Jeremy Corbyn The Andrew Neil Interviews

In less than two weeks, voters go to the polls

at the general election

to choose who will represent them in Parliament,

and who will lead the country.

So which of the party leaders has the best plan for the future

of the United Kingdom?

Tonight I'm joined by the leader of the Labour Party

and the man who hopes to be prime minister,

Jeremy Corbyn.

Mr Corbyn, today you drew a link between terror attacks at home

and British actions abroad.

Do you believe if Britain had not followed the foreign policy it has

since Tony Blair was in office, the attack on Manchester

would not have happened?

The attack on Manchester was shocking, appalling indefensible,

wrong in every possible way.

The attack on Manchester was shocking, appalling indefensible,

wrong in every possible way.

The parallel I was drawing this morning was that a number of people,

ever since the interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq have drawn

attention to the links with foreign policy,

including Boris Johnson in 2005, two former heads

of MI5, and of course the Foreign Affairs Select Committee,

and the point I was making was, we have to make our streets secure.

We have to make our population secure.

We also, any sensible government, has got to look

to what is happening in Libya, a huge ungoverned space

and apparently a source of some awful extremism.

But was Manchester a consequence of our foreign policy?

Manchester was a consequence of one person going into a music event

and killing a very large number of people, there can be no

defence whatsoever of that.

So nothing to do with foreign policy?

I do not in any way change that view.

That is just a vile, horrible event and those people have

got to be brought to book.

Obviously, the one who did

it is dead but there appears to be a whole connection of them.

I made the point that if we are to have a secure future,

we've got to look at ungoverned spaces around the world

and the consequences of our wars of intervention.

This is not just me, as I said, this is MI5, it's

Foreign Affairs Select Committee, it's a number of other people.

But I'm struggling to find the role of foreign policy you see

Islamic State was founded well before the invasion of Iraq.

It's murdering people across Europe because it hates our values.

Only last year they said this, "Some might argue that your foreign

policies are what drives our hatred but this particular reason

for hating you is secondary, even if you were to stop bombing us,

we would continue to hate you.

Our primary reason for hating you will not crease to exist

Our primary reason for hating you will not cease to exist

until you embrace Islam."

It's a totally perverted form of Islam.

But it's not foreign policy.

No, it's not Islam at all, what we have is a total

perversion of Islam there.

The point I'm making and the point that many others have made,

not of necessarily Labour opinion, or any other, quite a wide range

of opinion across the spectrum is that you have the consequences

of our interventions in Afghanistan, in Iraq, in Libya, leaving large

numbers of ungoverned spaces, leaving people in a desperate

situation, who themselves may become prey to that form of perversion,

and I think it would be unwise of any government to ignore

that but that is exactly what the Foreign Affairs Select

Committee pointed out.

But they're targeting young girls at a pop concert

because they hate our values, they said they hate

secular, liberal societies.

It's not foreign policy?

I agree, they hate those liberal values, they hate the idea of women

being able to enjoy themselves and all the liberal values

and that was the whole point of my speech this morning.

We've got to defend our liberal values.

Sure, but where's the foreign policy?

I mean, what was the foreign policy of Sweden?

The result of even Sweden being attacked?

The foreign policy issue has to be for all of us.

What is happening in a number of countries, where we have

intervened and where there is a lack of any coherent form of...

But wouldn't we be attacked anyway?

Well, Andrew, shouldn't we look at where the sources are coming

from of those attacks?

Surely any sensible person would want to do that.

Well, you're the one that raised foreign policy today.

What was the foreign policy?

The Yazidi women, enslaved and sexually assaulted and killed.

The Yazidid women - what was their foreign policy?

Andrew, I am not defending any attacks on women or anybody else.

I'm not accusing you.

Thank you.

What I'm saying is that it would be unwise of any government or anywhere

in the world to ignore the issue of instability

across the peace which

gives a space for that kind of perversion of Islam

to take hold.

