Hello and welcome to Tiskey Sour. In theory, we're three days away from a no-deal Brexit potentially, but I'm feeling fairly relaxed about it. Theresa May has gone begging today to Merkel and Macron to ask for a long extension to our membership at the EU. Well, in fact, she's she's asked for an extension just up to the 30th of June, but they're probably going to give 9 to 12 months. What are we going to do with those 9 to 12 months? I have no idea, but maybe my guests Ash Sarkar, senior registrant of our media and Lloyd Russell Moyle, MP for Kemptown have some ideas. Are you as relaxed as I am? Yeah. I kind of feel that that is your one beer at the wheel. Like you're like, guys, I'm feeling intensely relaxed about this whole no-deal Brexit. Well, sometimes it's sometimes it's two beers and a coffee and now I've had one beer and a black tea. It just feels super zen so we could just do mindfulness for the next hour if we really wanted to. I'm a bit more freaked out about a no-deal, even though Parliament have said that they are not willing to countenance such thing. I am a bit more worried about it.  It would be Armageddon kind of nightmare. Are you not making yourself a little bit of a What's it to fortune? Hostage. A hostage to fortune by saying it will be like the apocalypse because I mean a no-deal Brexit will survive. It's not going to happen. So there will be no test. But even if it does happen, we'll just get a bit poorer for a few months. Potentially two years. That's what the IMF says. I mean the reality is that what will happen is and I am exaggerating a bit. You're right. You'll have a few weeks. Remainers. They always exaggerate.  Well, I like things butting in my arse. Not usually in politically terms. I feel so sorry for the poor like guido intern. You have to watch all of these. They've had to watch a lot of my stuff as well. This is not the worst. There will be a few weeks of absolute chaos and there will be a few weeks of absolute chaos if there was no deal. Most of it not life threatening but very concerning, you know, kind of some planes won't fly. Not most planes will but some planes won't. For example, you won't be able to introduce any new routes until you get a new deal. Some people say in climate change terms that would be a positive thing. You will have problems with supplies of certain drugs for a period of time but most of that would be over in a few weeks and then the longer term effect will be depression of the economy and what you'll see is a huge shift probably in about two years of the productive base and so people who are focused on the productive manufacturing base that will have to shift. Now Britain will innovate and it will find other ways around these things but the old productive base in terms of car manufacturing etc will end up shifting out of Britain in a large part. And we've already seen that in some of the plants that are talking about a car manufacturing car manufacturing takes six year lead time. So you would be talking about seeing the effects actually in six years time not now. So it's a long time we're talking about but just because you lose a plant doesn't mean that people are going to be jobless and homeless because people are created people and they'll find other things. But it's not going to be good for a few weeks at least and I know that sounds a bit flippant but for people whose life depends on it or individual circumstances depend on it it will be difficult. I mean I sort of think that the transformation to the productive base is the bigger story and it's something which hasn't been explored about what that means on a society wide level. Because we hear about the individual car manufacturers closing down and then there's the sort of inevitable media metabolisation of that. So you'll have this sort of moment of you know James O'Brien or whatever prominent remainder is running around saying see we told you so. And it's almost like as if that's the punishment that people deserve. And I kind of think that the deeper irony and crisis at the heart of the Brexit project hasn't been explored. So I've done quite a lot of interviews with people who voted leave and one of the really consistent things about it is wanting to return to a time in which employment was stable. You could organise communities around particular industries and there was a sense of certainty in terms of like your life trajectory. And what Brexit and what specifically a no deal Brexit would do is accelerate the disintegration of that. That's what precisely what's being taken away. So there'll be this sort of full tilt towards an entirely or almost entirely services based economy and where there are jobs and where there is growth will be places like London. It's not going to be for the region. Even when they are traditional industries like arms industry, which is where I work on the reality is what we've seen in the last five years is deal signed with Saudi Arabia to move the productive bases anyway over to Saudi Arabia. And Britain will be serving those productive bases. The Saudi Air Force can't fly without British servicing. 30,000 Brits are in Saudi Arabia at the moment helping one way or another in the war effort. Huge numbers. But even the arms industry is a service based economy now. The actual heavy building of the bomb or of the airplane is slowly being reached out anyway. So that's the real elite specialists at the very top of the company. Some of it's not elite specialists but it is unstable work where you're expected to then go over and move to Saudi Arabia or move to where your client is for a few months. It is not the same kind of work where you have mass workplaces that you can organise and unionise in the same way that people expected. So it's not going backwards. It's very difficult to move back to what we had unless you really have a decent economic strategy, which probably Britain is not the right size for that now. When you've got global capitalism, you have to have an economic strategy that can fight back against that. And your economic unit then needs to be slightly bigger, probably at a European level. Maybe it will come a point where even Europe's not big enough to be able to fight the beast that is kind of global capital. Do you have any intel just looking at the short term in terms of what France and Germany are going to offer May today and ultimately what the EU 27 are going to offer May tomorrow? What I'm hearing is France is kind of playing bad cop. Macron is concerned because he actually understands very much because of what's happened with the LFS that unless they propose positive things in Europe, the whole project can disintegrate. And not only that, the whole liberal project can disintegrate. And so he understands that the European elections are really important to try and put that alternative narrative. And he is really worried that it will be overshadowed by Brexit and Britain.  Germany a bit more is so France is kind of playing this kind of we will not bend to your will. Germany is playing a bit more of a technocratic line of kind of actually if we can find a solution we will go through. Those lines are totally consistent with the national myths of the foundations of both of those countries. The national myth of the foundation of France is that the French are always of resistance. Whether it's the First Republic, the Second Republic or the French resistance in the war, the French stand up and they kind of they struggle, but they will not give in. Even though we know the reality is the French resistance probably did very little in the Second World War in terms of the length of the war. And the German national myth is the kind of populism and pure popular democracy is very dangerous. So what we need to focus on is productive bureaucracy. You know, kind of we need to make our industries very productive by creating a bureaucracy that, you know, kind of has a very complicated role for the workers, a role for the bosses, a role for everyone providing a stake and that's how Germany gets great again and it avoids populism. And of course Britain's national myth is that we stand apart and we stand apart from Europe. We are a valiant, you know, kind of fighter even when Europe goes dark we go kind of we are the shining light. The reality is of course that's a complete myth as well because we only survived the war because of Stalin and maybe a bit of America, you know, kind of. And so these national myths still play out in how the politics of Europe continues to move on. And you see that with Brexit this kind of whole harking back to, well, we survived the war alone, we can survive now alone. Well, we only just survived the war alone only because other people came and saved us. And it's concretely playing out that I've been reading in the FT that Merkel is likely to offer, I don't know, a nine month extension, a 12 month extension, whatever we feel is necessary, she's going to say take some time. To the end of the year, yeah. And Macron is saying we should only give them the extension if they convince us that they're going to use it wisely. And also that we need to stop them, as you say, sort of blocking any European integrationist projects over the next nine months. So potentially we're going to set some tough conditions and then a quarterly basis. I think it will sort of check if we've met them. I don't know if you think either of those this could win out. This could work with there's a way around all of it so everyone comes away happy. So you have the extension until the end of the year effectively till December. And then you say there's going to be a few break clauses in this. It's a mutual break clause that allows the conservative side may to say, well, actually it's not an extension until December, an extension where we can break it off any time or break it off at periodic moments. But Europe and the French will say, aha, but we also can break it off at any moment if Britain is playing in bad faith. So you might find a win-win kind of situation here that which they were the Conservatives were calling like a flex extension. Flex extension, another portmanteau for us to play with. Flex essential crisis. Yeah, exactly. I wanted to take advantage of the fact that we've got an MP in the building as well. I almost researched today what the Cooper Bill meant. And then I gave up and I thought that you presumably researched it when you had to vote for it. So last night, the Cooper Bill passed, which means that Parliament is now in control of what kind of extension we will ask for. And Parliament should be able to, well, unilaterally, I suppose, resist a no deal. Is that the case and what's the significance of what happened last night? The basic line is you're right that Parliament now can require the executive to go back and ask for an extension. Of the European Union, other member states. In any way, May was going back and asking for an extension. And we knew that if you remember the day before the Cooper Bill to try and kill it, May came out and said, I'm going to speak to Jeremy Corbyn and I'm going to ask for a slightly longer extension. And that's why the Cooper Bill only passed by one vote because a lot of Conservatives said, oh, well, May's already now off of this. But the point of the Cooper Bill is that she can't offer it and then withdraw it, because she's got an awful habit of withdrawing