayling, I'll come to you.

The woman there.

Yes.

I'd like to actually quote your

previous client, the widow of

Alexander Litvinenko.

Marina.

Sorry, Maria.

Yes.

She has actually said publicly

that she feels the Conservatives

should be very careful

about their donors,

particularly looking

at the Russians.

All right, Chris Grayling.

Are you going to answer this or have

you got another question?

You said it's legal.

The point is, why do

they want to give money to the

Tory Party?

What do they get back from giving

money to the Tory Party?

APPLAUSE

The simple reality,

you can't accept money

from people who are not UK

citizens, or UK businesses.

This is the wife of the Russian

Deputy Finance Minister.

The wife of the former Russian...

Putin's Deputy Finance Minister

at a fundraising event.

Gavin Williamson, the Defence

Secretary of this country,

who protects the national

security of this country.

30,000.

That's Russian money.

We have rules about

political donations.

We follow those rules.

They are properly scrutinised.

What we must not do,

we have a lot of people who are

Russian, who are now

UK citizens, who live

in London, who have actually

left Russia because of their

distaste of the regime there.

We should not tar those

people the brush...

Where do you think she got

the 30,000 to give the Defence

Secretary?

Let's move on to another aspect

of this that is worrying people.

Martin Prince, can

I have your question?

Mr Prince...

Does the panel now feel we have now

entered a new Cold War?

Have we entered a new Cold War?

You start on that.

I was probably alluding to my fears

about that when I said, it's not

just this incident and the reaction

to it, it's the medium and long-term

consequences.

And this isn't just

the start of the process.

If I talk to my colleagues

from the Baltic

member states, they live

in fear and, in fact,

they look to Europe and Nato

force for support.

And it's only when you talk

in detail to them about how

their lives were and how

they're terrified again.

So, if you now have the UK, France,

the US and, what was the fourth...?

Germany, very strongly coming out,

and the Russians will feel this.

There will be a response.

And what I would really

be concerned about is,

how long are we going

to have this...?

It is a battle, a diplomatic

battle, a difficult one

at the moment.

How long will this last

and how will it be fixed?

It has to be fixed with words.

To go back to money.

Money is a very corrupting thing.

Unfortunately.

And, sometimes, people

with money are looked

at slightly different

from

those who don't have money in terms

of political reaction and I'm not

saying that of the UK because I

don't have the experience or

knowledge but I think this

is a global issue, that money can

find its place for security.

What has this got to do

with the Cold War question?

I think it is part of this general

sense of fear that is there

about Russia and its potential

to interfere, not just this horrible

incident.

For example, there was a report

in the Sunday Times that the

embassy in Dublin was

part of, if you like,

almost an espionage team.

They had more people

in the embassy and they've

made it bigger and,

so

much so, that the ambassador to

Ireland today brought in the media

to say that is not the case.

But I don't quite get

what you're saying

- you talk about money all the time

and we know a large...

Billions and billions

of pounds have come out

of Russia to the West.

Are you saying that is creating

the conditions of a Cold War?

No, that isn't creating

the conditions but I

think it's something

that the West has to acknowledge

and decide whether it

is positive or negative

for our relationships with Russia.

All right.

Does it skew our relationships?

Keir Starmer.

I think this is a really

important question.

What happens next really

matters for all of us.

I think many people had hoped

that the end of the Cold War

would mark an opportunity

for a new relationship

with Russia, based

on

the rule of law, on the protection

and respect of human rights.

But that hasn't happened.

And this has to be seen

in its proper context.

I've mentioned Marina Litvinenko

and the work I did with her, but the

list is a long one.

Crimea, what's happened

in Ukraine, the assault on

lesbian and gay rights

that's gone on.

The Syrian attacks.

There is a whole list.

We could go on and on in terms

of where the relationship has

gone wrong.

Now, that has been a missed

opportunity to reset the

relationship with Russia, which

would have stabilised the world,

allowed a more peaceful coexistence.

And we need to tackle

all of this in the round.

I absolutely agree this has got

to be done through words and

Jeremy Corbyn said the response has

got to be proportionate.

And he's right about that.

This has to be dealt with carefully.

We've got to be robust

about what we stand for.

But really the litany of things

in the last few years that Russia's

been involved in only has to be gone

through for people to see this is a

missed opportunity.

The man in the third row, yeah?