Barack Obama has said as much, many others have said as much.

You've called for, your phrase was, smarter ways today,

to deal with countries harbouring terrorists but you wouldn't put

boots on the ground, you wouldn't bomb the terrorists,

you wouldn't use drones to take out the terrorist leaders

so, what would you do?

Would you talk to them?

No, I wouldn't.

Isis doesn't come from nowhere.

Isis doesn't get its money from nowhere.

Isis doesn't get its arms from nowhere.

Isis does have a whole lot of connections around the world,

financial and others, which I think need to be robustly

chased and followed.

That's it?

That's the smarter way?

Well, that's a good start for doing it.

It's very vague.

The other one is to look at the situation in Libya,

where you have a lack of government, where you need stronger presence

of UN diplomacy in order to bring about the start of some stronger

form of government there, otherwise you've got a problem

which isn't going to go away and that is a view that I put

forward in what was intended to be a thoughtful contribution this

morning of how we deal with these things and I think you'll find,

actually, quite a lot of public will not disagree

with what I've said.

Well, we live in an age of terrorism, that's clear.

One of the most important responsibilities of being

Prime Minister is keeping the British people safe.

Why would the British people want as their leader, a man

who for years supported the IRA?

I didn't support the IRA, I don't support the IRA,

what I want everywhere is a peace process, what I want everywhere

is decency and human rights.

We went through all the horrors of Northern Ireland,

all through the '70s and the '80s, through the period of the Troubles.

And eventually came from that, a peace process,

the Good Friday Agreement and now relatively peace and stability

and actually, Northern Ireland has been a bit of a model

around the world.

It certainly helped in the peace process in Colombia.

It's a model that is used in trying to

bring communities together in South Africa and other places.

I think there's something we can all learn from Northern Ireland.

Where the two big divides, the Nationalist tradition

and the Unionist tradition, came together on a basis

of recognising a different tradition each had.

That's quite powerful.

You say you didn't support the IRA but you invited

convicted IRA terrorists

to tea in the Commons, a few weeks after the Brighton bomb,

which tried to destroy our elected government.

You stood for a minute's silence to honour, your word,

Mr Corbyn, to honour, IRA terrorists killed

by the British Army.

Throughout the '80s and the '90s you spoke at scores of hardline

Republican gatherings which backed the IRA and the arms struggle.

I always wanted and always do want peace.

Always want a dialogue between people of vastly

different backgrounds.

And the minute's silence you referred to was in 1987,

it was for ALL who had died in Northern Ireland.

In honour of the eight IRA terrorists who had been killed.

In honour of the eight IRA terrorists who had been killed.

That was the purpose of the meeting.

I said ALL those that had died in Northern Ireland.

I made that very, very clear.

But the purpose of the meeting was to honour these terrorists.

As you went to all these hardline Republican meetings,

they were backed by the IRA and its apologists.

At any time publicly, did you urge them to give up

the bomb and the bullet?

I always said that the bombing process would never work.

There wasn't a military solution to be found in Northern Ireland.

I made that very clear.

I made that very clear in the House of Commons.

But did you urge the IRA to stop the bombs and the bullets

or its front people that you did meet all the time?

I never met the IRA.

I obviously did meet people from Sinn Fein, as indeed I met

people from other organisations and I always made the point

that there had to be a dialogue and a peace process.

Now a lot of people did a lot of work on this,

and eventually it was Mo Mowlam as much as anybody else, who managed

to bring those groups together and she

used a lot of connections in order to bring those people

together and I think we should recognise that as...

We certainly recognise Mo Mowlam, it's your role I'm trying to find

out, because the former IRA terrorist leader, Shaun O'Callaghan,

he says quote: "You played no part,

ever, at any time in promoting peace in Northern Ireland."

He said the peace you sought was a victory for the IRA.

Well, I've never had a discussion with Shaun O'Callaghan.

