Aired 2 months ago 61:44
Vanderpump Moms Bring the Drama (with Lala Kent, Jennifer Aydin)
Bravo TV's Daily Dish
From the news
Aired 3 months ago 3:05
San Francisco Chronicle Business & Technology News - Spoken Edition
Retail in the sky: Facebook picks organic food vendor in new SF tower
Aired 4 months ago 2:05
San Francisco Chronicle Business & Technology News - Spoken Edition
Mountain View passes corporate tax that will cost Google millions of dollars
Aired 2 d ago 36:26
A Poet Gives a 360 Degree View of the Criminal Justice System
Reginald Dwayne Betts is a published poet, memoirist, and legal scholar who's currently pursuing a Ph.D. in law at Yale. His legal work, like his poetry, is informed by the years he spent in prison as a teen. This week he sits down with At Liberty to discuss his journey to the legal profession, his perspective of the criminal justice system, and his art.
Aired 5 months ago 24:39
Affirmative Action and the Case Against Harvard (Episode 17)
I'm Lee Rowland and from the ACLU this is at liberty. The show where we dive into today's most crucial civil rights and civil liberties topics today, affirmative action and the case against Harvard. Harvard University is facing a lawsuit alleging that it's under graduate admissions practices. Unlawfully discriminate against Asian Americans. The suit is the latest salvo in the legal battle over whether and how schools can consider race as a factor in their admissions process here today to help us understand the stakes for this lawsuit is Jin hee Lee, senior deputy director of litigation at the end of lease e. p. legal defense and educational fund affectionately known in the civil rights world as l. d. f. she represents more than two dozen Harvard student and alumni groups who have filed briefs with the court. Considering the case against Harvard to defend Harvard's current use of a holistic and race conscious admissions process, Jen. Thank you so much for being here today. Thank you for having meets a pleasure to be part of this podcast. So if you're willing, I'd love to start with your biography. Can you tell us a. Little bit about your own background and how you came to be a civil rights advocate? Yes, in actually my background is very much relevant to the issues in Harvard law suit. I grew up in a very small town in rural Tennessee, and it was an all white community, and it was that experience of being the only person of color family being the only people of color in this community that really forged in my mind, the importance of race and how much that determines one's -tunities as well as the burdens of being a person of color, and whether it's explicit or implicit discrimination, that person of color specially children can experience. And it's that experience that really led me to want to become a civil rights lawyer and in particular, focusing on racial Justice issues toast a little bit about what kind of civil rights work you've done. I have been with legal defense fund for over ten years now and have been practising for almost eighteen years. And a lot of my work. Has focused in the area of criminal Justice, both in terms of police reform as well as representing defendants in death penalty cases and juvenile life without parole cases. Mostly because I think that it's evident to many people that the intersection of race in the criminal Justice system is one of our most pressing racial Justice issues that we face. I also am responsible for overseeing our education docket, and that's something that has been working on since before Brown v board of education. The famous decision by the United States Supreme court that ruled that separate, but equal is unconstitutional. And that governments should treat people of all races equally d. has been working to expand educational opportunities for children's color for many, many years. And that's one of the reasons why we have always been very active in the area -firmative action in higher education. Can we start by defining that big term? What is affirmative action and has that changed over the years? So -firmative action means that institutions, for example, colleges and universities need to take affirmative steps in order to provide opportunities for people from certain under represented in historically marginalized groups on affirmative action is the counterpart to color blindness, a person who believes in color blindness really assumes that the world is equal and that everyone begins on equal footing. And if that was the case, then there would be no need to take any affirmative action because everyone would have an equal chance to, for example, admitted to Harvard college. But as we all know, that's not the case because of prevalent and persistent discrimination, whether it's an education or housing, criminal Justice system, just racial discrimination is just. So pervasive throughout our society. That institutions like Harvard should take that into consideration with an eye towards building a diverse student body. Knowing, of course that an assist what's very specific about educational settings, like colleges universities, is that the diversity of the student body is such an important part of the educational experience. Why should schools consider race? Is it primarily as a curative for past racism, or is it a mechanism to make the school as a whole as diverse of possible, or is it both? So I personally argue that it's both that it should be curative as well as to reap the benefits of having a diverse student body. The United States Supreme court, which has addressed this issue in numerous cases has actually focused more on the benefits of diversity in educational setting by noting. That colleges universities have an institutional interest to create a diverse body because that creates a much more fulfilling, but also productive and beneficial educational experience to be exposed to different ideas to be challenged to meet and interact and speak with people who are very different from you who come from very different backgrounds, whether it's in your classroom or even outside the classroom in social studies. Can you tell us a little bit about the case against Harvard Schorr the case was brought by an organization called students for fair admission, and even though it purports to represent the interests of Asian American students in applicants, it's in fact organization founded by at bloom who is somewhat of a mastermind behind these anti from Novak shin cases. He was behind a case that was brought against the university of Texas that went all the way to the United States Supreme court. And lost. And he's also behind a case that's currently pending in the university of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. And Mr Bloom was also responsible for the lawsuit that gutted the Voting Rights Act that led to a supreme court decision that really hindered enforcement of the Voting Rights Act and led to a lot of problems in terms of voter protection for people of color. And one of the distinguishing features of this lawsuit is that it alleges that Harvard's race conscious admissions policy discriminates against Asian American students and applicants, which is very different from the case that was brought against the university of Texas, which alleged that that university was discriminating against white applicants. And personally, as an Asian American who strongly racial Justice and would denounce any form of racial discrimination. I find this. Particular strategy to be particularly troublesome in somewhat nefarious because what the plaintiffs are trying to do is pit racial groups against each other as if diversity in higher education is zero sum game that somehow benefiting one group with somehow harm another as opposed to the reality that diversity in colleges benefits everyone, including white students as well. And so it's very disappointing strategy for these plaintiffs to take. Do you disagree with the description of the university admissions process zero-some game? I absolutely do because obviously not everyone can get omitted to the university of their choice, but it's still very important for a college or university to ensure that the student Bharti that they ultimately have is Representative of people in society. This is not to say that they should lower their standards or admit on. Qualified students the, but the idea is that there are sufficient qualified talented, brilliant students of all races, and it's to the benefit of all the students who ultimately get admitted to have exposure to a diverse array of people. The other problem with the plaintiff's argument is that they very much rely on standardized test scores and what they call objective factors to determine merit which and fact there's been evidence an studies shown that those kinds of so-called objective factors are really not objective and themselves have a lot of discriminatory elements that disadvantage certain students, especially block Latino students. Can you tell us a little bit about the mechanics of how Harvard operates admissions process and how it is conscious of race in doing that? Absolutely. I think one of the misunderstandings about. The admissions process and Harvard as well as any college university that considers race is that it is only permissible if race is one of many factors that the college considers. And so in Harvard situation, they have a holistic emissions process where they look at the whole person and part of that whole person is that person's race. And in fact, Harvard's expert did an analysis of how much of an influence race goes into the likelihood of an applicant getting amid into Harvard and found that other factors, such as the intended major or the intended career of the applicant has a greater effect on whether a person gets admitted into Harvard as opposed to race. So the effective race is actually not that significant. It's one of many, many factors. The plaintiffs want to radically anything to do with a person's race from the application process. What they are seeking in this lawsuit is for a person to look at. At an application packet and not know what the race of that person is. And we think about that. That means that a student applicant couldn't talk about their own racial or ethnic identity, or perhaps their immigration story, or perhaps challenges they overcame because of the race, Ruth necessity in their personal statement, they wouldn't be able to identify any particular achievement specific to their own racial ethnic community, your immigrant community. And so what the plaintiffs are really asking for is quite extreme and also unrealistic. When you think about a person's identity of we ITO at the legal defense fund represent twenty five student and alumni organizations at Harvard, and we have actually asked the court to be able to participate in the trial in order to give the court, the benefit of hearing directly from Harvard student alumni organizations as to the importance of diversity, racial and ethnic diversity in Harvard, in terms of both. -education experience, but also the very existence of the student organizations, alumni organizations themselves. Because what we've seen from Harvard expert is that if we eliminate the consideration of race in Harvard's emissions policies, there is expected to be a fifty percent decrease in the number of black Latino students who are admitted, which would be traumatic for these student groups and alumni groups that isn't astounding