before we've reached the final point. I hate when people do that. I knew you were going to. As soon as I said it, I knew you were going to. Can't be advisable, no? Well, yeah. It should be yourself. It's not a safe method, not sure fire. No, I just go for it, in my view. And we've seen that with some of the meaningful votes that she's kind of withdrawn at the very last moment, just as we thought we were getting to the final point. And so the point of the Cooper Bill is that if she tries to do that, Parliament can mandate her. And once the request is into Europe, they, between all of them, can agree the extension time. And once the extension time is agreed in that European forum, that is the legal extension time that you get. And we then have to just kind of fall in line with it. What we're able to do is we're able to say no to an extension and we're able to request an extension. The time period that that extension is offered is then the negotiations and we don't get to say, well, can we move it three days forward or not three days back? That's not our choice. So there are two moving parts when it comes to deciding what happens next with Brexit. Like a bicycle. One is that I actually can't ride a bicycle. This is my secret shame. No, so long story, but mum, single parent family, sister always ill. So every single weekend when my mum was like, right, we're going to teach you how to ride a bike, either she would then have to get called into work and had to go, my sister would be ill. So I got to the ripe old age of 26 without knowing how to ride a bike. Well, we should put that, we should put that to write. Sort Brexit first and then we can teach me to ride a bike. There's a labour cycling club that you can probably join and they'll... Who's going to teach me? Oh, we'll find someone. Oh, I've got the humiliation.  I've got no balance. I've got no balance and no rhythm. And so cycling is just no... All right, moving on, moving on from the short time. Okay, there are two moving parts. Sorry, I was just checking. Are you talking about bicycle now? Have you moved on as well? Two moving parts in terms of what? Can I describe what the moving parts are? Not the bicycle, but Brexit. So you've got one aspect which is this sort of internal parliamentary wrangling and the sort of, you know, ballet of all the institutions that's going on above our heads. And then the second thing is the shifts in mood and perceptions amongst the electorate. And thinking about the campaigning you do with love socialism, hate Brexit, the things you've been saying about the need for a second referendum in your mind, what has changed in the minds of the electorate since 2016? Honestly. Honestly, in probably 20% of the leave electorate and 20% of the remain electorate on either spectrum, nothing. I'll be very honest about it. The ultras on either side have not changed their view. I think one jot. I think a lot of remainers were at the very beginning willing to compromise. They were willing to compromise. If there had been a vision given, okay, we're leaving Europe, but we're going to forge a new kind of Europe, forge a new world. I mean, I was chatting to Jeremy Corbyn a few months ago and his view is that we extend Erasmus around the world and we have kind of every student would spend maybe six months to a year studying in a foreign country, wherever that be Africa, Latin America, Europe. And we would do it bilaterally. So we would have lots of people coming here. We would have lots of people going abroad. You would help increase kind of the university participation, but also the world view of people. You would decrease the view of Britain for, you know, if you've got lots of people coming and studying Britain. And the problem is if the government, the government didn't articulate any of those kind of grand visions of what our role in Britain would be. And so a lot of remainers were willing to compromise and now they have actually resorted and they've dug in deeper. And I think that is what has partly changed on the remain side that you've seen digging in a bit.  This is going on and on and on. And I just want it over. And the reality is if we vote for May's deal, if we vote for any deal, even probably the Labour Six Test kind of deal, although there's, you could argue that that's slightly different because it takes a lot of off the shelf stuff. It takes a lot of stuff that we already know about. But unless it meets all of those six tests, if it's any kind of other deal, that actually is two more years of negotiations. This is just the exit agreement. It's not the final stage. You've then got another three more years of negotiating external treaties. So you're talking about five years minimum of more negotiations, this dominating the news every night. And then you've got possibly further negotiations as the regulatory alignment stuff starts to change. So as Europe step up on issues, we will have to then step up as well and you'll have all those debates. Now, when you tell that to people, most people on all sides turn around in kind of some sort of slash of dismay and shock.  We've got more of this. And so I think there is a feeling that people want this to end. And what that has led to, of course, is a polarization. You now see a huge wave of people saying, let's just go for no deal to end it. My view is that that wouldn't end it because then you'd be in WTO negotiations ongoing. And you have now a bigger sway than people saying that they just want to remain. So it is a polarization. But Labour has said very clearly that we would not go for no deal, that we think no deal is a disaster for jobs, but actually also because it is an ongoing negotiation that we'll always be the underdog on. And so I think there does come a point where you can say to the public, if you want this to end, you have to make a finite choice now because Parliament will never do it. And so I'm not saying that the public have shifted wildly, although the polls say a bit of a shift to remain. But what has happened is an entrenching of the public and we need to work out from the Labour Party particularly about what part of that public we can please and what part of that public we can say, well, we're not going to please you on Brexit, but we can provide material economic changes to your life. We can start to rebuild communities that have been abandoned and forgotten, but you're going to have to suck up being in the European Union, versus maybe other communities where or other groups of people where we can say, well, we are going to remain in the European Union, but you're going to have to make changes in your life in terms of going on holiday and travel and etc. Everyone's going to have to take a hit. And if you've got a redistributed government, you're going to make people's lives better in some respects, but worse than others. So Labour needs to be very clever about who we can please and who we can't. So I just want to do a bit of context first in terms of who another, sorry, love, I was going to say another Europe is possible, but your love, socialism, hate, Brexit, it's a parliamentary group of left-wing MPs who are leading the or rallying the movement to back a second referendum. So we are a group of left and centre-left MPs. I was going to say, does everyone on the same page about the love, socialism bit? Well, we had a discussion because, of course, another Europe is possible kind of coined the Love Corbyn hate Brexit phrase for conference. Some of us really wanted to use that as the tagline and there was a discussion of I think it's a bit more dignified to be honest for MPs to have love socialism hate Brexit. Some people say that we thought that love socialism was a bit of a better thing. So that's what was chosen. And there is a variety of views. We've got about 18 regular members that you see lining up. Some well-known faces in terms of Shadow Cabinet and things like Shadow Front Bench, not Shadow Cabinet. But we have had a Shadow Cabinet member speak at one of our events, Dorm that came and spoke at one of the rallies that we held. Yes. And you've also got Kate Osomor, Marsha da Cordova, Clyde Lewis. Exactly, yeah. So you've got a good kind of bunch there and the feeling that we felt was that one is that this debate was being dominated by the right and sometimes it was even being used to try and damage Jeremy. And our view was that that was actually a parent because this is a really important issue and if you're using it just as a proxy to get your factional gain in the party you're actually really abandoning the country when you need to come out and say this is the moral case. And part of our feeling was what had happened is the left had just kept their head down and thought well actually we'll just keep with the strategy and so you allow this vacuum of remain voices to be dominated by the right. So we needed to speak out partly to de-personalize this and talk about the issues. And the second point of coming around was because we felt that the moment was getting to a stage where we had to kind of bring together forces to probably push for a kind of second referendum, a complementary vote. None of us in our group are actual fans of a second referendum. None of us think that it will be a particularly positive thing. But all of us come to the conclusion it's probably the best way out of a very bad situation that the country has got ourselves in. And I think that is also the difference with some people that have a very kind of the second referendum is going to solve this. In reality what we all want is to probably remain in the European Union let's be honest we're not really fans of a second referendum, we're fans of trying to remain in reform. Here are my concerns because I voted Remain because I saw the array of racist nutter butters on the other side and I was like no way in hell am I sharing a ballot box with you and since then I've been trying to think about how do I reconcile my preference my preference is to remain in the EU with my priority which is achieve a socialist government and that's the tussle that I'm in why is it a tussle? The reason why I think it's a tussle is because of some of the hard facts about 78% of the Tory marginals that Labour would need to win for a majority being in leave seats about the way in which 2017 was imagined as being a Brexit election with the issue being used as a stick with which to beat Labour and to turn off swing voters and for me it's entirely a question of electoral calculation because my because I think that is the crux of a point that a lot of socialists because the vast majority of socialists even on the kind of in parliament on the soft lexity side actually see getting a Jeremy Corbyn government as a priority over kind of leaving or remaining because also the thing about lexity is that it's not actually on offer. But if my reading of actually the electoral advantage and gain is that to simplify it the hardcore people who will be voting at the next general election and I think the 2017 general election we managed to sidestep Brexit very well actually and talk about the material issues that make people's lives It's a great moment of bait and switch we're going to talk about Brexit but actually But for those people who in the next election will be voting on the basis of Europe they'll be in two camps they'll be on a no deal camp and they will be