Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

July 1, 2025 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:31:08

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #1198

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello and welcome to Podcast of the Lotus Eaters, episode 1198 on this Tuesday, the 1st of July.
	I am joined by Stephen.
	Good afternoon.
	Charlie!
	Charlie's coming from his big important mission.
	Indeed, yes.
	Tell us about the big important mission, which is going to be very good.
	Thank you to Jamie for sending us this Trump the ball thing.
	Oh, superb.
	Have you not had that before?
	I mean, I had a couple of boxes, you know.
	Yeah, yeah, no.
	That's it, you know.
	299 off eBay.
	I'm not going to thank Jamie for including in it in particular a copy of Gary Stevenson's book.
	Oh, that's good.
	You've gone from zero to hero to practice zero again, Jamie.
	But Gary Stevenson.
	How are you, chaps?
	Very well.
	Very well.
	It's a little bit warm, isn't it?
	It is, yeah.
	You know, I used to love summer, but ever since I've had to start wearing suits on a regular basis, it's hell.
	But you obviously didn't get the memo that you've got to come in green today.
	Apparently not.
	Yeah, no, I'm not very in sync.
	That's right.
	It's not as bad here as it used to be.
	Was it last year or the year before we moved into this studio?
	But the first summer we were here, we moved in on basically the hottest day of the year.
	And the air conditioning wasn't working.
	I mean, the building management kept insisting that the air conditioning was working.
	I don't know what it was working on.
	A new translation of Beowulf, maybe, or Fermat's last theorem, but it wasn't working on producing cold heat.
	And these things, when we first got them, we had them cranked up to full power.
	And they were basically like, whatever it was, 15 little radiators.
	You came out with a bit of a suntan after the first podcast.
	Black and white.
	Yeah, black and white podcasts.
	You'd like been standing the wrong way when Hiroshima dropped or something.
	But apart from that, I think we're probably all set.
	You're taking on the first one, Charlie.
	Okay, yes.
	So, gentlemen, Britain is in decline, and the right-wing political landscape is in chaos.
	The Conservative Party is in a tailspin, and Reform UK is stumbling from one era to the next.
	The British people are crying out for leadership, and there's a yawning gap in the market for a serious, authentic vehicle around which the country's Conservative-minded majority can rally, organise, and exert influence.
	Many have tried to fill this gap, but many have failed because of a variety of reasons, including mediocre ideas, mediocre personnel.
	But now, I am pleased to announce that, alongside Rupert Lowe, I'm working with others on Restore Britain, which is the answer to this problem.
	It is our vehicle, it is our centre of gravity for all of the sound people and all the people worth listening to on the British political landscape and every person who is concerned about the future of this country and its present trajectory in terms of politics, economics, culture, and society in general.
	We are not a party.
	We are a movement.
	We're some combination of a pressure group, a think tank, and a mass movement.
	And we don't endorse any parties.
	We don't endorse any personalities.
	We exist purely to act as a mouthpiece for ordinary British people who are concerned about the way this country has been governed for the better part of 30 years.
	So, our objectives are as follows.
	The first and foremost is, as I've said, to act as a political centre of gravity for authentic, conservative-minded people in Britain.
	And we want to build and mobilise a substantial membership.
	And we launched yesterday at 12 o'clock, and our X account almost has 100,000 followers, and we have thousands and thousands of paying members already.
	So we are, you know, there's a momentum there already that I don't think has been seen in any other organisation in recent history, except for possibly reform.
	Well, I'm one of them because I saw this tweet pop up.
	Yeah, you did as well.
	And I mean, Rupert's obviously a very sensible chap.
	And it takes like two, three minutes on the app.
	It's very simple.
	You just do blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, Google pane, whatever, and you're done.
	And it's £20.
	So it's the price, as Rupert likes to say, of two poorly priced pints in some kind of London pub.
	So our priority with this membership is, well, there are several reasons for this.
	First and foremost is we are going to, you know, membership is open to anybody with £20 who cares about the future of Britain.
	And we're going to be polling our members on all of the most pressing issues of our time, from immigration, deportations, energy, housing, crime, social issues, family, and so on and so forth.
	And we're going to generate mass-scale political intelligence from our sample of thousands of people, thousands of ordinary people, to present to the government and to present to other political parties and to present to the media to basically say, look, this is the authentic voice of Britain.
	We are the center of gravity for people who really care about this country.
	And this is what those people think.
	And I think alongside that, we're also going to be mobilizing that membership to get parliamentary petitions over that 100,000 mark.
	So already we ran a petition a couple of weeks ago.
	I think it actually might have been one week ago.
	Yeah, I think it was a week ago.
	It was quite a week, isn't it?
	Yeah.
	On Lucy Connolly.
	And in less than 24 hours, we got 100,000 signatures.
	Now, I want you to imagine what it would look like if we were doing that every week, multiple times a week.
	We would bring Westminster to a standstill and we will own the conversation.
	And the thing with Rupert is you know that he's a very effective parliamentarian.
	He's head and shoulders above the rest of them in terms of he's being able to use his vehicle of being an MP to bring issues up and press things.
	Well that's one of the most important points.
	It's the thing that we missed when we were in the European Parliament.
	We could say what we liked in the European Parliament.
	We had good images, we had good pictures and we had good speeches.
	But in reality, being able to pressure the local agenda in the United Kingdom, it's much more difficult unless you're in Parliament.
	But I've got a question, Charlotte.
	You started that there saying we wanted to be an authentic conservative group, but I don't hear the kind of conservative patriotic part because a lot of conservatives are just not patriotic.
	That's very true.
	I mean, that word, it's one of those ones that you can read your own meaning into.
	I mean, in the past, I have said that I'm not a conservative because I think with the condition of the country being what it is today, to be conservative is basically to wish to preserve that kind of post-1997 political order and social conditions that have existed for that time.
	When I'm talking about being conservative in this context, What I'm talking about are people who are not up for any of the stuff really that's been done over the last 30 years, who feel that something has gone deeply wrong in this country.
	I'm talking about the people, by the way, that Bob Willem was talking about when he said you want your country back.
	Shut the F up.
	So we're looking at the small C Conservatives who are quite happily with family, faith, and on our nationhood, looking at the royal family as being key, armed forces, all of that.
	People who recognise this program, the project of multiculturalism, net zero, social progressivism, woke, whatever, all of them have been hugely damaging to this country.
	And actually, speaking personally, I'm hoping to bring children to this country in the very near future.
	I look at the prospects, I look at the fact that they're hopefully, God willing, going to be alive to see the turn of the century.
	And I imagine what this country is going to look like at that time.
	And it's people who have that same terror at what we're staring down the barrel of right now in this country.
	I have a 12-year-old, so this is one reason why I'm still here, still fighting, still battling to ensure that we've got a nation.
	As we saw statistically came out today, I don't know if you watch the ONS figures.
	33.8% of all live births were non-UK citizens.
	Yes.
	Of which Indians, Pakistanis led the top 10.
	And out of those top 10, apart from Romania and Poland, the eight other countries all mirrored those who are coming across on the boats.
	Yes.
	Well, and that's why we actually need something like this, because you ask Nigel Farage that question, he'd say, well, that's why we need to appeal to Islam, because they're going to be the majority.
	There's absolutely nothing we can do about it.
	We just have to appeal to them.
	And that's the point.
	We want to show political leaders in this country what British people actually think.
	And that doesn't just include reform and Farage.
	It includes the Conservatives.
	It also includes Labour and the Greens and the Lib Dems.
	It includes everybody.
	Because Rupert himself has already shown that he has the ability as an independent MP to command the discourse in this country and to shift the oversome window in a really meaningful way.
	And so with this organisation behind him and with a mass movement of people behind us, I mean, I think that the sky's the limit, basically.
	So why is it a movement, not a political party?
	A political, you know, now is not the right time for another political party, in our opinion.
	Because, you know, political insurgency of the type imagined by some people, it's just not possible.
	It's a fantasy in this country.
	You know, the system is not geared towards a tiny party, you know, kind of getting in and winning a majority.
	I mean, reform.
	But that's what reform is doing.
	Well, what I would say about reform is it's true.
	I mean, Nigel Farage obviously has been in the political landscape for decades.
	And reform are, you know, they are tacking to the centre in a way that suggests that they're not actually that different from the established party.
	And so in that sense, it's in a way not actually a political insurgency of the type that I'm describing.
	Because what I'm talking about is an authentic expression of the interests of British people making that inroad.