I've no idea why he will say that.

As far as I'm concerned, the whole process had to be

that there wasn't going to be a military solution

in Northern Ireland.

The Prevention of Terrorism Act that affected a lot of my constituents

was something that was actually criminalising young Irish

people mainly in Britain but also in Northern Ireland

and that there had to be a dialogue.

Now that dialogue did come about.

We had the first ceasefire, eventually...

But you don't play in role in that?

My role was supporting a process which would bring about a dialogue

and I believe you have to talk.

The British Government at that time was putting

a broadcasting ban on Sinn Fein, a travel ban on Sinn Fein,

and a series of anti-terror legislations which were not really

doing anything to bring about fair convictions.

Remember, I was also the constituency MP for one

of the Guildford Four, Paul Hill, who was the first

person arrested under the Prevention of Terrorism Act,

and eventually was freed.

But that doesn't mean you had to speak at over 70 hardline

Republican movements.

Now you may not have heard of or dealt with Shaun O'Callaghan

but you will have heard of and met the highly respected Sheamus Mallon.

He was one of the architects of the peace process.

He was at the heart of it along with John Hume.

Sheamus Mallon says quote: "He never heard anyone mention Corbyn

at all in the peace process but you very clearly took the side

of the IRA and that was incompatible with working with peace."

Sheamus Mallon.

He never said that to me in Parliament.

He said it.

I don't doubt he said it at some point.

I was happy to talk with him.

Happy to work with him and John Hume and others

in Parliament, and I was a member of the Northern Ireland Committee

of the PLP in which we visited Northern Ireland and met

men people there.

many people there.

Isn't it the truth, is it, that you basically supported

the arms struggle for a united Ireland but now

you want to be Prime Minister, you have to distance

yourself from it?

No.

What I want is peace.

What I want is to learn the lessons from Northern Ireland and also

to make sure that during the Brexit negotiations, we don't return

to or receive any kind of hard border between the north

and the republic.

and the Republic.

Well but you see we look at your record and we can't find

evidence of you urging the IRA to put away its guns

and its bombs and then we see your Shadow Chancellor,

John McDonnell, he said he honoured those involved

in the IRA arms struggle.

That was his words.

He backed the bombs and the bullets, his words.

Your Shadow Home Secretary, Diane Abbott, said an IRA victory

against the British state would be a victory for all of us.

You've surrounded yourself with like-minded IRA supporters.

John McDonnell apologised for those remarks on Question Time.

Only because they became public.

Well, he apologised for those remarks.

The position...

He made them in 2003.

Andrew, the position has to be that we want peace around the world.

But in 2003, the peace process was well underway

and your Shadow Chancellor said he honoured the IRA arms struggle.

He withdrew those remarks.

He's apologised for those remarks.

I've made it very, very clear, that I think what has happened

in Northern Ireland...

listen, a lot of people lost

their lives in Northern Ireland, it was an appalling situation.

IRA killed 1800 people.

Yes.

And the people killed by Loyalist bombs as well.

All deaths are appalling, all deaths are wrong,

there isn't a military solution to a conflict and traditions

between communities.

There has to be a better way and a better process of doing it.

But most people watching tonight, they won't know that

you were so close to the hardline Republicans and to the apologists

and to the IRA, don't you think they won't just be surprised,

they'll be quite appalled by it?

Andrew, people watching tonight, they will want to know that they've

got a government that's serious about their security

and their safety and also serious about ensuring we look to how

we deal with be issues in the future.

We mentioned Libya a few moments ago.

I think we have to look at these issues as the immediate security,

the collective security and the longer term

foreign policy issues.

If I look at all the IRA atrocities from the

Harrods bomb, through to Eniskillen, Lisbon, Omagh, not

once is there a record of you condemning that.

And every time you voted, 56 times against giving

the security forces more powers, why would people trust

you with our security?