on a remain camp no one who really wants a soft Brexit a kind of good compromise in my analysis will actually be voting then in the general election on the basis purely of Brexit they will be looking at the smorgasbord of other policies and making a judgement on what they think because they are not only people that are more likely to be able to compromise but they are also people whose Brexit is not the top of their priority issues that's why they're willing to compromise on this issue and the hardcore leavers are no dealers now and so the hardcore leavers if that is the only issue that they are going to be satisfied with with the hardcore leave Brexit, kind of no deal Brexit we're just not going to satisfy them so we've kind of lost them anyway whereas the hardcore remainers actually a lot of them there's still a potential that can help win back and keep with us and even in the most levy of seats at least 50% and probably most seats apart from a handful the majority of the Labour vote even in the leave seats was remain because and you can do the maths you add up the UKIP voting in those seats you add up the Tory vote which split about 70 30 and all then you need to do is work out what the rest of the Labour vote you need to make up the majority that you've got in that seat I did the calculations on Jarrow for example the other day and it showed that 51% of the Labour vote in that seat would have voted remain just if you do that calculation that way nothing fancy, everything that's kind of on the and so that's the danger is you lose that remain vote that you've got in Jarrow and you also lose the seat but that was what the breakdown of referendum data done by Warwick University I think it was said which is you can have all these social and economic indicators of how people were likely to vote but the thing that would turn someone who indicated leave into a remain voter or vice versa was whether or not they voted conservative or Labour at the previous election but the other thing and these are I'm treating you as like a kind of second referendum agony it aren't because it's the kind of thing which I go to sleep gnashing and wailing my teeth wailing my teeth gnashing my teeth and wailing wailing your teeth wailing my teeth that's how bad it is and gnashing is I was talking to a Labour whip a couple of weeks ago who I bumped into and I was like alright come on mate level with me what's going on with Brexit we're going back and forth and I was like well here's my sense of what you would have to do in terms of general election which is offer to renegotiate and put it to a confirmatory referendum that's all you could do to please both sides of your electoral coalition and that would be a very sensible outcome of the election that I think would provide us to be able to again talk about the material issues of people's lives but one of the things that he said was look if we come out and back a second referendum in full throat we're going to get killed in the north and I was like oh come on I've had a look at the data it's not that bad and he went no no no that's not what I mean I mean that Labour MPs in leave seats are receiving even now death threats, harassment and abuse on a scale which has got lots of them genuinely afraid for their lives and what they're worried about is in the event of a second referendum they will become targets for far right extremist terrorists the way that Joe Cox was for Thomas Mayer and there is a real a real danger in that and it's something that was raised actually at the PRP this week the PRP the Parliamentary Labour Party so every Monday all the MPs meet and it was a joyous meeting today because this week because we had a new MP joining us so that was it started off well and then of course as always we end up arguing over many things so there was a heated discussion on many issues but Brexit was one of them and it boils down to we understand all of the facts that Labour MPs will be targeted and there's a real danger so do you as a party change your position because of that do you effectively allow terrorism to win the message of Ken Livingstone after the 7-7 bombings was London is going to get out and we're going to open up our shops and we're going to keep on our business the day after and do you then allow the threat of right wing terrorism suddenly to provoke a different response but my question is so then the party's response shouldn't be a policy change the party's response should say we understand that things are now very difficult so maybe actually we do need to employ more security maybe we do need to employ bodyguards and support for those people and it is a difficult moment that you get through but do you allow that and that resentment exists though it's not just being invented by Brexit it exists there in those communities but there comes a point where it has got do you just paper over the cracks and hope that it will go away or do you actually need to confront it and you need to say we think that there is a majority in this country that are decent people that are not going to be fooled by this real minority of loons right wing terrorists who are going to try and hijack this issue and we're going to be able to pursue a policy and change your policy because you're worried about it and I would prefer the the other one I'm inclined to agree but having first hand experienced some of the racist abuse and harassment after the referendum result and since then having kept a fairly close eye on how far right organising tactics have changed how they've been able to grow to see their talking points repeated back to them by Tory MPs people in power people who are considered part of legitimate discourse has me very concerned for how that referendum would play out and one of the things that concerns me especially is that any polarisation between no deal and no Brexit would benefit the argument for no deal because it has the side of well we already have a democratic mandate and that was given in 2016 and what you're doing is you're gifting the far right who have been fringe for so long a mainstream talking point to build on rather than saying well you know what the mandate in 2016 and 2017 was for a soft Brexit compromise that's your referendum fulfilled that's where we don't know what the mandate was after the last referendum it was a big fudge because it was so close I think that's why most people who want to kind of confirmatory vote they're talking about a confirmatory vote on the deal they're saying there is a soft Brexit here Theresa May's deal and if you were a real Brexit here I'm not going to say this I shouldn't say this because I don't want them to vote for it but you're voting for a bloody deal because in five years time you can tear up a lot of the things it's only the Northern Ireland backstop that's getting them all agitated and when they're not in coalition with the DUP they can just leave Northern Ireland in a customs union and we can leave it so I don't actually understand so what you do is you put that back to the people and you say look there is a form of Brexit here that probably fulfills most of what you wanted versus remaining is this actually what you wanted now so would no deal be on the ballot well my preference now and I've changed my mind and I'm liable to change again because I think it's a movable feast is that you wouldn't, if it was a May deal or a version of May deal no deal wouldn't be on the ballot paper if it was a customs union or a kind of EEA Norway plus I think then you increase the danger of having to put no deal on the ballot because those aren't really leave options they are giving up all control options but following all the rules no deal has a variety of meanings what kind of no deal would be on the ballot well this is the difficulty if you put no deal on the ballot it is a bit of a vacuum do you mean no deal under WTO rules we don't have preferential status under the WTO at the moment because we have preferential status in the WTO only because we're members of the European Union because the European Union is a member of the WTO WTO was only created in the 90s so we've been a member of the European Union longer than we have WTO we would have to reapply for preferential status Russia has been dragging its heels and blocking the process to get that so no deal is very unsure about what that would mean legally whereas if you're going back to the people what you're doing is your parliament would have to effectively pass all the regulations for either remaining or mays deal and effectively the referendum is the trigger of whether those laws are enacted or not in those laws you say the day after the referendum without the Prime Minister touching this at all the deal will come into power and it gives certainty that politicians can't mess around with it the problem is as soon as you put no deal on the table what you will have to then have is it will go back to parliament and you'll have another two, three years of this so it's a way also of removing politicians who are extremely divided either like me because I come from a remain seat and I can be quite comfortable in my seat and I had a man come up and try and attack me on the street grab my glasses and all that kind of thing possibly I had told him that I disagreed with him in a rather forthright manner but you know kind of this is the ardupage of politics you should hire me it can be like a completely sexless and gender-averse remake of the bodyguard it would be great I'm not sure the sex bit is going to happen though sexless I see don't get excited I thought you were I thought you were sexless ever since I got elected to Westminster I'm not sure the sex bit is going to happen my dear you're watching Navarro Media this is only possible because of your kind support if you are already a subscriber to Navarro Media thank you, you are what makes this possible you are the reason we will continue expanding throughout 2019 please go to support.navarromedia.com and you know our ask is for the equivalent of one hour's wage a month so we can continue working around the clock as ever if you are not already please subscribe to this show this channel please subscribe to the Navarro Media channel please like this video because it means it appears in more people's news feeds share it on Twitter share it on Facebook and we're trying to fight the alt-right algorithm on YouTube so the more you like and the more you subscribe the less likely it is you're going to have to see Ben Shapiro's face pop up when you're just trying to watch like I don't know a Nigella recipe is that how it happens yeah that is what happens I want to ask a slightly different question so my worry here with especially another Europe is possible you seem somewhat sort of in touch with them so another Europe is possible is not the MP version of we want a second referendum that's the more grass roots potentially on the left of kind of the spectrum broadly you got love socialism hate Brexit and then you have this kind of another Europe is possible and you also have a kind of best for Britain best for Britain which was founded by they're not the leftist ones, they're the centrists I would say best for Britain probably centre left I would say another Europe is possible is leftish and then I would say the people's vote campaign is centre to centre right so that's how I would kind