	I'm a member of reform and I remain a member of reform because, as I say, Restore Britain is not a political party and members of any party are welcome to join.
	But I think reform needs this pressure on them to...
	That's right.
	So you can become a political party.
	You can take over a political party.
	You can do something else.
	You've basically got the option to do whatever you like here.
	And we're not.
	You've got that momentum.
	Yeah, we're not closing off any avenue.
	All of these things, I mean, we're one day.
	It's been just over 24 hours since we've launched.
	And already there's this huge momentum.
	But we're keeping all of our options open because why wouldn't we?
	Because our interest is not party politics.
	Our interest is saving Britain.
	It's restoring Britain.
	But that's where the dichotomy comes and the real issue that you've already pointed again.
	You can't restore Britain through a petition.
	That's very true.
	You can only restore Britain by taking power.
	Yes.
	And this is when I met Mandelson in the early days when I was part of the Fabian lefty lawyers, you know, and the sort of hated group that I looked around me and went, I can't be like these sort of people, and that's why I left.
	But I do remember very clearly with Mandelson talking to myself and Derek Draper and a couple of others at the time who was his chief of staff.
	He said, Stephen, it's not about principles, it's about power.
	I need power.
	Labor needs power.
	We can't change this country without power.
	So they felt at that time, in the pre-Blair period, that all Labour was was a pressure group.
	They weren't successful.
	So they had to transform themselves.
	So isn't that the big issue?
	Why I mention it?
	Because that's where we've got this kind of issue between Rupert and the movement, which I tend to agree with.
	But also, you've got Ben who wants the political party, wants to do that transformation.
	Yes.
	And to take Farage on and to defeat them at the ballot box, you'd need a party.
	So isn't that the big issue that you're going to have to face someday?
	So before you answer that, can I just add in a supplementary question?
	What is the relationship with Ben's thing?
	So there is no official relationship with Ben's thing.
	There was a difference of, you know, an intellectual difference between Ben and Rupert.
	They were talking.
	But Ben was dead set on starting a party.
	We felt that that wasn't the right strategy.
	Because as you say, obviously power is the ultimate objective here.
	Because I think the right, many of us are sick of being right, but continuing to lose.
	And I think to start a party at this moment is to wish to continue to feel correct and feel vindicated, but to continue to lose.
	And so make no mistake, Restore Britain is a strategy to power.
	It's not just a talking shop.
	That's what we want to hear.
	Yeah, it is part of a strategy to power because we wouldn't be doing it otherwise.
	And I wouldn't be putting my name to it otherwise because all I care about is saving Britain.
	And power is a necessary prerequisite to that goal.
	And so actually, I think as much as you say starting a party in the pursuit of power, maybe at one level makes more sense, I actually think that that's doomed to fail.
	I wasn't saying we needed a party just now.
	I just say that there will need to be a party that either encapsulates what the movement is or the people within the movement or the ideas that you've created.
	To be able to go to the ballot box and persuade the British people that it's not reform, that E is now just, that they and Z have just moved too much to the centre, you know, and the Conservative Party is a deadbeat at 9% in certain areas.
	They're not going to come back.
	Well, I can see that.
	It's a fantasy world, if people think, even in four years.
	That said, I can see a certain elegance in...
	But I think what a lot of the sort of normies have not realised yet is just how compromised they are on so many issues and the real character of Nigel Farage.
	So there is perhaps a value in letting the existing system get completely tossed upside down while a movement is building that can then roll into something.
	Yeah, so this is the great advantage of Rupert being in the position he's in because he is, in being an independent MP and now being the leader of Restore Britain, he is uniquely positioned above the fray of party politics to actually move the discourse in its totality.
	Because the great genius of Blair, for example, was not that he transformed the Labour Party in his own image, it's that he transformed the Conservative Party as well in his own image.
	And what we're seeking to do is far more ambitious than any one party.
	What we're seeking to do is shift the discourse in Britain in its totality.
	Because if it can be shown not just to reform, not just to the Conservatives, but to Labour, the Lib Dems, the Greens and all the rest of them, that we are where the will of the people is.
	We are where public sentiment is.
	We are where victory and power is.
	Then I think everybody will start to get on the ball.
	So I like that, because if you were to form as a party, every other political party would instantly see you as an enemy.
	Yeah, any relationships that Rupert has built up with other MPs and parties and all the rest of it would instantly be killed because he becomes a rival castle.
	He becomes an enemy politically.
	If he's leading a movement, they can basically take those ideas or take his lead.
	And ultimately, what we care about is getting our ideas implemented.
	Ultimately, we just want power for our guys.
	But in the meantime, because that's such a hurdle to climb, getting these people to on board our movement, your movement, just as good.
	And I won't reveal too much at this stage, but over the coming weeks, we will be announcing our advisory board.
	And this is going to include people who viewers will all know, who are the heaviest hitters, the most serious thinkers and activists on the British political scene.
	And in the spirit of being non-partisan, we've had real interest from a number of MPs across multiple parties.
	So this is what we're trying to build.
	We're trying to build a genuine cross-party movement that speaks for the interests of ordinary people.
	So I will just continue because we've got off track of my little my notes here.
	Prepared Ruby.
	Indeed.
	So we're going to be around the key issues that I've talked about that we're going to be polling our members on.
	We're going to launch basically individual campaigns on all of those issues.
	So already we've, actually we've got it on screen here.
	I don't know if we can scroll down.
	We've released a number of policies that we are going to be championing.
	Like for example, net negative immigration.
	This is basically the notion that more people need to leave than are coming in, in effect.
	So the population is actually...
	Yeah, I mean, remigration is one of these terms that's thrown about.
	It means different things to different people.
	Whereas net negative immigration, I think, is quite clear what we're talking about.
	We're talking about a shrinking population, reversing mass immigration, reversing the Boris wave, as it says in the graphic there, and essentially encouraging those who can't speak English or who live in social housing or who claim benefits or who refuse to work, who break our laws, and just generally seem to hate.
	But net negative could mean that 300,000 Brits give up and go and live in Spain every year and then 250 people from Pakistan.
	That's very true.
	That's very true.
	And there is certainly nuance to this, because I agree that that would be a huge problem.
	But we're talking about reversing mass immigration.
	We're talking about reversing the policies that have been brought in over the last 30 or so years that have led this country to be demographically transformed in many areas.
	I've worked on this now for nearly 11, 12 years and done at least two policy papers on the idea of reducing immigration.
	The best I could get it down was to 50,000 net immigration.
	Damnsight better than a million.
	Yeah, no, no, it was.
	And I still got lots of things that we could do on that.
	But to get to, I mean, the idea initially with net immigration is quite difficult to get net immigration because you're basically saying no one comes to the country apart from those that we amount to leave.
	And that's an incredibly difficult thing to do.
	But as an aspiration, I think that's something that we should have a tone.
	No, you do.
	You've got to set that tone.
	You've got to flag.
	Yeah, you have to set that tone.
	And you've got to be able to turn around and suggest that we can reduce out of the four or five key pillars of what immigration is into this country, that you can reduce the big ones.
	And the big ones, you know, it's students up there.
	Family reunion.
	That, I've always said, has to go.
	I mean, you can't have any family reunion.
	And then also look at legal migration.
	I mean, my view on legal migration is people should not be allowed indefinite leave to remain.
	They should only have visas that allow them to stay here for two, three, four, or five years maximum.
	So that also then counts to come in.
	And it's also in some ways a very positive way if you're looking at this.
	Say you want nurses coming from Thailand or where we're picking them up a lot at the moment.
	You're only here for three to five years.
	You can't live here.
	You'll never get indefinite leave to remain.
	But when you go back, you've got the skills that you've learnt here back in your own country.
	Totally, totally.
	So it's a reverse colonialism.
	Yes.
	And as I say, I mean, really, we're 24 hours from launching.
	And what we're doing right now is we're basically making statements of intent about what it is we want to say.
	So we've got net negative immigration.
	There you go.
	Yeah.
	Country back.
	We want to restore the death penalty, which is a widely popular policy for the likes of Axel Rudy Cubana and others who have committed heinous crimes.
	Hashem Rebecca, the Manchester Arena Board.
	There's no reason they shouldn't be boiled or hung or something.
	It's an injustice.
	Every minute that they breathe is an injustice.
	And it keeps the trauma that they inflicted on the families and our country in general.
	It keeps it alive all the while they continue to live.
	So we've got that.
	We hit 50,000 in about 10 hours and we're on nearly 100K today as of today.
