Skip to Content

Coffee House

Full transcript: Jeremy Corbyn grilled by Andrew Neil

26 November 2019

8:20 PM

26 November 2019

8:20 PM

Jeremy Corbyn took part in The Andrew Neil Interviews on BBC One this evening. Neil grilled the Labour leader on everything from anti-Semitism to Vladimir Putin. You can read the full transcript from the interview here:

AN: Jeremy Corbyn, the Chief Rabbi says a new poison of anti-Semitism, anti-Jewism, has taken root in the Labour Party and it’s sanctioned by you, he says. He questions you’re fit for office. What’s your response?

JC: I’m looking forward to having a discussion with him because I want to hear why he would say such a thing. So far as I’m concerned anti-Semitism is not acceptable in any form anywhere in our society and obviously certainly not in my party, the Labour Party. When I became Leader in 2015 I looked at the processes that were available for dealing with egregious behaviour and they weren’t as good as they should have been. We’ve developed a much stronger process. We have sanctioned people that have behaved in an anti-Semitic way. Removed some from party membership and indeed even removed people as candidates. And as far as I’m concerned it’s just not acceptable in any form in society. When the far-right are rising across Europe, using anti-Semitic tropes in order to intimidate people, then I think we’ve all got to stand up together on this.

AN: But it’s not the far right he’s worried about. I’m sure he is worried about the far-right but that’s not the result of this unprecedented intervention. It’s about you and how anti-Semitism rose as a problem in the Labour Party after you became Leader. Why?

JC: It didn’t rise after I became Leader.

AN: Well that’s … became enormous.

JC: Well anti-Semitism, anti-Semitism is there in society. There are a very, very small number of people in the Labour Party that have been sanctioned as a result of complaints about their anti-Semitic behaviour. As far as I’m concerned one is one too many and I’ve insured action has taken on that. But we’ve always on a positive side, recognised the need for education, so we set up an education process in the party, education packs are available and also made it very clear that in government we would obviously support the Holocaust Education Trust and the need for all of our children to understand how the Holocaust came about and how the growth of the far-right in Germany led to that. And I think as a society we have to recognise that any form of racism is divisive and dangerous. An attack on a Jewish woman in the street or a Muslim person in the street, it’s equally bad and an attack on a synagogue or a mosque is equally bad.

AN: But you’re speaking in generalities. Let’s get to some specifics. You said in the ITV debate that anyone who has committed any anti-Semitic act in the Labour Party, they’ve been suspended or expelled and you’ve investigated, your words, ‘every single case.’ The Chief Rabbi has called that ‘a mendacious fiction.’ And he’s right, isn’t he?

JC: No, he’s not right.

AN: Really?

JC: Because he would have to produce the evidence to say that’s mendacious.

AN: Well, let’s look for some. Let me ask you this. Is it anti-Semitic to say Rothschild’s Zionists run Israel and world governments?

JC: In the Chakrabarti Report we asked that people did not use comparisons about conspiracies, not use –

AN: Is that anti-Semitic?

JC: – because in the belief of Shami, and I support her on this in that report, that can be constructed as being an anti-Semitic statement and therefore – and therefore should not be –

AN: Right, but let’s just get it clear. I asked you – I gave you a specific quote. Are the words ‘Rothschild’s Zionists run Israel and world government’. Is that anti-Semitic?

JC: It should not be used and it is.

AN: But you can’t say it’s anti-Semitic?

JC: Look, I just said that it should not be used.

AN: That’s different from being – there’s lots of things shouldn’t be used but that’s not the same as anti-Semitic. Is it, or isn’t it anti-Semitic?

JC: Andrew, it is an anti-Semitic trope that has been used and that was – if you’d let me finish before, I made that very clear in the Chakrabarti Report which we did very early on – very early on during my –

AN: So we’re agreed it’s anti-Semitic? Right, that’s all I wanted to establish.

JC: – very early on during my leadership.

AN: Yet these were the words used by Liam Moore. He’s a Labour member, former council candidate. Your party’s actually been investigating him now for almost a year.

JC: It’s not being investigated for anti-Semitism, it’s being investigated for process.

AN: But has he been suspended? He hasn’t been suspended. You said everybody’s been suspended or expelled –

JC: I said they’ve been investigated and action has been taken.

AN: But he hasn’t been suspended.

JC: I said, and I stand by this, that every case that comes to us is investigated – not by me – independently of me and it ultimately can go to the National Constitutional Committee which is again –

AN: But why hasn’t he for using what we’ve agreed is an anti-Semitic trope?  Why has he not been suspended during the investigation?