drop fifty percent right? And what's really inconsistent in terms of what the plaintiffs are seeking is that the plaintiffs are saying that the policy discriminates against Asian Americans and yet eliminating race would only increase the emission of Asian students by three percent. But at the same time, increase the admission of white students by eight percent. So really this policy benefits, white student applicants, not Asian American. Flint's even still, though some of the allegations reporting in the media are, I think, legitimately unsavory, and they talk about a process by which Asian American students are scored with lower personality scores in a way that does overall affect their chances of admission. What is your view on those allegations and what is the solution to that? If it's not throwing out all race consciousness in the admissions process, it's a really good question, and I have to admit that whenever I hear about allegations of discrimination against Asian Americans, obviously troubled by that, and I also want to acknowledge the stereotypes that do exist of Asian American students and the real risk that you know, perhaps there may be some form of discrimination that's going on. However, I think that the presentation made by the plaintiffs is misleading and deserves a bit more scrutiny. So first of all, there's a lot of discussion about the personal rating, not even personnel. Rating and what's really difficult to ascertain is that the personal rating is comprised of a lot of different elements, including the personal essay, as well as guidance, counselor, recommendations and recommendations from alumni in reviewers and a lot of other types of information. And as you can imagine, a lot of this information is really not derived from Harvard but can come from someplace else. So for example, if there was perhaps discrimination among guidance counselors or discrimination in terms of the types of extracurricular activities that Asian Americans are exposed to, that may affect the ultimate rating. So that's nothing to do with what Harvard's doing. The other point to note is that if there is discrimination against Asian Americans, eliminating all considerations of race is not going to be any kind of solution to that, and in fact, may exacerbate the problem again, some of this. Discrimination may result from stereotypes that people have about Asian Americans and that will continue to exist, whether or not Harvard officially considers race or not. And in fact, the appropriate response is actually to be more race conscious. So for example, if there is a concern about discrimination against Asian Americans, then Harvard should take efforts to identify what that discrimination is and to really counter that, whether it's through training implicit bias training, whether it's spy gathering more specific data about Asian Americans themselves and perhaps trying to identify where the discrepancy lies. Color blindness is absolutely not a means of remedying the discrimination win schools have the power to consider race. How do we know that they're doing it in appropriate ways and what do we do when they don't. So I have a few responses to that just because the plaintiff. Allege intentional discrimination doesn't necessarily mean that discrimination exists. I'm not going to rule out the possibility of discrimination because that possibility will always exist and not if we suspect that than we should try to remedy that. My other response is that there was a time a few decades ago when Asian Americans were very much under represented Harvard and they were not even considered racial group to benefit from affirmative action programs. And it took efforts by advocates so that their representation would increase. This was discussed in a submission by one of our clients are name is Margaret Chan, who is a board member of the organism. The alumni and soon organization called the coalition for diverse Harvard. She herself was recruited by Harvard students when she was a high school student, New York City. She grew up in Chinatown in New York City. Neither of her parents went to college. She did not ever dream of going to Harvard but was recruited. These Harvard students, and it was during that time where there really wasn't underrepresentation of Asian Americans. And since that time she has been very active in recruitment of Asian American students. So the idea that they are not a beneficiary of raise consciousness is really contrary to history and to fax. And if you look at the representation right now, there are more Asian Americans Harvard than there are Asian Americans in larger society. So again, I can't say that there is evidence of intentional discrimination, but what I will say is that if there is a possibility of discrimination, what the plaintiffs are trying to achieve, their lawsuit is not really going to benefit Asian Americans, and so you have to question what their motives are, what they're really trying to chief, which is color blindness, which in the end benefits white students more than anyone. Gotcha. So even if they're right on the facts, your position is the remedy they're seeking is kind of a red herring. Yes, but I don't think they're necessarily right. On the facts. And I also think that it was very strategic to bring this lawsuit purportedly on behalf of Asian Americans because just by making that claim, it makes it much more controversial. It makes it much more news worthy and it raises concerns that don't necessarily align with the facts themselves. But again, I would never say that there is no discrimination. I don't know that none of our clients and certainly not the legal defense fund would ever say that Harvard is perfect in terms of its emissions policy in that there is definitely perhaps room for improvement. But that doesn't mean that they should eliminate all considerations of race. I'd like to understand how this case fits into the law on affirmative action more broadly. Can you tell us a little bit about what the supreme court has already said, universities can and cannot do when it comes to considering race. One of the concerns about this loss. Suit and Edward blooms efforts is the fact that he's bringing these cases despite the fact that the United States has ruled repeatedly that colleges and universities may consider race as one of many factors. It cannot be the deciding factor. It cannot be the sole factor, but it's one of many factors in order to pursue its institutional goal of establishing a diverse student body. And that has been ruled repeatedly by the United States print court. So despite the settled case law, he keeps bringing these cases to pretty much try to reverse that case law. What's primarily different about this suit? Is it the optics you mentioned of pitting racial minority groups against each other, or is it really just a placeholder in hopes that they'll have a new supreme court? When they got there, I can't even presume to know what the strategy behind the plaintiffs are, but that, of course, is a possibility. But I think. That another defining characteristic of this lawsuit is this effort to pit different racial groups against each other. And it also the media coverage of his lawsuit, doesn't accurately portray the general consensus among Asian Americans on this issue because in fact, two thirds of Asian Americans or actually in support of affirmative action. And this has been consistent for many, many years. It's actually only been for the past four years where Chinese Americans have seen a drop in their support from infections. So in twenty twelve seventy eight percent of Chinese Americans were supportive, affirmative action, and and that is declined to forty one percent in twenty sixteen. And so when we talk about Asian Americans views of affirmative action, it's really important one to recognize that Asian Americans are not Amman and with entity. There's wide disagreement on various. Issues. The majority of Asian Americans are in support of affirmative action. Do have thoughts on why the support for -firmative action has come down in recent years. I'm not an expert on this particular issue, but some of the people who have written about this phenomenon have noted the influx of Chinese immigrants in recent years, and that many of these immigrants are more fluent. And so they have different priorities and the issue of emission into elite institutions like Harvard is a priority of theirs. I also think it's really important to note that there are some sub Asian groups that do not have the opportunities as other Asian subgroups and in particular southeast Asians, for example, with who in many ways face on similar obstacles, blocking the Tino students and and they themselves may benefit from affirmative action policies where an emissions officer could look at their application. And see that they may not have the same opportunities as other applicants for various reasons, but that their experiences and who they are and what they bring to the university is worth having in order to have this diverse student body, the school's ability to use affirmative action depend on a single vote. That is, could a single Justice flip this law entirely so that schools are banned from considering race. I think that's a difficult question because I would hope that the court would look at a specific case and the Pacific circumstances of that case in for an issue as settled as this to overturn that president would be a dramatic turn of events. I mean, that would be a change in law that has been established for several decades in ruling on affirmative action, Justice, Sandra Day O'Connor wrote that the court expects. The twenty five years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today. She said that in two thousand and three. So I think it's fair to say that that was quite obviously a ridiculous time line both then and with the benefit of some years. But can I ask you what you think of that general approach to affirmative action? Do you see it as something that lies on a timeline at all? What is it? -firmative action, Luke lake as we become more diverse and get better representation for marginalized groups? Well, I think that when Justice o'conner made that statement, it was made with an idealistic optimism that we as a country would make significant advances in racial Justice. And that I think is the false appeal of color blindness because it appeals to what we hope our society would be, but it's a false appeal because it's very much contrary. To the lived experiences of people of color in this country. And I think that the notion of us achieving post racial America or a society that race's no longer exists is evident just from recent years where we've actually made many significant steps backward in terms of racism, things that our president or even anyone in public would not even consider or even dare say in years past or now said without blinking an eye. And I think that that's a sign that racial discrimination in the United States is still a problem, and it will remain a problem unless we're vigilant to remedy at. So to think that we can Aratu Kate the vestiges of discrimination that existed for centuries and just, you know, even a few decades, very unrealistic, Jim, thank you. So much for being here to talk through this with us today. Thank you for having me. This was really great. Thanks for listening to at liberty. They sure Rayton subscribe wherever you get your podcasts.