	I'll just keep going through some of these policies just to continue to give you a flavor of what it is we're trying to do here.
	Deport all illegal immigrants, mass deportations.
	Absolutely.
	It's absolutely crucial.
	Just go up slightly.
	A bit more.
	It's you, isn't it?
	A bit more.
	Elon Musk.
	That's right.
	Oh, yeah, yeah, no, he's not.
	Clicked into that.
	Rupert and I both spoke to Elon yesterday.
	Don't know who that handsome young chap is.
	That's interesting.
	So viewers may know that Elon Musk follows both me and Rupert on X. So we both spoke to him yesterday, and he's been very supportive of what it is We're trying to do.
	So that's quite promising.
	Very supportive verbally or checkbook?
	Not checkbook, yeah.
	So, yeah, mass deportations.
	I think it's self-explanatory.
	This is a mainstream position now.
	This is a position that's being adopted by everyone from the Tories to, I mean, well, Labour.
	I mean, Labour are even speaking in these terms now.
	Well, they won't actually do anything.
	Oh, of course, neither will the Tories.
	But again, but it's about where the discourse is.
	Oh, look at that.
	I don't know who those two handsome chaps are.
	Banning the Burker.
	Again, this is so crucial because it just, you know, this, this, this cultural religious practice has no place in Britain.
	I actually disagree with that one because it makes it so visible.
	The rate of decay.
	That's quite a compelling argument, to be fair.
	But again, statement of intent.
	We don't want this kind of thing in our country.
	It has no place here.
	Yep, net negative immigration.
	Again, you get the idea, right?
	So I'm always also, by the way, keen to hear viewers' opinions on the kind of aesthetic that we're going for here.
	I like it.
	Graphics are very nice.
	That's because I'm right.
	It's quite bold because you're going off, you often say don't use red today, but you've gone to this kind of, I'm looking at this branding slightly off ready brown, which worked really there.
	So you're not pushing off the women with the colour of red.
	Indeed.
	So on these key issues, we're going to be launching essentially campaigns around each one.
	So each one will have media coverage, articles, op-eds, videos, graphics, and most importantly, freedom of information requests, research, and petitions.
	So on all of these issues, we're going to be launching all of those things, and we're going to make it impossible for the leaders of this country to ignore these issues.
	So, I mean, I haven't said this already, but I'm going to say it a lot from now on.
	Lotus Ceta's viewers, join Restore Britain, because this is how our voices get heard.
	This is our vehicle for pushing our ideas and our vision of this country into the mainstream.
	What I'd like to see is you get over the 223,000, which is the membership of Reform.
	That's right.
	I can see that happening.
	Yeah.
	In not a too distant future.
	Well, again, these numbers.
	Members of Reform are welcome to join.
	Anybody is welcome to join.
	Well, half of our viewers are not based in the UK.
	So are they welcome to join?
	I believe so.
	Yeah.
	I mean, if you care about Britain and you care about the future of this country, there'll be a lot of Anglo-Americans watching.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	Well, I mean, this is the mother country.
	You know, you should care about what's happening here.
	And presumably that's why you're watching this channel.
	And we're also on the kind of think tank side.
	Stephen, you touched on this already.
	We are going to be looking to produce research and thereafter research-driven policy.
	So obviously these are statements of intent with kind of high-level, somewhat low-resolution arguments included.
	what we want is we want the data and we want the specific laws that need to be repealed and we want specific laws and measures that need to be passed um douglas carswell for example is a great kind of he's And I've been asked by others to, you know, another organisation to kind of work towards the laws in the immigration field, what we need to repeal across a whole spectrum thing.
	Something nearly like 40, 50 different pieces of legislation and regulations that need to go.
	I mean, it's a huge amount in there because it has its tentacles, oddly enough, go across so many different spectrums.
	We will also be running events and conferences and this sort of thing, bringing people together in person because the power of that cannot be understated.
	And of course, we'll be inviting MPs, think tanks, press, donors, and of course our members and anybody else who wants to come and discuss the condition of this country and where we go from here.
	If you are a sensible young lady, that sounds like an excellent place to find a husband.
	Probably.
	Yeah, that sounds good.
	Ali, I know he's not offering himself up.
	No, no, I'm a happily engaged young fellow.
	Good man.
	Well done.
	So that is the vision.
	Okay.
	And our strategy going forward basically is to just own the conversation in British politics.
	But the only way we can do that is with a sizable membership.
	So once again, lotus seated viewers, please join up.
	Your contributions are what make this possible.
	We are a very small team and we're trying to do a huge amount here.
	And I think that we have something here that could change British politics in a major way and in a way that is basically unprecedented.
	So I think that's more or less everything I had to say.
	I'll put a couple of questions to you then.
	I've seen a couple of questions and reservations that have cropped up on the right in response to this.
	One of which being, isn't it spreading it thin that you've got reclaim and reform and heritage and homeland and a whole bunch of other ones.
	And now there's another thing to put the right's energy across.
	How would you address that one?
	Well, again, I would quite simply say that we are not a party.
	So we're not splitting any votes.
	And members of all of the parties that you've just listed are welcome to join us.
	So you can be a member of Reclaim or Reform or whatever.
	And you can join us and use us as a mouthpiece to make your voice heard.
	Because, you know, again, we've touched on this already, but the reason that we didn't want to go down the party route is because it's so limited in its scope.
	And you have your bank accounts frozen about that as well.
	And it's, you know, the ability to actually affect change through a vehicle like a party in our system is incredibly limited.
	And, I mean, what reform has done, that's the first, with the polling that they're, the level they're polling at now, it's the first time that that's been done in 100 years, right?
	It's not often that you get a breakthrough insurgent party in this system.
	And even now, as we've noted already, they're kind of going to the center, right?
	The system is containing them.
	Whereas a movement, a mass movement that exists above the fray of party politics, that can command the discourse in its totality and essentially set the marching orders for what everyone in Westminster is going to be talking about, that has far more power.
	Well, I've seen it happen a couple of times.
	We obviously, when we're in the European Parliament, we have the five-star movement, who began with a movement with Guiga, and he was a really challenging individual, and he transformed particularly the south and the middle, but also has then started to break into the north of Italy, where they weren't really kind of the idea of having that kind of five-star movement.
	And then the movement transformed itself into the political party and was able to win extensively first through the European Parliaments and then get into legislation.
	And of course, the MAGA movement was not necessarily, it came off the Tea Party.
	And there's still Tea Party movements there, but the MAGA party came out of that once the Republican Party had tried to suppress that.
	The Tea Party was enormously successful.
	It wasn't a political party.
	It wasn't a political party.
	And so you have events such as CPAC, which enable you to come up.
	lots of people of the Conservative right in America were able to come across.
	And in many ways, I see yourself restored as that kind of CPAC in the sense because you've got the political think tank, you've got the individuals, you can bring a big event in London's Westminster and have people from all different political spectrums there.
	But at the time you make that change, all those other political parties you've talked about, they're going to have to make a decision.
	Because if the movement is big enough, if the momentum is there, the challenge will be either the movement crushes the Conservatives or what's left of it has to take on reform because they'll be the dominant figure.
	And anyone else left simply doing it because of egos will have to just go by the side because you're 3,000, 4,000 polling wherever you go.
	It might suit you well.
	They'll have to either wake up or go away.
	Because I think the challenge is, as you say, if we're going to take on Labour and the left, there's only room for one.
	Yes.
	Well, there we go.
	I think that's pretty much it.
	Unless you had any other questions, chaps.
	Only one other question, which is a lot of people have been saying, yes, I like this, but it needs to be filled with our guys.
	Is it filled with our guys?
	Well, as I say, the team is very small, but they are, I mean, the fact, I mean, look, I'm not being funny.
	I've been coming on load seeders for a number of years.
	I've, you know, written things in places like the Daily Mail.
	I've written about English identity politics in the Daily Mail and, you know, why democracy is failing in Britain and why young people are disaffected from democracy.
	And I've also, you know, I also appear on here and I go on GB News and, you know, some of the stuff that I'm able to do.
	And you can vouch for all the other behind-the-scenes guys.
	Yeah, well, some of the stuff I'm able to get away with saying for whatever reason on places like GB News and Talk TV and LBC, you know, I know what time it is in this country, people, and I'm putting my name to this.
	I'm going to be a public-facing spokesperson for this organisation as I have been today.
	And I wouldn't be doing that if I thought this was in any way going to fail.
	I think we're going to win.
	I think this is going to work.
