George Osborne MP The Andrew Neil Interviews: Leave or Remain?

The UK is on the brink of making the biggest political decision in a

generation. Should Britain remained in all leave the European Union?

Ahead of the vote I'm talking to leading campaigners on both sides of

the debate. Tonight live in the studio, the Chancellor, George

Osborne. Good evening. On Monday, Hilary Benn

made the Labour case for Britain to stay in the European Union. Later

this week and next I will be talking to leading campaigners on the Leave

side. Tonight I'm joined by the Chancellor George Osborne, part of a

Conservative government that has given us the referendum and is now

campaigning hard for the UK to remain in the EU. Welcome to the

programme. It's good to be here. You claim that it could cause armed

conflict if we leave, putting a bomb under the economy, hurting

pensioners and collapsing house prices. Why are you risking that

with a referendum? It's never a risk in a democracy to ask the people and

all my lifetime, this issue of Britain's membership of the European

Union has hung over the economy and the security of this country and it

is right that people decide and I think Britain can be one of the

greatest success stories of the 21st-century. We have the talent and

drive and connections around the world, but if we leave them we lose

control of the economy, and if you lose control of your economy you

lose control of everything and it's not a price worth paying. Before

calling the referendum did you ever think that the consequences of

losing would be so bad? I knew it would be a big decision and so did

the Prime Minister but we put this in the manifesto upon which we were

elected. People should be under no illusions, I doubt there will be a

big decision that we will be asked to take as citizens of this country

and all of us, you and me, we all have one vote, so let's use it.

Despite what you say about what would happen if we left, only a few

months ago the Prime Minister assured us we would be OK outside

the European Union. This is what he told the CBI. Today I want to debunk

an argument that sometimes is put around by those who say, stay in

Europe come what may. Some people seem to say, that really Britain

couldn't survive and couldn't do OK outside the European Union. I don't

think that's true. So, last November we'd be OK if we left the European

Union? Now it is plague and pestilence, Sodom and Gomorrah, what

has changed? OK is not good enough, losing control of the economy is not

good enough for Britain, I want Britain to be shaping the world and

not being shaped by it. You are saying it would bomb the economy?

You said we would be put through an extraordinary piece of self harm? A

few months ago you said it would be OK? The Prime Minister said we could

survive. He said we would be OK? OK is not good enough for one of the

great success stories of the 21st-century, potentially. I don't

want to be the Chancellor who has helped pull us out of the mess of

six or seven years ago, climbing up the ladder on the snakes and ladders

board and then hitting a big snake and going back down to the bottom.