Andrew, on the Anti-terrorist Legislation, that came before

Parliament, I voted to ensure there was legal oversight of our

police and our security services.

That there wasn't executive power given.

But you voted 56 times against toughening

up our security capabilities?

Can I finish for a moment?

Of course.

David Davis and a number of others voted with me on those occasions

because they too were concerned about executive powers and executive

orders overriding a court process and I think the best defence

against terrorism, the best defence against any attack on democracy

is to protect the independence of a judicial process away

from the political process and the Prevention of Terrorism Act

was eventually repealed...

We're not just talking about that.

I realise that.

...Was eventually repealed, partly because of the executive

powers that were implicit in it.

Let me turn to NATO.

It's the military alliance that all previous Labour and Tory

governments think has kept this nation and the West safe

for more than seven decades.

It was created by a Labour government.

But you've called NATO, "a very dangerous Frankenstein

of an organisation, a danger to world peace."

Two years ago you said it should be wound up.

Do you still believe that?

What I've always believed is that NATO was a product in 1948

of the awful trajectory of the Cold War.

We had the Warsaw Pact, which was formed a little bit later

on one side and NATO on the other.

1990, the Berlin Wall came down.

The end of the Soviet Union.

Should it be wound up?

I thought at that point, when we were into a process

of rapprochement across Europe, Gorbachev and a common European

home, maybe that was the time for the organisation of Security

and Corporation in Europe to take over, sadly, that didn't happen.

I think the role of NATO now has to be to build good relations

with the neighbours and insist on democracy and human

rights being part of that agenda of good relations.

But it was only three years ago

that you called it a very dangerous Frankenstein

and a danger to world peace.

Do you still believe that or not?

I want to work within Nato to achieve stability.

I want to work within Nato to promote human rights

and democracy, and under a Labour government, that's exactly

what we'd be doing.

But do you think it's a Frankenstein?

I think all organisations need to be accountable.

So have you changed your views on Nato?

No.

So you still think...

Can I finish my sentence, please?

You could if you answered my question.

Andrew, Nato exists.

It was a product initially of the Atlantic Charter in 1942...

We know the history, Mr Corbyn, but I'm trying to work out

if you would be a committed supporter of Nato, as every

previous Prime Minister of this country has been.

I would be a committed member of that alliance

in order to promote peace, justice, human rights and democracy.

And I believe that we can make a positive contribution on that.

Let's turn to nuclear weapons.

You're a lifelong campaigner for unilateral nuclear disarmament.

So under your leadership, Labour's support for the renewal

of the Trident deterrent is not credible, is it?

That's what the Labour conference and parliament have decided to do.

I will also ensure that we play

a full part in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty

to bring about multilateral nuclear disarmament around the world.

But we will also have a security review to look at the other issues

that we face such as the cyber threat which was obviously

very serious to our National Health Service only a week ago,

as well as, of course, the issues that have come

to the front because of the tragedy of Manchester last week.

Let's clarify Trident.

Do you support the renewal...

It's there in the programme.

That's not what I asked you, Mr Corbyn.

Do you support the renewal of Trident?

Everybody knows I voted against the renewal of it,

because I wanted to go in a different direction.

That is the decision that's been taken.

I respect that decision.

But can you tell the British people tonight that you support

the renewal of Trident?

We're going ahead with the programme which has been agreed by Parliament

and voted on by the Labour Party.

Do you support it?

Listen, my views on nuclear weapons are well known.

I want to achieve a nuclear-free world to multilateral disarmament

through multilateral disarmament

and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

So you don't support it?

I support a nuclear-free world.

I want to bring about peace and I also want us to focus

on what I believe to be serious threats like cyber security

and terrorism.

I understand that, but we need a simple answer

to a simple question.

You've had the answer.

You cannot say to the British people tonight that

"I, Jeremy Corbyn, will support the renewal of Trident".

It's there in the programme.

But you can't bring yourself to say that.