	And in terms of behind the scenes, it's people I trust.
	It's going to be who you see on the advisory board, who you see as going to be the spokespeople, and who's going to be dealing with your policies.
	And once the names of those individuals come out, that's where the movement is going to be seen of whether it's on our side.
	And it will be.
	I'm absolutely certain.
	You won't be in there.
	Rupert won't be in there.
	He's not got the right people in there.
	Rupert knows what time it is as well.
	And there's nobody better positioned than him to lead something like this.
	So Lotus Eaters, viewers, tell your families, tell your friends, join Restore Britain.
	And, well, I mean, this is our vehicle.
	Let's do it.
	Okay, very good.
	Right.
	So you know, like, sometimes on work sites, they have, you know, days since last accident or something.
	Yeah.
	I think I need one of those.
	Days since I've last criticised Rachel Reeves, the most incompetent chance.
	And it's going back to zero.
	It's going back to zero because we've got to talk about.
	How many were you on?
	Probably about two, but then it was the weekend.
	Well, I suppose, yeah, working days, but in the pool.
	So, yes.
	Rachel Reeves, she's coming after your ICA now, having successfully upset the pensioners and the farmers and anybody who doesn't like seeing children butchered and business people.
	Business.
	Now people who have just sold their house or trying to buy a house is the next target by going after the ICEs.
	Labour don't seem to appreciate you can't just keep growing the state forever and then trying to tax more to get out of it.
	And too many people are putting their money in savings, which is of course unattractive because otherwise that money should be circulating.
	You should be buying something from China so they can tax a tiny little bit of it as it goes past.
	This article popped up on that.
	Oh, let me find the mouse.
	Here we go.
	Right.
	So basically what she's doing is she's going to be going after the cash ISIS.
	Now, this is a sort of savings vehicle we have here in the UK.
	Basically, you can put money into these things and from that point onwards, it is tax-free.
	So that's highly attractive.
	You can put money into a pension and it works the other way around.
	You get the tax taken off when you put it in, but when it comes out the other side, it's all entirely taxable.
	Whereas NISA, I think, is the number one savings vehicle because you put it in and then hopefully it grows and then it's tax-free, whatever you take out of it on the other side, it gains and any sort of dividends or whatever it is you get out.
	So let me read a little bit from this article to emphasise what she's doing.
	Rachel Reeves is poised to announce the cut to the annual tax-free cash ISO allowance.
	Report suggests the Chancellor is expected to confirm she will reduce the £20,000 cap on the amounts that can be shielded from tax in a cash ISO each year in a Mansion House speech on July 15th.
	Government wants to reform cash ISIS to push even more people to invest in stocks and shares.
	There has been intense lobbying.
	City firms keen to boost investment in the stock market.
	Industry experts have condemned any moves to slash cash ISO allowances, warning it would damage incentives for long-term investment.
	Cutting the allowance would mean millions of people would save less each year tax-free and would face a choice between putting their money into taxable savings accounts or investing in riskier stocks.
	A survey by stockbroker AJ Bell suggested that only one in five savers would switch to the stock market if the limits were cut.
	That's because there are three types of ISIS, isn't it?
	You're allowed to get this taxable element which is free of tax.
	Part of it can be cash, obviously stocks and shares.
	And the third is lifetime.
	Well there's a couple of others.
	Well there's one that I won't bother talking about an investment one but innovation.
	And then there's a junior innovation as well.
	Innovation is useless.
	Yeah it's not really worth talking about.
	But yeah the main types you're talking about cash which is literally just cash it's kind of pretty much held with the bank.
	The thing is you know where you are with that one and the issue is of course most people are not natural investors.
	So it's all very well for people like us because we worked in the city.
	We know our way of investment.
	Yeah absolutely.
	And as I have no idea about any of that kind of thing.
	Right.
	Well brokenomics is your friend or it is yes.
	No it's usually helpful down there.
	Absolutely.
	But yes for a lot of people then I mean then it's unrealistic to expect somebody in their 60s who's never done stock market investing to start using that as opposed to something straightforward that they sort of know about.
	I will mention the other ones because it is kind of worth knowing if you're in the UK.
	You already picked up on the stocks of chairs ISA.
	So that's the one I use which I think is much more attractive if you know what you're doing.
	Yeah.
	Because you can put 20 grand in and you can turn that into potentially a million.
	And then any dividends you get from that and any gains you get on a tax-free.
	So that is superior, but you need to know what you're doing.
	Otherwise, you end up losing your money.
	I mean, I trade my ISO and I trade my own SIP self-invested pension.
	If you're good at it.
	And if you do it, that's fine.
	Yeah.
	And a lot of the reasons it is at the moment, it's just not been attractive to invest in UK stocks because until the last three, four months when we've just seen a spike in FTSE stock index, it's just not, everyone wants to buy America.
	Yeah, there's no dynamism.
	No dynamism.
	And all the movement has been on US stocks.
	Oh, absolutely.
	But one of the things that people seem to miss about the cash ISA, the cash ISA, you might go, oh, I've got a thousand pounds and I'll bunk it in my bank account.
	And the bank account gives you whatever percentage it is.
	I don't know, probably about four, is it?
	£4.2?
	It's a current account.
	Current account.
	Next to nothing.
	It's next to nothing.
	Okay, so you get next to nothing.
	And if you get anything out of it, it's taxed.
	But if you have more than £82,500 in that and the bank goes bust, you lose it all.
	£82,500 in that cash ISA, you don't lose it.
	You can't lose it.
	So if you've got more savings than you can put into one bank account, you get more security in this cash ISA.
	Yes.
	It's a good vehicle for most people.
	And as you can see, the light blue line is the cash ISA.
	I think there's a little bit more data reminding you to scroll down on.
	But yeah, essentially, you're getting, you know, that is what the vast majority of people are putting their money into, is the cash ISAs, less so the stocks and shares one.
	I'll mention the others quickly because this will be important for people.
	So there's the lifetime ISA that you've already talked about.
	That is very good for young people because what that does is you can put in up to 4,000 and then you get an extra grand added on top.
	Well, I've got to say, I mean, as a layman here, finance is just not my area.
	But I have a cash ISA and I have a lifetime ISA.
	I don't know stocks and shares because not my area.
	But both have been hugely helpful in saving.
	As many will know, buying a house in this country is extremely difficult for young people.
	But to that end, because the lifetime ISA, you can either spend it on your first house up to 400 grand or you can use it as a pension in effect.
	And towards that goal, it's been hugely helpful.
	And my, well, I use my cash ISA.
	That's my wedding fund.
	Yes.
	Yeah, both of those are ideal for short-term investments.
	Perfect for that.
	So the lifetime ISA, you do get that extra 25% lift.
	So it's well worth young people.
	And that should be, in my opinion, your primary savings vehicle in this country.
	Yeah, yeah.
	And so to see the limit for, I mean, I'm not going to say that I was putting 20 grand into my cash ISA.
	I wish.
	But the four grand limit, I mean, that is very low.
	For somebody earning even a modestly decent wage, being able to save four grand in a year, it's not that difficult, right?
	Well actually, I'll mention one more before we move on, which is a junior ISA.
	You can put up to £9,000 a year at the moment into cash or stocks for your children.
	And that's well worth doing.
	And it's well worth doing when they're real.
	I've done that for both my children.
	I put some Tesla and Bitcoin in there on the basis that it will either, you know, I don't think it's likely, but it could go to zero, but it could go significantly higher in 18 years' time.
	So well worth looking at.
	But yeah, to your point for house savings, and then that is one of the key vehicles for this stuff, because yes, you're right.
	And you might not be putting in 20 grand every year.
	And this is the thing that the lefties who have been attacking this have said, always like, oh, people who are putting in 20 grand a year don't need tax breaks.
	The people who can afford to put in 20 grand a year have a whole range of different vehicles open to them.
	A whole bunch of offshore accounts and there's a whole bunch of other tax-efficient things that they can do.
	So yes, you know, the very rich do use their 20 grand, but it's a small part of what they're doing.
	You know, it wouldn't really affect them.
	What it affects is people who have, you know, maybe hit, I don't know, retirement age.
	They've sold their house and now they're moving into a bungalow and they've suddenly got a large amount of cash that they can then shove into something which is tax efficient.
	Or people at the younger end who are basically taking every penny that they can spare and putting it aside for a house.
	I know I am.
	Yeah.
	And that could well go over five grand in a year if you're in that intense period of trying to save up for a house, which is the thing that Boomer's always telling young people to do.