Aired 2 d ago 63:21
104: EDGE OF DESTRUCTION: Time runs out with guests Roland Smith and David Allen Green
Hi, I'm Jay Farner, CEO of Quicken Loans. Thirty percent of Americans who are planning home improvements of five thousand dollars or more will pay for those renovations with a high interest credit card that may not be a great idea. A better idea may be to take cash out of your home with a Quicken Loans. Thirty year fixed rate mortgage the rate today on our thirty year fixed rate mortgage is four and a half percent APR four point seven eight percent. Call us today at eight hundred quicken or go to rocketmortgage dot com. Rates subject to change. Fifty percent receives just kinda great call for cost information in conditions. Equal housing lender. Licensed in all fifty states MLS number thirty thirty. Hello everyone. And welcome to the you know, when you've been fur-coated issue of maniacs at the time of recording. The closest the government has to apply forward on Brexit after speaker John berko rule. The Theresa May not bring her deal back for third time without substantial changes is to kick the can further up the road with a short extension. How short whether the will grant it. And what difference it will mean make remain to be seen? We were seized Brexit cards describe this week as Erskine mayhem. And we have to take our hats off. We can't improve on them. I'm Russ Taylor. I'm with me sporting thousand yard stare and visibly flinching at the words amendment probation at Mark Francois. And p is done CAC fig away their politics Koto UK. Hello. And how are you on those? Pretty good. How is my general sort of existential disposition pretty shit actually pretty pretty pretty gloomy? Yeah. I didn't play before that. I never pretty. Pretty pretty bad. Do you have a copy of Eskin may because it's one hundred quit on Amazon. On me. Sorry quit. And I wasn't meant that wrong. That isn't necessarily how I choose to spend my NAS four hundred zero getting higher all the time. I expect. Yeah. Joe NBA coat might be pushing his on EBay soon. So keep an eye out set up. A smart search we have not one but two special guests this week Rowland. Smith is a lever turned article fifty provoker in the run-up to the referendum. He made what he called the liberal case for leave citing largely economic arguments for disentangling Britain from centralizing gear opinion union since the vote he's become increasingly disillusioned with the reality of Brexit. And he eventually included we should call the whole thing off indeed Ely earlier this week he described the current scenario as a traveling shit show, and he's definitely one. The most interesting episode for maniacs for former lever to appear on price. Welcome to the show Roland very nice to be. We're going to talk about your Brexit journey in detail later in the show. But was there a specific moment that convinced you this cannot be done. Oh heavens the been so many moments. I think it's just been a very gradual journey a very gradual steps over very long period. I think checkers was the the moment though, that I saw this going in the wrong direction completely. And that's when I tweeted the I'm going to withdraw I support from leave. I didn't say much more than that. I didn't switch to remain or anything else about revoking article fifty. But yeah, I think that was probably the moment. I just thought I with this. I cannot put any more and all the lies on the nonsense that have just gone on people doubling down left right and center, you just can't morally stick with it. And that's where I got to. Also with us is a man who was so excited by the events of this week that he actually unprotected his tweets. Policy commentator. And self confessed Jabbour to sound like David Allen green. Welcome back. David. Thank you not. Cokes. You are now the autism formerly known as Jack of Kent because you killed him off this week. Why to go, you know, ten years ago, everybody had sorts of fancy blogging names. And it just seemed to be told after a while. So yeah, I just let him go. I don't know. He's doing now is probably wouldn't doing round. So. Probably close to here. Yeah. This week has been legal Greek Christmas for you, hasn't it will you ever be able to come down from this? Hi, this is the most exciting time to be a constitutional lawyer since the sixteen ninety s. It's not it's not concentrate. Well, it's been quite splendid is even if the ends, politically disillusioned and depressed moment constitution itself has shown itself quite well. In checking the government the government did not want to get its way, and it didn't solicitor general calls constitutional crisis constitution working. But we still don't know whether how we're going. Do we? This but will free ultimate destinations of office. Christian is not any which one we're going to get these sorts of stuff. We're going to do on the way. None of these extensions by themselves. Takes us to any of distant Asians. We just could be deal could be no deal could be revocation plausible pathways to all three of them. Right. We'll get more detail later, and we've got to quick reminders. Now. It's the big put it to the people much in London on Sunday, the twenty third and the Romania ex blue block will be assembling on the corner of Park Lane and Curzon street for twelve noon. Come and join us and remember you can print classic protest banners. Created by Jason Hasely and Joel Morris of filming conch fame for them. Right remain ex patriot page, apparently Jeremy Corbyn will be in Lancaster on Saturday for a national campaign day pushing for a fair society labor governance in more common loons Dale, but if you can be there instead. And don't forget, you can also see remain axe. And the cream of political podcasting at the podcasts live politics day in London on Sunday, the seven to eight Pearl among the shows that have just confirmed a politicos EU confidential. The new European podcast. Sophie, rich on Sunday at our archrivals Brexit cost from the BBC. There may even be adults off in the car park and command-style tickets are on sale now podcast live dot com. Patchy supporters, get a discount on day tickets as what has admission to the right Burr maniacs. Joe? Search patriot Romania ax to find out more. Okay. The gates have Heller open and we woke straight in on Monday. John berko ruled out the dreadfully named m v three leaving the government's Brexit plans in total disarray and extension of the exit date of nine months longer seems inevitable in can you concisely some up that disarray? Please. Okay. So what we thought was that she was going to put forward as sort of two pronged extension request, which those no guaranteed their anyone's going to tolerate. What we didn't think it? I mean, she sort of said it. I mean, she put the motion forward was was framed in the typical of contorted way that made you think someone's up to some depreciate. Here's some web. I wonder which parts it is. However when I mean, the the factual statements that were put out by Dixie by the palm in order to substantiate. It very Katie said there will be an extension. It'll be a OB being short being long and David Livingston about as clearly as you could possibly get when going for the government on Thursday, sort of basically said, look, it will be long show that we're going to go for if there's no deal done by the time we go for the extension. It has to be long. It cannot be short because that would be completely irresponsible in a bunch of other things lo and behold this morning, it turns out I haven't got to do and they're gonna go for short. Anyway. However, there are I mean, there's a lot to be quite quite. Vigorously cross about about the stuff that went on today. Just fucking catalogue of lies that we've been treated to over really just this morning by the prime minister. However, I would put one warning before we get that which taking a look at the letter she sent to the EU again in the same that we saw on Thursday for the motion to language was extremely contorted all over again, and it sort of had these potential exit routes are going, I don't want to take part in the European elections, etc. Etc. So you could imagine on the basis of it. But even after extension it started if we get it once again trying to extend it once she got to the point that she thought no deal was that. But I think at the moment you have to think it's a bit of a glimmer of a hope because it seems over and over she will keep on capitulating to the G and that this morning seems to have brought us to a place where she's asking for a very short extension, which I would treat as basically a defacto ploy to get MP's into a position where surprise surprise once again, it's huggy overseas. No deal. But of course, it's entirely up to the U. Anyway, whether they granted extension on how long it is. And there are rumors today that Macron Emmanuel Macron, the French president is not going to allow much extension to do you think that they will roll over and let us have an extension even if we ask for it. The current messaging is or eight we don't know what's going on mcchord, and it's perfectly possible. The fringe of always been I mean, there's some figures that are quite senior in sort of fringe politics. You've suggested actually for a while they could handle no deal, but better than than we think actually in the medium-term strategic sense for FRANZ. It might not be the most terrible things happened. Thrones. Even though it would be destroying for them in the short term. The statements that we saw suggested that they would be talking about may media sort of about the same time as you'd be having the elections. Or did that expect extension to go much longer? Now at the moment. It doesn't seem any demands from the British odd for the extension to go on much longer. NPR quite scattered at anything, we can expect labor. It's put up a strong fight on this. So seventy her request, which is for the end of June gets narrowed down to about half way through the