get e-mail from people. >> that you both. -- take you both. -- thank you both. >> for a dvd copy of this program, call 1-877-662-7726. for free transcripts or to give us your comments about this program, visit us at q&a.org. q&a is also available as a c- span podcast. . .

these british the payouts were on the parliament rules. the agreement was that the audience would be made up of local people living in the area and that they would pose the questions. you're all so loud a handful of people who are asking questions.

we go through thousands and thousands of questions that have been submitted and boiling them down. we hope to set an agenda for the debate. >> [unintelligible] >> our theme is international affairs, which will take the path of the 90 minutes. obviously, europe is interested in england's military participation more generally, the economy is probably the biggest issue in this campaign. the second issue is the behavior of our mp's. can you trust them? have they let them public?

the set design gives me a central role, and a bit like jim lehrer in the united states, which is different from what happened last week. on a serious a subject as foreign affairs, where there are serious differences between the parties, it may be that they may need some more guidance from the moderator tonight to make sure that the questions are actually it answered. for the first time, all three leaders show themselves well briefed on how the debate works. >> british parliamentary elections are may 5. for the first time, leaders of the largest political party is our facing off in three u.s.-

style television debates. taking part are prime minister gordon brown, conservative leader david cameron, and liberal democrat leader nick glegg. this is about 90 minutes. >> live from bristol, this is the sky news leaders' debate with allen bolton. >> good evening. welcome to the sky news leaders debate. this is round two of the first- ever debate in the u.k. please welcome david cameron, nick glegg, gordon brown.

[applause] >> this may have the feel of atv popularity contest, but, in truth, this is an election about britain's future, a fight for your future and for your jobs. if it is all about style and pr, count me out. it is a bad judgment and delivering a better future for this country. i am your man. ahead our future -- ahead are huge challenges.

building alliances in europe against nuclear weapons, against climate change, against party, and dealing with their banks -- not everyone has the answers. i say, get the big decisions wrong and britain security is at risk. get the decisions arrived and we could have prosperous and greener britain could i can deliver that plan. the way to do it is with the majority labor government. >> next, david cameron. >> it is clear from last week's debates that the country was changed. but the question is what sort of change and who is best placed to make that change? if you vote conservative, you will get a new team running the country from may 7 and you will not be stuck with what you have now. real change comes from your values. there are big differences between us. i believe that we need to do more to help families. they are the absolute bedrock.

i want the government to be accountable. i want less waste, less bureaucracy, that stops the jobs path. as we are going to discuss tonight, i want us to keep our defenses strong. i want to keep our borders secure and their country safe. but real change comes from not just politicians, but from when we all recognize that we have responsibility. we're all in this together. that is how we build a strong society. >> finally, nick glegg. >> i am so proud of the values that have made our country so great, democracy, human rights, the rule of law. but the sad truth is, in recent years, our government from both parties have led to those values down could we should not have sent soldiers into battle without the right equipment. we should not have complicity in torture. we should not have invaded iraq.

i want to us to leave in the world. i want us to lead in europe. i want us to create a world free of nuclear weapons. i want us to lead in the biggest challenge of all, climate change. my mother was freed by british troops from a prisoner of war camp. i think, if we do things differently, we can be proud once again of the rule we can play -- of the role we can play as a force in the world for good. >> these are mainly local voters from the southwest. there will be some questions from viewers who e-mail us. each leader has and then interrupted minute -- has an uninterrupted minute.

our first question comes from christopher from suffolk near bristol. >> i cannot see uninventive as being in europe. i think there is far too much interference politically and legally. i wonder what you intend to do to stop it? >> very directly, christopher, i think we should be in europe because we are a trading nation. we want to cooperate and work with our allies in europe to get things done. i do agree with you that we have let too many powers go. i want us to be in europe, but not run by europe. you will year it big differences between me and the other politicians. i want us to keep the pound as their currency. i do not want to give up the british rebate. i want to make sure that we get value for the money that we put

into europe. that is the agenda you would get from a conservative government in europe. for those who say that this would be a solution, i say nonsense. >> thank you. nick, glegg. >> i was sent by the man who send margaret thatcher to bat for britain. this is -- there are a whole lot of things, whether we like it or not, whatever your views of europe and the european union, that we cannot do on our own. there is international crime that affects every community in this country.