	I'll just save her house.
	It's like, well...
	You need a vehicle for that.
	But I mean, pushing people towards the stocks and share stuff, you know, like I say, it is a superior vehicle for me, but it depends entirely on your time scale.
	So I wanted to give up an example.
	This isn't a hypothetical example.
	This is a real example.
	You know, let's say I told you about an exciting new tech stock.
	I'm taking you back to this time 26 years ago.
	So it's 1999.
	And I've got this incredible stock for you.
	And you listen to me and you put 50 grand into it.
	And this was one of the best investments of all time.
	But where was it a month later?
	That 50 grand had gone to 30 grand.
	And a year after that, it had gone to 470 pounds.
	It's not Apple.
	So the thing is, right?
	Apple.
	No, it's of that league.
	I'm actually talking about Amazon.
	Oh, right.
	Now, 10 years after that, it had gone to 88K.
	So you made your money back and then a little bit more on top.
	And 20 years later, it gone to 1.6 million.
	So that is what even a good investment can look like.
	Because most people's idea of investing well is they put their money in the stock market and then the following day and every day after it just kind of goes like that.
	And it doesn't work like that.
	I wish.
	In all my years of investing, of like whatever it is, 30 odd years of investing, I've done that once.
	One time.
	And that actually was my best investment.
	But one time.
	What was that out of interest?
	Tesla.
	Of course.
	I've time that perfectly.
	But actually, my second best investment, which I think is going to overtake it, Bitcoin, I lost money for the first 18 months.
	Then it kind of went flat for another year and then it really shot up.
	So there is a difference between risk, which is the permanent loss of capital, and volatility.
	And the reason why cash ISIS is so good, especially if you don't know what you're doing with the investment stuff, is let's say I put you in Amazon and it did that, where it went down from 50K down to basically 500 pounds before rebounding 20 odd years later.
	What if you had actually taken that advice, invested in it?
	You might be happy 26 years later, but what if you wanted that money to buy a house or to have a life-saving operation?
	You knocked it.
	Yeah.
	I've got to ask Dan again.
	This is a genuine question.
	In the face of this new policy on ISIS, a lot of people tell me, friends of mine, swear by Bitcoin.
	They say Bitcoin is all you need to worry about when it comes to finance and investing and all the rest of it.
	Do you share that opinion?
	Do you think that in the face of this it would be better?
	That is currently my biggest position is Bitcoin.
	So I do like it.
	But that comes back to the volatility issue.
	So the thing you've got to remember with Bitcoin, historically, it's operated around a four-year cycle.
	And for three of those years, it's the best performing asset in the world.
	And for the fourth year, it's the worst performing asset in the world.
	I see.
	Okay.
	So if you put your money into that and you've got to take the view, I'm not going to touch this for five years, history would say that you're going to be fine.
	And I suspect you will be fine and you do very well out of it.
	But if you've got a life-saving operation that you're saving for or buying a house in two years, taking five years off is, I mean, you know, if you're mid-20s or something, your partner is mid-20s, you know, you want to start a family within the next year or two, not five, six years later.
	No, that's very true.
	So sometimes even if there is a really good investment, I mean, what I would do in that situation, if I was in my 20s, is put 90% of it towards something secure for my next life goal, which is going to be house and family.
	Yeah.
	And 5%, 10% in something highly speculative like that.
	Okay.
	Noted.
	Because that way you still get the benefit.
	Yeah.
	Or you'd just be really simple and just put a bit in the S ⁇ P 500 every month.
	Yeah.
	And just leave it.
	Because that's grown pretty well, better than the kind of interest rates.
	But I know one guy who's done that.
	He started off when he was like 18, 19, putting them in.
	He's now in his mid-20s.
	He's done very well over the last seven years.
	I came here to shill my new movement, but I'm getting a free finance lesson.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	Absolutely.
	It's wonderful.
	We're both in the industry.
	That's probably why we're wearing green.
	Characters wearing green were thinking about money.
	So that's what we're thinking about today.
	I've got a break.
	I'm loving the fact that we've got even our notes are in green, green and yellow.
	No, there you go.
	It's sending a message.
	Convogue.
	Yeah, but I think...
	Actually, I'll talk about this.
	There is a way around this, which I wanted to highlight for people.
	Yeah, so what they wanted to do is you're saying as we're going, is they want to take the cash element out and reduce that to virtually nothing to force you into.
	So the idea is if they take most of the cash option away, that will make you want to invest in stocks.
	Because they can't get people to invest in UK stocks.
	And the reason they can't get people to invest in UK stocks is because the UK is a...
	It just is.
	There's no dialing in, there's no innovation.
	I mean, if you're going to put all the excessive regulations that you've found when it was an aim and then you've gotten the full listed onto companies that have to suddenly spend thousands of pounds on compliance officers like I was in there and all of those people to comply with the regulations, then you throw in the EU regulations that we're still having to accept and deal with, even though we've left.
	You put excessive costs on those companies and also the costs on them being able to trade.
	So as a consequence of that, they're losing the ability to go out and make more profit for themselves.
	Then throw in all the additional costs that businesses have to face in the UK that Reese is doing, taxation, employers and I, you're reducing the costs here.
	So the only ones that tend to do well here in the UK are those who've got foreign investments, like BP and Shell, whose income is coming from abroad.
	Well, indeed, so when I speak to people who are still in VC and venture capital investing and I ask them about their deal flow and so on, they tell me that they just don't even bother looking in the UK anymore.
	Because every time they invest in the UK, it fails.
	And the reason it normally fails is something connected to government action.
	Yes.
	And that could be taxation.
	Lockdowns are a big one.
	But it could be taxation or regulation.
	And young businesses in this country, they just keep on failing because of the business environment.
	And then, so like you say, you know, you look at your big BP or Galaxo.
	Yeah, there might be British companies, but all of their revenues are abroad.
	A tiny percentage of their revenues from the UK.
	So even if you did get people to invest in the UK, the stocks that they'd likely own, they're doing business outside the UK.
	They just happen to be headquartered in the UK.
	And this is the fundamental problem with this thinking, is they are not asking themselves, how can we make people want to invest in the UK?
	How can we make the UK an attractive place to invest?
	How do you make it for some young entrepreneur here in this country to say, I want to stay here, build a business here, and I want to export myself across the globe?
	Because as soon as I get big enough here, the first thing I do is they allow the Americans to come in and buy me out.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, I mean, that's what they did now.
	I mean, I'll give you an example.
	So when I came out of the city, I did a bit of work for my local university, sort of helping me out, because the university, every source of them, throws up a business.
	And some are no hopers, but there was a couple that were genuinely interesting, good businesses.
	And I worked with those guys, and we did a few bits.
	And the moment they started to get to the point where it's, okay, this is a real thing now, both of those companies bugged straight off to the US.
	Absolutely.
	Yeah, so if they're not leaving, they're being bought out.
	And we've seen some other bigger companies like Deliveroo recently.
	I'm not saying that was a great company, never particularly interested me in terms of investing.
	But as soon as that's had an opportunity, it sold off.
	So we come in.
	I've got to say, I mean, I'm no socialist, but I'm not a big Thatcherite or I wouldn't call myself a capitalist as such because I think, you know, purely from an optics perspective, I think that for a lot of young people, certainly, these are very negatively coded ideas.
	You know, capitalism is viewed as greed and capitalism was a term defined, first defined by Karl Marx.
	Exactly.
	And he framed it in such a way as to highlight all the negative aspects.
	And so I'm not like a free market superalist guy.
	I think that the role, the function of the economy is to serve the national interest, whatever form that takes.
	And I think that excessive free marketeering can actually be just as detrimental to a country's well-being as socialism.
	So I am quite happy to use the state to do things.
	I'm not like a absolutely minimal tax at all times and all places kind of person.
	I think that tax is a kind of inevitable part of life.
	But surely, so in that way, I'm not exactly dissimilar from a left-wing, an economically left-wing kind of person.
	But with that being said, there has to be a base of wealth to tax.
	And so the policies that you're talking about, which disencourage or discourage rather, people from investing in the UK and from setting up businesses and makes it difficult for businesses to be successful.
	If the government is going to intervene in a way, it could focus its energies on making sure there's abundant, cheap energy.
	Yeah.
	Which is our biggest cost in the UK.
	It's the big businesses.
	The biggest thing here.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, but it just seems, I mean, you know, you would think that people would be intelligent enough to realise that.
	Well, I'm an unavowed capitalist, I believe.