JC: The investigation is ongoing.

AN: It’s a year.

JC: Is ongoing so far as I’m aware and action will be taken at the conclusion of that investigation.

AN: Why does it take a year to investigate someone who says Rothschild Zionists run Israel and world governments?

JC: Look,  I don’t know the process that is involved with him. In some cases, I don’t know about his case, there is legal representations which often delay things a great deal.

AN: Let me just ask another. Is questioning whether six million Jews died in the Holocaust the kind of thing that should get you thrown out of the Labour Party?

JC: It’s completely unacceptable and should not be happening.

AN: Then let me give you the case of Lesley Perrin. She was a Labour Party member. She posted a video denying the Holocaust and questioned whether the six million figure was accurate. And what did the Labour Party do? It gave her a written warning. No expulsion, no zero tolerance, just a written warning.

JC: That was some time ago I believe. You could perhaps give me the date of that.

AN: The timing doesn’t matter, that’s what happened.

JC: Well I’ve strengthened the processes in the last six months. That’s why I say that.

AN: But she posted it on facebook on 2017, August.

JC: Yes.

AN: It’s not that long ago.

JC: I’ve strengthened the processes since then.

AN: But all you get for questioning the Holocaust, implying perhaps it didn’t happen and the six million figure she said was a real problem that you get a warning letter.

JC: Look, denying the Holocaust is appalling and it’s totally wrong. Holocaust denial is not acceptable in any  –

AN: So why did she just get a letter of warning?

JC: – is not acceptable in any way whatsoever.

AN: Why did she just get a letter of warning?

JC: Andrew, I’ve made it very clear. Holocaust denial is not acceptable.

AN: When did you toughen up the rules?

JC: When I proposed that egregious cases should be fast-tracked through the –

AN: When was that?

JC: During the last few months. I proposed it to the National Executive and –

AN: She published this letter this year.

JC: Yes, I’m saying in the summer I proposed that.

AN: I mean people worry if your heart’s really in this. I mean today when you launched your Race & Faith document you had two prospective Labour candidates both of whom have been accused of anti-Semitism. One of them reposted on social media that Zionist – our Zionist rulers. They were standing with you today.

JC: It’s not the language they should use, not the language I would use. All I would say is that I have spent my life opposing racism in any form. I made the point that in the very place where we launched our manifesto this morning in Tottenham I’ve been on the streets there in the 1970s and 80s, when I lived in that area, opposing racism and that is what my life –

AN: But the –

JC: Andrew, can I finish, please? That is what my life is about. I feel very passionately about –

AN: Except the Chief Rabbi  –

JC: I feel very passionately…

AN: You’ve not convinced the Chief Rabbi or the British Jewish community. Your party is being investigated for anti-Semitism by the Equality and Human Rights Commission. Only the BNP’s ever been investigated before, hard-right fascists. We’re told thousands of cases have been submitted to the Equality Commission. British Jews, many of them fear you making it into Downing Street and that if you do many are preparing to leave the country. Are you not ashamed of that?

JC: Andrew. This morning I made it very, very clear. We will, in government, as in opposition, protect any community that’s under any threat from any sort. We will support the necessary funding to protect synagogues, protect temples, and protect mosques. We will protect the cemeteries also. We will not allow anti-Semitism in any form in our society because it is poisonous and divisive just as much as Islamophobia or far-right racism is. And I think we can agree on that.

AN: Except that they don’t trust you. They don’t think your heart’s in it. They’ve seen –

JC: When you say –

AN: – they’ve seen you share platforms with some of the world’s vilest anti-Semites –

JC: When you say they who do you mean?

AN: Many Jews. 80 per cent of Jews think that you’re anti-Semitic. That’s quite a lot of British Jews. I mean wouldn’t you like to take this opportunity tonight to apologise to the British Jewish community for what’s happened?

JC: What I’ll say is this. I am determined that our society will be safe for people of all faiths. I don’t want anyone to be feeling insecure in our society and our government will protect every community –

AN: So no apology?

JC: – against the abuse they receive on the streets, on the trains or in any –

AN: So no apology for how you’ve handled this?

JC: – or any other form of life.

AN: I’ll try one more time. No apology?

JC: No, hang on a minute, Andrew. Can I explain what we’re trying to do?

AN: You have and you’ve been given plenty of time to do that. I asked you if you wanted to apologise and you haven’t.