It is not abstract, it is about people's ability to provide for

their family, that is on the ballot paper on June 23. Let's have a look

at some of the more scary predictions if we leave. You claim

house prices would plummet, why would they plummet when even the

Treasury is only forecasting, and it may be wrong, very shallow recession

if we left? Because the country is poor, people in the country have

lower ink is done they would otherwise have. And as a result,

their ability to afford homes is reduced so the value is less. --

lower income. And as we heard from the Bank of England mortgage rates

could be higher. Mortgages would also be constrained. We estimated in

the Treasury, that house prices would be 10-18% lower than they

would otherwise be, and you know what? Fitch, the ratings agency

which is respected around the world said it could be 25%. There are

various estimates. That is the ratings agency that said the toxic

debt should be rated Triple-A. Why did you listen to that? Listen to

all of the economists, the big international organisations and

companies large and small, the trade union movement, the leaderships of

the Conservatives, the Labour Party, the Greens, Scottish Nationalists,

Ulster Unionists, everyone is saying that Britain will be poorer, the

families of Britain will be poorer. You can talk about any numbers but

they have all got in common one big fat miners in front of everyone, and

that is the consequence for people watching the programme. -- the minus

. Nobody wants a recession but the forecast is for a shallow recession

if we leave and it is so shallow that it is you -- it is within the

margin of error. It is so precise to say 18% but you don't really know

that unless you are also Mystic Meg? Hold on, 18%, the Treasury

forecasted that there would be a severe shock and that is not a

shallow recession. If the financial market turbulence which we are

likely to see in the hours and days after a vote to leave, is compounded

by uncertainty over the coming years as we failed to find a suitable

arrangement with our closest trading partners. This is the crucial point,

unlike the very deep recession of seven or eight years ago, people

would know and businesses would know and investors would know that the

country is permanently poorer so the value of the assets of the country,

houses and pensions and shares, they would all fall to accommodate for

that. You mentioned mortgage payments. Again, in your scenario

they say they could rise by over ?1000 on average? One figure was

?1200. If the shock of the economy was as bad as you think, the Bank of

England would move to ease credit and pump more money into the

economy, why would mortgage payments rise so much? It's important for

people to understand this. First of all, the Bank of England, not just

mark Carney although he is completely independent and respected

round the members of the committee, they are independent of me and the

government, they say that you can't take for granted that the Bank of

England would cut interest rates because they would be dealing with

higher inflation as well so they would have a real challenge, if you

try to boost the economy, can you control inflation? Second, the

mortgage price that you pay or somebody watching this programme

pays, when they go into a building society or bank, it is driven by the

cost of credit in the economy and it becomes more expensive when the

economy is poorer and people defaulting on mortgage payments. As

expensive as ?1000? You don't know that. You have chosen the worst

possible figures to try to scare people? That is not the case, the

Treasury forecasts for these things are not at the extreme end, and we

are saying that mortgage rates could rise between 70 and 130 points, 1%

on the cost of mortgages, but for the average mortgage that is almost

?1000 and it means a lot to people out there who are working hard

today, getting home and watching this programme, that is all wiped

out. That is the real cost if we lose control of the economy. People

have lived through this in recent history, let's not go there again.

You have been scaring pensioners, too. You claim, the Remain campaign

claim that pensioners would be worse off, it is a tweet is designed to

frighten older folks. There we see it, with the purse. State pensions

are protected by your own triple lock. Whether we are in or out of

the EU, pensions in real terms wouldn't fall? First of all, you

keep saying that I'm attempting to scare the population, you have said

it twice, frankly there is a lot to be scared about. If we leave the

European Union we risk our economy and it is a risk to pensioners and

homeowners and people in work. The state pension... Because we had a

successful and strong and growing economy which we do not want to put

at risk, it rises either by the rate of inflation or earnings or buy two

and a half percent but if the rate of inflation is higher and people

are forecasting that it could be three or 4%, the rate of inflation,

instead of what it is today, it eats away at the real value of peoples

pensions. Pensioners will have less to spend. Their money won't go as

far. Pensions are rising by the rate of inflation if that is the highest

of the three? The real increase is therefore reduced. This matters. We

are talking about numbers, this is the ability of a pensioner to go out

there and, you know, provide for themselves and support themselves

and their ability of their pension goes less far when there is higher

inflation. In or out, the state pension would rise at least in line

with inflation, that is your luck? Showing that empty purse, NT! You

should be ashamed of that, shouldn't you? Absolutely not. It is vital

that people realise what's at stake here. -- empty! What is at stake is

the prosperity of the British economy, recession, people's ability

to provide for their families would be hit and with not even talked

about unemployment. Andrew, this all feels very abstract, I have brought

along... As an example I have brought along this, I went to a

factory in Keighley in West Yorkshire, it is part of an Airbus

plane which is made by a real person on a real production line and he

worries about his job and his company worries about their ability

to access the single market. This is not abstract. We make the wings for

Airbus? We don't know whether we are going to continue to be able to sell

this. Where would Airbus go to buy the wings, in or out? The Chief

Executive of Airbus has themselves said it would threaten their

investment in the UK. The point about this, this is at an Airbus

factory, a small manufacturing business in West Yorkshire. This is

another scare story. It's not, this is the reality of the single market.

Airbus would still come to Britain to buy wings and Rolls-Royce engines

whether or not we are in the EU. That is not what the Chief Executive

says. Where would they go? They have factories in Toulouse... They don't

make wings in Germany? The point of Airbus is that it's an integrated

supply chain, we import from Germany and sell to France and their art

tariffs on those exports, if there were, why would business happen in

the UK? We would be out of the single market. Written would be

quitting the single market, quitting prosperity and this source of jobs.

