All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 11, 2018 - Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin
01:11:08
Free Speech Panel at the EU Parliament #SaveYourInternet
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Ladies and gentlemen, it's nice to see you all here.
This is very important, probably one of UKIP's most important campaigns.
Gerald, when he took over from Nigel and our previous leaders, has made it his mission to push freedom of speech, which of course is what UKIP is all about.
I personally feel very strongly about this.
This is one of the things I've been pushing.
Mr Meekin here joined the party because I was screaming about free speech and I think that sort of got him interested in UKIP to be able to express the freedom that we all hold dear and which is being eroded not only by the BBC and the media in the UK, but also very much so by the European Union.
Now, we've got this nonsense coming around Article 13 and 11 on copyright.
As usual, the European Union is one size fits all.
They want to try and bring in a new copyright law to keep up with the developments on the internet, but they don't actually want to do that.
They don't want to protect copyright.
That's not what they're about.
You have to follow what the EU's propaganda or EU's idea is about.
And this is really for strangling the internet and strangling criticism of the EU on the internet.
And remember that without the internet, UKIP would never have achieved Brexit.
That's what we're about.
We would never have risen above the parapet, the media parapet, which is defended stoutly by the BBC, Scottish television, ITV, Channel 4, and all the rest, who do not want small parties like us being able to express themselves.
Because of the internet, UKIP has been able to get where it has today.
So it is our duty to protect the internet from any infringements.
Now, we have today Marcus Meeken, this gentleman on my right, who's very well known as Count Dankula on the internet, who's, I must admit, one of my favourite watches.
And we also have on my left Carl Benjamin, who is also extremely well known in internet circles.
These guys are the future.
They have joined UKIP and they, I think, are going to take us in a new direction.
Before it's very much been Brexit, but I think more importantly, we have to defend freedom of speech, our freedom to express ourselves.
And this is what the internet is all about, why we must defend it.
Now, I'm not going to blather on.
I'm going to let them do the talking because they are the people who know what they're talking about and they're the reasons why you are here.
So I will start off with Marcus, who will speak to you about these articles, which are going to cause tremendous problems and strangle freedom of speech that we currently enjoy on the internet.
Marcus.
Thanks very much.
The reason that I have the biggest problem with Article 13 itself is that the only way for it to actually be correctly implemented is through the use of an algorithm, because so much content gets uploaded onto the internet that it's literally impossible to have a human eye on each case making the judgment.
Even on YouTube alone, over 400 hours of footage are uploaded every second.
There isn't even enough people on earth to put a human eye and examine the content and decide whether or not it is a breach.
So the only way to do it is through algorithms.
Google themselves, who own YouTube, are at the forefront of algorithmic technology.
And despite the algorithm that they have on YouTube being in development for years, it's very, very far from perfect because people get videos flagged down and removed constantly as false positives.
Because the system itself, when you use an algorithm that's far from perfect, people will find holes and people will find ways to basically game the system.
Which is, I know that one of the reasons they want Article 13 in possibly in the future is I feel it's going to be used to stifle certain kinds of speech, namely right-wing ideology.
Except with the current algorithm that YouTube has, the alt-right themselves have managed to game the system in their favour and they're able to abuse the algorithm to strike down any content that criticises them.
Which means that the algorithmic technology that Article 13 would be based on, it doesn't work, it can be abused by anyone who finds a way how to abuse it.
And one of the most important things as well is a lot of people worry constantly about fascism creeping up and fascism being on the rise.
Fascists most of the time don't get power through force, they get it through being voted in, which means there is a chance they could get voted in in the future.
So why are we giving them the tools that they would need to enact our ideology and basically stifle free speech and freedom of expression?
Like Article 13 right now can be used for copyright, but there's no guarantee whatsoever in the future that it is not going to be abused.
And basically having an algorithm which acts almost as like instead of the Ministry of Truth being a greystone building looming in the distance, it's instead this unseen algorithm analysing content and either approving or disapproving it before it can actually go online.
It's openly so much abuse and I think it's absolutely diabolical that such a thing has been put forward.
Pretty much everything.
Well that was fast and to the point.
I wish more people in the parliament were like that.
Okay I'm going to be a bit more lengthy because I waffle.
So specifically to Article 11, as I understand it, it would require a charge for sharing news articles up to 20 years old, going out to things as petty as tweeting the text of a headline, sharing a link, of course, sharing a picture of an article, and even search engines that index articles are going to require some kind of license to be able to do this.
I mean this obviously is a terrible idea and it's already failed twice.
So why we have to talk about it for a third time is beyond me.
But I guess I'm kind of blown away by the arrogance of the people who have proposed this.
What they're proposing are the fundamental structural base of the internet that they want to start legislating and messing around with.
And fundamentally these people do not understand what they're doing.
And it's quite clear, as Marcus has already pointed out, they are just completely out of touch on the subject.
I mean, if Google can just pull out into a company, I mean, it's still not active, Google News is still not active in Spain because of what they've already done, why would they not just part with the rest of Europe?
I honestly don't see an argument as to why this is a good idea.
And I think the people doing this are not doing it for the benefit of people who are using the internet.
They seem to be doing it for the benefit of a small number of people that are logging.
Shouldn't come as much of a surprise.
But Article 13 is genuinely more ridiculous than Article 11.
And as Mark has pointed out, I'll probably rehash a few of his points here, but the algorithmic technology is not as good as it might seem.
Google, as he said, is at the forefront of this, and their algorithms are constantly changing and they're constantly making mistakes.
Not only are the algorithms bad, but legal speech will inevitably be blocked.
This will harm competition and this will create a barrier to entry.
This is the effect.
Putting up a ladder, climbing over the wall, and then kicking out the ladder underneath you, now that you're at the top.
I find the whole idea of this quite disturbing, because the idea that I should say if I make a movie review of a Disney film under these rules, if I use a clip of the film, then I owe Disney money.
And that's ridiculous.
So this is obviously going to restrict information sharing.
It's going to restrict news aggregators, it's going to modify search engine results, none of which to the benefit of the people actually putting things on the internet.
I mean, the people who publish these news articles want them shared on social media.
If you restrict the amount of information that the user of the social media platform has, by say not allowing them to publish the title or a picture, anything about the article other than the link itself, even then, users are not going to click on it.
They're going to see a loss of traffic.
They're going to see a loss of revenue.
It's out of touch.
It's really bureaucratic and it doesn't speak to the way that people actually use the internet.