of phrase it and best for Britain therefore provides an interesting bridge between the different kind of camps and love socialism hate Brexit ends up working very closely with another Europe is possible and for best for Britain because sometimes we need people who are the bridge into the other camp I just want to get up your latest labour list article as well a confirmatory public vote is our bottom line and the reason I bring it up is because it links into I suppose my concern about the left campaigns other than all the things that Ash has talked about but I think what you're saying is why I'm and I think you are as well sort of agnostic about the second referendum I see prize and cons to it happening and if it's required to keep Labour's constituency together fuck it let's do it but my concern with the left remain campaigns and the left people's votes campaigns is I still think the most likely thing that will happen is some sort of soft Brexit deal is negotiated between Labour and the Tories there will be enough support in Parliament for a second referendum I think a lot of people who voted for a people's vote voted for it tactically or voted for it as sort of quid pro quo for other MPs voting for common market 2.0 and only voted for it because it's they knew it wouldn't win and so my concern is you've got a lot of left wingers who are basically giving the grassroots false hope or the remain elements of the grassroots false hope who are saying you don't have to compromise you know you should not accept anything less than the opportunity to reverse Brexit and I mean my instinct is to say that what the left should have been doing and what some sections of the left have been doing since the result two and a half years ago is to say look we completely understand you're upset about the result but there was a democratic mandate for leaving we are pro-European but we're also pro-democracy that unless there's sort of a fundamental abrogation of human rights then if someone votes to leave a trading block you probably should and so the job of the left should have been to make people who voted remain come to terms with the fact that a compromise would be necessary and what another Europe is possible and other left remainers campaigns have done and I don't think they've been primarily responsible for it I think the fault is really the shit show that the Tory party have given and have sort of I think they've done more to increase polarization than anyone on the left is basically what I'm saying but I worry that you guys on the left have helped encourage this polarization which is ultimately probably going to damage Labour if a second referendum doesn't happen because it's going to lead to disappointment and also creates unnecessary divisions in society because understandably it gives many people who voted leave an idea that people who Liberals in major cities, people who normally win elections, people who are used to winning will not accept any kind of compromise and will never accept defeat even if it just means we're staying basically in the single market basically in the customs union but we don't have with the 27 stars on it I mean most people who voted Brexit have the government that they also voted for so most people who voted this kind of idea that everyone that voted Brexit is kind of left behind kind of town most of our shires conservative to the bone voted to leave I don't think it was that hard hit by that show and so I think we've got to be a bit careful about the nuance that it's kind of I mean I didn't say that there's this kind of narrative that it's this what you did say is the people in metropolitan areas that always get their way in voting well they haven't on this question the reason to justify that and they didn't effectively at the general election and they didn't because most people in the city of London and all the metropolitan areas across the country are liberal or left and this is a coalition between Labour only wins when we get the coalition of liberal and left I mean that's our historic way that we've always managed to garner enough of the votes from the very beginning when we left the liberal party to form our own party we still required some of that liberal vote to come with us, the radical liberals and everything but I think we've got to be careful to kind of present it as it's kind of a metropolitan versus non-metropolitan Labour is the party of metropolitan areas actually, let's be clear Labour is not the party historically, of rural areas it never has been I think it's a shame, that's because we never had a real Igarian revolution in this country and we can talk about that peasants' revolts had been put down and they'd never really been successful properly different from in other countries so Labour actually does have a duty to make sure that we represent those people but what you're kind of saying is that Labour prepared the base for defeat We can still be an outward looking open society which is liberal, tolerant, multicultural whilst having a different formal relationship to the trading block that is the EU I don't think we should have abandoned liberalism and I think in a theoretical way that would have been possible and I think at the beginning people did vote for compromises Labour put down those six tests and we said these are the kinds of things that we need to kind of negotiate for what's been clear is Labour's six tests and that compromise which is a compromise, it's not what Labour wanted but Labour kind of grudgingly respected has also been voted down numerous times in Parliament and iterations of it have been voted down numerous times in Parliament and what many of us said on the campaign trail in the referendum was the very worst would be, it would be a kind of Norway because my analysis of what would happen with Norway is actually that helps the far right far more because what happens is the far right come away saying we won that vote, we've left but we're still following all the rules and so you still get all the anger, you still get all the frustration because they feel like the liberal elite as it were have stitched it up they've stitched it up and they haven't even kind of gone back you can't even say you've gone back to the people because we have actually stitched it up because a Norway option is a stitch up Norway is, let's accept all the rules let's accept all the free movement let's accept everything this is what common market 2.0 basically is Norway plus we accept all the rules and that leaves a really awful anti-democratic taste in the mouth people who are saying, look we think this is a tragic mistake in democracy you allow minority voices to continue to be heard in democracy you do put tests back to the people at regular intervals and my view is that the referendum was a mandate to negotiate honestly and truly an offer Brexit that could work that is what May has effectively got I think it is a disaster and so does a lot of Remainers think it's a disaster for the country the democratic thing is putting it back to the people the undemocratic thing is doing some smoke filled room kind of stitch up and what you see in Norway now is this bizarre situation where the leader of every single mainstream party in Norway is favour of joining Europe every single trade union is in favour of joining Europe every single business is in favour of joining Europe but they can't garner the popular support of the people and slowly in Scandinavian countries you see that now rise of the far right and we of course see it in an awful way in some of our sister parties in Scandinavia as well does that connection work though you see the rise of the far right in Norway and in Sweden Sweden is in the EU Norway I don't see the relationship I think that's got less to the rise of the far right in Norway and Sweden has less to do with institutional arrangements between those countries and the EU has much more to do with issues around national identity around the idea of the presence of Muslims being an existential threat to the nation to the people to the culture and that's the thing which I kind of want to loop into this discussion but is that not the basis of the far right rise really here is that not we're talking about Brexit but really we should be talking about the fact that these other things are causing the rise of the far right and that's the thing that I wanted to move on to actually and saying that well actually I think that Norway is the worst of all worlds is that I worry that you are validating the far right far too much because actually I don't think very many people care about the precise institutional arrangements between the UK and the EU I think the reason why Brexit went from being a fringe to a mainstream issue in the course of a relatively short period of time is because Britain has you know enjoyed by virtue of its former imperial status a half in half out relationship to the EU was one foot in one one foot out you have all these opt outs and you also have a political class and this was the thing which you know Boris Johnson was the master at concocting and wielding and firing up which is happy to blame the EU for anything that you don't like in this country and do it in a way which is like look at these people they're so unreasonable and all the good things the requirement to introduce a national minimum wage disability discrimination all of those stuff you never hear us going on about how fantastic the EU was in fact what you hear is us saying in 97 when Labour came in we introduced the national minimum wage we introduced the disability discrimination act yet all required by EU law but we never say that second part do we we pretend that we take the glory and so it's good we pretend it's British and when it's bad I'm agreeing with you that we pretend it's European and at the same time there has been and this was the thing which I was in a very roundabout way looping back to is use migrants as a very convenient figure an embodiment of all those changes that you're experiencing that you don't like there an embodiment of your loss of control of the political landscape the social landscape your immediate surroundings as well and that's something which Labour played like an absolute fiddle David Blunkett was an artiste at that it was something which David Cameron did very well and then suddenly you've got all these figures saying no no no stay in the EU my concern with brushing off Norway is that you're saying oh look it's the worst of all worlds you don't get your control back you don't get this back you don't get that back well actually it gives you the space to say we fulfilled the result of your referendum which is severing ties with this political institution that you don't like as much as we can but what we're going to do is build consent and make the argument for something like freedom of movement and I feel that that was a wasted opportunity you I think that we tried to do that I think that I mean I was not a proponent I spoke against pushing for a people's vote early on in the PLP I spoke up about that and numerous of us did so I agree with a lot of your political analysis of where we've come from but the question is where are we now what are the solutions out of this madness how do we get out of it if we could without an awful backlash just a revoke article 50 and end this madness I would do