If we are about to enter another

Cold War with Russia,

and we turn the money

off to the oligarchs,

remove the spies from

the

UK, how do we continue then

to protect our police officers and

members of the public who are also

impacted by this chemical attack?

Chris Grayling.

The truth is we've got to be good

at our intelligence,

we've got to do everything

we possibly can to prevent anything

like this from happening again.

And it is a mix of response.

We've got to seek to

change Russia through

diplomatic means.

At the same time we've got to be

robust in responding

when things happen.

And that may be our

response right now to the

terrible events in Salisbury.

It is also about making sure

that our friends in the Baltic

states receive proper support.

That is why we are

providing military

support right now to give those

nations comfort that we are with

them, we are on their side.

So we've got to be

strong and resolute

in the face of a threat.

We've got to seek to use diplomacy

to ease threat away.

Are we reaching a Cold War?

I think certainly it's

the worst in my lifetime.

It's like a Cuban missile crisis.

Theresa May seems to want.

Obviously, Vladimir Putin can turn

off the lights in the

studio because of appalling energy

strategic decisions over decades in

this country, how we have allowed

Russia to have such an important

role in our energy

sector, I don't know.

800 British troops.

What are they doing

on the Russian border?

What we heard from Moscow was,

do not threaten a nuclear power.

The stakes have never been higher.

If Vladimir Putin

is indeed running a

rogue state, he won't hesitate,

presumably, to kill us all.

Or, can one actually talk to him?

This litany that this man who used

to run the CPS, and you are talking

about it, Ukraine, Serbia.

Ukraine.

There was a coup in Ukraine.

We have the tapes

of the US ambassador.

Listen to them on YouTube.

These are real tapes.

This was an organised

coup d'etat in Ukraine.

The Crimean people,

what is Keir Starmer trying to say?

The people of Crimea

want to be part of Russia.

We're going to force them

to be part of Ukraine.

You know what is worse about this?

I think the Russian people,

quite apart from Putin see

this, is US supporting Banderas

and right-wing anti-Semitic

movements in the centre of Ukraine,

who are part of this coup, fascists,

Nazis.

When the trade union

building burned in Ukraine,

these are the people

you are supporting.

You don't need to support

Russia to say this

is what is most serious for this

country is national-security.

And I believe the steps

taken this week

have endangered our

national security.

Russia is in a broad alliance

with the BRICS countries.

Russia is in an alliance with China

and the big superpowers of the

century.

Post Brexit we're going to make

friends, I am sure we are going

to get over this.

This is a very dangerous stage.

Woman the second row from the back.

Yes.

I don't think we can tackle

this issue in isolation.

I think it does require our partners

in Europe and with the

UN particularly to begin to think

about increasing sanctions.

So we've got to do

it in partnership.

In fact, the president

of the council,

Donald Tusk, wants it on the agenda

for next week's Prime Minister's

meeting in Brussels.

We're leaving Europe.

Brian Cox.

Sorry to stop you.

From a security point of view,

I don't think the UK is leaving

Europe, I have to say.

Brian Cox, please.

I think we are about to

enter into a Cold War.

I think it is unavoidable.

And it's a war that's

based on total greed.

I think we have allowed

things to get out of

hand, particularly in our

relationship to how the City became

a kind of laundromat

for illegal money from Russia.

And the Americans are not much

better, especially with

that clown who is running

the show over there.

I think we have...

This is inevitable.

This is what has happened

is when you have two

narcissists, one like Trump and

Putin, it is a very unhealthy state

of affairs when the so-called leader

of the free world is the man that he

is and the so-called

leader of the East Bloc

is the man that he is,

then obviously we're moving towards

some kind of Cold War.

Some kind of idiocy of some kind.

Barbara Wilkinson, let's

just have your question.

I just want to put it

to the two politicians here.

Barbara Wilkinson.

Would the security of

the UK be safe in Jeremy

Corbyn's hands, if he

became Prime Minister?

Just put it to you, Chris Grayling

and then Keir Starmer.

My view is I would be deeply

uncomfortable about the security of

the UK if Jeremy Corbyn

became Prime Minister.

I have to say what's different

about the Labour Party.

We've been through swings of

a political pendulum over the years.

I didn't go to bed

at night with past

Labour governments worried about

the security of the United Kingdom.

There's many people

in the Labour Party

today who, if they were

in

power, I might not

want them in power,

but wouldn't be worried

about the

security of the United Kingdom.