And I just want to speak to some of the preamble of Article 13, which I found amazing.
Quote: This could put at risk the development of European creativity and production of creative content if we don't implement Article 13, which is ironic given that that is exactly what will happen if we implement Article 13.
But they carry on.
It is therefore necessary to ensure rights holders receive a fair share of the value generated by the use of their works.
Well, as I said, Disney is not entitled to a cut of any revenue I make by making a review of one of their films.
This is the point of transformative work.
This is the point of fair use.
And they carry on, this proposal would facilitate education and research, improve dissemination of European cultures, and possibly impact cultural diversity.
And it will also apparently promote the interests of consumers.
This is the exact opposite of what will happen, as we have already seen happen in Spain and Germany.
And it will just get worse.
It will homogenise the internet.
It will prevent people from remixing and reusing content in ways that aren't currently legal.
And it's a terrible, terrible idea.
And again, I stress the arrogance of the people who put this in place.
Just come through.
Good afternoon, everybody.
I can see that Bank Town has anticipated an important conference in the European Parliament.
But we've got all the intelligent people here anyway, that's what matters.
Sorry, Danny, the train was very, very delayed.
Now, David, I'm sure, must have done an introduction, so I'm sorry if I repeat things a little bit.
But of course, the only reason that we're here having this meeting and that we're having a vote tomorrow is because some of us, UKIP, for example, and the Greens made a move in the last Parliament to ensure that we actually got a vote on this directive because the way that it was going to go through, as I'm sure you all remember, it wasn't actually going to go be voted on at all.
It was just going to go through the trialogue, so it would have been negotiated between the representatives of the Parliament, Mr. Boss, I believe, and the Commission, and then we would have been stuck whatever came out of the sausage machine at the end of that.
But some of us actually used the rules of procedure to ensure that we had a vote in the last Parliament, that we could have a vote on the directive, that it actually went through to a vote in this session of the Parliament.
So the only reason that there is a vote at all is because of UKIP and the Greens and a few others who joined with us to actually make that possible.
And of course I know that Carl has spoken, I don't know that Mark has spoken.
I think he's just spoken.
So, that's what we felt.
I mean, we don't want legislation from this place anyway, because you should never forget this is a place that go do the common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy.
So, why on earth would you entrust it with any other kind of policy?
And of course, now they want to control what can and can't be published on the internet in social media and the form that it can take.
And of course, many of us, I'm sure, will now look to Twitter and Facebook and the other social media mediums in order to find out things that are going on in the world that are not reported in the mainstream media.
And a lot of that relies on little clips, news items, people that have filmed things which you would otherwise never see, and they've republished that.
And that, as I'm sure our two experts on this will have pointed out, used to be under the auspices of what was called fair usage in the same way that you could quote from a book in a book that you might write and then never thought to say where you got that from.
That was always perfectly legitimate and wasn't plagiarism because you were naming the source.
And of course, this works in a very similar way: that when you get things, it's either readily apparent the source that it came from, be it a TV, news, broadcast, or a film or whatever, or there is no source because it's just somebody that somebody's put up on the internet and then you've retweeted.
So, I think this is part of the move of this place to control everything that the citizens in Europe do.
Their motto is: if it exists, then it needs to be regulated, and they normally make a complete hash of it.
So, what we're working on tomorrow is the report, which is what the directive will end up probably.
Again, we have made a move with our colleagues here who have got much, much more reach in social media than we have, to actually get them to get the ordinary citizens across Europe to write to their MEPs asking them to vote against it, and in particular Article 11 and 13.
UKIP and some others put forward motions or amendments at the beginning of the vote to actually vote the whole thing down right at the beginning.
Now, ideally, that's what we would have liked to happen.
It's unlikely that that will happen.
So, then we're relying on MEPs to actually vote down the worst parts of this, which, as you've already heard, are 11 and 13.
So, would anybody like to ask questions?
We'll put them to any member of the panel here that would like care to answer any questions.
I know you're all here to go to the bar, but Jonathan.
Thank you very much.
I'm Jonathan Bullock, MEP for the MEP for the East Midlands region.
I think from what you've both said and from what Joe's said about the issue, I mean, there's absolutely no one of you ushering on this.
This is quite a straightforward thing about the essential thing about freedom of speech.
I'd just like to sort of interrogate things a little bit more about the general freedom of speech thing while you're both here.
And that says my sort of definition or feeling about free speech is that it should be up to individuals as to what they say.
Now, apart from probably saying the old classic is shouting fire in a crowded cinema or obviously something limeless or slanderous, which is usually protected by the law, then pretty much or anything which actually, if you go and try and insist on someone to go and shoot someone, something like that, then outside those things, then pretty much anything goes.
But it's the only thing to go which is a right with a responsibility, and that's I don't go round saying anything which is hateful or nasty.
I try and avoid that.
I have the freedom to say it if I want, others might do, but I you know, I feel that it's a strong freedom, and therefore I'm very careful about what I say and that I don't want to be offensive.
And I think it was you, Marcus, who sort of had this sort of managed to get your dog to react to pretty nasty slogan.
And would you accept that you would understand how, say, some of my Jewish friends would feel about seeing on the internet and seeing comments about gassing the Jews would make them feel very upset.
And a similar thing I'd say is that if I heard someone saying shoot knifely rigby or knife people in the army or shoot Protestants in Ulster, I'd feel pretty nasty about that and I wouldn't want them to say that.
So I just wonder how you sort of fit that in, where something may be very offensive.
Is it necessary to say it rather than just have the freedom to say it?
When we go to the joke that I made involving my dog, you said a few statements like Nathan Rigby and stuff like that.
Those are not directed statements.
It would depend on the context in which it was said.
Like, for example, if there was someone with no connection to Muslim extremists who are not given it as an order, then that is directed statement instruction to violence.
Whereas in my video itself, I gave context as to why I was doing what I was doing.
I was getting the acute dog to reality, a vulgar phrase, and all that together by my girlfriend.
And the phrase, like, gas juice itself, it is a horrible phrase.
That is, and people will be offended by that.
But it's the case of if people are offended by it, then it's just a face here.
That's all it is.
It's a case of you can turn around and look at the joke and go, I didn't like that joke, it was offensive, and then you just move on.
Because there's no direct instruction to actually harm anyone within my video.
You know, as the video was about two years ago, I've yet to hear of any anti-Semitic attacks carried out because someone was inspired by a pug.