it I suspect that will be accusations of a greater democratic outrage actually now I think there is a case to be made about saying and it might well be it has to be after a referendum after a general election not before you know kind of Labour's manifesto pledge becomes we will try and negotiate a new deal and put it back but somewhere along that process I think we probably now need a complementary vote one because time has lapsed by the way I don't buy the argument that so many people have died and so many new people have come on to the referendum because actually over 80 year olds voted predominantly remain it was kind of a hump it was the boomer hump the baby boomer hump the people in their 80s still remember the war yeah but I don't know if that's true my grandma can't remember much of anything my grandmother came over German came over to Britain and all barming my dad of her children voted leave I went to visit her she's bedridden now but I went to visit her a few months ago and she pulled me over to the bed and she said don't tell the others Lloyd but I voted remain because I can remember what it was like maybe the pop I don't know on that level maybe it's kind of right but so actually the aging demographic may actually hurt the remain cause so let's not pretend just because of but time allow space for new thinking time allow space for different approaches and I think it is dangerous to set a president that says you can never come back to an issue now so then you get to an argument of do you have to fully implemented the referendum decision before you can ever put this back to the people and my analysis is we'll never fully implement this referendum decision for even if you have kind of a no-deal Brexit you're going to be then in negotiations with the EU discussions around how things happen for as I say 5 10 years and so you're saying that you've got to wait 5 10 20 30 years before you can ever even gauging this issue after 75 the people who wanted to leave immediately organized and started to make their case and so I don't think that we should be ruling out a period of time to be able to make that case and saying you need to have a truce in that period I think if there is a groundswell of feeling that it's a way of putting this issue to bed and of course it won't put it issue to bed in the public it won't put it issue to bed in the kind of general politic but it will put the issue to bed in parliament and allow parliament to then deal with the material issues that affect people and if parliament doesn't deal with the material issues that affect people and continues to focus on Brexit that is I think actually the bigger danger for democracy people start to say hang on a second you can pass all this emergency legislation when it comes to Brexit in one day the Cooper Bill but what the sweet FA are you doing about universal credit you can pass all this emergency indicative votes on our future relationship but what are you doing about my local school or my local hospital or housing that is in disarray and there's a real problem that if we don't start getting parliament talking about serious issues we undermine fundamentally the very basis of British democracy and what if remain losers what if no deal one on a three way ballot if it was a three way ballot and no deal one we would be in a difficult situation and I would be incredibly depressed but it would be life wouldn't it and you would have to pick yourself up I would of course then make assuming that this is a ballot that is an automatism so it's not a ballot that says parliament goes back and negotiates a deal so we have kind of three option deals that have already worked out it automatically happens to some extent I don't get a choice I can continue a campaign and I probably would continue a campaign with some comrades in Norway just like other people to say we want to go back in the European Union eventually and probably I would be on a long journey to get there to get the public on my wavelength but it would be my democratic right as a politician and as a citizen to continue that fight just like when women lost the vote twice in Ireland for abortion the next day they got out there and they started organising to have another referendum specifically so they could get their right for abortion in Taiwan last year when they lost the vote for gay marriage what we actually said to people in Taiwan who are campaigning on this we said find any way possible legally to stop it stop it in the courts, stop it in parliament yes it's a referendum but this is your right to try and stop what you think is a moral outrage now I think we've got to be careful about just saying Europe is some moral outrage but I think we also have to recognise that a lot of this discussion isn't really about trade anymore it's about how we see ourselves it's about whether we see ourselves as European and I know from the southeast I visited France and I have family in Germany and in fact far more than I the first time I went to Scotland was when I was 20 in terms of what binds the union together feeling European isn't a human right because I mean then you'd say if Scotland was one of the independence referendum and then the British people in Scotland say but it's my I feel British I have a connection to London and therefore I'm not going to respect the result of the referendum because it's my identity they would continue to campaign wouldn't they you can continue to campaign trying to stop it in the courts is somewhat different well they would wouldn't they the word respecting result is a funny word but I think there is an interesting crux here about citizenship and our understanding of citizenship is still based on this Westphalian kind of model of a kind of geographic territory that is drawn and that turned into the kind of the understanding that we have in the Montevideo convention where if you have a unit a subunit within another country you could declare independence and you could have nationality the European Union started to move nationality in a very different way it started to destroy the importance of nationality at the nation-state level and started to allow people to actually maybe a minority but some people to be able to see themselves beyond British and actually in my view it cleansed Britishness Britishness that had a really negative history and a really negative connotation and the same is in my view it's happened in France and in Germany and Belgium it allowed these post-colonial countries that the reason that the colonies had existed was that Britain was in competition with each other Britain was in competition with France and so it was a race to see who could conquer the rest of the world more Britain was in the race against Spain and it was a conquer who could conquer the rest of the world if you stop these countries fighting each other you bring them together you create a post-colonial world but also you create a post-nationalistic world and that was the direction of travel that I think some of us not all a minority maybe were trying to push the European Union in Lloyd you had me you lost me and this is exactly where you lost me to tell me it is interesting simple question do you think as many black and asian minority ethnic people who voted remain consider themselves European as part of their identity as white people who voted remain probably not because identities are very multi-layered multi-faceted and it might well be in some Bane communities they don't because also Bane communities in that sense are very multi-faceted as well it's not just about identity and the layering of identity it's also about the layering of history so this analysis of of Europeanness allows Britain France Italy to cleanse itself of its colonial past well you know what say that to the people who have made the journey across land from Sub-Saharan Africa through Libya been detained and then drowned in the Mediterranean you know you can't tell me that the European project and European identity which has been constructed institutionally by defining itself against the restriction of such freedoms to people from the global south cleanses itself of coloniality I think you make a good point it's a bit unfair to blame the European Union on the migrants drowning in the Mediterranean I think that there are European Union states that are continuing to allow that to happen it is their waters the European Union doesn't say support that in fact the European Union was supporting funding for vessels to continue going out until very recently despite the objections of those countries and it's only stopped because Italy has effectively invoked its powers to prevent the European Union from continuing to go but I get your point there was more ease of migration for people from North African countries for instance up until the 1980s when Schengen starts kicking in then you have a sort of parallel restriction of those rights there were more ease of migrants whatever your background and whatever your nationality pre 1900 and from 1900 onwards we have seen a ramping up of restrictions whether it be on the Mexican border and the US whether it be anywhere and in fact passports didn't exist as we know them now until the 20th century and so you've seen an arc of stronger and stronger restrictions and the only way that we've been able to reduce those restrictions is try and create units like the European Union and now that has been based on very flawed ideas around economic prosperity and probably people that look, sound and seem the same as the majority in the respective countries the word white is just one syllable it's not as simple as just saying white because there's also a discrimination between what Brits perceive as white French versus Brits perceive as white Bulgarian you know so that's what I was trying to avoid using that but levels of whiteness maybe is a way you could describe it in a very crude kind of way and yeah I get that there's a problem there but the question is how do you deal with it do you deal with it by trying to smash the whole thing down and my view is the danger is what you end up to is going back on the trajectory of toughening visa immigration requirements or do you start to build blocks that incorporate together so what you see in between Kenya and Uganda and Tanzania now and other countries in that region have a free movement block where you can move, work freely and they base it on the European model and now Europe negotiates with that block on wholesale we have complete free trade between that region between Kenya and the European Union there are no trade barriers at all on anything apart from arms which I personally would ban arms trades entirely so I've got nothing wrong with that and now there is discussions about how you can start to make visa liberalisation between those trade blocks and so do you see that as a way of getting to a stage where we can right the wrongs of building these walls and fences which you're quite right have been built or do you see a way of kind of destroying the block and in this kind of chaos and I say chaos rather than anarchy because anarchy is a system of governance and chaos is a system of nothingness you know kind of in that chaos you hope something to come out my view is the danger is in that chaos in this period in time the likelihood is likely to come out is the rise of really