JC: Andrew, I don’t want anyone to go through what anyone has gone through –

AN: And you’ve said that several times. I understand that Mr Corbyn, I was asking you about an apology. Let’s move onto Brexit –

JC: Well hang on, can I just make it clear. Racism in our society is a total poison.

AN: You’ve said that several times. So you know we get that. I’m not arguing about that.

JC: Be it Islamophobia, anti-Semitism or –

AN: And you’ve said that too. Let’s move on to Brexit.

JC: – any other form of racism. And I want to work with every community to make sure it’s eliminated. That is what my whole life has been about.

AN: You made that clear and people will make up their own minds. Let’s move on to Brexit. You want to negotiate a new Brexit deal with the EU and then put that to the people in another referendum. You say you’d be neutral. So why would the British people want a Prime Minister that doesn’t have a view on what really is the greatest peacetime issue that’s faced this country for 70 years?

JC: Well, I think the country’s become very divided over Brexit since 2016. That’s clear. And we can’t forever go on debating what happened in the referendum in 2016. People that voted remain and are living difficult lives, Universal Credit, private rented, poor lives –

AN: But why are you remaining neutral?

JC: Can I finish please?

AN: I’m just asking you why you’re remaining neutral?

JC: I’m trying to explain what our policy is. And put those alongside people who live in areas that may well have voted leave in exactly the same condition. Let’s not set one community against the other. And so our party which represents people who voted both leave and remain has developed a policy. The policy is that within three months we’ll negotiate a leave option with the EU which does take us out of membership and –

AN: I’ve said that, Mr Corbyn. My question is why are you remaining neutral on the greatest issue of our time?

JC: – and within six months we’ll put that to a referendum.

AN: And I said that too. Why are you remaining neutral?

JC: And within six months we’ll put that to a referendum of the people of Britain who will make that decision. The Labour government will carry out the decision of that referendum. I will be the honest broker that will make sure that the referendum is fair and make sure that the leave deal is a credible one and the remain option is alongside it, so that we can actually protect jobs in this country, trade relationships and crucially protect the Good Friday Agreement which has done such – has been so effective in Northern Ireland.

AN: So even if you got everything that you wanted in this deal you still wouldn’t ask people to vote for it?

JC: Well, what I’m saying is that I think it’s the role – it  would be the role of the government to say this is the choice before you, the people of this country and we’d also make sure that there are spending rules and so on in that referendum.

AN: But the government won’t remain neutral. You’re the one to remain neutral.

JC: I’d be the Prime Minister –

AN: Most of your Shadow Cabinet is going to campaign to remain.

JC: I would be the Prime Minister that would make sure that there was a fair debate and fair discussion, we’d come to conclusion at the end of it and I would carry out the result of that referendum –

AN: I understand that.

JC:  – in whatever way it went.

AN: What would you do during the referendum campaign? Would you go on holiday?

JC: No, I’d be running the government. There are many other – there are many other –

AN: You wouldn’t take part in the referendum campaign?

JC: – there are many other things to run as well as that.

AN: But you wouldn’t take part in a referendum campaign?

JC: I’ve said all along that I would adopt a position which would be enabling people to come together at the end of it.

AN: Who would lead the campaign in favour of the Corbyn deal if not Jeremy Corbyn?

JC: Well, we haven’t yet got the deal although I’m very hopeful we could get one and I’m very sure there are people who would want to leave but would hopefully recognise that this is a reasonable arrangement we made with the EU because, as I keep saying, we cannot undermine our economy or particularly our jobs and trade.

AN: But who would lead it? I mean given the kind of deal you want I think we can agree that Nigel Farage or Boris Johnson are not going to lead the leave campaign. Most of your Shadow Cabinet are going to campaign for remain. Who would lead the leave campaign?

JC: Those that support it would be active in it. Those that support remain would be active –

AN: Well you support it, you’re not going to campaign.

JC: I’m going to put the view there that this is a credible offer and put –

AN: You’re not going to campaign.

JC: I’m going to put the view there that this is a credible offer and put that alongside remain. That seems to me an adult and sensible way to go forward. What does the prime minister, Boris Johnson, offer other than a sweetheart deal with the USA and all the problems that brings to our public services.

AN: He’s taken a side. You’re not. In this deal –

JC: Well, all he’s offering is to take a side with Donald Trump and the UK.

AN: In – in this deal that you are hoping to negotiate, if you got it would it include free movement as we have now?

JC: There would be obviously movement of people, probably related to economic and social needs. There would be a guarantee of family rights and family reunion, as indeed I proposed in 2016.

AN: So would it be the same as now?