In the case of the

current leadership,

Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell,

who have not condemned the Russian

state, who I am afraid are

unsupportive of institutions like

Nato, I would be profoundly

concerned about the security of the

United Kingdom.

Keir Starmer...

Chris is obviously worried

about an early election coming out

with those old demons.

Of course it would.

Jeremy Corbyn has shown,

through the election campaign he ran

campaign he ran last year,

precisely the leadership that's

needed on these issues.

He's got a broad team

with myself included, got

very serious attitudes

to these questions.

Of course it will be

safe under Labour.

Don't just listen to this

rubbish that is put out

because people don't want...

What Chris doesn't

want you to hear and

think about is the transformation

in our society that needs to happen.

We've been yearning for change

for a very long time.

There is huge inequality

in our country, across

our country, on almost every level.

It needs to change.

In order to stop that

change, this thing is

peddled that somehow

Jeremy Corbyn can't be trusted.

It's not right, it's not true.

Look at the people he

has in his Shadow Cabinet.

They have huge

experience in this area.

Look at what the voting record

of the Labour Shadow Cabinet has

been since the election.

No.

Seriously.

This is just an attempt

to undermine the

real change that needs

to go on in our country.

Take a couple more points.

The man in the red shirt.

On this point about

Labour and Corbyn.

Corbyn has a long record of blaming

Nato and the Western world that

any problems with the Soviet Union.

He has always been a useful idiot,

one of Stalin's useful idiots.

And the person over

there on the outside.

I don't think there's anything wrong

when it comes to the

security of our nation.

So I have every confidence

in Jeremy Corbyn's

cautiousness.

Thank you.

We'll go on.

We'll go on.

We're halfway through the programme.

Let's go on to another question.

Just before we do, we're

going to be in Leeds next week.

Our audience is all going to be

under the age of 30.

And after that programme in Leeds,

we're taking a break for Easter.

We are in Liverpool

on April the 12th.

So next week, Leeds,

Liverpool, April 12.

And there on the screen

is how to apply.

So if you want to do that,

I'll give the details at the end.

That's the way to get to us.

Ben Nurden, can we have

your question, please?

Jean-Claude Juncker again said

this week that Britain

is going to regret leaving the EU.

With this continuing bullish

and threatening rhetoric,

how does Britain hope to strike

a positive deal in the EU

if they are not prepared

to cooperate and compromise?

Threatening rhetoric.

APPLAUSE

Mairead McGuinness, threatening

rhetoric from Jean-Claude Juncker.

I mean, did you actually listen

to the voice he used?

It wasn't threatening.

It was interesting that the leader

of Ukip immediately jumped up

and talked about being bullied.

You are a big and great nation.

It's not as if you are not strong.

Can I just finish the point and then

I will listen in response.

Let me just finish, sir.

You are able to fight your corner.

What we're trying to do,

my colleague said this week

in the parliament he believed this

is bad for everybody,

for the United Kingdom

and the European Union.

I share that view.

We're trying to limit the damage

that it might have on our people,

both the UK and the European Union.

And to some extent I think

the emotion has gone out

of the Brexit debate,

because we accept it's happening.

I regret that, but it is happening.

What we are trying to do is find

a way to keep us close,

and around security we need to be

close, but on other issues as well.

But how we square that with the red

lines that the Prime Minister has

put forward, way back,

just after the referendum happened,

around leaving the customs union

and the single market.

Now, we are going to have to find

a solution, so to some extent

I would have hoped that the idea

that you are being bullied

by Europe has dissipated.

Then why would he say,

"You will regret your decision"?

What business is it of his to say

we'll regret our decision

when people like Chris Grayling have

argued for it and won

a referendum on it?

Can I just say to you,

off camera we were having a big

discussion about freedom of speech.

If the head of the commission

cannot say that he thinks

you will regret your decision,

it's his view.

It's not a bullying view.

He actually genuinely believes that.

And he believes it not

for the leaders, but for the people

of the United Kingdom.

Do you believe it, too?

Are you with him on this?

You, no, you.

Oh, I was looking at the gentleman.

We know his view.

Well, I think so, yeah.

I represent, for example,

a border constituency

with Northern Ireland.

All of the counties border

with Northern Ireland.

We have a very good relationship.

We didn't have in the past.

Terrible things happened

on the island of Ireland

in Northern Ireland,

and you were impacted

here in this country as well.

20 years ago we had

the Good Friday Agreement,

and life is so much better.