The people who pay the price is not you or me but the person working on

the assembly line in Keighley. You prepared a longer term report as

well about the EU. You were keen to promote that by 2030 households

would be ?4300 worse off. Here is the poster. You even stood in front

of the poster there. The Treasury report does not say families would

be ?4300 worse off, does it? It is a misleading figure? That's not the

case. That is how much per household our GDP would shrink and if you look

at... It's not shrinking. In or out, the report showed substantial growth

in the economy through 2030. Not shrinking. The question on the 23rd

of June is what does the world look like whether we are in the European

Union all we quit it. Families would be ?4300 a year worse off. As a

proportion of the GDP. They wouldn't. It doesn't mention their

income. The wealth of the nation which provides public services they

depend upon... Leave the picture up because people need to know. People

need to know... I will put what the Treasury Select Committee said about

your ?4300 under that picture. This is not what the main Treasury

analysis found will stop the average income impact would be considerably

smaller than this number. -- analysis found. Neither side should

repeat this mistaken assertion. To persist with this claim would be to

misrepresent the Treasury's own work. Why are you misrepresenting

your own department? It actually says that the Treasury accurately

presented numbers and it is perfectly legitimate to talk about

the impact on households as a proportion of GDP. It says, do not

repeat it, it would misrepresent your own figures. You are

selectively quoting from the report. You are! That is what they say. It

says that the ?4300 figure is bogus. You are selectively quoting from the

report and of course I read it and it says that the Treasury accurately

presented figures and it is absolutely right that people

understand it is not just their incomes but the value of the public

services they receive. And, by the way, this is exactly the sort of

number we have had from a whole host of international organisations. Just

this week you have had... No other organisation uses that figure? They

do, the OECD. Well, it hasn't. It uses GDP per household and comes up

with a similar number. It is not similar. With all of these things it

is like running a marathon, you don't know exactly how many minutes

it's going to take but if you shoot yourself in the foot it is going to

take a lot longer. The forecast reveals that your promise, your

government's promise to reduce net migration to 100,000 a year, that is

over and you're not even trying to do that now?

It is an ambition we set out in the manifesto. Your forecast, they

assume net immigration of another three million over the next 14

years. That's an average of 214,000 a year, twice the promise you made

way back in 2010 and repeated in the 2015 manifesto. First of all, what

those numbers show, what the office for national statistics show and

independent of Government, not taking into account the most recent

controls we have had on non-EU immigration or restrictions which we

will no doubt talk about. It shows net immigration falling from 320,000

this year to 180,000 over five years... And stays there for the

next decade? I think the crucial thing to managing migration is not

to lose control of your economy and make sure you are restricting non-EU

migration. Second, to make sure you don't have the abuse of the free

movement of people and we have that. Crucially the third point, can I

make this third point, what you have to make sure is that we have a

growing British economy and a growing European economy and the

good news is that the European economy is growing now. We have had

an exceptional two or three years where Britain's been doing well and

Europe has not been doing as well. Actually, look at the most recent

GDP data and the European... I am more concerned about your promise.

You promised in 2010 to cut net migration to 100,000 by 2030. 20

years later you are still assuming it would be twice that amount. A

number of people the size of the population of Newcastle will be

coming in. It's a broken promise, it's over. It's an ambition we

intend... It's an ambition now, it was a promise. In the manifesto that

the country voted on last year, we set it out as an ambition, I believe

it's an ambition we will achieve. If we manage migration by dealing with

the non-European migration. By dealing with the abuse of free

movement and people coming here and taking out before they put in. And

as both economies grow, the European economy and the British economy, you

don't have this exceptional situation you have had for the last

couple of years where you have had very weak economies on the continent

of Europe. Thankfully they're now growing, that's by the way a good

thing for Britain because we export to these economies and they're

crucial. You still expect almost 200,000 by 2030. There was a time

when David Cameron said he would get a grip on immigration by ending free

movement from the EU. This is what he told the Tory conference in 2014.