JC: Let me finish. And also there is a huge shortage of staff in the National Health Service and other services which can only be filled immediately from Europe as well.

AN: So – so free –

JC: So there will be –

AN: Free movement continues.

JC: There will be a lot of movement.

AN: Right. Spending. You’ve outlined a huge spending spree, over 80 billion extra a year, and you say it can all be paid for out of taxing the rich and business. But it’s not true, is it, Mr Corbyn? People on modest incomes are going to pay more tax under your plans.

JC: Only those earning over £80,000 per year will see a tax increase.

AN: Well, let’s hold on. You’re – you’re scrapping the marriage allowance.

JC: The marriage allowance is £250 a year.

AN: And that goes to people earning less than 80,000.

JC: For married couples. But those people that are cohabiting in a very happy family atmosphere and bringing up children do not get the benefit of that.

AN: No, but those who do get –

JC: It seems to me – it seems to me this is a step towards equality, which actually –

AN: You may be right, the point is –

JC: – which actually started a long time ago.

AN: You may be right, that’s not my point. My point is that these people, there’s almost two million of them, are going to lose £250 and they earn a lot less than 80,000.

JC: But they will also be getting a pay rise when we bring in a living wage. They will also be getting improvement in free nursery provision for two to four-year-olds.

AN: But they are going to pay more tax?

JC: They’ll also get properly funded schools.

AN: But they are going to pay more tax?

JC: They won’t get the advantage, it’s actually taking away 250.

AN: Let me give you another example. You’re going to have higher dividend taxes, and that’ll hit people on modest incomes too, not just the rich. Take somebody on a state pension. Maybe they’ve also got an annuity of about 4,000. A small private pension. And they’ve saved and they’ve got dividend income of about 2,000. At the moment they pay £9 in income tax, that’s it. Under you they’ll pay over £400 in income tax. We’re talking about people who are just on £14,000 a year.

JC: they’ll be taxed on the basis of their total income.

AN: 14,000. They’ll pay 400 more.

JC: It’s a graded tax, so that would be – that – is reasonable and fair to do

AN: But they’re not anywhere near – they’re not anywhere near 80,000. You’ve said no people below 80,000 would pay tax and these people earning 14,000 would pay 400 more.

JC: I would question that figure actually. But what I would also say is that the whole purpose behind our manifesto, which I have here, is to recognise that we have to do something about the underfunding of our public services and the poverty and inequality that austerity has brought to this country.

AN: I’m just saying –

JC: And that’s all.

AN: (talking together) …1400 pounds.

JC: You haven’t asked any questions about poverty

AN: Let me come on. Well, I do ask the question, so let’s come on to the top five per cent of earners, where you hope to get all your money. That, plus business as well. You often imply that these top five per cent, they actually don’t pay much tax at the moment and you’re going to make them do so. What share of income tax revenues do they currently pay?

JC: They – they pay a top rate of about 45-50%.

AN: No, what share of income revenues do they contribute?

JC: They contribute quite a lot of course.

AN: How much?

JC: I couldn’t give you the exact figure, but they contribute quite a lot.

AN: They already contribute 50 per cent of all income tax revenues.

JC: But they are very high earners.

AN: Of course. And they’re paying a very high amount of tax.

JC: They pay – we think they could and should pay –

AN: I understand.

JC: – a little bit more.

AN: But it seems to me the tax base now has got narrower and narrower. If you take the very richest, the top 0.1 per cent, these are people earning hundreds of thousands of pound a year, they pay eight per cent – sorry, one-eighth of all income tax. 12 per cent of all income tax they pay. It would only take a small number –

JC: there’s corporate taxation as well on top of that. You’re only talking of income tax.

AN: I’m only talking of income tax. It would only take a small number of these people to leave the country, and there are only 31,000 of them, 0.1 per cent, your tax base crumbles?

JC: No, it doesn’t crumble at all. Because there’s also a large proportion of income comes from corporate taxation.

AN: But I’m talking income tax revenues, your single biggest tax stream. And more and more it’s paid by a few people at the top, so therefore if they don’t like your new tax rises you lose your tax base?

JC: I think they would also recognise that tax rates, in general, have gone down. That the levels of inequality have gone up. The levels of personal wealth for them have gone up enormously over the past ten years, and they can see all around them the crumbling of public services and the terrible levels of child poverty that exist across Britain.

AN: Right. But if these people leave you don’t have the money?

JC: Andrew –

AN: You don’t have the money that these people contribute.

JC: The whole message has to be we need more equality, we need  more opportunity in our society.