thing. The thing is is absolutely absurd. I mean may is no time whatsoever. I'm talking about the month in on the prime minister. There was just no time whatsoever. There is talk. I understand that we have to notify the EU that we're going to put forward candidates in the European elections by mid April will parliament rises on the fourth of April. That's about a week after we're supposed to actually leave. The just is no time. And this is the real frightening thing about this. She is absolutely blatantly run down the clock, and we'll continue to do. So she's teasing you in with this. Hope she's dangling it in front of you on experienced. No, I know. Pleasing symmetry. If and said, no because the UK's you opinion adventure started with president French president to goal. No. Now, French president, no. Bookended as we go berko Zwilling. In hindsight. It looks as if it was inevitable. But actually, it was an expected and berko did not have to make a bowling. He could have destroyed stepped at all because an MP asks for willing to speak as the give one it was entirely plausible. He could have given a different ruling because he made his decision not just for applying precedents, but deploying precedent in the circumstances and context of his particular situation, and it wouldn't be that difficult to have found an exceptional circumstance to distinguish this from previous locations of president. But. Wasn't inevitable. What was going to be inevitably this week? Difficulties in getting MP free for and what berkers intervention has done. It's a convenient thing to be blamed for not even trying any more with pretty envy free. And so where we are. Now legally is that we all going to be leaving next week on Friday at eleven o'clock, your that's where we've always been Nikolay. However, I mean certain things I think have changed. I mean, the the burqa ruling limits downing street's ability to bring back a deal in some context. Now, we don't know exactly what that is the legal advice that I was hearing that morning, which is not the way that it turned out, but for most constitutional experts, I spoke to what actually the one we talked about the substance of emotion. It was meant in quite a Broadway. Where the speakers judgment would include an idea about the will of the house and by virtue of that he will be opened him to hold concessions with MP's to try and substantiate. Some of those weekend reports in the newspapers about people moving over to her deal and that would be treated as a difference in substance. That is no I said to beco- basically said you have to come back with a change in the deal itself. He kind of I think sort of opened the door to saying that an extension attachment to it would constitute that. But it didn't confirm it to one of these perfectly post which you can come back with that. And even then he would say, you don't have anybody to change. All the change to the political declaration. Yes, exactly. Because there were two documents on the section for the act which has to be placed before the common. So let me tell you will change in only approval would be substantial change for for that, motions purposes. So and so it wouldn't be difficult to get round swirling. What does the government to Mohib us? Clearly, John is found a wonderful excuse not being the MVP free back and not to have up for defeat. Yeah. But they weren't acting that way on the day. I mean on the day, they were I mean, they were they were fucking chaos to be honest. I mean, well, we all were really I mean, no one was expecting it to go that way. And the government certainly seemed completely astonished an angered by by this stage. I mean, that's so foot of sort of tribal conspiracy theory, ten Hatton nonsense economy detail, I mean, they've they've definitely drunk the Kool aid so to them. He is basically like an enemy competent who's just sort of unit behind enemy lines and change the moves to the game. Sorry, it it. It was a supply, but he was not entirely for city facility. Forseeable I'm full downing street's be blindsided. Is yet another example is best case scenario government has done a hold of Brexit in rabbit doesn't actually if include contingencies of things not working. It's like its own sort of just-in-time ISM. Berko is the perfect scapegoat. He's he's democratically immune effectively he's in the Osman's career. Here's an author pain in the arse, and he has been for years and conservatives I'll say propagates evidence hated him from years when he was the chairman of the federation of conservative students. He is just that waiting to be a scapegoat. So I just looked at all the front pages the next day thinking. Yeah. This is the perfect guy to stop Brexit. Because no one else is going to take ownership of this thing. No one is going to stop it. Because will of the people some team point four million minus one and just no gain to some. They're all waiting for something to turn up and Burke turned up and he three now. Yeah. He can do what he wants county. Yeah. Yeah. So the only other circumstances in which Bonnie might extend. Much greater extension would be if we had another general election or another another referendum, isn't there? A child says of that increase to know. Hey right now. Neither of those things are looking good at two of this morning with looking pretty good last night when I went to sleep and not so great when I woke up, I think there are the context I mean bunny keeps them sort of going. We'd be perfectly opened coming up with a bigger idea on the future relationship document. You know, basically, you know, making pretty is it cool because they're quite like, the general sound of Kuban stuff around that because they basically think what that really means a single market membership and cousins union membership is really what you're talking about. When you talk about that kind of thing. And they think they could probably do that relatively quickly. Donald today was saying three months, I don't you might be able to do that in three months. It was very wishy washy you wouldn't want to have to you might want to just give yourself a bit longer. Because of course, here is the rational case for it. And therefore, of course, completely irrelevant to anything that we're doing an all politics right now. But if you're a Russian. Actor you might as well take the long extension. If you get the deal, you can leave whenever you like if you go for a short extension. You haven't got the deal you have to ask all over again scenario, which extremely uncertain to grant it. So it makes no sense to go shopping. You'll simply narrowing your own room to maneuver, but I would say that that, you know, some kind of change in the future relationship document alongside and other election a referendum the sort of things you can do with extension and just for completeness, though, is another way of changing date once Fidel is a great because once Fideles agreed. It can be posted. But sneak on the section fifty which allows in date with one as an extension to article fifty. But once Dale will is executed ingred and modified by both sides, it can be post dated to take account of any of the VAT stop service any article fifty revocation because off the what we've oh Conseco fifty stops. Once fee agreement has been ratified by soins. I'll be interested in your view on this thing that's coming from the last twenty four hours actually whereby we could almost end up with Schrodinger as no deal whereby the EU grants is an extension, which we of course, accept, but we can't get our own domestic legislation changed in time for the twenty ninth of March. So you have this really weird situation where we're kind of in the EU. I it's it's a kind of a no deal, but we're still in the EU at the end of it. So it's sort of we've done Brexit. But we haven't done Brexit. It's actually something genius. Awesome. And how how how? It's going to be really wonderful because you go the internet as much we've international law. You're you only party to the tweet is where you're not. And once you not party to between his and you are no longer under any obligation diverse treaties, and we into known to no obligations to us. Matt is a Boina situation. He's boy article fifty uses for ways treaty cease to apply because as a matter of what's called public international law you out. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. You could eat does not have a so of legal system, which means treats his have immediate effects internally. It has what's called did y'all system which means that it has to be somehow enacted, and you've been community European Communities out is method which feature it is affecting. That the you've been communities that is to be repealed on the twenty ninth of March varies point. We legislate human says about I'm not sure about the legal status. It's been put into effect yet. But on the statute book decipher and to get widow effort needs a statutory instrument may not be enough time fulfill that. Extensions of article fifty has to be to a specific day for has to be a day wherever Tweety cease to you only test me specified. So we can't do what the Disney copy pointing of copyright terms. Being determinedly Moines is one day. Just so you could actually have a certain period, it does have to be specific date. So it can't be for further notice or anything like that. From the show from Hansel society roadblock, especially this issue the gap between the domestic and the international Brexit day. And she's just the latest that we could pass such tour instrument to change domestically was Monday. Now, there's no indication politically that anything would have changed that we live in. I mean, even looking at the EU right now talking about talking about this next week the same thing with the government. So it seems that all of the political decisions are being made post the point that is the last point of return for changing the in domestic law is that you take as well Monday is the latest could bail? I