we cannot deal with climate change. the weather does not stop at the cliffs of dover. i do not think the european union is perfect. i want to reform. that is why i want to lead in yet the european union. >> there are three reasons why we need to be a part of the european union. 3 million jobs depend on our membership of the european union. half of their trade is with the union. 750,000 businesses -- i am sorry it is not your business -- but 750,000 businesses trade with europe. the idea that we should be isolated and on the margins and not in the mainstream of europe would be a terrible, terrible mistake. i worked with the european leaders through the global financial crisis. i had to persuade them that we had to restructure our banks and they had to restructure their

banks. i had to restrict -- i had to persuade them that they had to work with america in the g-20. when we work with america, we are stronger to do with the economy, stronger to deal with international crime, stronger to deal with terrorism. let us never again be an empty chair in europe. >> thank you. david cameron. >> i interest and let people like christopher are frustrated with the european union. one of the reasons people are so angry is that politicians that have given way powers to brussels without asking us, the people, first, people felt particularly cheated when the european constitution came forward and we were told we would get a referendum and golden -- and gordon brown and labor stop that. the liberal democrats did not fight with us to get that. if i were your prime minister, i would strip away passing a law

through parliament that says that, if there is every future occasion where laws are proposed to pass power from westminster to brussels, there would be a guarantee of a referendum held in our country. you sent us to parliament to make laws and discuss the issues, yes. you do not send is there to give powers with it along to you. there should be a referendum guarantee of this ever happens again. >> it was the conservative party that gave a cast-iron guarantee. we do need to have a referendum the next time there's a transfer of powers. but it needs to be on the fundamental issue. do we stay in or do we go out to? you have the right to make that choice in a referendum. i would argue that we should stay in, not because it is perfect, but because it is in our interests.

[unintelligible] dogma was put above the safety of our children. we are set for together and weaker apart. >> imagine a european council meeting if david cameron were in charge. if he said he wanted to repatriate the social chapter, he would have to break up with the european union meeting and say, look, 26 if you are against this and i am the only one for it. we'll return to get an economic recovery. that depends on france and germany and others growing as well. we have to have an agreement on climate change. we would be having a bigger meant -- having a bigger argument with the conservative

government. these are the issues. let's look to the future appeared let's not have a britain-only solution. let's not go back to the days where we were fighting with the rest of the europe -- rest of europe in the past. >> what you're hearing that, if you do not trust the people, just to get into everything that comes out of brussels and do not stand up for your country. that to me is the same old politics. let me ask the support that point. this idea that somehow and that -- a referendum is with the public wants is not right. what happens when a new treaty comes along for a new constitution comes along? >>even if we have the referendum and we reject a treaty, it would allow the european union to carry on as before. before going into politics, i

worked as a negotiator on behalf of all of us, negotiating trade deals with the chinese government, the russian government, and others. the chinese and the russians only listened to what we were saying because i represented the largest single market in the world, for hundreds of the 5 million consumers. -- 475 million consumers. [unintelligible] >> david and nick want a referendum. people want us to solve the economic problem and get on with their jobs. david has walked away from the european people's party, which is an alliance of the progressive party is in europe and has gone in with a group of white ring -- a group of right-

wing extremists. we could lose jobs and growth. let's make sure that we're trading with europe, solving the problems of the european union, but recovering the economy stronger than ever. >> the reason about this european party, i think it is hypocrisy for british politicians to say that we should not give away all of these powers and fight for british interests and then go to brussels and to do exactly the opposite. i want to make sure that we say the same thing in bristol. we want to be in europe, but cannot be run by europe. >> how does it help anyone in bristol or anyone else in the country to join together in the european union with a bunch of letters, anti-semites, people who deny that climate change

exists, and homophobes. >> they remind me of my two young boys squabbling at fast time. they are squabbling on whether to have referendums. what about jobs and growth and economic recovery? we have to work with america and europe to get economic growth in the future. i am afraid that david is anti- european, and it is anti- american, and both are not in touch with reality. >> one of the things that the liberal democrats would want to do is take away britain's seat on the united nations security council, then replace it with a european one.