AN: But you – these – these taxpayers –

JC: I’m sure you would agree with that.

AN: If your tax base leaves the country you don’t have the money for that public spending.

JC: There is no reason why they would have to leave the country, and they shouldn’t because we want people to be here, we want people to be investing, and also they will get the benefits of a growing economy. They will get the benefits of the investment opportunities we will bring through that growing economy as well.

AN: And then there’s the amount you’re going to borrow. You intend to borrow hundreds of billions for investment. You’re going to borrow hundreds of mil- hundred, a couple of hundred million more for nationalisation. You’re going to borrow billions for the green deal. Borrow, borrow. Is there no limit to what can go on the Corbyn credit card?

JC: Well, first of all for nationalisation you don’t borrow. What you do is change share ownership for government bonds and it becomes an investment.

AN: You – you’re creating more government debt.

JC: No.

AN: You’re creating debt.

JC: If you take over a company, say a water company, and you exchange those shares for government bonds, you then own the water company, the public as a whole, and it’d be run very differently. And the income from the water comes to –

AN: I understand that, I’m just –

JC: – comes to the public purse.

AN: To acquire these companies you have to issue more debt.

JC: You change –

AN: Up to about 200 billion.

JC: You exchange it for government bonds which obviously –

AN: But you don’t.

JC: – do attract an interest rate, but they also – it attracts a benefit, and I think you’ll find that ultimately it becomes cost neutral.

AN: Is there any limit to the Corbyn credit card?

JC: We are not going to willy nilly borrow. What we want to do is deal with the worst aspects of what’s happened with austerity, the worst aspects of poverty in Britain, and on public ownership we’ve made it very clear that those natural monopolies like Royal Mail –

AN: Sure.

JC: – like the train operating companies and like the water industry will be taken into public ownership. As will the national grid, to ensure that we can get development and investment in the national grid to ensure that the green – that the green energy revolution can sustain itself.

AN: You will have to borrow for all that investment as well, because it will now be on the government’s balance sheet. And then, at the weekend, you said you were going to compensate the Waspi women. And they’re the ones who feel they’ve been hard done by on state pensions. But I don’t see – I’ve got your grey book here – the costings for it. I don’t see any sign of how you’re going to pay for that.

JC: I’ve got a grey book here if you want –

AN: No, I’ve got yours, it’s fine. Where – where do you pay for it?

JC: It’s, first of all let’s deal with the issue.

AN: No, I know the issue and I understand the issue.

JC: But you might but I’m not sure all our viewers will.

AN: But I’d like to know – let’s assume it’s a great issue and you’re right. How do you pay for it?

JC: It’s a moral case. Those women –

AN: Yeah. How do you pay for it?

JC: Those women were short-changed by government. Short-changed in 2011 by the change in the pension rate. I met a group –

AN: I’m accepting that Mr Corbyn. I’m asking you – it costs 60 billion, how do you pay for it?

JC: Can I explain why?

AN: No, I’d like you to explain how you pay for it.

JC: Let me explain why.

AN: Explain how you’ll pay for it. That’s my question.

JC: Let me explain why.

AN: Explain how you’ll pay for it.

JC: We’ll pay for it because it has to be paid for.

AN: But how?

JC: It has to be paid for. It’s a moral debt.

AN: How will you pay for it?

JC: It’s a moral debt that’s owed to those women.

AN: Will you borrow?

JC: Often between 30 and £50,000 has been wrongly taken from them.   And so –

AN: I understand that’s your case, that’s not what I’m arguing with you about. I’m arguing to say how will you find the money. Now, will you borrow for that?

JC: Had a court case gone the other way the government would now be having to do it. What we’re saying is we will do it. We will do it by paying for it from government reserves and if necessary,  ‘cause it’s not all going to be paid in one year, we will have to borrow in the long term. But I’ll just say –

AN: You will borrow for it?

JC: Can I finish? Andrew –

AN:  But you would borrow for current spending …

JC: Andrew, I realise your determination to find out about this. Can I explain?
AN: well I would like to find out if you’d answer the question. You would borrow the 60 billion?

JC: Andrew, it’s going to be paid for to a specific cohort of women.

AN: I know who it’s going to be paid for, Mr Corbyn, it’s £60 billion. It’s not in your Grey Book so are you going to borrow for it? It’s the only way you can pay for it?

JC: We will raise the money for it either from reserves or if necessary –

AN: We haven’t got 60 billion of reserves, Mr Corbyn.

JC: Andrew, as I was explaining, it doesn’t all get paid in one year.