We are going to pursue that and at the same time negotiate

multilateral disarmament and a nuclear-free world.

Listen, do we really want to live in a world where there's a danger

of a nuclear holocaust?

No, we don't.

So why don't you say you're against it?

I've made the point of the position that we are adopting as a party

and we will take into government.

Will the defence review that you want to call

if you become prime minister, will that include Trident?

It will include a look at the role of nuclear weapons.

So you could ditch it right away.

It will look at the totality, as every other government

assuming office has had a strategic defence review.

There are many senior people in our armed forces who also want us

to focus as well on the issues I've mentioned

of cyber security and terrorism.

I understand that, but let's just clarify this tonight.

You cannot tell the British people that you are in favour

of the renewal of Trident, but you do want a defence review

and that will include Trident, and you could get rid of it.

It would include the role of nuclear weapons and other issues.

So you could get rid of it?

Listen, it's there in the programme, what's going ahead.

Let's turn to domestic policy.

Unemployment is now at a 40-year low.

We're one of the fastest growing major advanced economies.

Companies flock to invest in the United Kingdom,

but you're now promising a massive spending binge.

It's to be funded by more borrowing and huge tax rises on the very

businesses and people that have helped to create over

2 million extra jobs.

Don't you risk our economic recovery?

95% of the population will pay no more tax under Labour,

no more national insurance and no higher VAT.

What we have is a country where 6 million people earn less

than the living wage.

We have a country where there are unprecedented waiting times

and waiting lists in our hospitals, a million people denied social care

and an increasing number of people sleeping on our streets.

This has to be the time that we stop making the poorest in our society

pay the price of austerity and start investing for the future.

We're proposing an investment bank which would invest

in all parts of this country, particularly those areas that have

seen precious little investment since the end of the coal industry

and in some places since the end of the steel industry.

You say 95% of the country won't pay extra income

tax, but the Institute for Fiscal Studies,

which is a pretty independent arbitrator of these things

at elections, says there is no way that tens of billions of pounds

of tax rises would affect only a small group at the very top.

No way.

They say your plans "Would not work".

No, they haven't said they will not work.

They did.

They have looked at our programme.

They have been through the funding of it, and I'm pleased they have.

They've done the same with the Conservatives.

What they're saying is that you would have to collect your

new taxes as well as the increase in corporation tax, obviously.

You would have to be assiduous in chasing down

tax evasion, obviously.

They've also said that our investment would bring

about a better society and a more harmonious society.

They said that you're going for the highest ever

peacetime level of taxation, the highest ever.

Well, they're not correct on that, actually, because the level

of corporation tax we're proposing to go to would be 26%,

which is actually less than it was in 2010.

But they're talking about the overall level of taxation,

which would be the highest ever in peacetime,

under a Corbyn government.

I dispute that figure, but OK, we'll have that debate with the IFS.

But this election is about a choice.

The choice is this.

Do we continue underfunding health, expecting headteachers to collect

from parents to pay the teachers?

Do we continue with the horrors of unfunded social care

and a waiting list for social care?

Do we continue with a housing crisis that affects the homeless right

through to the more middle classes whose children can't

find somewhere to live?

Or do we invest for the future?

Our offer is, we will invest for the future.

Invest in the future of our children.

And part of the investing in the future, you plan

to borrow a lot to do that.

How much will you borrow?

What we will do is, for the public ownership elements,

that will be in exchange for bonds for shares in it.

What's a bond?

It's a debt instrument.

It's borrowing.

The bond is a government bond which would be serviced

by the income from that service.

But in addition, we would have control of it.

But you would still have to borrow.

Take the water industry, for example, which has been a method

of siphoning off profits out of this country to offshore companies who've

made a lot of money, at the same time leaving us

with expensive water and in some cases very bad levels of pollution.

But you would need to borrow to buy the utilities.

No, it's a swap of the shares for a government bond.

But if you're issuing bonds, you're issuing government debt.