that gives us the ability to punch her way to the world. >> there is no chance of britain takingiving up its seat on the d nations security council. we will continue to lead with labor. >> summer frightened to think that we cannot change year. -- some are friend to think that we cannot change europe. >> the next question comes from coal field in bristol. >> given our involvement in afghanistan, there is another noddy international operation to take out al qaeda or another terrorist groups -- with the u.k. participate? >> will the u.k. take part in

other multi-national operations against terrorists abroad? >> clearly, the principle of the reason that we went into afghanistan and why i supported our mission in afghanistan is to keep us safe. it is because we believe that, if you allow it to be a haven for extremism and terrorism, there will be more terrorist attacks here in britain. if it were to happen again, we should. the problem is that we have done it in a manner that i don't think we pursue the right strategy. not given the right equipment to our troops. we have not had the right information on the ground in afghanistan. we have not work with other countries in the region to do so. he put soldiers into harm's way, you do the job properly or you don't do it at all. if we ever make that decision again, let's make sure that we have the right equipment, the right strategy, so they can come back having done the right

job that we have asked to do and hold their heads high the they have done it best. >> we are having to take action with multilateral partners to deal with these problems. why are we in afghanistan and why we have to be vigilant all the time? there's a chain of terror that links these groups in different parts of the world to action that could happen in the united kingdom. every week, i get a report, sometimes every day, of terrorist plot, most of which arise in the afghanistan- pakistan area. to keep the streets say in britain, we have to take on al qaeda wherever it is. i also have to say about afghanistan that this is a mission that can work. the reason is that we are training the afghan soldiers and the afghan police. whenever we are in a mission abroad, we have to make sure

that we have the means by which, in that country, we can build up their security staff so that we can bring our troops home. >> u.s. would we participate? as or prime minister, i would like to think harder on what is in our best interest. there is a division between home security policy and national policy. bring an altogether. we have to learn from the mistakes of the past. we have to make sure that we plan properly. we have to make sure that we never send troops into battle again without the proper equipment, without the proper helicopters. we have to think through not only what we're doing military, but is there a there? are we helping these people? we have a political strategy for how we will get out of that country once we try to make it stick with our allies? in the case of afghanistan, far too many of those questions were

not answered. even now, while i support what we're doing and i want it to work, i still worry that we're not doing enough to get the political situation right in afghanistan. >> everyone agrees that, if we were to do this again, we need to make sure that we have the right equipment and the right resources. that is why i think it is essential that, after the next election, whoever wins, there is a full defense review so that we have a good look at where we spent the money, whether we're spending it wisely, whether we're providing the trips at the front line with the resources they need. i don't think we're spending this money on the right things. i do not want to spend it on the europe fighter typhoon. gordon brown now wants to commit to spend up to 100 billion pounds renewing the cold war trike nuclear system. maybe you can be put our troops

so they are not overstretched as they work in fighting two wars on two fronts, indirect and in afghanistan. >> -- in iraq and in afghanistan. >> my first thoughts will always be on our national forces. every day, i meet people who have people serving in afghanistan or have served in other parts of the world. we have to do everything we can to support them. yes, there will be a military the view in the next parliament. what happened on christmas eve, that was a bomber who would have been in detroit and a bombing that plane appeared he came from somalia. that is where he got his orders from. we have to secure some all that and yemen as well. we cannot allow terrorists to have territories in the world that would be used as bases to then attacked the united kingdom. we rely on them as berlin, the most dedicated, the great

forces -- we rely on the great forces and the most dedicated. >> i went for a run this morning with some just came back from afghanistan. one had done an incredible job there. this goes back to how do we get these things right? one of the things that strikes you in afghanistan is that you're not in the political situation right. for the television crew and where the taliban came from, -- where the taliban grew and where the taliban came from? that is a big political issue that we have to make sure that the whole country in afghanistan is part of the afghan government. that is absolutely key for making sure that we can bring our soldiers back home. we need a political settlement

to help make sure we can come home. >> even if you decide to undertake a mission like that again, there is no point deciding that you want to do it unless you also know how, unless you can provide the necessary resources. when i was visiting the troops, i spoke with some mechanics. they had been on a convoy previously, which normally takes one date to get from one place to another. it took them a week. any time one of the vehicle broke down in the sand, they have to take parts from other vehicles. if we do this again, we cannot allow eight years to elapse. proper equipment has finally been provided to our -- to collapse until -- to elapse until proper equipment has

finally been provided to our soldiers. >> know they are using explosive devices that are made to scare and killer trips. all of these things and had to happen. we want to train the afghan police and army so that we are partnering with the afghans. i would like to say to work troops to come back into the barracks and they will be said. but i cannot say that. our strategy in afghanistan [unintelligible] we have had to change, yes, but it is in response to the tactics of our opponents. >> i think it would be completely wrong to try to trade-off equipping our forces correctly today