right wing nationalism is very dangerous in a different period of time in 10 years time or if we manage to change the world quicker than that I actually think there is a really good case for breaking up the European Union my analogy and I don't mean this sometimes people bulk at this analogy my analogy is that I think there is a really good academic case to break up the United States really spot on it's too big it's too centralised the president has too much power et cetera et cetera if during the American Civil War you were trying to make those kinds of academic arguments about why America was going to be a superpower not only were you a genius because you could see in the future but actually you just weren't seeing the time and the place the Confederates who were trying to break up the USA were doing it for the wrong reasons or the wrong motivations and no matter how much socialist or anarchist or anarcho-syndicalist or whatever you would have been and there were anarcho-syndicalists around at that time who maybe wouldn't have used that tag but would have had those kinds of views of self-organisation you would have been siding for the wrong people with the Confederates and you probably would have been not a racist yourself but you would have been enabling a system that was propagating racism that is my view of where we are in Brexit now there are very good friends of mine in the PRP have presented to me very very good arguments for why Lexit is a really potentially good argument of why actually we just need to respect the referendum result and maybe we do break up the EU and maybe in that break up us leaving the EU something grows in between that's amazing and we get kind of Corbynism my view is that actually that is less likely and my view is it's more likely to get a Labour Government with Jeremy Corbyn if we fight to kind of remain corner and it's an analysis that I could be totally wrong on but I actually don't think there's going to be any winners or there's going to be no there's no solution where everyone's a winner and everyone's a loser there's going to be there's a bit of a grainness in the middle I mean look I'm not a Lexitor because I think it's a phenomenal political analysis but that doesn't mean it's a viable political project I've got one more question and then I'm going to take questions from the audience so post them in the comments Ash I know I promised you we'd finish on the dot 9 and we haven't so you have the option of leaving before the YouTube questions come in I will stay I will stay for oh anyway anyway if you if you want to up and it will be acceptable I've got to go guys I really have to go but thank you for joining us thank you Ash it's always a pleasure thank you for joining us on the live stream I'm so sorry that I've got to duck out normally I really love answering your questions and your comments but I've got a hot date so bye good night Ash Lloyd my one question for you before we get to the audience this article a confirmatory public vote is our bottom line it seems to me at least plausible that Corbin is going to come out not this week but over the next nine months with some sort of deal with Theresa May that sort of ends up with us staying in a customs union or a line to the single market and there isn't the second referendum you are on the front bench you're the PPS to Richard Bergen if that happens and there isn't a confirmatory public vote as part of the deal what do you do I have a very as with all votes where I disagree slightly there have been many votes not many but there have been a number of votes where I've disagreed I didn't really on the indicative agree to vote for a customs union common market 2.0 but I was persuaded by my colleagues that it was good to keep options open to see if we could get something through Parliament and so I kind of voted for it they would have to persuade me and we would have long discussions about it my personal view is that Corbin would be in a very difficult situation if he compromised fundamentally on some of those key six tests which have kind of been boiled down into three phrases now but actually is much more complex which is kind of regulatory alignments, customs union single market and workers and protections but it also includes no border in Northern Ireland effectively working for the regions and nations and protecting our security which was actually the original lines if we were not protecting our security then I think that I would really struggle to vote for it if I really believe that it would abandon Northern Ireland when the Northern Irish people don't want that then I would really struggle to vote for it so I would then be in a real difficult situation I don't believe and there's always a difficulty that we put so many hypotheticals if he does this and comes back with this what would you do well I'd see at the time I don't believe Jeremy and Keir will Keir was very clear that Northern Ireland and security and those issues that I've just listed to you would be red lines for him that could be sorted without a second referendum right if you had a sort of shared market situation then ultimately they'd come back if you meet the six tests so if you have a compromise it's a compromise on trees amazing the compromise indicates that we've shifted from our six tests as well then a second referendum is the bottom line if you get the six tests exactly as we've pledged them then I would be very I would struggle to vote against them all right I'm collecting questions now you get where I'm coming from talking about angels on the heads of pins here politicians answer but there's nothing wrong with that we're not in a situation where we're anywhere near those tests trees amazing being totally transigent all right you've got to get your crystal ball out now Johnny asks what are the prospects for general election or may going if may goes could the Tories lurch to the right if may goes the Tories will lurch to the right I'm pretty confident of that the Tories leadership works where the party puts up two candidates and the membership then choose out of those two and the membership will choose the most right of those two and is there a chance of a general election? I think a chance of general election is very high actually I think my analysis is us pledging for us pushing in those negotiations with Theresa for a second referendum pushes us closer to a general election as well because her Ultras her ERG fanatics will not countenance a second referendum on her deal and remain they will see that as absolute disaster that is what's far more likely to trigger a general election so calling for a second referendum if it is just for the effect of trying to have a general election where we can put this issue to bed and we can get Jeremy Corbyn in it is worth it just on those fronts James Simpsons what are Lloyd's opinions on Twitter FBPE as so follow back pro EU as and by the way love you Lloyd so there's a my view on them is that they're probably very unhelpful the one that really gets me is this kind of for our futures sake ones of course because their hashtag is FFS and I'm like why are you saying for fuck's sake at me that people Twitter is a cesspit of all different people and all different views and I contribute to that probably in an unhealthy way as much as they contribute to it in an unhealthy way and I don't think they help move the debate on is my view but that criticism can probably be accused of me as well Ibrahim Mohammed what could be done if somehow Boris's PM negotiating a hard Brexit that's a sort of worst case scenario for you so may gets replaced Boris takes over and in this it was an article in Conservative home today that was apparently being shared in Tory WhatsApp groups which was to say get the nine month extension get rid of May straight away and get a right wing Tory PM who can negotiate something like what's it called what's that compromise they made that's no deal what do you do in that situation well actually that would be a situation again that I would think will most likely precipitate a general election because there are people on the remain side Dominic Greaves is a good example that have said very clearly they would resign from the party if Boris became I mean I'm not one generally to take the view that you need to try and correct chaos something positive I think Naomi Klein writes a very interesting book of how the Chicago boys do that I think that as leftist we need to try and not play that same game not into a shock doctrine from the left I was at one point in my life and people laughed at me when I mentioned it at a meeting once in London in the 2000s late 2000s but the I think that on this issue actually a Boris shock would tear the Conservative party apart and it is also a reason why we must not trust anything Theresa May says there is a danger if Jeremy does agree a deal the deal is signed it's not legally binding no parliament can bind a future parliament Boris gets in we have a general election Jeremy would be the only leader and Vince Cable is going anyway Jeremy would be the only leader standing that had signed the deal and there would be real danger that he would be the one left holding the turd so we need to make sure in all those scenarios that the Conservatives hold this mess the Conservatives own what they've got this country into and then the Conservatives are wiped out of the next general election question what's Lloyd's this is from Phil BC what's Lloyd's view on the likelihood of a proper split in the Tory party to put I suppose one position very unlikely you see the odd sort of outlier in the Tory party who was left over Brexit but they're a party that's very averse to splitting from the cynical perspective one would say because they're only interested in power and they're not ideologically motivated in the same way that Labour MPs can be they're interested in power and money so you think that might cause a split no I think that makes it easier for them not to split because those who lose power can be paid off with money so it does mean that's why the Conservatives are the longest running party of government or government having periods of government in the world because they are able to transform and reform what you will see is a transformation of the party and you will see people drifting away will there be a bigger split? well with Boris actually that really increases the likelihood you think people could go to the Tiggers or the Cucks yes the Cucks might get it Chukka's party I call them the Tinge party the Tinge party might get there but I think the likelihood is actually that Boris will be in that final two ballot and there will be another lever someone like Penny Mordant Secretary of State for International Development who has this kind of panache of being a bit of a go get a girl you're a bit fun but actually she's deadly serious she's a hard Brexiteer she's with Boris on these things but she has a front to allow her to do some deadly things and she wouldn't cause a split in the Conservative party so actually it's not Boris that I worry about it's those others that I worry about if Boris got in as I said I think that would precipitate a general election and possibly a split but the Conservatives are good at stitching these things up watch out for Penny Mordant well or someone like her yes Michael Gove is that a