You are borrowing.

Issuing bonds that we own, which would be paid

for by the profits...

But you said you would cut the water utilities' profits.

That means you wouldn't have the money to pay for the bond.

Instead of profits being siphoned off, they would remain here.

That's an advantage, surely?

National debt's already an incredible 1.7 trillion.

If you borrow to invest on top of the 50 we do,

you say you need to borrow another 25 to nationalise.

You may have to borrow, if the IFS is right,

for day-to-day spending.

No, we will not borrow for day-to-day spending.

But you might have to if the IFS is right.

Our national debt, which has already soared under the current government,

would soar even more under Labour, wouldn't it?

No, because we have the rule that we would only borrow

to invest for the future.

We would not borrow for revenue expenditure.

That's a sensible rule.

And what we'd get in return is investment in better services.

That in turn would encourage economic growth.

Listen, we have a huge imbalance of investment.

Far too much goes to London and the south-east in

transport infrastructure.

Far too little goes to the north-east,

north-west and Yorkshire.

Those issues have to be addressed, hence the national investment bank

which will be regionally based across the UK.

For people watching tonight who are looking for the Government

to reduce immigration numbers, Labour's not the party

and you're not the leader to deliver that, are you?

We are in favour of managed immigration when

the free movement ends when we leave the European Union.

We are against people being brought in as wholesale workforces

to undermine existing working conditions and workers.

There will be managed migration in the future,

based on the economic needs of our society.

We have had Theresa May promising in three elections to make

cuts to immigration.

I'm making no promises on that.

What I'm saying is that the immigration issue would be dealt

with on the basis of necessary family reunions and also

the economic needs of the country.

Would you try to cut the numbers?

Well, if the economy is doing well and we train people properly,

then the need to bring in skilled workers from overseas

will obviously reduce.

Mr Corbyn, many voters in this election, it will be the first time

they've had a chance to look at you

as a potential Prime Minister.

You've been a backbencher for most of your life,

never a government minister.

That's an honourable position.

Indeed it is.

So how should people judge you?

Should they listen to those who know you best, your MPs?

Your own backbenchers, John Woodcock, a Labour MP,

says "I will not countenance ever voting to make Jeremy Corbyn

Britain's Prime Minister".

Neil Coyle, a Labour MP, says "The reason why lifelong Labour

voters aren't backing us is Jeremy Corbyn".

Alan Johnson, former Labour Home Secretary,

says you're "useless, incompetent and incapable".

That's the people that know you.

Listen, this manifesto has been agreed by everyone in our party.

This manifesto has enormous levels of public support.

This manifesto has been campaigned for day in,

day out on the streets.

And do you know what?

People like the contents of it, because it offers them hope.

It offers them opportunity.

It offers our young people an opportunity to get

the education they want, to get the skilled jobs they want

and it offers hope in the sense of community cohesion.

And I invite everyone to have a look at the policies.

And they will and the policies are there, but the people

and the leader matters as well.

What I'm trying to say is, should the people who don't know

you listen to those who do and follow these judgments?

I would hope that people would judge me and our party

on the basis of the principles we're putting forward in this election -

an investment for our future, a better future for younger people

in our society, proper treatment of those who need help and care

and support through a social care system, and an education system that

doesn't undermine our children with a lack of funding.

I have one final question.

Listen, I've spent my life in politics trying to get social

justice for everybody.

I relish the opportunity of doing the same in government.

Of course you do, but why should the voters trust you when so many

even of your own MPs don't trust you?

Well, you could have quite easily got quotes from a number of people

who would say positive things.

Not nearly as many. 180 had no confidence in you.

You chose not to do that, and that, Andrew, is your choice.

And it will be the choice of the people on June 8th.

Jeremy Corbyn, thank you.

Step in the arena, Arsenal, Chelsea.

We've scrapped, scored, hurt, humbled.

Never back down. Never look back.