So it's the case of if you look at the context of my video, there was no instruction to violence, and that actual directed statement is something else altogether.
You just need to analyse the context in which the phrase was said.
I'd like to add something to that, if that's right.
So I'm wondering if this isn't between, I guess, a cultural issue between different groups of people.
Because, I mean, in Britain, we're famous for our dark humour.
This is something, if you can't make a joke out of a tragedy, and that tragedy controls you, you are permanently under the thumb of that.
And so if anyone wants to get one over on you, you have to make sure you police their behaviour, or you couldn't change your response to that statement.
As Mark said, it was just a joke, obviously.
And there were plenty of Jewish people who came out in defence of it because they knew who was making a joke.
But you say, you know, should we have the freedom to do something and not use it?
Well, do you know that you have the freedom to do it if you don't?
And if you don't, why not?
This is my point.
So, personally, I think that anything said in jest should be understood to be said in jest.
I think we're coming from the same point of view where we're talking about the freedom to say these things, and so we're all on the same side here.
It's well, they should be.
Now, if a comedian uses that, that's fine.
If a politician uses that, I think you've got to be very careful because people may get the wrong end of the speech.
I always say politicians shouldn't really make jokes.
There's enough political jokes in that, but it it is important that if you're in the political sphere, people are going to perhaps use that those words or something you've said or something.
So to tar not just yourself, but you kit that you might be in now and everything.
I think it's just the knowing when and what to say.
I completely agree if people want to make jokes as a comedian or whatever.
And the general freedom of speech, if there's an extreme party out there who wants to say nonsense as us, that's up to them.
It's the freedom of speech is absolutely fine.
It's the use of it which maybe misinterprets it and the sensitivities where you might be hurting someone.
That's what to do.
Well, no, no, you raise a really valid point.
And I like the fact that you distinguish between, not explicitly, but the caveats of inciting violence and shouting fire in crowded theatre.
This, I think, the fundamental, and as you were saying, you know, should politicians say such things?
Well, this is the real question, isn't it?
Who decides what is acceptable speech?
You've got to decide, is it going to be the state that decides what's acceptable, or is it going to be society that decides what's acceptable?
Because what you think is that, as far as I can tell, is that people should be free to speak, and the consequences should be as they may.
It's up to people to decide: do I approve of the things that that person said?
Am I going to engage with them?
Am I going to vote for them?
Am I going to buy their product?
Am I going to watch their videos?
Whatever it is, that the market decides.
Let society make the decision on what is and isn't good speech.
And if you do that, you'll notice that we don't end up with armies of Nazis every moment.
It seems that as soon as the classic example being the BNP in 2011, I think it was a question, actually allowed Nick Griffin on and that destroyed the BNP.
Because all people really need to do is hear what these people have to say.
This is why inhibiting free speech is so dangerous, because it makes those people sound like they have a point.
And I think that at this point we can agree that they don't.
So, yeah, I mean, sorry, I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but I think it's worth distinguishing that it is down to society to police one another's speech.
It's a negotiation that we have between each other rather than allowing the state to decide.
Because what's worse is the state is effectively deciding morality here as well.
Because I don't, anything that you say is hate speech is innately political.
Whoever's chosen that has chosen these particular topics for political reasons.
Now that means that you're going to have to buy into their politics to some degree.
Because if not, you're not allowed to speak about these issues.
And another thing, as soon as you start saying you're not allowed to say these things, you're not allowed to speak about that topic or that topic, what you're saying is those topics will never be a political contention.
And if they become one, too bad.
What do you do then?
If you take away someone's voice, the only avenue they've got left is violence.
And we're seeing that in the north of England at the moment, where working class people are actually violently attacking Muslims because they've been unable to criticise them using the media and using social media and they've actually been arrested for such things.
So again, I'm not necessarily going as you understand your broader on my side, but it's an argument I've been having with many people for a long time and so I had to quite struggle and put it out.
Yeah, I've got a very large collection of 18th century political cartoons.
There's lots of things you weren't allowed to print in the 18th century, but cartoons you could see more or less what you like.
And so what they're saying today, maybe the art of the future.
I mean these things are.
And that you stop stopping people having the right to say what they think.
Where do you go from there?
I think people should have the right to say whatever they like.
I'm afraid that however much it might heart, I'd rather have that than people being limited with what they can say.
And if you want to really hear some disgusting, bad, say, historical comments that will offend you, all you have to do is turn on any so-called comedy show on a channel on TV in any IRA.
Who else wants to ask a question?
Oh, sorry, Mark.
If I could just respond to David's point in regards to his political cartoons, you'd be pleased to know that an amendment has been put in with regards to pre-existing works for purpose such as criticism, review, illustration, caricature, and I would be recommending that we support that.
And of course, we should always remember what Bernard Merrick said about alternative comedy.
He said, what's the alternative to comedy?
Not being funny.
Darryl, you had something to say.
Yes, thank you.
I was just going to draw a parallel actually, drawing on what Durham said earlier.
And someone said something fairly controversial at the weekend in the Sunday Mail, I believe it was, Boris Johnson, who equivaled the negotiating position in Brexit to a suicide test being put on the British Constitution.
Well, some people will find that quite offensive.
But, it being Boris, he's unlikely to end up in a cherry school for saying that did he have the freedom to say that?
Well, he should have the freedom to say that that's what he really thinks.
It wouldn't be the words that I would use to describe that situation, but those are his words.
And he certainly made a point by saying that in that manner.
Would anyone else like to ask a question?
Just on the I can't remember who said it, but it was something like sorry, Carrie, I didn't ask for video.
Thanks.
Ask who you can criticise, and they are the ones who rule you.
And John, you listed a number of different groups according to their identity, religious or ethnic or whatever.
And well, the whole thing of freedom of speech also brings up the whole thing about is there a hierarchy or are there groups of protected species of people in this world that we are not allowed to criticise and if we're not allowed to criticise them then why not?
Yeah, just the whole thing about hierarchy of victims or the untouchables and them, why are they untouchable?
I think you make a fantastic point.
I think you make a fantastic point.
And more importantly, I don't think that quote was actually Voltaire's apocryphal, but it it does speak to a different era, doesn't it?
I mean, what do you think the peasants are allowed to say about the nobles under a feudal regime?
And more broadly, by what right is anyone claiming the ability to censor another person?
This is another thing that always frustrates me.
It's always your point.
Someone's offended.
Well, why would I care?