similar situation Michael Gove has managed to rehabilitate himself a bit hasn't he Juliet Jakes asks if you don't respect the result of the first referendum why should anyone respect the result of the second I think she means but yes we had one in 75 they waited 40 years though didn't they there's no legal requirement to wait 40 years but David Cameron said before the result if you vote now David Cameron said lots of things but I wouldn't follow what he said this is a referendum decision that will be once in a generation he was Prime Minister if you're talking about people's faith in the political establishment they were told this was once in a generation we tend to consider referendums to be once in a generation that's the argument that's made about the Scottish independence referendum that was made in in 1976 I don't necessarily buy it on the Scottish referendum I don't buy it on other referendums either I think once you open up the referendum kind of worms you have to accept that they will be repetitive if you want to close the referendum kind of worms then you have to come to a real majority political settlement in this country and it is a shit show we shouldn't have opened up the kind of worms we shouldn't open up Pandora's box whatever analogy you want to do but I don't think it is suddenly democratic to say a moment in time three years ago binds us for the future we have a principle that no parliament binds a future parliament and so you kind of have to have that same principle in referendum now there is a good discussion about a time period and maybe you would say four years five years is a good period well that's the period that parliament lasts that's a period that local councils last that's a period that other democratic institutions last when some people younger than 80 might have died we'll be getting into the early 70s but actually that's why I think it's important that it's not about a re-run of this referendum it's not about a referendum where we're saying we're giving the mandate for parliament or the government to negotiate an exit deal which is what that referendum really was does the government have a mandate to go to Europe and trigger article 50 another confirmatory referendum that we're proposing is or that some people are proposing is that it would be a absolute final say the law would be written to say the people and that would be the first time ever that this has happened in this country that would be quite a democratic milestone did that not happen in the first referendum it was a known quantity what joining the EU would mean the first referendum was a leave referendum as well we joined in 73 we had a leave in-out referendum the question was identical in 75 no lots of people get it wrong and I've got it wrong before because it's easy in your mind to think and interestingly of course it was the Labour government that called the 75 referendum to resolve a dispute internally in the party and you now just see that in reverse with conservatives and that led to resolving a dispute in the party not straight away but 5 years 6 years later of course led to the SMP bringing down the Labour government and bringing Thatcher into power again I think that there is a parallel here that we might see the DUP or someone that you would never imagine bringing down the conservative government like you would never imagine the SMP bringing down the Labour government you might see something like that happening and then a radical transformative leader that's a generational opportunity like Thatcher was for the right comes into power with Jeremy Corbyn I don't think we should dismiss a repeat of history in that sense first time is tragedy, second time is fucking great potentially let's end it there thank you Lloyd it's been a pleasure it's the first time on the borough is it? yeah I've been begging to come on and you've never got me on before actually we've had you on I think we've had you on like at conference before possibly yeah even that I think it's a on stage we had you on stage for that infamous night that was the moment of which we decided we shouldn't get any more front bench politicians very pissed on camera because it can be damaging to the the movement that was one can, that was me being very responsible thank you for watching Tiskey Sour we are Navara Media if you already support the show financially thank you if you know what makes this possible if you don't you know our R Squish is for the equivalent of one hour's wage a month so we can continue working around the clock as ever please like the show please subscribe to our YouTube channel share this on Facebook, share this on Twitter we'll be back next week I'm not sure what we'll be talking about then but I mean you can find out on Twitter or just come for the surprise so good night see you then


All right, back on the Sportsmax zone, Sportsmax.tv brought news early on Friday that a Jamaican male sprint hurdler tested positive for a banned substance and is facing a provisional suspension from the sport. And then, on Friday afternoon, Ronald Levy confirmed himself as the athlete posting this on Instagram. Early last month, I was tested out of season. I expected to be negative on that test, like I have been on every test I have ever taken throughout my career. I was surprised to receive a letter on November 2, 2023 by the Jamaica Antidoping Commission of an adverse analytical finding. I have decided to take the option to have my B sound protested of which I await the results. I am stunned at the turn of events because I have always conducted myself with the highest level of integrity in the sport, which I dearly and would never seek to gain an unfair advantage. I intend to defend my integrity during this process because I am certain I did not, knowingly breach the rules out of respect for the process, I will not comment further until the process is concluded. Ronald Levy posted that earlier on Friday after news broke that he had tested positive for a banned substance. Just to put some context to this conversation before I bring you guys in, and for those who don't know Ronald Levy, this is a young man that won the 2018 Commonwealth Games title. He won a bronze medal at the Olympic Games in the 110 hurdles in Tokyo held in 2021. He has won three national titles in the 110-metre hurdles and he is a decorated sprint hurdler. Last represented Jamaica at the World Indoor Championships in 2022 following his success at the Olympic Games, but got injured and did not compete outdoors in 2022. In 2023 he ran three and a half races incidentally at 100 meters and three races in the 110 hurdles did not compete at the Jamaican Championships because he was hurt at the time of the championships. He has had a number of indoor setbacks throughout the course of his career, but when he has been fit, he has proven to be among the very best hurdlers in the world. What I took from that is one, the use of the word knowingly in his post, saying that he can defend his integrity because he knows to the best of his knowledge that he did not take any substance knowingly. And for me it just brings back memories of other cases where athletes take, let's just say medication for cold and cough, and these are just examples from previous cases that would have cropped up from my time covering the sport. So many a times when the sample test positive, it's not like the athlete willingly went across and took some drugs that they know would have come back with a positive test. But sometimes they innocently take, let's just say a tablet for headache or cold. Sometimes I remember in one particular case a kid cough syrup, one of their child's cough syrup and it brought back of course a positive test. So those are the two things that stood out for me, one that he is willing to defend his integrity and that's important, especially if he knows that you did nothing wrong. And the use of the word knowingly, he didn't knowingly breach the rules. Yeah, you know, I always find it difficult to comment on these A sample testings. Of course, the confirmed guilt verdict comes after the B sample is also tested, which he has asked for. And it's just normal for athletes to protest and claim their innocence in situations like this. So he has taken a path that we have seen many times before. I'm not going to sit here on the Sportsmax zone and judge Ronald Levy. I don't know him personally, but I also know that there are times that athletes get into trouble unknowingly. And this is what he's saying on his behalf. Based on the category of the drug that the adverse analytical finding has come up positive for, it is a drug that would cause him if the process goes through to find him guilty, a lengthy ban, probably four years. And he's now 31 years old. I'm not too sure, you know, if there is much of a recovery for him. If it is, that he's found guilty and his B sample comes up positive as well. But another unfortunate doping story here, and we just have to see how this one plays out. Yeah, I know he did not name the drug in his social media post and I don't want to speculate too much about it. I've seen a drug reported elsewhere, but I know with these cases you always have to be careful because sometimes you can see something reported. And we haven't independently verified that. So I don't want to go into that. And he hasn't named it. And I suspect we will get confirmation of what it is in the coming days. And I understand where Mariah is going with the use of the word knowingly. And I believe Ronald Levy, when he says he did not knowingly, but ultimately the case, he's going to have to prove that. And when he goes in front of a tribunal, they will be looking at a little bit more than that. But also a lot of what this will come down to is the category that the drug falls in. Because in my experience, the length of the ban and how it is deemed when it goes in front of a tribunal is heavily dependent on the category of drugs. So if you are talking about performance announcing drugs, then usually you are looking at the maximum ban. In this case, it's the first time offense I suspected before years. If it is a masking agent, then similar situation. When you get down now to stimulants, then that's where you start to see a lot of the reductions. And if you're talking about a drug that falls under the category of going against the spirit of the sport, then quite often as well, you can see significant reductions if that is the type of drug. So we'll just have to wait and see what the drug is and what category it falls in. And at this stage, we can only wish Ronald Levy all the best as he goes through this process. So let's leave that there for today. I'm sure we'll be chatting more about this come next week. But for now, we'll take a break. When we return, it will be time for Interactive and you'll be seeing the nominations for the SportsMex class moment.


Metal calcogenide nanomaterials have shown great promise in catalyzing the water splitting reaction, which can be used to generate clean and renewable energy sources. Various techniques have been developed to optimize the morphologies and structures of these materials, leading to improved catalytic activity. However, there remain several challenges that need to be addressed before this technology can be fully realized. This article was authored by Jiayin, Jingjin, Honghonglin, and others.