And the people I represent

are really concerned

about what might happen

if there is no deal,

if there is a bad deal.

So when you talk about

what Jean-Claude Juncker said,

I would really be surprised that

anyone thought he was bullying,

because I was in the chamber.

I chaired a lot of

the debate as well.

So I had a sense of it.

And to some extent when I listen

to those, and there are many

people who are pro-Brexit,

probably in this audience as well,

and I respect your point of view.

But in the parliament now

to some extent, the hiss

is there but the steam has gone.

Because actually we accept your

decision but we're trying to find

a way that we don't damage each

other in the process.

And we are in this port,

and we will probably talk

about what might happen

here if things go wrong.

For my country, look

how peripheral we are.

We use the land bridge

to get our goods to the continent.

So I think we should stop

talking about "he said,

she said, I feel bullied,

they are getting at me".

I think you're bigger than that.

Chris Grayling.

APPLAUSE

I think you have to remember

there's going to be some

strong emotions in this,

and for people in Brussels

who believe passionately in further

European integration

and the European Union,

our decision is a setback.

They are unhappy about it

in terms of the agreement.

I happen to take a different view.

I'm very confident in

the future of this country.

I'm absolutely committed

that we should remain good

friends and neighbours.

As a government we are committed

to getting a sensible deal that

means we carry on working together

in the areas where we need to,

we carry on cooperating.

But we have simply taken

the decision to follow

a different political path.

So it's absolutely essential.

My experience in talking

to my counterparts in other EU

countries is that they want that,

they want good relations.

And I think we have to get over

the noise that you hear

in a complex negotiation,

where strong things are said

from time to time, and simply work

towards the outcome we all want,

which is a sensible partnership,

a sensible trade arrangement,

a smooth Brexit, and something that

works for everyone on both

sides of the debate.

So you don't buy the argument

that the EU wants to be particularly

tough in order to prevent other

members of the EU taking

the same route as Britain?

I've no doubt there are those

who have that view.

We have to be robust

in our negotiations.

This process is going to be one

where there's toing and froing.

I think what the Prime Minister did

in her speech ten days ago is set

out what I think is a very sensible

approach, recognising the issues

on the other side of the debate,

setting out the need

for that continuing partnership.

We just have to reach a sensible

resolution and I think

on that we would agree.

Kier Starmer, and then

I'll come to you.

I don't think anybody can quarrel

with the fact that negotiations

are going slowly and badly.

And the tone was bad...

APPLAUSE

The tone was bad from the start.

And I'm afraid that

started on our side.

Whose tone?

We were very belligerent,

very strong red lines were put out.

Boris Johnson didn't

help the UK cause.

Instead of saying constructively how

do we get through this,

the government went down a chaotic,

ill thought through route,

with all sorts of blocked endings,

before they actually could get

to the place they wanted to get to.

Now, I accept that the tone has

changed from the government

on this, but they got off

to a very bad start.

I think everybody needs to dial this

down and we need to remember

what we are talking about here.

Europe is our history.

We've shared values with Europe,

we will trade with Europe

in the future and we need

to collaborate and cooperate.

And what we were talking

about before, the terrible attacks

we were talking about before,

that's just an example of why the UK

will always need to be working

with its EU partners.

We need to be constructive

about this to get the right

decisions to a set of very

complicated challenges that

have been set up for us.

The man in the front row.

The situation is, if I may say,

we had a referendum.

The majority of the people

voted to come out of it.

As a government, and as a shadow

government, you weren't

expecting that result.

You were so confident you weren't

going to get the result,

you don't actually know what you're

going to do.

We need to get on with it.

I think the events in Salisbury

are a smoke screen, possibly,

and an excuse for us to try and hop

on the bandwagon and say we should

remain in Europe as part

of an international security.

The man there.

Can it not be said that the EU only

agreed to continue negotiations once

we agreed to pay them a sum

of money, so really, is the EU only

worried about the fact

that we are going to prop

up their economy,

as we are the second

largest economy in the EU?

And good for you, being the second

largest economy, but I don't accept

the premise of your question at all.

We struggled before

the end of the year to get

over the first phase.

We have to have a

withdrawal agreement.

There is a legal way of doing this.

You can't do it any other way.

Or else there is absolute

chaos, global chaos.

The UK signed up to commitments up

to 2020, and while initially

your government said,

"No, we wouldn't pay,

or we will pay very little",

it now understands that

the commitments have to be met.