	But I'm not a corporatist.
	You see, I'm against the idea of corporatism because I've been there long enough and big enough to know that most of the big companies want to work with governments in order to create legislation and regulations to suppress smaller companies who are competitive.
	So that's what's going on with this thing.
	That's it.
	What's going on is the city firms are going to and saying you need to incentivize people to invest in UK stock market.
	Anybody who knows anything about this, they just go straight off to the US market.
	That's right.
	And they probably also understand that most people are not good investors.
	And that's partly temperamental, but it's also partly because there's no finance education.
	But they know that they can't affect that.
	So the easiest thing to do is just to use financial repression, we call it, to make it so that people have to invest here.
	Yeah.
	It is.
	But I talk about this all the time on brokenomics if people want to go deeper in that.
	Yeah, does this have anything to do?
	Obviously, Lewis Brackpool, good friend of mine of the show.
	He's done great work recently with his FOI requests about the meeting that took place between Larry Fink and Starmer, BlackRock and the UK government.
	Does this have anything to do, does this kind of, these policies, do they have anything to do with the fact that organisations like BlackRock seem to want to buy up?
	They could well be one of the lobbyists.
	I'd be surprised if they weren't.
	Yeah, they seem to want to buy up You look at housing.
	A lot of the housing now has been bought up by insurance companies.
	BNP have been massive in that.
	Some of the UK firms now that have been behind the scenes on trying to change legislation so that they can get rid of the landlords.
	They actively said landlords are bad, but we'll be better.
	Because we can then we should become like Germany and France where we have these massive insurance companies owning huge tracts.
	China does it and a lot of housing states, as soon as the housing states are being built, the first thing they do is go to these big companies and they buy five, 10 just to add to the portfolio.
	So that's a restrictive element on it.
	But when you look at BlackRock, I covered this a while ago.
	What is it that BlackRock's really heavily in into the UK at the moment?
	One of the things it's heavily into is energy, is wind farms, providing the loans for the companies that are buying wind farms and the solar panels.
	So they're providing the investment into these through extreme subsidy income.
	So they get the various vehicles and then the companies who are doing the establishment of the businesses are getting the resources and capital from places like BlackRock and Vanguard.
	And then it's their interest to see farmlands go.
	And on the back end of that, they're saying, well, hang on a minute, but if we lose our farmlands in this country, then who's going to feed us?
	Well, BlackRock are heavily involved in farming in Ukraine.
	I'm sure they are, yeah.
	And so all of a sudden, we get a third element to it.
	They're also the loans.
	Look at all the big companies that are actually providing the housing on the new housing estates.
	Whether they're going to be social housing, they're going to have to get loans from the city.
	Because you're buying a lot of land, a lot of capital is required.
	When you build a housing estate, it's a lot of capital.
	And they build that through loans, as we know, and a variety of financial methods.
	Who's behind that?
	The big fund managers.
	So it's in their interest to kill the farming in this country so you can get the solar panels and the houses being built so that effectively we just become little ants having to go to shops and supermarkets that have also got big investments from Vanguard and BlackRock into Tesco's and Sainsbury's so that we buy food from them and the food is produced.
	Well, that's the other fundamentals.
	This is why I'm against corporatism.
	If the parents can do anything, it's number one, get us cheap energy, number two, cheap food.
	And that means supporting our farmers.
	It's two things that the government pointedly does not do.
	Anyway, we're running out of time.
	So what I'll do...
	This is funny.
	Sorry.
	I will just wrap up on this.
	If she does do this, and she almost certainly will because it's been basically muted and so she's going to do this.
	you can kind of effectively sidestep it by using money market funds.
	So these are...
	So, I mean, look into it more, but take it from me, it is effectively kind of cash.
	It's not cash.
	There's a few more steps and twists and turns involved, and you've got to go via the bond market.
	And there's all sorts of freaky stuff that goes on there.
	And I've actually just done a brokenomics that's coming out today, actually, on how the bond market works and how a lot of this stuff works.
	And it is a little bit horrifying, all the multi-layered steps that they go through.
	But as long as the system is working, this will be as good as cash.
	If the system stops working, if money market funds go down, banks probably go down as well.
	So that's where you need your little allocation of Bitcoin.
	But you can sidestep what she's doing with money market funds and look at some other stuff as well.
	So yes, zero days since we last criticised Rachel Reeves, but quite worth it.
	And you can size to if you need to.
	She deserves a bit of complaining about.
	She does.
	She does.
	What's going on in the EU SSR, Stephen?
	Oh, well, this is quite terrifying.
	I remember they touch upon some of this when we were in the parliament years ago.
	some individuals.
	I remember meeting Varoufakis, actually.
	So Varoufakis is one.
	Yeah, you know, he's a he's a fascinating guy.
	I mean, he does come off and say that he is a communist and then a socialist.
	And I had a long, long discussion with him.
	If you think 30 minutes, 35 minutes with a former minister, finance minister for Greece in the European Parliament, sat down, generally, nice guy.
	I mean, we got on.
	He realized I was one of Farage's lot, didn't like Farage, but people told him that I'm an alright bloke.
	So he was able to have a conversation with me.
	And at that time, there were a couple of things that really, really kind of got his goat.
	The first thing was obviously what happened in Greece, in which the European Union effectively used organisations like Goldman Sachs to suppress the political will of the Greek people to actually kind of leave.
	Greek was entirely a sacrificial land for the EU project.
	They were devastated.
	Unemployment was sky high, 80% youth unemployment or 70% youth unemployment.
	People were literally eating out bids, giving their kids away.
	It got that bad, all to try and save the Euro.
	And as a consequence of that, he had a choice.
	And when he came into power, where I challenged him, he was, why did you not allow yourself to leave the Euro and just let all your bonds go?
	Just let the economy collapse, but at least you're out of the Euro.
	And he said effectively, many in the government were threatened by the EU with legislation that they would introduce that would actually make them all effective criminals in one way or another.
	And also, they applied the power of what he called the supranational wealth, or the IMF and others, that would say that they would not allow this to happen.
	So rather than fight for that with a political party that was of the left, regarded as quite extreme left, every single one of those people that said, we will fight this, buckled.
	And they allowed the Greek economy to go, which is why I often say to yourself, when we get a political party or a movement like Farage's reform, the pressure being implied on them or the way that we'll give you a nice job, get a House of Lords, become an MP, they're actually just trying to twist your arm by giving you money.
	The international power structure has a lot of levers it can pull.
	So they do all sorts of things on that.
	So that was the general conversation we had.
	But I was always intrigued by himself how he said that political leaders would be used and laws would be used against to threaten the political leaders.
	And then you look across what happened in the European Union.
	We saw in Austria, they've effectively got rid of two right-wing prime ministers, including a young chap now, who's just disappeared.
	Just resigned.
	I've gone.
	Quite good he was.
	And he was very, very good, and he was standing up against them.
	So he's now no longer involved.
	We see in Germany the AFD being banned.
	We've seen what they've done with Marie Le Pen with charges that literally every other MEP's group in the European Parliament were doing in terms of being able to use EU money to fund.
	Well, and that's when they're not just outright reversing the election results.
	Like, was it Romania?
	Yeah, and then they do that.
	And so I've come across one other aspect about it that you've seen, and that is this, and I might need this, which is, oh, hang on, let's go back up to what he's saying in here.
	No, where's Faroufakis?
	If you go back on the new tab and click the forward arrow.
	There you go.
	We've got it back on it.
	So Faroufakis comes in.
	I follow him.
	It says, our rulers here in the liberal West.
	I love the way that he uses the Liberal West.
	I've homed into a way of turning a person into a non-person.
	And I think of non-person, I think of Dostoevsky, I think of Orwell, obviously, but we also look at Aldo Huxley in numbers of books where we come.
	And we've got movies recently, dystopian movies, where they're effectively a non-person.
	Now, this guy is Hussein Dogdri.
	He's a German journalist, although he was born in Turkish, but not a dual citizen.
	So he has got German citizenships.
	And the EU authorities have found a novel, and he uses the immensely cruel way of punishing him for his coverage and views on Palestine.
	Now, many of us will have a very different view on Palestine.
	Some are very pro-Israel, some are very anti-Israel, others might argue a balance in between.
	But this particular person was not very pro-Israel.
	certainly very, very pro-Palestinian, and we'll come to that.
	So what they've done from him is they've used an unused directive, which I thought was...
	That allows Brussels to sanction any citizen of the EU it deems to be working for Russian interests.