The question is not about what you like. The question is about, does everything around you like you? Have you made yourself in such a way that nobody can help liking you? You like something, you dislike something, it doesn't mean anything because both what you like and what you dislike are two different kinds of bondages. Both what you like and what you dislike distorts your perception. If you like somebody, you will exaggerate them in your mind. If you dislike somebody, for sure you will exaggerate them in your mind. Exaggeration means you are unable to see things as they are. If you are unable to see things as they are, you can never handle life the way it should be. So liking and disliking exaggerates either in positive ways or in negative ways, but it exaggerates or it distorts life. So what you like is not important. Have you made yourself in such a way, not just people, just everything likes you.  Even the flowers, the plants and the trees like you. How can the plants and the trees like me? They are very sensitive to who you are. They are extremely sensitive to who you are. They respond accordingly.    It is things that people want, it's things that people aspire for, things that they work for, strive to have in their life, which turns into curses in their life.  Misery is not raining. Never is raining misery. It's just that things that you like have become source of misery. If you make yourself… if you strive to make yourself in such a way, you cannot be helped, nobody can help liking you. Life will blossom better. Everything will yield their best to you, not their worst. But if you go by what you like, not always life will yield its best. You may have everything and still have nothing. So, spiritual process is not about pursuing what you like. It's about striving to make yourself in such a way.   You may do something, you may become something, you may earn a living, you may make a living, but nothing will happen. You'll just go through a cycle without nothing tremendous touching your life. So, those of you who are living in the ashram, I want you to learn to stand, walk, sit, breathe in such a way that even the stones around you like you. How do I know whether they like me or not? You will know for sure. If you are sensitive about being like that, you will also know. You will also be sensitive enough to know that. If you are never sensitive about these aspects, you will not have the sensitivity to know, otherwise distinctly you will know. Do not become in such a way, everything has to be shouted into your ears. You must become in such a way, if you look at somebody before they speak, you know for this you need a certain sense of receptivity.  The less you are, the more you receive. The more you are, less you receive.  If there is no such thing as myself, you simply sit here, the whole existence will dance within you. You will become an instrument of the creator. Otherwise, you will be a bundle of thoughts, emotions, prejudices and rubbish. This is the choice every human being has. Either to exist here as a limb of the creator, as a Yishanga, we are calling them this place, or to exist here as a bundle of thoughts, emotions and nonsense that you have gathered. This choice is available to us every moment of our life, continuously choosing, continuously choosing to be like that. If this thriving is there, it will deliver you to a different place of gracefulness, where every stone, every pebble, every rock, every tree, every atom in the existence speaks to you in a language that you can know. Otherwise, you are alone in this vast existence, feeling constantly insecure, unstable, psychologically challenged. This is a choice. It is not a gift, it is a choice. One makes the right choice, right things will happen. One makes the wrong choice, wrong things will happen. It's a very fair and just existence I want you to know. It doesn't spare anybody, it doesn't spare anybody. It's not like a social structure that some people can get away with wrong things. In this existence, it doesn't spare anybody.  Yes? Raja Ranka Fakir. Everybody, nobody is bad. Doesn't matter who you are, no exemptions. And nobody is barred. Anybody who is willing for everybody, the possibility is open. For everybody, the stick is also there. You make the right choices, everything is open. Make the wrong choices, everything will need you in a different way. So if pain comes, suffering comes, misery happens, not time to look around. This is always the problem. If you are miserable, you think somebody else need to be fixed. No, no, no. If you are miserable, this needs to be fixed, not somebody else. No, I am miserable, fix the situation for me. No, no, no. If you are miserable, who should be fixed? If you are sick, who should be given the medicine? Shall we give it to somebody else when you are sick? If you are hungry, shall we give the food to somebody else? No, it only works if you give it to this, isn't it? If food is like that, medicine is like that, is that not true with every other aspect? That if you are miserable, something else or somebody else need not be fixed, only this one needs to be fixed. Just to understand the simple fact, people take lifetimes. They think something else has to be fixed. On a certain day, Shankaran Pillai went drinking with his friends. Yogis and drunkards both are timeless, you know. They don't know the passage of time. He went drinking. He intended to go back home at eight o'clock but drink after drink and time. He became unconscious of time. When he looked at the box, it was 2.30 a.m. So he thought it's really late and he wants to get back home quickly.   So in this condition he went home and tried to find the keyhole that took another half an hour, opened, went inside, went into the bathroom and looked at himself in the mirror. He was bleeding all over the face. So he opened the medicine chest, fixed himself whichever way he could and quietly crawled into the bed and slept. Morning eight o'clock, his wife took a bucket of cold water and threw it in his face. He got up.  He said, no honey, I haven't touched a drop. Six months ago when I promised, since then I haven't touched a drop. She held him by the shirt, dragged him into the bathroom and showed him. The bandaid was all over the mirror. Doesn't work like that. Only somebody who is completely unconscious will do such things. If it's hurting here, you will fix it there because you're completely unconscious or inebriated. So whenever you're miserable, you want to fix that one and that one and that one. No, no, no, this one needs to be fixed. If you put bandaid on the mirror, it doesn't heal your wounds. You have to attend to the wound. Both your miseries and joys are caused from inside. So it needs to be attended here, not somewhere else. The sooner you learn this, the more graceful and wonderful your life will become.


And now we'll take a look at a few teaching ideas for the present continuous tense. The present continuous tense is quite a visual tense. We use it to describe actions that are happening at the present moment. So, we could give our students a picture such as the one seen here. It is important that in the picture there are many activities going on. The teacher can give a time limit to pairs or small groups. In that time limit, the pairs or small groups will make various sentences based upon what they see in the picture.  At the end of the time limit, the teacher will ask for some feedback and get feedback from the pairs and the groupings to see what different sentences they were able to come up with. Hopefully, at the end, the students will have made statements using as many of the pronouns as possible. In this case, at least he, she or they.


Young Minecraft fans across South Korea have been breathing a sigh of relief over the past week, as their government has announced that a controversial gaming law will be repealed. As we covered in a previous video, the so-called Cinderella law forbids those under 19 in South Korea from playing games between midnight and 6am. Some companies ban underage players entirely for the sake of ease, which is what Microsoft has recently done with Minecraft. The Cinderella law will be repealed later this year, and while not all of the details are clear yet, it helps that South Korea actually already has a much more appropriate system for policing child screen time enshrined in law. That said, South Korea is not the only country debating children and gaming, and this issue could have ramification for gaming laws around the world. Concerns over children playing too many computer games go back decades, but games like Minecraft are not the catalyst for South Korea's controversial solution. The culprits are mass multiplayer online role-playing games, which are designed to be highly addictive. These games reward repetitive play, forcing the player to grind for hours in order to progress. There have been cases of teenagers and young adults playing these games in internet cafes to the point of exhaustion and even death. This is absolutely an issue that needs to be addressed, but many parents don't see the difference between this kind of psychological trap and the fact that some children simply enjoy playing a lot of Minecraft because it's fun. Of course, this isn't just an issue in South Korea. A recent opinion piece in the British newspaper The Daily Telegraph claimed that every parent knows that gaming is a dangerous obsession, which is perhaps a bit of an overstatement. While the Cinderella law is the primary form of policing underage gaming time in South Korea, it's not the only solution. Another law allows parents to set specific playtime hours for their children, which games companies must honour, as only a fraction of parents understand how to make use of it, but it will be the primary means of policing children going forward. It does remain to be seen how many games companies actually bother to adhere to it. If the Cinderella law was too much effort for companies like Microsoft to follow, this tailored system may actually be more difficult to implement in practice. What's more, it's unclear whether arbitrarily locking children out of games at certain times is a useful strategy. One academic study conducted in South Africa found that children who were locked out of a game at a certain time became more fixated on the game because it was now forbidden. So what solution is best for combating genuine cases of video game addiction? One solution which was previously used in China involved varying player rewards based on playtime. Games would give out less experience points after three hours of gameplay, and no experience at all after five hours. This helped players to make the decision to turn off the game themselves. The big problem with this solution? It reduces the revenue that games companies can make. Truly psychologically addictive games are designed that way on purpose, unethical as it may be. It's a matter for a rigorous academic study to test whether this technique is helpful in the treatment of genuine gaming addiction. However, it stands to reason that it may have little impact on a child who simply enjoys the experience of playing and is reluctant for the fun to be brought to an end. China has now moved away from this strategy in favour of something far more restrictive, legally forbidding all children from having more than one hour's gaming time per school day. That, though, is a story for another day, and one which is well worth telling, as the Chinese government's restrictions has wider ramifications for many western companies, including Ubisoft, Activision Blizzard, and Epic Games. For now, though, the moral of this story is that governments can't raise your children for you. If you're worried about your child having too much screen time, the best solution is to talk to them, perhaps play games with them so that you can understand them better, and agree together on some healthy boundaries that suit your family's needs.


Appalachian Wireless proudly brings you unlimited data. Unlimited data is only $80 a month for a single line. Four lines as low as $200. Better service? Bigger savings? That's today's Appalachian Wireless. An East Kentucky network company. Get a speed slow to 25 gigabytes per line to 512 kilobits for phones and tablets. And 15 gigabytes for motors. See store for more details. It's time now for Mountain Music.  The main stage of the Country Music Highland. It's been a long time coming on. Went to Paris last week with your friends just for fun. Living in the city on your daddy's money. I know it don't mean much to you honey. It's not the way I live. Yeah I give all I got to give. You ain't no holler girl. My sound has a little bluegrass. A little old country soul. And a little New Age country mixed with it. My EP is supposed to be coming out this March. So early March. And I've been working really hard. You ain't no holler girl. To me connecting with the crowd is amazing. And there's no other high like it. But you know sitting around and writing a song from your heart is a big deal for me too. I really enjoy you know piecing together like I said a story. And to me you know that's a big part of being a musician.  You ain't no holler girl. You ain't never heard high come early. You ain't no holler girl. You ain't no holler girl.