We are going to be paying

until 2064, apparently.

I'm going to stop you,

because I must bring in other

members of the panel.

Apologies, but I have

more to say on this.

Yes, I'm sure.

If I'm allowed, and I hope

I'm allowed, thank you.

Brian Cox.

Fives into 60.

We have 60 minutes and five people.

Yes, but I'm the only

woman on the panel.

Brian Cox.

Sorry, Brian.

No, it's OK.

I think it's a disaster,

I really do.

APPLAUSE

I don't think...

If there ever was a time

for a united Europe, it is now.

Politically, we need to be united.

We do not need to be separate.

APPLAUSE

We really need, you know,

because we are very

vulnerable at the moment.

We've just seen it,

and it's not a smoke screen.

It happened.

It's not a smoke screen at all.

It's absolutely not.

I completely disagree

with you there.

There are two people

lying in a hospital.

They will tell you it's

not a smoke screen.

It certainly isn't.

That really angers me.

I'm sorry, but it does anger me.

And I do feel that...

I do think we brought

it upon ourselves.

I think the Remain campaign

was a disaster, a total disaster.

And actually Brexit is a much

sexier word than Remain.

I think people actually go more

for the word than anything else.

That got you going, didn't it?

Anyway, I just feel that at this

time we need strength.

When you've got what you have

in Russia and when you have what's

going on in the country I live in,

this country, this Europe,

this continent needs to be strong.

And it needs to really be strong,

and it's not being strong.

And all this argy-bargy

that is going on about this

and that, it's just weakening

who we are, and they

are laughing at us.

The Russians are actually

laughing at us.

You, the man in the blue shirt.

If unity is so important, why

are you so for a Scottish referendum

and Scottish independence?

It's not...

Because...

APPLAUSE

I'll answer that.

We wanted to stay in Europe.

We didn't want to leave Europe.

Leaving England

is a different thing.

What is the question?

Give me the question again.

You said it.

Afshin.

Europe doesn't allow countries

to leave the European Union,

even after referendums.

That's obvious.

And the scare stories that now

we are talking about,

the European Union so quick to come

to our support over Salisbury.

Interesting that, because

we were really looking

for Nato support first.

Why the EU so quickly?

Mairead, my editor at RT

is Going Underground

is from Monaghan, on the border

there, knows the atrocities

committed by both sides,

by the British Army,

may I say.

Is there some threat via Brussels

for violence in Ireland?

What is going to continue happening?

Depending on what you believe,

whether you believe, like Brian,

or you believe like Chris Grayling.

In fairness, Chris Grayling

and Jeremy Corbyn have

always been on that side

to a certain extent, arguably.

There was a vote, and there

should be no threats

against the British people to stop

what the British people want.

Of course there was a vote.

But the peace in Ireland

was hard won, and for 20

years we've had peace.

APPLAUSE

But Brexit won't ruin that.

It's not about a technical question

of whether you can get goods

and people over a border,

although, of course

it is about that.

It is about two communities

that came together, put

aside their differences.

The fact there is no border,

that is a manifestation

that is in the hearts of everybody

that lives in and

cares about Ireland.

It's about who we are

and what we believe in.

You were talking about

this the other day.

Sometimes on a panel,

somebody says something

just to be provocative.

Brussels is threatening

a hard border.

Europe is not threatening...

Do you understand anything

about the customs union

and the single market?

Do you know how it works?

According to Chris

Grayling, we're leaving.

I'm not giving a view on either

side, I'm just talking

about the negotiations.

I was hesitant about coming on this

programme, because in a way

this is your business.

But it's actually my business too,

because I represent.

I'm first vice president

of the European Parliament.

I came in hesitation.

I thought I mightn't get much love.

But it's warm, which is nice.

Well, that was rather

more than I anticipated!

Yes.

#metoo, Brian.

No.

There is political correctness.

See what I mean?

You were right.

#youtoo.

But to go back to...

I have to make a tough point.

My teenage years were littered

with stories of horror.

Every single day there

was an atrocity, either murder,

children, it was just horrendous.

I have four children,

and thank God they don't have a clue

about that except I remind them.

We should remind

ourselves this happened.

And our relationships

as people was not good.

But do you have a clue how there's

going to be an open border

between Northern Ireland

and the rest of

Ireland after Brexit?

I don't think the United

Kingdom has a clue.

But do you have a clue?

I have a political conviction that

a hard border on the island

of Ireland will not happen.