AN: Okay.

JC: It is over some years that it’s paid for. And I just think we should just think for a moment. This is a group of women –

AN: You’ve given that case, Mr Corbyn, and there’s other things I want to go onto. You’ve given that case.

JC: – wrongly treated and we will make sure they are compensated

AN: You just can’t tell me how you pay for it?

JC: I can. I’ve just told you. That we will pay for it through either government reserves or if necessary borrow for it.

AN: Where does the government have 60 billion in reserves?

JC: I didn’t say it did have 60 billion in reserves

AN: All right, well it comes out of about, what 6-7 billion a year? Where do we have these reserves?

JC: It doesn’t all have to be paid in one year.

N; No, it has to be paid over a period of time. What is the size of our reserves at the moment?

JC: It’s not – it’s nowhere near that figure of course.

AN: right, exactly.

JC: You’re right on that but it doesn’t all have to be paid in one year and it will be an additional cost that should have been factored into budgets in 2011 when the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats got together to take this – got together

AN: I want to move on.

JC: – in order to short change a whole generation of women in our society.

AN: I understand that I want to move on. I’ve got other things to cover and we’re really running out of time. You would be a different kind of Prime Minister from what we’ve ever had. I mean people look at you and your record and what you’ve stood for and they think, why does he always give Britain’s enemies the benefit of the doubt?  Galtieri in the Falklands, to Mr Putin when the Kremlin was trying to kill people in Salisbury here in England. You rarely have a good word to say for our allies. You’ve no time for NATO, the alliance that’s kept us safe. Why would you  – why should people trust you to defend our national interest?

JC: Because I believe keeping people safe is very important because I believe recognising the threats that exist to inequality in our society and the injustice that comes from that. Recognising that the global climate change is a major threat to security all around and to recognise also that as a government we would be concerned about peace, justice and human rights and we wouldn’t be selling arms to Saudi Arabia to bomb Yemen which has actually made the situation worse. So I do think a government that looks seriously at the alliances we have, the people that we can work with and make that contribution on the world stage. The greatest problems we’ve got are actually climate change and immediate threats probably –

AN: You said you want to keep Britain safe, that was a key thing.

JC: – probably of cybersecurity.

AN: You said keeping Britain safe. So suppose you’re Prime Minister. Our intelligence services say that our special forces have located the new leader of ISIS in their sights, we can get them.  Do you give the go-ahead to take them?

JC: Let’s find out what the situation is at that moment in time and what I’ve said all along is we practice international law. We stand by it and abide by international law and if it is possible, only if it’s possible, then you try to capture that person…

AN: But how could you arrest – we’re talking about someone who’s in hostile territory. This is important because you said you want to keep the country safe and we’re under threat of terrorism. How do you arrest somebody in hostile territory, surrounded by armed killers wearing a suicide vest?

JC: I said if it is possible. But let’s look at it in a serious way also. Can I –

AN: But if it’s not possible would you give the go ahead to take them out?

JC: Can I say I would take the appropriate decisions at that time when I knew the circumstances.

AN: People just don’t think you would do it, do they Mr Corbyn?

JC: Well, Andrew, you have put the question to me whether I believe our country should be kept safe. Yes, of course I do. That also means looking at how ISIS grew. Looking at who funded ISIS. They didn’t get their arms from nowhere. Hang on.

AN: So you go back – I’m talking about a man who is a danger now. Who is training people to come and do us harm and you cannot tell our viewers tonight that you would give the go ahead to take him out?

JC: I will take the appropriate decision at the appropriate time with AN: What does that mean?

JC: – with all the information. You ask me a hypothetical question in a hypothetical scenario, I’m obviously –

AN: But it might not be that hypothetical because we know what the Americans have done with al-Baghdadi.  People just don’t think you would do this.

JC: Andrew, I think we also have to look at how we’ve created these dangers as well. That means the point I just raised. The point I just raised is a very serious one.

AN: It doesn’t stop him from killing us.

JC: Andrew, you have to look to the future as well.

AN: That’s what I’m doing. You were just looking to the past.

JC: No I’m not.

AN: this man is planning to send terrorists to this country but you cannot confirm tonight that you would get our special forces to take him out.

JC: I would take the appropriate action with the information I got at the appropriate time, but let’s not go into hypotheticals of what might happen or might not happen at that moment in time.

AN: We’re out of time, Mr Corbyn. I have to stop you there. You have given your answer. People will make up their minds. Jeremy Corbyn, thank you.


Show comments
Close