It will be very at the heart of my renegotiation strategy for Europe.

Britain, I know you want this sorted. So I will go to Brussels, I

will not take no for an answer. When it comes to free movement I will get

what Britain needs. I will not take no for an answer. In a sense he

didn't. In the end he didn't even ask for any serious limits on free

movements, he bottled it. The Prime Minister got a good deal for

Britain, an excellent deal... By the way no previous Prime Minister has

got, that you cannot come to this country and get out before you put

in. That is a key change that addresses, actually I think, the big

public concern that people have about free movement. Can we agree he

didn't... ? Yes, he did, a fundamental change that you can't

come here and claim welfare. You say that because he got nothing on free

movement of substance the fallback was to say that EU citizens couldn't

just come here looking for work. They had to have a job. That's what

he promised. He bottled that too. That's not the case. Well, that is

the case. You can come here without a job. You have to look for a job.

If you don't have a job within six months, by the way, you don't get

unemployment or housing benefit or the like. You do get unemployment

benefit. You get it after three months. You don't get it when you

arrive. You get it after three months. If you don't get a job after

six months you have to go. You do get it for part of the time. You

said you don't get unemployment benefit. It's true. You get it after

three months. When you arrive you used to get it, you don't any more.

Can I make a broader point... He did say that you wouldn't be able to

come here unless you had a job and that's not true. You can. 77,000

people last year came as jobseeker's from the EU. They didn't have a job.

Andrew, if you don't have a job, you have to go. Well, you say that. The

next fallback was if EU jobseeker's couldn't find a job they would have

to leave. This is what he said on ITV last night. He said, one of my

key demands which I got if you come here you don't get unemployment

benefit, we know that's not actually true, and if you haven't a job after

six months you have to leave. How many failed EU jobseeker's have been

required to leave after six months? Well, 6,000 people so far have been

removed for abuse of the freedom of movement. That's not all

jobseeker's? It's people who are abusing the free movement of people.

I asked how many... 6,000 How many EU jobseeker's have been required to

leave after six months? 6,000. They're not all - these are many

people There are people specifically abusing free movement. I am not

talking... I am not talking about people with criminal records turned

away at the borders because we have borders controls as anyone who goes

through passport control knows full well. I am talking about people who

are abusing free movement of people, they now get removed. The question

on the ballot paper... Are you saying all 6,000 were jobseeker's

who didn't have a job at the end of six months? It includes not having a

job. It include as soon as so what part of the 6,000 you claim were

actual jobseeker's? They were all jobseeker's who were here to claim

work and they've had to leave. Look, Andrew, can I make a bigger point

here? This is a big point. You promised it. A bigger point still,

which is that, first of all, what is this referendum about, whether we

are in the EU or not. I do not believe there is some fantasy world

that if we leave the EU we can somehow have greater control or

management of our immigration. I think we would end up signing up to

free movement of people but having no say over how it operated. We

would lose the co-operation of some of our closest allies on key things

like border control. It would be much more difficult for example, in

Northern Ireland, to maintain border control there. You also have a

situation if we leave the European Union that we would be there begging

to be back into the single market, prepared to pay almost any price to

support the businesses that... Before this... I do not believe this

claim. It's interesting when pressed the Leave campaigners have basically

admitted their policy would see more immigration from outside the EU.