	And who defines that?
	EU.
	Exactly.
	And that's the point.
	They looked at his website and podcast, and his podcast was used on Ruptley.
	Not all the time, it was just a few episodes of his podcast.
	We're used as clips on Ruptley.
	Is that a Russian YouTube or something?
	Yeah, Ruptley was part of the Russian TV channel that was.
	Oh, the RT thing.
	RT.
	So it was like an RT factual show that they had.
	I'm not even sure.
	I'm not even sure whether I was on it once or twice or something like that.
	But they had different individual presenters here in, oddly enough, the Towers Where Reforms had offices aren't.
	Oh, Milbank.
	In Millbank.
	So RT's offices were in Millbank before they were banned.
	And almost all of the people working for RT were British.
	And some very, very good journalists.
	They had a good, one or two Russians who were on there in the UK.
	But Rutley was one of the channels.
	Possible I've been on it.
	Possible lots of people are on it because it was seen in those days as being perfectly okay.
	Anyway, he just had a couple of his podcasts in it.
	So actually, having said that, the EU is probably going to look me up now and ban me as well.
	So maybe I should have kept my mouth shut.
	But they've now said that because Rutley used his podcast, he was therefore a Russian asset.
	This reminds me of when they brought in all that anti-terror legislation, and it ended up being used by councils on people who put their bins out on the wrong day.
	Yes.
	If a law exists, it will be used in the most perverse way possible.
	That's right, and that's kind of what worries me.
	So I'm going to run through some things on here.
	His bank account is frozen.
	If you give him cash to buy groceries or make rent, I'm going to come to Claire Daly when she deals with this.
	She puts it out really specifically.
	But essentially, he can't do anything.
	He can't live.
	You can't leave the country.
	You can't enter the country.
	You can't buy food.
	And if you give him food, you're actually aiding and abetting.
	So this is exactly the same as what happens in China.
	A friend of mine went there recently, just as a tourist, but in order to, you know, it's Alipay as their, you know, their pay system.
	They don't have cash.
	It's digital currency there.
	And for some reason, and this wasn't like a huge issue for him, but his Alipay account got frozen because of suspicious activity.
	And he was there.
	He was by himself.
	And he was just there like, okay, I can't get any public transport.
	I can't buy any food.
	I can't pay for anything.
	I'm in the middle of China.
	I don't speak Chinese.
	What the hell am I going to do?
	Got sorted, fortunately.
	But you imagine living in that country as, you know, or a country like that that has those kinds of conditions and wanting to speak out against what's happening in your country, as we have done about Britain today, where the state can just turn off your ability to live, as you just said, Stephen.
	I mean, that's a terrifying process.
	What would you even do if this happened to you?
	You'd just be standing there.
	Yeah, you basically stand there.
	You would have no choice but to turn to crime to survive, would you?
	I mean, what else could you possibly do?
	You couldn't do anything other than turn to crime to survive.
	But any criminals that were working with you would suddenly become an asset of the Russian state, and they would face it.
	And maybe then we'd actually end up with criminality ending in this country because we regard everybody as that.
	But one of the elements that I say particularly concerning about this is the only way that he can challenge this, because there's no trial, and I'll come to his page at that.
	There's no trial.
	There's no trial, is he has to go to Brussels.
	But he's not allowed out.
	How does he get there?
	He's not allowed out.
	He's not allowed out of Germany to go to Brussels to challenge this.
	This is absolute.
	This is Soviet Union level stuff.
	Yeah.
	So here he is.
	All in the name of democracy.
	All in the name of preserving democracy.
	So this is the chap here.
	And as I say, his name is Hussein Dogru.
	The EU sanctioned me and my media outlet for covering Palestinian protests in Germany.
	And it's part of a growing authoritarianism, militarism, cloaking language of fighting disinformation and defending democracy.
	And this is one of the things that I get quite fearful about.
	Obviously, I didn't like what the guy was saying on the stage in Glastonbury.
	And I certainly don't like him saying about want our country back and the other phrases that I was looking at.
	But other than saying incitement to kill, I'm actually a free speech absolutist.
	I think the IDF can handle themselves.
	Yeah.
	I mean, my personal view is I don't think the IDF were really worried about him, and any one of those kind of middle-aged white, older people in Glastonbury were going to try that have been gone in seconds.
	So, you know, if the IDF would have, you know, that have been gone.
	Sorry.
	No, not a coffee.
	I mean, they were quite good at dealing with crowds of people.
	So I think I'm pretty good at hunting.
	An angry Liberal Democrat from Winchester is not really going to worry the IDF.
	No, I think they're going to be right.
	And that's why I'm against the Lucy Connolly decision.
	It's interesting that they're attacking somebody on the left, because if they were attacking somebody on the right, you know, we'd be up in arms about this and saying to the left, they can come to do this to you next.
	And they wouldn't listen, they would be cheering for it.
	But it is one of their own now.
	And the people on the right are smart enough, you know, such as yourself, you're doing this segment, to say, you know, if they can do this to this guy, they can do it to any of us.
	Yeah, and we'd be saying this is exactly what they've been doing to us.
	After all, we've been facing cancellations.
	This show was cancelled on YouTube.
	Yeah.
	Carl was cancelled.
	I've been hoped, not hated, personally.
	You've been hoped, not hated.
	I really just lost for words of what hope, not hated could mean there.
	I kind of think it's some horrible meme.
	Yeah, no, they're running hip beats on me.
	But, you know.
	Oh, yeah.
	You pushed yourself, did you?
	It was me and one other in the same piece.
	And yeah, I mean, you know, well, there were consequences for the other chat, but I was quite lucky.
	I mean, it's basically the bass Oscars at this point.
	Yeah.
	You were actually wanting to get on the Hope Not Hate.
	I was delighted.
	I thought I was in it.
	You were finally in it.
	Yes, I'm finally in it.
	You're finally in the Hope Not Hated.
	Yes, most pleased with that.
	I'd like to get an individual piece if you're listening.
	What you want is what Matt Goodwin gets, which is like a three-page spread.
	He had a Hope Not Hated Hate spread, which is wild because Matt's not even that radical.
	Like, hell yeah.
	I don't even look, but this is the point.
	He's left-wing, and he's come in here, and he comes down, he talks about, in this background, how he had a company, and that he was, nothing happened to his podcast until Tagus Spiegel alleged, without evidence, that they were coordinating protests in the service of the Russian goal to destabilize Europe.
	Now, this is what I'm getting really worried about.
	I mean, by all means, I accept that Russia will have an intelligence network out there that wants to destabilize certain elements of Europe.
	Well, they're going to have to be really on their game if they're going to beat our own governments out there.
	But there's no doubt that we're doing the same in their country.
	I mean, this is what Spycraft is all about.
	So we're doing it in China.
	We've been doing it in other countries.
	We helped organize coups all over the world.
	This is no difference than what we're doing.
	they're saying that this individual's program and the next thing, Anthony Blinken gets involved and said that his organisation, Red, was a covert influence operation.
	Again, with no...
	No, they never do anything at all.
	They sit there also with the IDF having a cup of tea going, oh, let's have a coffee, you know, a milkshake.
	It's interesting, just quickly, not to be so cliched at this point, but this is literally like we've always been at war with East Asia, using that as like, you know, Russia, Russia, as the, you know, the ultimate boogeyman to justify any, you know, I kind of have this little worry about me, but that you know, only the other day I was on, I think it was talk actually with some expert about immigration.
	I'd never actually seen him before.
	He was quite nice guy, he spoke pretty well, obviously military background, suddenly saying that Russia was behind all the illegal immigrants coming into.
	I saw the same story, yeah.
	And I was thinking to myself, hmm, I'm going to covering this since 2014-15 when I was in the camps in France.
	I didn't see many Spetnas behind them going, oh Lord, go to Somalia, no, go to England.
	No, it just wasn't there.
	Yeah.
	You know, and I've got the Western Mediterranean front, the Eastern Mediterranean front coming over from Libya.
	Now they're trying to suggest that it's the Wagner group all working through Africa, helping and aiding these people to be able to get the claim that the Wagner group are behind people doing podcasting in Europe.
	No, immigration.
	Illegal migration.
	Illegal migration.
	So I'm just saying we've just gone off on the trans.
	How does that work?
	So you're telling me that the Wagner group got jobs at the Home Office and stamped 8 million visas over the space of five years?
	It clearly did.
	My personal view is I think the Home Office then clearly are part of this Russian kind of disinformation campaign to destabilise Europe.