think you using the usual methods of putting such instruments before the house. Yes. But if it was an exceptional situation of all the ways you could address the situation you could have -mergency legislation to repeal the relevant provisions. You could have an Sony to actually not give a fit to certain provisions for well over vase rounded. But they would take planning they would take time, and you just really hope fought these sorts of things. In other words, they have sure. Recline employers of very good. I've never said anything used to be lawyer myself say very good. But they all good as as you instruct them. And the problem is is that so many of the ministers a grading in arrogance. She listened to useful voice departments. So so we could actually drop into a domestic legal. Void. But the politics politics catching up with where we are. Now have a foot out phase. And if we have a foot out, what is that going of this movie of a delicious ingredients nervousness is? The meaningful vote is just one bit of ratifying the deal. Section fourteen for relevant ads provides four things which need to be done for Infinity stones which need to be collected by government before they can go out and actually fly as as I can understand concepts without relating them to the mall for you. But. Thrones of okay, one of them is the meaningful vote, but but also has to be an entire app to parliament passed to implement. That after parliament has not even been published as a Bill they will probably parts of it. Which is so who Rick, but they are being kept in a shed of a back of one of government departments because nobody can dare show it to Brexit in peas. I'm that would have to pass before the end of may. E- even for the deal to go through as well as remaining vote. I'm what you could have is. Gluing situation where for meaningful vote is passed, but the implementing legislation is blocked by or you overlords or whatever. And then we'd still got crushing out. And my one of one of her meaningful vote. I think that is on the price. The idea that the legislation itself is holed up pasta. The point of no return that must be on the price. Well in Europe revoking now has this week Brutus any closer to revocation. Do you think? So that's a very good question. So I've taken the view that whenever the risk of no deal rises the risk of if you can call it a risk probably not in this August company. The the revocation likelihood also rises by a corresponding an equal amount. We just don't really see it or talk about it. So on that basis. Yes, I suppose it has. But I still think it's a long way off. I as I said before I just don't see MP's really wanting to own this, and they should be asking themselves. Even if only in private what is my preference between revoke and no deal. And I'm not sure whether MP's really asking themselves that hard question because it may come it may come and it may hit them, and they need to have an answer. I don't think that public even sees it as an option because it's not disgust. Their mental. Yeah. And of course, it will just be treason, and Boston's and get rid of them and saw writing and all this nonsense that the the Brexit is really pushing David I take it. You agree that with occasion is just a way of on us. On the politics of it. But it would be quite legally difficult. I'm sorry to keep on these legal difficulties influence of everything. But some lawyers think the prime minister could just with oak could just send a letter to view being council, and he would have the opposite. But equally effectively regional notification and persistently continuing the only requirement seems the only explicit requirement. It seems from the UPN caught to Justice decision is that it has to bring process to an end. So it can't be used in an obviously cynical way. But as long as it meets fairly low requirement, then wouldn't sweeping council accepts it then. Yeah. Over lawyers clever me, no dealt with double firsts. Don't stop. Save you actually can't just do who point ministerial discretion ITO actually has to have point we legislation just like the notification at but again, equal and opposite. You can see symmetry going on here. I think all lawyers agree. It would be legally safe. If it was important we that decision because when he can't be judicially with you'd by anybody, but you'd have to get legislation through. I'm not would not to be be easy for reasons. Which Rowlands has agreed mean then pays what she had to own decision to to vote on. I don't see them owning us this. This is where I think really you do have to put it back to a referendum. I think MP's here's. No. But empties just revoking. It's just not going to wash politically. It may come to it just through sheer desparation, which is why I say he's really need to think privately about what they would choose in those circumstances against no deal. But really the should be going to another friend. Yeah. I mean, speaking may lose sorry. You may lose speaking. Speaking of that have the latest polls into the jets amaze me that if you put no deal against remain, and you put May's deal against remain people actually prefer no deal which extrordinary to me given the choice between the two. But that seems to be where it's going at the moment, but the internet chatter among Brexit to seems to be more and more that maze deal is is worse than remaining. And do you feel that that's that's the route winter down which going it's it's splitting fundamentally there are some people taking that route. On there are some people taking the other side. So some are absolutely convinced that no deal is the right way to go. But you, and we'll probably trying to engineer it, but you have people like Hanan, for example, Hanan 'cause well, particularly who openly talking about twenty one month extension and shouting it's praise praises doing a little bit. But they can see from their perspective. The. That might buy them time fundamentally to get it. Right. Knowing of course, that the prospect of revoke remain rises as well. As the prospect of no deal rises. You would take the house. Well, if if you're going to watch need Brexit, do it properly and get the twenty one months don't keep doing it. As a as a pace stop trying to treat a complex situation as implement an honor. I would be the site, but perhaps on a little BAAs these days, but I would be the same. But I mean, the other thing I would say about this is twenty one months is no time whatsoever. We're all sitting here looking at the current situation thinking week is just a horrific -ly short time longtime whichever way you want to look at it. And twenty one months is just mentioned actually twenty one months is no time whatsoever. And it will be round in no time and nothing will have changed fundamentally. I don't think at the end of that couple of smaller subjects before we move on labor and a people's vote. It's Donald Cobain have issued contradictory statements that signals to that's bit of an understatement. But of the mind so often that it's impossible to know where the party stands in. Where does the party stand on an vote as of Wednesday off? Noon at two forty four PM I'm going to sound like a broken record. The basically is no fucking pie. Okay. So it's basically just a series of warring tribes. That's what it is. And so when we keep on thinking, whereas labor now is no it doesn't exist. There is no labor. There's basically just a bunch of teeny little mini parties who have opinions at any given moment. I mean, one of them's shames, melanin, whatever he says, whatever she pushing against having another a friend them one of them is kissed alma, whatever he says, we'll be pushing towards having another referendum Kuban is in the slipstream of melon knowing tardy the best metaphor. I've used them. But nevertheless, but occasionally gets tugged. Now, this is getting worse and worse for the fucking moment. I always say this chained to a radiator. But anyway. Experience. So at the moment, he's quite clearly trying to avoid any mention of a referendum almost to the point of it. He's almost sort of mocking it in a way because he keeps on saying that needs a people vote, and the people's vote will be a general election, you go back to basically go. Now, you cheeky fun son of a bitch. You're basically side eyeing us. The talks he's had this week. He seems much more positive about the concessions. He's had with the soft. Brexit 'as with a bigger pardon. What does it the Commonwealth two point? Oh, or whatever. Well. Yeah. And that's where he seems to be right now. But look tug of war keeps on going on week after week after week. So there is no specifically position indicates you the tribes that happened to be winning the bachelor this week. Do we give much credence to the idea that he's he's tied on he's an old man and he wants to step down. Always that just wishful thinking wipeout, anyway, I can't read into dot com. I'll just like we spent the last two three years looking to resume in Jeremy Corbyn blank fucking faces and trying to read in some kind of psychological motivation. There isn't anything there that just empty Russian does. But there's only one DOE. Watching the politics of office. One of the worst things about having to deal with Brexit. He's actually having to watch for and it's just crystal. I'll be so glad when it so you never have to watch any recession again. But watching today. What was quite? Strain. May instead of just tearing into your position was tearing into a house. Yes, she wasn't blaming for house like specific naughty school children and bows has got to live with its consequences for houses, just totaling or something along those lines and was just. Peel, June, the call crisis Gladstone home rule crisis. I'm buttered point ministers. No reframe started taming into the house as a whole conflict of any of appoint minister who is actually started attacking van tire house of Commons four not getting very way. That's why I feel more constitutionally nervous than you. Do. I