And where there is a political

will, there's a way.

And in addition, the

British Prime Minister,

Theresa May, has said the same.

I accept what she's saying.

And the European Union

supports the Irish position.

It cannot happen.

On the other hand, it's hard

to square the circle if you're

going to leave the customs union

and single market.

But we have an agreement

from December.

Three options are on the table.

One is that we do this with a very

good trade agreement where this

problem doesn't arise.

The second is through some special

mechanisms that we haven't heard

of yet, and the third is regulatory

alignment between Northern Ireland

and the Republic of Ireland,

which caused the Democratic Unionist

Party to suggest that that meant

a border in the Irish Sea.

I make the point that I want

no borders in Europe.

I want Europeans to be united.

But I'm Irish, you're British.

We have our own identity.

And I support Brian's very

passionate plea for European unity.

It is in our best interests.

I cannot understand why this idea

that somebody would say,

you're being bullied by Europe.

It's not in our interest

to bully anybody.

And it doesn't work, frankly.

People will not be bullied.

I don't want to bully you but I want

to bring in Chris Grayling.

Two points.

The first is, we're absolutely

clear, there will not,

there should not be,

there must not be, any kind of hard

border in the island of Ireland.

We don't think there's any need to.

We put forward ideas about how

to achieve that but, actually,

your list is what we are really

working towards which is a sensible

trading partnership for the future.

The other point is I absolutely

refuse to accept that Britain

to leave the European Union -

needs to leave - to return

to the Troubles in Northern Ireland.

Nobody wants that.

Nobody wants to do anything

to make that happen.

We in the United Kingdom

and our friends in Ireland will do

everything we can to make sure that

never happens again.

And I support them.

I think nobody wants that.

Nobody believes that will happen.

Remember, since the referendum,

relationships between the two

communities, which had become

closer, is now more divided.

There is no assembly

in Northern Ireland,

people had no political

representation, and there is concern

amongst ordinary people who don't

get involved in politics

about what their future will be.

Many of my constituents live

where they vote but work

in Northern Ireland.

Keir Starmer.

OK.

Chris is quite right

that we don't want a hard border

in Northern Ireland but,

Chris, is there any credible voice

out there, anybody in Ireland,

Northern Ireland, and any part

of the UK saying, you can achieve

what we all want to achieve

in Northern Ireland without being

in a customs union with the EU?

Because that is no credible voice.

That is not there.

That is why the Labour Party

position of, say, negotiating

a comprehensive EU customs union

is so important.

It doesn't solve completely

the problem of the border

but, without it...

If you have tariffs,

you have got to have a border

is what you're saying, in effect.

Chris Grayling...

He's saying, if you have tariffs,

you have to have a border.

What's the answer?

How do you have

tariffs but no border?

We have set out in detail how

you can make that work.

The point of the Labour Party...

The Labour Party position appears

to be, not to be in the current

customs union but to have a new one

in which they seem to suggest

the European Union will allow us

to be equal partners in agreeing

trade deals around the world.

The European Union is not

suggesting that will happen.

So, I'm afraid, your position

simply doesn't add up.

Our proposals have been seen...

Be quick.

We have got another

question to fit in.

What's incredible about the position

that Jeremy Corbyn set out

in Coventry the other week was that,

not only did the trade

union and labour movement

think it was a good idea

but the business community.

It was a good idea and,

across Europe, people

said this could work.

People said, here's a credible,

serious proposition has

been put on the table.

Much more credible and serious than

the Government's chaotic approach.

The woman bang in the

middle there, please.

Then I will take one more question.

Yes.

One of the things I wanted

to say is why should

the European Community came

into existence after

the Second World War?

The one aim is to keep peace

and unite the people of Europe.

The man with the glasses on.

Yes.

Yes, you.

Down in the blue

with the spectacles.

Isn't that why we have Nato?

Isn't that why...?

OK.

We don't have to be

in the European Union

to be united as Europe.

We can all be friends

with each other.

We're talking...

OK.

You are leaving.

We are in Dover.

We have had more questions

on this one Dover topic.

When we were in Blackpool everyone

wanted to talk about fracking.

We are in Dover and guess

what the question is?

We have six or seven minutes left.

It's back to the EU and Brexit.

Trevor Ottaway, let's

have your question, please?

Will the Garden of England

become the lorry park

of England after Brexit?

And, of course, Kent, where David

is, is the Garden of England.

-- Dover is.