None of them care what I'm offending.
I'm constantly offended by the use of the derogatory use of the term white male, straight white male, on a daily basis, but nobody cares.
And so why should I care about someone else's offence?
Why should that inhibit my rights?
Being offended isn't a violation of your rights.
Silencing me is a violation of my rights.
The only rationale I can see is the justification through strength.
We have the ability to censor you, and therefore we will.
And the difference between, I suppose, us and them is that if we have the ability to silence, we wouldn't.
Anybody else want a question?
I would like to speak Polish, so I suggest to work your performance.
We would like to speak English, but it is not a language.
It is not a joke, it is a comedy, it is not a mental issue.
It is not a sense of understanding, it is just a language.
And today's case, which I will find out, is my colleague, Mr. Sośnierz, today at the beginning of the session, who told him to talk about the word with the word.
It is an obvious thing.
It is not a joke.
Pan Tajani on this topic, he or the%r of the word.
Pan Tajani was a totally different.
inny temat odpowiadał, cały zdenerwowany i zupełnie jakby nie odnosząc się do swojego błędu, tylko przekonując wszystkich na sali o zupełnie innym problemie, który jest no nie do przyjęcia dla wszystkich nas, prawda?
Ale wracając do akta, w Polsce w piątek było mnóstwo zorganizowanych protestów w większości miast Polski, tysiące ludzi się przewinęło przez te protesty i tutaj też dygresja do regulowania obszarów nieuregulowanych.
W INKO mieliśmy w pewnym momencie uregulować rynek świec, a konkretnie długości Knota.
I pan szef IPP w INKO powiedział, że nie możemy się teraz tym zajmować, ponieważ z nas się śmieją i musimy ten temat odłożyć i w inny sposób to przedstawić.
Natomiast moje pytanie jest takie, czy panowie wiedzą, jak będziemy głosować nad akta?
Jak są policzone siły?
Czy grupy się wypowiadają na ten temat?
Czy to jest sprawa z góry przegrana?
Czy mamy szansę?
Szansę spotka.
KONIEC to be able to violate our problems.
I can't answer from my own party, which is we always vote against all the European legislation because we don't recognize the legitimacy of the European Union to actually legislate over the British people.
Our membership of the EU is unlawful under our constitution anyway.
Oh, I'm sorry, but I remember there was another directive called Actor some time ago.
This is the Polish name of this directive.
Well, we don't vote against it.
We've put forward the amendments that we've put forward here to actually delete articles 11 and 13.
The rest of it will go on whether we vote against or abstain, we will go through or for if it actually decreases the power.
I think there's some other regulations in there which say, sorry, some other amendments in there that we've proposed and other people have proposed, which says that this should remain, particularly the topics being discussed in that amendment should remain under the control of the national government.
So that's a wheel vote on that.
I wasn't in the chamber, so I can't comment on Mr. Johnny, but you know very well that in there they interpret the rules depending on who they're interpreting for or against.
And you may, in the last term, use those of you that were here or my colleague Godfrey Bloom, MEP, got kicked out of the chamber because he actually referred to Iron Volker in relation to the EU and who was running it.
And of course that was a joke as well, but they don't have much of a sense of humour in the chamber there.
And as we've been told already by somebody quite likely, it's very dangerous for politicians to have a sense of humours.
Irony certainly doesn't work.
Is that why we got nowhere?
Do you ever have schizophrenia and have sense of humours?
I don't know if anybody, whether our two families would like to comment on.
I think the same issues relate to Poland as they do to the rest of us in this particular directive.
Yeah, I mean in Poland in Poland they're always trying to interfere with your legal system, which is absolutely wrong.
I mean they should leave Poland to do Poland's own things.
Well one of the issues that Miles might want to mention or talk about that is that we want it to be a bit left to the individual nation to decide what they're going to be doing.
There should be a one-size-fits-all policy from the European Union.
Do you want to say something like that?
As a fallback option with regards to Articles 11 and 13 if the deletion doesn't pass is that we've put forward an amendment on subsidiarity whereby the member states if there was a conflict between this directive and any copyright legislation within the member states then the member states legislation takes precedence.
We'll see whether that goes through or not.
But I know from a personal experience that Axel Voss has in fact voted for a similar amendment in the Legal Affairs Committee with regards to common corporate tax base but I've asked you to leave that amendment so we'll wait and see on Wednesday.
And what I think will be a bit different about this session is we've got our two friends here from social media who have got a reach a great deal of reach.
Many hundreds of thousands of people look at what they do and of course they will be reporting, I hope that they'll be able to come to our voting meeting so they'll go see how we go through the voting bit by bit and they can be just as broad as we are for an hour or two.
They'll see exactly how it works and then they will be reporting from the voting in the chamber and they'll be able to do an analysis of what happens afterwards and what comes out of the sausage machine will I hope be made available to a lot more people than it normally would who only find out about this legislation when it affects them personally and a long way down the line when it's too late to do anything about it.
So I think in bringing them over we've we are fulfilling a benefit to the public and our electors I believe.
Can I say something?
I'm just saying that the good thing about these guys being here and the fact that they've joined UKIP is that the BBC and all its minions and the other media companies will not give us airtime.
They simply won't.
And since the Daily Express, which was about the only paper that was giving us copy every week, I mean, every week they put every pair of we need something information which was very nice.
But that has now overnight stopped since Trinity Mirror purchased the Express.
And the one place that's still left to us is the internet.
And if they close that down, that's the end of democracy.
So, you know, this is something that UKIP have really got to push, and these guys are the muscle that we've got behind us.
Something we've always lacked.
And now, thanks to what Jerry's been doing about this, we've now got muscle on the internet.
We need more of it, I think.
I don't you guys want to say anything about that?
Well, not specifically about that.
I actually would like to talk to the Polish chap's point about what the viewers on my particular copy might have heard because it was translated.
He was complaining about the length, they were debating the length of candle wicks.
Was that in Poland?
Or was it European-wide?
European Committee was suggesting it.
They were suggesting that we should record the length of capital, which seems perfectly reasonable to anyone to sack it for 10 and a half years.
Because sooner or later you've got to get around to it.
I mean, it was suggested to them that we were already being ridiculed in Europe, so it's best to leave this till that probably till after the next European elections, I would guess.
It's pretty amazing, but the thing is, I mean, I personally would expect nothing less from a body of people who are not even really accountable.
People in, I think, constituent countries are to be aware of who their MEPs are.