think that like, you know, this week was good. It was good moment. Constitutionally it showed. There was something some part parliament standing up, but she has proved herself with this idea of having this sort of popular sovereignty a hit back this referendum result, which is an entirely new source of legitimacy to the one in parliament just proved itself to be quite a quite disgraceful prime minister. And I'll agree that moment today where she seemed to be talking the institution of parliament, not MP's the institution of parliament full reposing hoods, you I mean when she says parliament is a so did the haven't really did it. I mean, they've twice told you can fuck off. I mean, that's quarter rejection. That's not dithering. Look a political. Andrew look, at least go breakdown was off expecting to stop singing daisy days any moment. She she just does not know what to do of of 'intertwine keep getting through. And I remember watching goes as home secretary because obviously Duma law and policy store for had an interesting, and she was very good at forcing legislation foo she did it with the data retention and regulate you Paris Bill. She actually got a upn court set. Everybody is really time critical of got to force his he's actually quite good at these very very narrow determine tasks, but he's not very good at complex thinking. And it's it's almost painful to see her. She doesn't know what to do apart from just bouncing off the wall again, she's just a battering ram fundamentally. She's just going to keep going and keep going until she has a deal through which is everything. Right. Undergo a Bonier said yesterday when he said you need to show us a plan for extension. And instead she comes back and sends an actor my plan is I'm going to try and put my deal with the United. You know, Harry. I want that she might get it through an everyone will hate her. And everyone hate the position we're in levers Andhra, maintenance included. Before we move on. We couldn't let this week's podcast go by without mention of Niger for our March to leave the Gammon boob run as it became known. Maybe two hundred people for its first leg in Sunderland on Sunday by the end of the day, nausea for gymnast. He wouldn't be completing the Marta tool leading leaving friend of the show James O'Brien, describe it as the perfect metaphor for Brexit sixty or seventy poor souls, abandoned, the in weather by wealthy business media and political figures who are back in London, dry war. I'm by Tuesday. There was a crowd funded to pay back the fiscal school people who had paid fifty pounds each to participate. Is it is it wrong? If we find this funny because after all they mock they mocha marches, and they say, they're lightweight tros cues. And so on it, maybe we should refrain from mocking them March. I'd know what what do you think that I disagree with? This this this spr attempt to notify defend who there's about thirty people walking by the sea. I mean, they're not Representative of millions of leave voters. They just people who are foolish enough to believe Najjar fraud is a fucking word. He says Amtrak pay for the privilege of going on a protest. I love what you can do to people who've never gonna protest before. You're like, oh, actually, it's a silver tray protests that you have to actually pay money for. No. Of course, you can start people off of being morons. Fuck may if you can't do that. There's nothing that. One one participant said it's like walking in the Falklands following the flag. Is Nick Kevin's point. If we keep. Mocking law. We sort of make him into making him into a joke figure we underestimate. This is somebody who even VO the full. So apparent is one of the most successful politicians of recent years by the Shia test of actually getting politically he's way, I accept that. And far be it from me, generally speaking. If anyone says Nick Cohen says something then Defoe, I agree with him. However. I do think mockery is a not just a sort of important, but a necessary to in politics, like I can't stand when people whether or my side or the other pop up it'd be like, you really shouldn't do it that way. It's unhelpful is if it's as if it's part and parcel of the abusive coacher, no, I think it's important that in journalism and also by the public themselves that you mock and reduce politicians that is part of the way that democracy has to operate. So whether he's affective on north I think he is a prime target for mockery and the one makes the world a better place by doing so, yeah, I'm not saying anything about the leaf mulch mulches because I'm just going to get into more trouble with Levi's. I was never leave her in the first place. My my head up married and that kind of stuff. So I'm keeping quiet. I've never done ever since one did a school play called for walking class where I was going to about a bunch of berm comprehensive school children who are going to March to London for jobs news, probably the worst play ever dick on a school stage and ever since. And that's put me off Marty's of all also. Could come basically like protests democracy. Tired? We'll play straight for ROY Moore wouldn't trust me. We've anymore. Once again this episode of Romania comes to you with support of beer, fifty two dot com. The world's most popular craft beer discovery club. If detour offering a free case of quality craft beer to every listener. And then new special offer could not be more remained X friendly. This month's election is a special citizens of everywhere case, featuring amazing small batch be collaborations between British brewers and their counterparts across the European Union. Get yours from beer fifty two dot com slash remain. All you pay five ninety five for next day shipping. Citizens of everywhere is the biggest ever pan-european craft big elaboration matching twelve breweries across the UK with the different European country. Each celebrating a different achievement of the in fact, they're doing tap room takeover across the country this very weekend. Find out more citizens of everywhere dot beer, this special beer, fifty two case contains the one of a kind Citra Grizz at a collaboration between Britain's finals fine with a Y and be a blue tech from Sweden. -an there's mango milkshake EPA by tiny rebel from Wales. Versus mount select from France thorn bridge from Sheffield of teamed up with brasserie Delasin in Brussels. And there are many more. That's beer, fifty two dot com. Special citizens of everywhere. Case other maniacs listening. You can try your first case for free you pay only five ninety five next day shipping. There's no minimum commitment. You can just take the free case if you want, and you can pause or cancel at any time. So go to beer, fifty two dot com slash remain to claim yours. There's no better way to toast, the end of Brexit. That's beer five. Two dot com slash rain. New customers only full terms of beer, fifty two dot com slash terms. We're delighted to have lever turned article fifty revoke Rowland Smith on the show this week Rowland. Who do you blame for the collapse of Brexit is it individual leave leaders or the donating reality? Oh, goodness. What's very good question. I think levers for some time have been at war with reality. And I was saying that perhaps though so explicitly during the referendum campaign itself and in the run-up to the referendum campaign. But I was certainly a part of a group pushing the Norway option the was very dismissive of vote leave and business for Britain before them, and what they were saying because it just to us it didn't stack up what was slightly curious is that before the end of January twenty sixteen vote lever actually incredibly soft on pretty much everything. In fact, we were having a go at them for not really wanting to leave at all they were into reform, and they talked about reform all the time. And they talk about second referendums if this got so far, and we needed to ratify what came after it was quite bizarre actually at the time. And then suddenly Cameron steel came back, and they just gradually turned. It wasn't overnight. I think g-o-v speech, I think it was the end of April where he finally ruled out the single market and Cameron's all the banks open free Monday. We're bound to win now for remain. As did I. And but it just went down hill from there. I think once the single market was ruled out there was just no getting back, and they have just doubled down constantly ever since. So he wasn't. Without getting too conspiracy theory about it. It isn't that? They always wanted the hardest possible form of Brexit. And they've just been lying to us about that all the way through its they've gradually moved towards the hardest formed Brexit, here's nothing. So I mean, I personally theories is that none of us thought we were gonna win this. We just weren't going to win. This remain was going to win. It was all about maximizing the percentage. And that was talking about know, we just need to get into the forties. Yeah. Be great. And we can kind of move on from there and migrate. We're saying exactly the same thing privately. This just wasn't that we were supposed to just blow the bloody doors off that the Italian job. And that was what was meant to happen. And unfortunately comings and vote leave just utterly Arte Lee went for it and just told a whole load of shit. I still think to this day the campaign was bloody appalling, everyone leaves thinks it's absolutely brilliant. It was bloodier polling. It's just remained was even appalling. You've described the WTO option. I it's SE. I have no solutions in can't be asked to think option. How did we get to the point where WTO is even an option? Never was an auction as you leave vote leave campaigned and saying it's going to be the easiest deal in history. And we want to deal it's going to be a process, not an event and yada yada, yada. And it was again coming back to this this real softness. I think is just got here because they have not accepted reality. They all