People should be clear, they might have concerns about immigration, but

that is not on the ballot paper. Our membership of the European Union and

all the prosperity and our role in the world, that's on the paper. If

you wanted to talk about the Leave campaign you should have agreed to

debate them. I am here to talk about the case for Remain and test it. If

all this... .S let's have a debate. I was just in parliament yesterday

debating the campaign. If this is good for the economy, why do you

want to cut it? It's important it's managed. It's important people come

here and contribute to our economy. We have vacancies in our economy. I

want to make sure British people above all have the skills and the

ability to get those jobs. We are in a great situation in our country

where there are actually more vacancies than there are people

claiming jobseeker's allowance. I want to go on building that strong

economy. I don't want to lose control of the economy. I want to

come on to this migrants thing as well. It could be even higher if

Turkey was to join the EU. David Cameron has been a big supporter of

Turkey joining the EU. He went to Ankara not long after he became

Prime Minister. This is what he had to say. When I think about what

Turkey has done to defend Europe as a NATO ally and what it is doing

today in Afghanistan alongside our European allies, it makes me angry

that your progress towards EU membership can be frustrated in the

way that it has been. My view is clear, I believe it's joust wrong to

say that Turkey can guard the camp but not be allowed to sit in the

tent. So I will remain your strongest possible advocate for EU

membership and for greater influence at the top table of European

diplomacy. That was six years ago. Now the Prime Minister says that

Turkey may not join for almost 1,000 years, he says. Who is he

misleading, misleading the Turkish people in 2010 or is he misleading

the British people in 2016? I was 16 years old when Turkey first applied

to join the European Union. I am now 45. I don't think it's going to

happen in my lifetime because, sadly, actually over recent years,

Turkey has gone backwards. There concerns about democracy and human

rights there. These are all conditions you need to meet before

you even are considered for membership of the European Union.

Now Turkey is a key ally, they're a member of NATO, an organisation we

all talk up on all sides of the campaign. Is it going to be a member

of the EU, no, it's not. If that's true, why if the prospect is so far

away in even your lifetime, you say, why does the Prime Minister support

it at an agreement in March to reenergise Turkey's succession

progress and indeed we have committed a billion of taxpayers'

money to speed the Turkish process up. Why would you do that if you

don't believe it? Everyone can see from their television that Turkey is

vital to our security as a continent. Borders on Syria, it's

absolutely key member of NATO. You are speeding up the accession

process? We want it to reform and its economy to improve but it's not

going to be a member of the European Union. Is it still the... This

referendum is for a long time, this referendum could be for longer than

your life. Is it the case, is it still British Government policy that

Turkey should become a member of the EU? The British Government policy is

it should not join the European Union today. Today? It's a million

miles away from joining. It's a million miles away. Andrew...

Listen... You have asked me about this. What What About Carlo

What about being the strongest possibled a sroe skate? Stories

about bodies of migrants being washed up or about women being raped

by migrants. Let's be clear this is a battle for the soul of our

country. I do not want Nigel Farage's vision of Britain. It's

mean, it's divisive, it's not who we are as a country. Britain is a great

country that is open and inclusive and it's a country that shapes the

world, not is shaped by the world. That is what we are fighting for. I

understand that. Fighting for the soul of this country. We are also

fight... For truth. Nigel Farage and his vision of Britain has taken over

the Leave campaign. We are fighting against that. I want the mainstream

of the majority of this country to stand up and say we do not want

Nigel Farage's vision. One more question. A lot of people will think

you have exaggerated claims about the economic impact of Brexit. You

promised restrictions on immigration, you haven't delivered,

that's clear. The Prime Minister's told Turkey he wants it to become an

EU member, he is passionate for the case and then told the British

people the opposite. Why exactly should the British people trust you

when you say vote to remain? Because it's very simple. If we vote to

remain Britain will be stronger, better off, safer as a country. But

if we leave, then we will lose control of our economy, that means

losing control of everything. I am a father of two children. I don't want

to look around to them in 20 years' time and say, you know, Britain used

to be a great success, used to be connected to the world. But we took

a decision and retreated from this world. That used to be us. I don't

want to say that to my children. I want Britain to be the great success

story of the 21st century. Chancellor, thank you. 'S all for

tonight. I will be back on Friday for the third of our live interviews

and my guest will be Ukip leader Nigel Farage and the following

Friday Leave campaigner and former Tory Cabinet Minister Iain Duncan

Smith will be here. I hope you can join me for both.

Until then, bye. Hello, I'm Tina Daheley

with your 90 second update. The man who bought BHS for a pound

has been branded a liar Dominic Chappell defended his rescue

plan for the collapsed retail chain There's more time to register

to vote in the EU referendum. Last night the government's website

crashed and thousands