They're aware of who their local MPs are.
So these the MEPs that sat in this reproduction of the Tower of Babel paid £80,000 a year.
Oh, sorry, much more than that.
Sorry.
I don't mean global, but to debate the minutia of your lives.
I mean, surely it is up to the candle makers what the length of their work should be, and then the market again should decide.
Again, listen to me decentralizing the idea of people being able to manage their own lives.
But this is the problem.
You have a professional class of busybodies who want to continue to do this.
They've got nothing better to do with their lives.
And the thing is, one day they'll be certain that they've got your life running just fine.
They will have your life running exactly the way they want it.
And this is why Brexit is such a necessity.
And honestly, Godspeed Poland.
Get out of while you can.
And Denmark and the Netherlands, come on, what are you waiting for?
So leading on off of that, don't you think to some extent we have brought all this on ourselves?
The majority of people want to run toward authority because they want you people to pass judgment.
They want to be right and they want somebody else to be wrong.
And this is, I've seen this situation over many decades, you know, with an erosion of free speech.
And a lot of people are not suggesting that the people here, but many of the people have done absolutely nothing to stop it.
And so therefore, to some extent, I think they deserve what they get, quite frankly.
And as somebody is well too, that's not quite free with being offending people.
I'm not the least concerned about offending people.
What I have learned from that, and being quite free with my language, what I do expect is people to answer me back.
I expect them to through their right to reply.
I expect them to challenge me and I expect them to prove me wrong.
But in the current situation, we're not even allowed to do that because everybody runs off to an authority picker and then gets some form of formal judgment against you.
And that, I'm afraid, this is where we have to.
But I have to say that I think in probably 90% of cases most people deserve what they get.
Well I find that quite offensive.
I forgot Stuart, so the next question is to Stuart, but if we let them answer that question, if you let him answer Crawford's point, then we'll come to you.
Yeah, sorry, sorry, I forgot.
In regards to what you will say as well, where people try and dive here, foster the authoritarianism.
A few people probably know this, and I'll make everyone sitting at this table shut off.
I used to be a communist back when I was about 16.
And one thing that we, one ideology we sort of believed in, is we know who the world should be.
Wouldn't it be nice if everyone did that?
Maybe we should make them do it by force.
That was literally the ethos that we used to believe in.
But one of the things that I don't understand about, you know, back in the day, what the left used to be like, they were very anti-corporate, they were very anti-state.
But this new left, this appealed, are dying for the state and corporations to have more power and more lordship over their lives.
They're quite happy if you hand power over to these people and they're going to trust that these people are always going to build the world in the way that they want.
They don't realise they're being used as useful ideas.
But everybody else did what you were saying about freedom of speech as well is that's called social consequences.
If you say something, then someone is allowed to challenge what you say.
That should be what free speech is.
If you make a point, someone should be allowed to debate your point, disparage it, and say whatever they want about your point.
But moving on from what we said earlier as well, there are some classes who are free from that.
They're not allowed to say anything about them, can't talk about their culture, you can't talk about any of these things.
If you do, you're a racist.
For example, if you say something offensive and the other person will not respond to you, all they'll do is run off to an authority figure.
Well, I mean, quite frankly, I think they just deserve whatever they get because this is worth the situation that we're in now.
Because that is their choice, that's their preferred choice.
They would rather not respond to you.
And so I remember when I was a kid, when I was brought up in London, people used to just be quite free with their conversation.
I'm of a generation that I'm used to saying what I want.
That's not really going to much change.
And every generation that goes by, people are becoming more economical.
And they must be keeping their thoughts to themselves for fear of losing their job.
There are consequences these days to saying things that are deemed to be offensive.
But as, you know, for example, if you're part of a minority group, if you're part of a minority group, you can easily run off to an authority figure.
But I think it's far, far better to challenge people and say, well, no, I don't agree with you and have a proper discussion with them.
I don't want to spend too long on it because you make a fair point.
I mean, there's nothing wrong with anything you said there.
The only thing I take acceptable with is the idea that the majority of people are running to the authority figures to get this done.
I don't think that's true.
I think it's always a concerted minority of busy bodies who think that they can get you to shut up if they go to the authority figure.
And through various amounts of legislation through our national parliaments and this international one, we find ourselves in a position where we've gotten our challenge on us.
And I mean, again, I would like to say, well, let them get what they deserve, but unfortunately it affects all of us.
It really does go back to Pericles.
You might not be interested in politics, as me and Marcus were.
But politics is interested in you and it arrived on our doorsteps.
So now we have arrived on theirs because we had to.
Neither of us wanted to be here.
It was just something we had to do because of the increasing authoritarianism and control of speech.
But it drives me crazy that there is this bureaucratic class that don't see that they are becoming the opposition to the people they are supposed to serve.
Because it's always the bureaucrat's folly.
The bureaucrat is interested in doing as little as they can, and the average person, the individual, is faced with a monolithic institution that they have to challenge.
Now, again, in the case of being marketers, we're very lucky because we're public figures, we have large audiences, it allows us to get to places the average person can't get to.
But when a small-time person who's just found themselves contravening candle wick length or something like that, that person hasn't got very much recourse and they do need a voice.
And honestly, I think that's why the party like UKIP is incredibly important.
And I tell you, it's going to be the detriment to the rest of the European Union when UKIP leaves.
I genuinely feel bad for our colleagues in other countries who aren't going to have the same sort of British lack of self-awareness when it comes to objections.
I hope they'll be okay.
Right, Stuart.
Sorry, Stuart, I apologise for that.
The expression taking offence has been mentioned.
And I equate that with self-pity.
That's what it is.
And self-pity is a weakness.
And anyone who says they've taken offence, saying I am weak, I am pathetic.
That's how I see it, because ten years in a British boarding school and spent in the army gets that out of you.
And for those people who sit there, hell, I'm offended.
They should wake up tomorrow morning, 100 years back, September 2019, 14 in the trenches, and they're going to go over the top the next morning.
That's when people have a right to a little bit of self-pity.
What concerns me more about what people say is if they deliberately tell lies, that is misleading.
But insults and jokes, let's have a bit of fun.
Can I choose my guy?
That was a problem, because you were absolutely right on the money about offence.
Like most people back in the day, if you got offended, that was it.
You just went, I'm offended, and went on and got about your life.
But now it's a case of I'm offended, so I want to control the behaviour of everyone in the room.
It's almost like a God's complex.
I want to build the world to appease me and me alone.