still have what I call the leave instinct, which is where all the starts for for levers, in my opinion, and I must stress that's just in my opinion. I have the leave instinct that we are moving towards a country called Europe. And that is the nucleus of all of this. It is not free movement. It is not the money. It is about a country called Europe and identity being stolen. And once you believe that and you start moving down a particular parv, which in this case was coming out of the single market coming out of the customs union, basically coming out of everything having nothing to do with it. And then you get a prime minister. Who wasn't lever? Basically inhaled all relieve narratives of leave courtesy of Nick Timothy then you are on road to nowhere. And eventually you either fess up and say, okay, actually, you know, what this is bollocks. All you just keep going, and you say, okay. Well, everything else has been ruled out. What's left not do? That's what we're going for. Hey, it's gonna be brilliant. It's going to be the best deal ever. And all this complete and utter nonsense. And you just you just paint yourself into a corner, fundamentally, and that's all there is left. This is the end of the road, the leaders flicker of recognition from them. When you I mean, when you say things that are critical in they're not gonna be able to question your credentials from haven't been there in the campaign is there ever a flicker of a, wow, if my own is sort of peeling off that's bad, or you just instantly written offer some sort of traitor Judas. It's mostly the latter. I mean, I tend to be I think it'd be rather, humid. I mean, there was some back channels going on in the campaign had a back channel to someone very senior in in vote leave not not Cummings. No elliot's. But. Yeah. In the end, they we're going to do what they were going to do. We would just kind of people on the edges. I mean, banks humidors, particularly Aaron banks. So he was trying to claim he had bound all of the Brexit groups together. And he was he was claiming that pretty much from September twenty fifty and eventually he went with Norway option, basically flex it by Richard north which was the group was in. And was going to re budget with Richard north, and this was going to be leave dot EDU solution. It was going to be the market solution. We're we're all in the money and everyone's happy. But unfortunately, it just went down in flames within within hours never mind days because everyone in you tip. Just totally attacked and said you must be bleeding mad to go down this route including for ours. And I don't know this. But I think banks was fooled by it. Because Farraj has previously big up the end talked about going to the as a first step, and I'm told on very good authority from within UK, you policy Farraj with still toying with it in the autumn of twenty fifteen and I think banks was just fooled. So it was fundamentally about sovereignty. I think what you were saying amounts in a in a sense to to the idea of sovereignty, but it the reference the referendum booth one on the back of some very different ideas. Like the Jess and opposite Representative freedom of movement. So it moved into that. But what is it? Now what what is the driving force of the leave movement? What is the most important thing that they must hold onto it, it it it still sovereignty or is is it got much wider. No, I think it's still suffering to I think that's always there. It always runs through everything free movement is actually a very recent thing, relatively speaking. And I've been on this thing for thirty years outrageously pleased to young. And you know in the one thousand nine hundred and immigration wasn't a thing. It wasn't the thing emoluments sketchy times during Maastricht it was never about free mental. Well, suffering tape is being put into a position wherever you would never be able to get out again at least not easily. It was about federalism and European superstate. Never closed the union and all those. Yeah. Never never about freedom. Yeah. Absolutely. But you know, this is a I mean it then comes to well, what happened to the Neue from what happened to all that. And was I naive was at group. Not even I think in the end the answer has to be. Yes, I mean euroscepticism has been taken over. And that's what the euro skeptics of all the Maastricht area. Skeptics like me why David Hannan as well. As a whole stream of them that go back a long way for them. Twenty sixteen was making amends from ostrich. It was revisiting Maastricht. It was getting own back. That's what it was. I mean, my Twitter handle originally was white Wednesday, which is a throwback to Blatt Wednesday. That was the eurosceptic name for it in one thousand nine hundred two which was the whole Maastricht. Reagan. But what we had refused to say. I think and what Hanan interestingly, I found it had in a very interesting character, and I do know him from those those old days. He seems to just sort of carry on on this route this master's route just not seeing what's going on around him, and occasionally lamenting what's gone wrong, but never really sort of coming and confronting what has gone wrong. And I think in the end, certainly the whole noise ocean thing, I mean, I've said the Norway option in the end was was actually on reflection just political theory. You look back on it. It was never going to fly. The skeptic. Critique sort of ran out of steam after Lisbon because being street, Abe, eurosceptic what one point of view of the build was was an antagonistic view towards each new treaty each new treaty amendment. Stage-by-stage European Union was taking on more competencies was becoming more complex institutionally and so on treaty after treaty. Well, after Lisbon after there was not going to be animal treaties. If there's probably never going to be a Nova European Union treaty of of the same scale of Lisbon. And so in a way part of the essence of Euro-sceptism Mostra routinely use kept some fellow away. Because it was it was to pit yourself against for next big move of European integration that well fail and pound I robot it was when the u kipps logo was a pant pantheon. Yeah. Yeah. And so when you haven't got a thing to be against you often don't have the same sort of steam, especially what happened. We we've you're skepticism. And so boy every time we swear for Windham came about euro-scepticism in. It's sort of speech Maastricht sense was actually quite dormant. And what then happened were the sort of boy personally think like Balan ISM sort of. Let's break it. Let's say let's see what happens sort of approach fill the void. And another aspect of why US skepticism just disappeared. Was appoint Ken Clarke made when he voted against article fifty notification he says until two years ago one year ago is it it was conservative party policy to push for single market to push for membership of European Union and just very quickly. Very shallow support for veterans wind. And so what you had people coming in who were not historically eurosceptics because the key to skepticism from my point of view was you were skeptical. You aren't absolutely against it. You trying to make it work as a very good point. I mean, just just going back to the nineteen hundred. That's an excellent point. I mean, it was about genuine skepticism. And if you want to about leaving the European Union, I mean, it was just like, you know. I mean, it was just like, you know, trying to find under the counter porn or something or drugs. No, don't go and talk to Fred he talks about that. No one no one cents. It was it was very much either the bruised groups logo speech speech itself, if you look at. You. It's incredibly team. And that was kind of the died guiding lights of the Bruce group, which was actually full of academic is actually back then. So I do tell you I'm in the point about Lisbon as well. I mean, that's that was set to me during the campaign. It's been said to me subsequently. And and I do take the point. I think. Just psychologically, and I come back to this point about we didn't hide didn't make that leap. I just didn't make it. I thought this is this is payback time fundamentally and Lisbon had its own issues that came out of the constitution or the constitution is a state with back to a country, all Europe. And there was the whole thing about Cameron's betrayal, and he was going to give us a referendum. And then he wasn't. So it was just picking up on that. But what we found in the referendum is those of us who were arguing things which we thought euroscepticism it always argued for. It's kind of an after kind of solution. It was kind of technically. Right. But it just lost sight of the politics. Totally when you look at that Kemp now as I do, and you know, I still have an awful lot of sympathy for it. It is it's a technical solution. I it's kind of wool does it stop as paying massive amounts into into the EU coffers themselves. Well, technically, yes, does it only allow us to take on twenty five percent. Or is it ten percent of the laws will technically? Yes. Does it allows the stoppers free movement, technically? Yes, all it's all technically. Yes. An appeals to a kind of technicians mind, which unfortunately, I have I work in the technology sector and also someone who's not really plugged in day-to-day, politics know, really roll street politics, and that is very catcher characteristic. I find with people in that camp. And includes me as well. You know, I've always been someone who learns this stuff for books. I'd I don't go out on the streets, tiresome and tedious, and I'm not physically gregarious person. I quite lime iron company if I'm honest, I'm being myself, and that you want to leave well. Yeah. You kind of learn things from your kids as well. As you get one I have three lovely daughters growing up, and they have their challenges, and that's very difficult. But but they have their issues that we have lots of ADHD in the family and the question's been. Where's that