But it's actually extraordinarily selfish where people want to police the behaviour of others just because they personally don't like it.
And what actually counts as offence could be anything right now.
There could be people that are probably offended at a chicken cross-the-road joke, probably a vegan, right?
And that's why the jokes are actually becoming much more limited.
So you see, that ethos that you're taking, if you're offended, whatever, I don't care.
That's the way to go about it, because people are basically saying, I can't control my emotions, so I now need to control everyone's behaviour.
So it's authoritarian, you're completely right.
It's worse, frankly, I think, authoritarian, and it makes a sound life.
But I think it's also a falsehood to suggest that that benefits the people in any way.
And it's a symbiotic relationship, but a person who is apparently giving the compassion and the person who is apparently receiving this compassion.
I don't think it's a compassionate thing to keep people, as you say, in a state of weakness.
I think that's a dreadful miscarriage to do to somebody.
The whole point of being a decent person to other people is to help them build their own strength and through them, you know, everyone can grow.
Instead, it seems to be a way of keeping them dependent on you.
And I think that's terrible.
And there's a terrible strain of moral thought at the moment.
And it's all across the West.
The idea that virtue is derived from victimhood.
This is obviously not true.
Virtue is not derived from weakness.
There is no way you can justify this.
I mean, the natural thing for people to say is, well, are you saying that virtue is derived from strength?
Obviously not.
Virtue is derived from right action alone.
There is no other way of deriving virtue.
So, no matter how much of a victim of someone, no matter how weak they are, that doesn't make them a good person, it doesn't make them a bad person, but it also means that we should help them in a way that actually helps them not to be weak, not to be addictive, not perpetually keep them in this state of arrest and development.
Yes, thank you.
Just coming back slightly on the point that Crawford mentioned earlier, I think the safety of public discourse is very low, although we can probably all agree on that.
But I sort of put a lot of the blame on the education system.
It sort of started in the 60s and 70s when a certain ideology started infecting universities.
And now it's spread a lot further than that.
And it seems to have better generations increasingly degenerating to the point whereby they can't actually hold an argument.
So it's okay saying that you can make a point to them and then they have their own reply.
As I find, a lot of them are incapable of replying, and then all they do is, if they do anything, they either run to an authority theater or they scream racist at you because they haven't got any other answer.
And that's a very poor place for public discourse to be because it means we're going to get anywhere.
How can we discuss issues and come to a conclusion if certainly one self is just screaming and running away?
I don't think that's conductive to building anything or getting anywhere.
I don't really see how you get around it without reclaming some of the education system that started in the first place.
You're completely right.
The political discourse is completely broken down.
We've seen events like, for example, Berkeley and UC Davis when they tried to have speakers like Miley Annapolis and basically everyone lit fires and fireballed the building just because they were scared of what he might say to people.
They didn't try and challenge him with arguments, they didn't try and debate anything that he said.
He instead turned up with masks on, threatening everyone, assaulting police officers, assaulting anyone that wanted to actually go and just hear what the man had to say.
Doesn't matter what the politics were, if they were in attendance, they got the book.
And we've even seen it as we've been deplatformed to places as well.
I've actually been physically attacked by masked communists on a stage at King's College London.
It didn't go as well for them as they thought because lots of the members of the audience who had come to see me had expected something like this and a few communists got punched.
It's nothing less than they deserved.
But you're absolutely right.
I mean, sorry, I'll let you carry on.
No, it's very running.
Speak to me for a moment because in a couple of minutes our interpreters are going to leave because it's seven o'clock.
So I'd like to thank them very much for attending tonight and doing this for us.
When they leave, we can continue for a while if you want, but you won't have the benefit of interpretation.
So you can't get translation from Glasgow anything.
No one can understand what I'm saying anyway, it's fine.
But like ultimately what happens as far as discourse goes, yes, I've had people screaming racist at me in the street and stuff like that.
I've been surrounded by anti-fuck once in London, which was Carl's fault.
He let me down the wrong street.
And another time in Glasgow as well, where I had people threatening me.
I even had people in Glasgow saying that if I had my punk dog with me, they would have hopped the dog as well.
I've actually had, even though my ultimate end goal is a codified British constitution which protects people's rights and protects them from state control, I still every day get called a fascist.
Literally the world's worst fascist.
But we've even had people as well trying to get the details of a speaker's families and threaten their families so that they get scared and remove themselves from political discourse.
We've got them masking up, threatening violence at events and stuff like that instead of presenting meeting us and debate.
And the reason that they do that instead of meeters in debate is because they would lose.
Because they tried that and have lost every single time.
And basically their ideas are bad.
And instead of acknowledging that their ideas are bad and moving on to something else, they're too proud to admit that and instead want to bring their ideas out by force because force is the only way that bad ideas can win.
And that's the method that these guys have adopted, which is why I don't want to see people like that in church.
And I think it's worth mentioning that what we're talking about here are radical leftists.
I mean, I'm sure that the radical right will do the same, given the opportunity, they just don't have the strength, they don't have the institutional power, they don't have sympathy in the media.
But the radical left does for some reason.
I'm constantly baffled by the fact that communism and socialism are considered to be morally justifiable positions.
They are absolutely not, of course.
And these are the people who are attacking us.
And we are liberals.
That's what we are.
This is the intellectual tradition we represent, and they know that.
We are the ones who afford debate because that's the point of what we're suggesting.
It is for the citizens to negotiate a compromise between one another so we can eventually vote on it and we can actually, as a society, move forward.
But as Marcus has kind of said, their ideas have failed repeatedly, everywhere they've been trying.
And so now they're just resorting to silencing tactics and violence.
There's nothing more that we can do other than demand that the state come down on these people as, quite frankly, some kind of insurgent group.
If they are unprepared to actually take part in democracy, in the dialogue, as is expected in the liberal democracy, then something has to be done about it.
Well, don't look to the police, because when there was a by-election in Louisiana in May, of course, the anti-fascist fascists actually broke that meeting up, they prevented it from happening.
What did the police do?
They closed the meeting down rather than arrest the folks who were trying to stop it and did succeed in stopping it actually happening.
So we're not in a good place for lots of reasons.
Are there any more questions?
No points on this.
I'm quite fascinating.
I think we're all coming from the same points of view on the whole.
In Luton, there was a march by a British regiment, and some radical Muslims have been absolutely vile to that regiment, holding up the most disgusting slogans and everything.
And I know for a fact that some veterans went and probably did try to sort them out.
Now, would you absolutely defend the rights of those radical Muslims to say what they did and put those slogans up?
And were the veterans wrong to try and shut them up?
Yes.
Thank you.
And regardless of doing freedom of speech, that's the way it goes.
You'll hear things that you don't want to hear.
You'll see writings that you don't want to read, and that's just the trade-off.
But you'll be able to say things that you want to say that other people won't want to hear, other people will be able to say and do things that you don't want to hear.
And regardless, the soldiers go over, when you say sort them out, did they go there for a discussion or were they throwing punches?
I think we can throw the punches, they know what they should be.
I think if you're referring to the one particular one in Libby, was it 2010 when Libby decided?
There's none of them, yes.
What happened was, if you read what actually happened, is the police actually positioned those protesters in the best place so they could insult the soldiers rather than having to find their own place.
And they were protected by the police rather than taking their chance on the street when there were lots of other people who actually were in favour of the, quite rightly, in favour of the military and were showing their respect.
them.
So they were actually given an advantage by the police at the time.
And that has not just happened in one isolated instance, but like a number of people.
One reason that I would recommend, I mean, one of the reasons I'm absolutely categorical, of course they should be able to speak, is because it's unlikely they're going to be getting away with this kind of protest, not the immediate event.
That's our job.
When a bunch of radical Islamists start saying ridiculous things, then we as the sort of social forces against those, we get to say have our say.
Our say will last a lot longer than theirs because they'll be on our channels.
When we're mocking them and refuting whatever they're saying and just making a laughing stock of these people to hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people, you can't say there won't be consequences.
The difference is it's not the state intervening.
These people should have free speech if they're in a free country.
But we will exercise our free speech against them.
Can I just say that Marcus and I have the joy of living in probably one of the most authoritarian nations in Europe, Scotland, where all freedom of thought and action are now regulated by the woman in Charlotte Square who now tells what we can say and what we can think.
Schools have political officers.
I was horrified to find that I had no idea that there are such things.
And, you know, England is going the way of Scotland.
Scotland leads today where you all be going tomorrow.
And so, you know, we've got an even more bigger problem to deal with after.
But the big thing we have to deal with as the big media companies, the BBC, they have created this culture.
And they have the biggest hand in broadcasting this culture.
And, you know, it's got to a ridiculous extent, you know, the BBC has become a cult.
And that's got to be stopped.
I don't see why the taxpayers should be sponsoring this.
It shouldn't come to an end.
Can I say something on that?
Because you see this now in the mainstream media.
Anybody who has an opinion which isn't in line with the prevailing politically correct consensus is called far right or extreme right.
Or worse than that, you're a Nazi if you don't agree with what you're supposed to agree with.
They never talk about Jeremy Corbyn being far left, which is just a statement of fact.
And the Labour Party now is a very extreme left organisation.
But anybody who disagrees must be far left, sorry, far right or extreme right, which of course, as we know, has the connotations of being a Nazi.
And I'm afraid this is what's been pushed down kids' throats at school now for two generations.
And under BBC, have you noticed how many documentaries there are about the Nazis and the horror courts, which is great?
People should know about it.
But when did you last see a documentary about the 80 million people who died under communism in China?
I don't think I've ever seen one.
And it's years and years and years since they did anything about Stalin and the people who died in the Gulats and under his and either deliberately or by starvation or worked to death.
None of that.
So that people who come out of school, they've been studying the Nazis, they're right wing, therefore anybody that's labelled as right wing must be a Nazi.
And this is now the way that people think, I'm afraid, because they've been conditioned.
Following on from that as well, I was going to say that you were discussing the Muslims and the soldiers and the situation there, but Britain has always, ever since I was born, way before that, was governed by two parts of freedom of speech.
One was like the laws of Bible, and the other one to the laws of incitement to violence.
Now we've always had these laws, so they frame freedom of speech.
And I don't know that particular situation, but there have been situations in the past where there has been incitement to violence by Islamic groups in Britain, and it's gone unpunished.
And these are acts which have been committed that years ago would have been dealt with very severely, and they're not being dealt with.
So our framework for freedom of speech is being broken up.
And now there's a disconnect, and this is why people are angry, because they feel, some people feel, that they're being disadvantaged by other groups.
And that's where all this, I think, where all this tension is occurring, because they feel that the government is not implementing the laws of our country, or they're implementing them in a very biased way.
There's no question of it.
The very philosophy behind all of these hate speech laws will explicitly tell you that you cannot be racist to a white person, you cannot be sexist to a man.
And in the reverse of that, a Muslim can't be racist themselves.
And no matter what they say, because they're a disadvantaged minority, because of structural inequality, and all this other nonsense.
Again, with that as well, too, I think that it's really wooden-headed, as well too, because again, when you're minority, you think that all individuals within minority groups have a collective mindset.
They don't.
I mean, gay people don't think the same.
They don't vote the same.
Jewish people do not vote the same and they don't think the same.
And for people to imagine that we have a collective mindset are really either wrong thinking or they are pushing a point of view which is designed to manipulate and control.
Well, do you want to know something really interesting?
That's exactly.
It is about manipulation and control.
It's also a very interesting way of viewing what they feel exclusively Machiavellian terms.
It's only in power analysis.
The actual opinions and interests of the people involved are actually not something that's considered.
What's considered is the raw power of ethnic groups.
Now, I mean, you can read Mike Camp and you can get basically the same analysis.
The raw power of an ethnic group, as if all of these members of an ethnic group somehow share a common thought or idea because they were born with a similar characteristic.
This is the same thing that's coming out of the radical left at the moment.
And it's dominating Europe.
It's absolutely dominated.
But nobody thinks about it.
It dominates everything they say and think.
Every time they treat a non-white person differently to a white person, that's that philosophy at play.
And yet, and obviously, as liberals, we're disgusted by this.
Everyone should be treated the same without exception.
But it won't change until this is recognised and we actually start tackling it.
And the fact that everybody keeps discussing the idea that we're equal under the law means that we're not.
Because if we were, then we wouldn't be worried about any of this, would we?
Absolutely.
What would we have to discuss?
I would say something, someone else would say something, the law would treat us both the same.
And it doesn't.
So that's why we're here.
Any more questions?
Because we're now 10 past seven.
Take them off for any more?
What was the Dutch got to say?
Right in the state.
Well, it's interesting, because on the state level and government level, mainstream media, you seem to have a similar problem as the Dutch.