come from? And you know, I'm reading this dog noses thinking shit. That was me. What's the wall? The only point making here is it appeals to a certain type, very intelligent. If I social. Very intelligent slightly on the spectrum. Does everyone is in the technology sector, and it's just the way of things and very much technicians mind, but it is detached from the politics, and it is become detached. And we just missed it. And you can't see any way that it might sort of swing that way. Now with gonna come sessions that are going on between labor, and no no, I don't because it confuses Norway. Plus or common market does not come on wealth too. Never talk about the empire. It confuses with pure Norway, which we were only Norway which comes onto another thing. Which is when did we talk about customs? When did we talk about Northern Ireland? We didn't say nothing and even flex it. Which is incredibly advanced really cannot take that away from north is incredibly advanced. It's the most advanced thing outlet. But in February the south of this campaign body said a thing about it. And that was that was the issue across leave moment. Nobody even thought about it. We've just gone to meetings for years and years and years talking about this island nation, and it turns out we're not actually an island nation that's pretty bloody fundamental around. Noughts around completely that's border. We've seen several of the leave intelligence here recanting in public like all of the Norgrove, and Ben Kelly is there a tipping point or a Walker. Walter Cronkite figure who would change the game with a withdrew their support. Oh, goodness. Me. It would have to be someone very senior. And very visible very credible. And yet you can start to see this is going rogue already. I don't have a big issue with Hanan. I I know how your parades. I we go back quite some way. I'm certainly not friends with him as such, but we go quite close at Oxford in the one thousand nine hundred and had lots of drinks together and whatnot arrange things together and had events. But I I know how your race. And he is he's he's the guy that I thought, and I think I even said at the time if we're going to have any reconciliate reconciliation here remain is have to learn to love them Hanan. Well, that is not going to happen. It just isn't going to happen. I can see it. And in fact, I'm now in the space thinking, if we're going any reconciliation leave as need to learn to love Ken Clarke, it has turned completely hundred hundred years. But I would have said he's. He's not likely to do it at all. But he would be a massive moment. If he came out and said, look I have been for years arguing for an after solution. How has it come to this which you've actually has said in tweets, and recognizing this is the last bit that the hasn't done that it's levers if brought us here it's levers who have doubled down. It is the leave narrative, which he was apart of he was a key figure in vote. Leave the has transferred over to may this is where it has got two daughters to. May to be fair to all she's done actually is put flesh on the slogans that in the end is as I'm not as disastrous in the leave movement as soon as you make a plan flesh. Everyone turns against it. She's also recognized the trade offs. She has actually recognized she's made some trade offs. It's all about free movement, you know, bug and everything else it's about stopping Freeman. So to be kind to fetter she has grasped this in that way. But. I I can't see Hanan moving. Now. He's he's career restaurant it, which is something. Mine doesn't and that is the case for Oliver. And that is also the case with Ben Kelly. We in the end are just three or three blocks out there may in Ben have families. We have mortgages we have normal day jobs. We have come into this via a tech platform Twitter. And it's been a ride it's been a journey. But actually that probably should have been the first warning sign is that we are ordinary blokes we all being elevated. We are being elevated up higher. I'm appearing on news. I'm appearing on Sky News. How did that happen? This is should be long. I mean, there's all sorts of along should've gone. Gone many many years the whole thirty years of this. But that should have been one alarm bell. The end of the show is looming into sight and cannot be delayed. David Allen green has already contributed Brexit time capsule. And now Rowland Smith, it's your turn. What's going into our underground locker things, we'll miss or need if we leave the EU? So I would like to put it in all the terms that we've grown to love. So what sort of terms we had we had the backstop we've had the backstop to the backstop momentum. Stop the Brady amendment Malthouse compromise Malthouse be and I would zone of possible agreement. I would like to get all these batches them up and put them into the times caps. And the reason I say that is because if this comes to an end, then I grant you those very big if but if this comes to an end our lives will lose meaning to some extent, I'm in here a little bit. Experience. This whole experiences provided we don't realize this. But it's providing shape and form and meaning to our everyday lives, and I experienced this when Maastricht so I wonder if David did as well is it comes to an end, and you anything, oh, God there's name or late night votes. And there's no more papers full of things, and it's sort of looking through Ceefax as it was back, then which is sort of weird. Most repeated. Yes, I've met point. Noised aftermath? Strict it would always be too much effort to much cost to for the UK to leave. And so like some sorts of Jacobite coming to terms with Hanover in succession. I just sorta. It's over but set of questions been settled of this. You're not going to be very happy with it future amendments. But the key question of UK being inside or outside of that was the moment, and it went it did go didn't it absolutely went. And the papers. There was you're scanning the times everyday teased by newspapers back then there's nothing in here is empty. Well. My life was then filled because I got married I had kids. Iranian Jewish skepticism about points. And then twenty years later van come across the same people who for twenty. For twenty years ago, but vague. That's exactly an I was one of those people. So I came Argo Meriden ninety nine five life intervened. And I didn't take too much paying too much attention to this. So all I would say is we will miss it. And we'll get to a point where we got to retirement time. We'll meet up, and we'll want to open that time capsule inside log about the motels compromise who was mold house anyway. And I'm starting to us that question even today. And we'll just have it'll just give our lives media and before we fall asleep and finally drift off. In the temps persuade Italian fascist. Not to veto an extension of article fifty this week's European language. Click clip is an Italian or their listener Frank sourby. Thomas says I'm told by Italians, but my accent sands German. So who the hell knows Pushtu melody Brexit known dementia? Karema mile Terry Bill effort Goania cows auto-pay die fell mentally Dacosta. Governor that means the Bill his bloodied Brexit. We will never forget the terrible. Shame inflicted on the country by the failures of this government. Send us your European language? Clips that info Atra maniacs dot com will use the best ones. And that's the end of the show. Thanks to our special guests rolled Smith. That was great fun. Will you come back home for meeting full vote nine whenever it happens? Thanks, David Allen green. What are you going to do with that legal minutiae to worry about if Brexit just with us away, we talked about this earlier, that'd be meeting will your life happened to whatever happens will legal implications are going to carry on for bit. And so and up some point but book will actually come out as well. Which details living leave madness is and idiocies of Brexit going to write them on from almost finished. If every time I come to a natural end to like, oh, I'll just wait to see if there's any new developments, which I'm not expecting Vigne madness idiocy comes out again in a way, which I haven't quite expected Chilcott type inquiry as well. Of course. Yes. So one day people be looking back at this point to learn lessons. And we're also will happen is all the pundits. So many pundits will look back and go, oh that was inevitable along of quitting fact. It's still open. We don't even know what's going to happen. Tomorrow off. Obviously, I emphasize how fascinating visit is. But at some point we're going to have to look back and go, well what actually did go? Go wrong it like we did with Iraq. And at that point. Each would be really quite useful to have time capsule documents because people need to understand at for time, these options open, we didn't know what was going to happen and hindsight's is going to remove fat. Listeners keep an eye on your podcast app. There may be an emergency podcast before the week is out. In the meantime, here's our theme. Tune demon is a monster by corner shop and a salute to some of our Patrie and bekker's see what the March on Saturday. Thanks for meter Robert Stephenson, John honored, Veronica van the worst. Modern tau, Robert. Let's it Jane knows THEO Sanderson sue charman Anderson at Brookwood Hearst. And Nick, and I probably tries to everyone whose names I just catastrophically fucked up. Hello producer. Hello cheese. Sam James Jonathan easer. Tom Kent, not Jack of Kent David Harley, Richard Bordman. Lynn matthews. Robert wells aged Dole's, which is possibly abound. Who knows Killeen pit and Jeff Hogg Antelo for me to Thomas Awa fellow field. John Vassall Xiaodong Daniel block Giles Wilson. Richard Whitehall, Eric new stat, Nick, Brooke and Matt coy. Romania was presented by Ross Taylor with Indians. The producer is Andrew Harrison an Odia production was by me. I like trees Romania is a monsters production.
Remainiacs - the Brexit Podcast