But what I find interesting, and even the schools and the way children are thought, I think it's the same in an analysis.
However, if you look at the way youngsters actually think, they're not really thinking in terms of identity artists.
They're not these weak millennial types that are offended all the time.
In fact, under students and youngsters going to school, the number one part of this report is the PVV, which is quite interesting.
Obviously, it's different than the UK.
So, yeah, that's all I have to say.
That's very interesting, isn't it?
Years of extreme left indoctrination and the suppression of freedom of speech has made welders particularly popular with young people.
Possibly not the outcome they were looking for, I'd suggest.
But it just goes to show that it does work.
This kind of repression just does not work.
It always has a counterexample.
Because, frankly, no one deserves to be treated that way.
That's my main problem.
All these sort of the ideological goals, they're set there, they're looking at the utopia and like we can just get there, and it doesn't matter how we get there, but it actually does.
The actual things they've done really do matter.
Everyone always thinks about it.
Can you say something?
Well, I'll just say that on television now, that they keep on and on about Hitler all the time and on and on about this sort of thing.
He's probably now doing a TV programme, practically called all the way, isn't it, or something?
And the man is getting more publicity today than he had when he was alive.
And that schools go on about so much.
And some of the kids that I've been talking to, they said, this all sounds great.
They all keep talking about this guy, Hitler, and all these smart uniforms, big machines.
What is the not type?
And this is terrifying.
They're actually achieving the opposite of what they intended.
So these people are sadly wrong.
Even when you had totalitarian control of the media, he didn't have this kind of coverage, did he?
It'd be distinctly something out of the BBC, I should think.
They keep on pushing it up.
If you were alive today, he'd be very interested in the copyright directive because he'd be getting royalties and getting more money in the church art, I should think.
I mean, sorry, I forgot what I was going to say.
There was something that you could say earlier that was informal, but it's gone.
So sorry, Karen.
Right, is that it?
Are we winding up, Dan?
Does anybody else want to say anything?
Don't forget that Marcus and Carl will be around until Thursday.
So what I'd like to do is to bring them to the voting meetings if that's acceptable to my fellow MEPs so they can see what we actually do.
We'll go through the directive in detail.
Sorry, they will be in the chamber watching it.
And we're going to have a press conference at 3.30 on the Wednesday so that we can actually go through the directive and what comes out of the vote and they can talk about that again.
And who knows some of the press may actually turn up.
You never know.
You never know your life.
What I'll do, I just want to say one more thing just before we go.
There's also some very interesting stuff coming up about the European Union or the British government are trying essentially to tie our relationship, foreign affairs relationship, in with European Union.
And they're trying to damage the dollar exchange mechanism and replace it with a German system.
So actually tying us into European foreign policy.
Herald.
There was never, on Mrs. May's part, there was never any intention of not targeting because she has no intention of putting out of any of the offence agreements that have been voted on, and they're still being voted on.
And of course, she's talked about a security treaty, which not only binds us to the European Army and Defence and Security Policy, but also will keep all of the things like the European Arrest Warrant, all the legal instruments, the legal institutions that we're signed up to.
Nothing's going to change on that, on that score.
And of course, on the European Arrest Warrant, I've been making this point ever since it came into existence.
There's 32 categories of offence which you can be taken off to a foreign prison for without any evidence against you, just accusations on a piece of paper.
And one of them is xenophobia.
Now, morbid fear and irrational fear of foreigners, I would say, is a mental illness rather than an offence that you can commit.
So therefore you can be carted off to any shithole prison in the European Union on the basis of a mental condition.
And that's been in existence and Mrs. May intends to keep it in existence.
What I would say is to wind up is on this issue of free speech, as it's been said by some people in the audience, is free speech under the law, there always were libel laws, there always were laws against inciting hatred, inciting violence, inciting public order, whatever, and they were perfectly adequate, so we don't need new laws on hate speech, etc.
There is also on this directive genuine copyright issues because authors, musicians, whatever, do deserve to have their work protected.
But under this directive is not the way to do it.
There is already national law on copyright, and what we need, if we're going to have anything, is international agreements to protect people's authorship.
And as it's explained to me by people in the music business, this is about again about big business lobbying for legislation.
And what's been explained to me, in actual fact, is any revenues that are produced from this directive, if it comes into being, will actually find their way into the pockets of the big organisations rather than into the pockets of the individuals, because the individuals will already have some kind of agreement with outlets.
It will be the outlets that will pick up the money from the social media, and that will not go to the benefit of the individuals.
So I think that even those thousands of people who have been writing to us asking us to support this legislation actually might have got the wrong end of the seat if they thought we were going to protect them or they were actually going to get some material benefit from it.
It's interesting to say that because I mean it's not like there aren't already tools available for content creators to protect the copyright of their work.
On any social media platform you can flag any piece of media that you think is your copyright with the MCAT.
And this is immediately taken down unless it's challenged and then it becomes a legal matter between you and the person who's uploaded it.
So why is this necessary?
They already seem to be protected.
Well you'll find here, and we've found this over the years we've been here, is that legislation is often lobbied for by big businesses because they have the power to do that with the Commission.
And what comes out of the mix is actually beneficial to them.
It's not beneficial to small companies who have to comply with it.
They go out of business doing more than what business is.
One of the lobbying groups with this was representing massive artists, wasn't it?
Like Paul McCartney and people like that.
Multi-millionaires who are losing revenue, apparently.
Well, we don't have pre-speakers, of course, because it reminds me of recently when the Russian diplomat was talking to an American diplomat, the American diplomat, sorry, an English diplomat, British diplomat, I should say, I've been told I'll offend somebody.
The British diplomat said, look, we live in a free country.
I can go into Mrs. Thatcher's office.
I can, sorry, this is an old joke, I basically say, I can go to Mrs. May's office, I can bang the desk and I can say, you're a useless department, you are completely mishandling it, then you have to go.
And the Russians will say, what am I doing with that?
He said, I can go to Putin's office, I can bang with this.
Right, on that note, before I offend anyone else.
Sorry, I do have one more thing.
Yeah, I think the European Union should be destroyed.
I'm taking your mind.
Sorry, week ago, but of course, as you've probably gathered already, this is a legislative sausage machine because people are paying to sit on the pieces of producers.
And so long as you pay them to do it, they're going to continue.
Thank you, Mr. Mike.
Thank you very much, Jazz.
▲
Export Selection