	I do love, by the way, when I saw that story, the cognitive dissonance, because it's like on the one hand, these innocent refugees and diversity is our strength.
	And on the other, they are a Russian asset used to destabilize our country.
	So which is it?
	Like Pickwick.
	And that's right.
	And Wagner Group is obviously out there now helping them all, providing them with moots.
	I'm thinking, hang on, if you are there in Somalia, I don't really need your help.
	I've already got my own people, smugglers, who are going to come along and get me up there.
	I've been doing this for years.
	The British government will give me a four-star hotel.
	Absolutely.
	So this is a thing.
	They're going to, like you say, Charlie, they're using everything to suggest that it's all about Moscow and Russia.
	And I say, no doubt there are elements to it, but it's just not every aspect of our society.
	So they've got this hybrid war, and then we have the European External Action Services annual foreign information and manipulation and interference report.
	So I've just been looking these up because it's something I hadn't come across.
	And there we are.
	European law has a piece of council legislation, which is a decision made by the Council of Europe, sorry, the European Council, which is the leaders of the countries.
	They made the decision.
	They got a restrictive measures in view of Russian destabilizing activities.
	And it's been in force and it's been consolidated on the 22nd of May this year.
	So I didn't open it up in terms of all the reports down there that you can go into.
	But this is essentially it.
	It lists at the beginning, Russia, Russia, bad.
	2013, we're going right back.
	Then we've got a number of cases with Litvinenko.
	And so we've got disinformation.
	So it sets out what the European Union thinks is really bad about Russia.
	And as you go down, it just goes on.
	Oh, hang on, there we go.
	Instrumentalization of migrants in there.
	They've been involved in doing that.
	So it keeps going going.
	And then it adopts this measure that says, if you're doing any of the following actions, planning, directing, engaging directly or indirectly, or otherwise facilitating the obstruction undermining a democratic political process, including holding elections, attempting to destabilize or overthrow the constitutional order.
	If you start going through that, that's essentially what people who oppose governments do every single day.
	It's what channels like this do.
	It's what you do in speeches.
	So almost anything.
	Any political activity.
	Any political activity supporting or indirectly supporting the movement would fall within the category themselves the power to basically unperson everybody who is in the slightest way a threat to them.
	And all they've got to say is that you are connected with the Russian Federation.
	So that would mean, for example, opposing the Ukraine war or saying, I want peace in Ukraine.
	Because that could be the mouthpiece for Putin.
	Well, obviously that's an allegation that's thrown at people.
	If you're not supporting Zelensky, then clearly you're a mouthpiece for you.
	So obviously Donald Trump and JD Vance fall within that.
	So it goes through, it lists where you can be, what sort of organizations you are, and it just goes on.
	And then it tells you all your funds held by legal or natural funds, banned, taken off you.
	And this goes on and on and on.
	Now, that I found when I started reading that, I think, God, this is actually really, really oppressive because you are now a non-person.
	You don't exist.
	And they don't use it on terrorists or grooming gangs or drug lords.
	No, they use it on journalists.
	They use it, on this case, a journalist.
	And then this is the report by the third report exposing the architecture of it.
	And I'm going to go down here.
	Did I not open it?
	I might have to, actually, because I thought.
	Maybe I can.
	So maybe I'll just lead onto this then, the galaxy.
	No, that's the journal.
	Yeah, click to see full PDF.
	So I wanted to go on this full PDF.
	Thank goodness I'm here, eh?
	So here we are.
	I mean, I've never particularly liked Carja Kalas, I have to admit.
	She looks to me as though she's like a smiling devil.
	She's like the personification of I will put somebody else to put a knife in the back of your neck and I'll do it and I'll say it was actually you were doing it in the interest of justice and democracy.
	Democracy.
	It's the quiet, quiet ones that sometimes are the worst.
	Anyway, you go through this.
	And this report is interesting because people really get fascinated by this kind of idea of how they build it up.
	It talks about how elections were attacked by Russia.
	This is going back to the question of Romania, Moldova, Africa, lists through it.
	And then it goes through the introduction here of all the types of ways that we are countering this.
	And it has an East Stratcom task force set up to deal with ongoing disinformation.
	And when you look through the disinformation, again, we fall within it.
	this show would fall within that disinformation category if we opposed what they are.
	And they've got some trends.
	38,000 channels, 320 odd organizations.
	So they build up a trend.
	And what they're doing with this document is legitimizing the kind of idea that we are looking carefully at this.
	We've identified these organisations and therefore we can use this extreme legislation because we are kind, thoughtful, liberal people.
	So why haven't they then?
	If they've identified all these legitimate targets, why haven't they done it?
	Why are they selectively enforcing it?
	Because they know that if they were to do it en masse, there would be such almighty pushback.
	So what they need to do is selective enforcement to send the message is, we can do this to any of you at any time.
	Watch yourself.
	That's exactly it.
	As we did with Lucy Connolly.
	They're just Russia.
	China now is a very big one.
	And it talked about other organizations.
	This is the sort of block of the architecture.
	I love the way that they try and put these little pretty pictures to basically say, we're just going to control whatever you think, how you think.
	And then this is the sort of organizations that they put on this list.
	Now he, the red organization, was that is Ruptley as one of the state-controlled outlets.
	And his little organization was around here.
	It might have been that one.
	So is this just in the context of Russia?
	Russia and China.
	Right.
	So if you look at China, I can't zoom in.
	To be fair, they probably got the idea of this from China.
	Yeah, possibly.
	If you zoom in on there, you look at like Phoenix TV.
	If you ever go to Hong Kong or China, you watch these.
	These are on their channels all the time, on their television shows and hotels.
	So it's like their BBCs and things like that, small channels.
	And I don't necessarily doubt that they are outlets of propaganda.
	Oh, of course.
	Yeah, but to the extent we argue that BBC is.
	Yes.
	And of course, you come into it and you get what I call, I love it, EU news, part funded by the EU.
	Isn't that a state organisation?
	And they come around and say, it's fine.
	It's good.
	Well, if China was saying exactly the same thing, wouldn't that be?
	It's fine.
	It's good that we've got all these people in the Uyghurs and they're not allowed to eat.
	Yeah.
	Because they're against, you know, they've been working with the Brits and the Americans to undermine China.
	This is the thing.
	I mean, James Burnham talks about this in the Managerial Revolution.
	But it's the way in which modern, you know, mass and scale democracies like the ones or mass and scale systems like democracy in the West, but also, you know, whatever you want to call the Chinese system and the Soviet Union and also Nazi Germany, they all tend towards the same kind of structure and sort of behavior as the state as an entity.
	And I would prefer it.
	Like, you know, in this, what you're talking to us about, Stephen, you know, the EU is indistinguishable from China.
	I'd actually prefer it if they were just honest about it.
	I'd actually prefer it if there was an abolishment.
	Like, no, actually, we are all playing the same game here.
	Like, we are all doing the same thing.
	That would be preferable.
	But to do so then would remove one of their great faces that we are liberals and kind.
	Yeah.
	You know, that we are doing this all in your own interest and we're helping because we want everyone to benefit from it.
	When the reality, if it came back to saying exactly being honest, that we're as dictatorial as the Chinese.
	We have the same instincts as Putin.
	We just do it differently.
	Yeah.
	And we lie about it more than they do.
	Like, let's be real for a second here.
	Like, because of the facade of liberalism that the EU holds up, I think that actually makes them more dishonest than the Chinese.
	Because the Chinese, again, whatever you want to say about their system, I certainly wouldn't want to live in a totalitarian surveillance.
	at all but at the very least But at the very least, it looks from the outside like at some level there is a concern for the national interest in the Chinese state.
	Whereas in the EU and in EU member states, it's as though the state is explicitly oriented against the interests of the world.
	It's getting the worst of both worlds.
	Yeah.
	Actually, that's a very valid point because a lot of people would say that we're getting the worst of both worlds.
	Exactly.
	Yeah, we're getting the totalitarian surveillance state and we're not even getting the national interest.
	And there's a lot of people here.
	I'm looking at time.
	There's a lot of people here.
	So this is, I don't know if you remember Claire Daly.
	I don't know if she'd done this one.
	I'm hoping it goes straight on to her.
	So Fidias Paniato, I like him.
	He was like some sort of blogger or gamer.
	Yeah, I've come across him.
	And became, and he's really radical and out there as an opponent of the European Union.
	But he is fun.
	But Claire Daly was another of the, I mean, she had no time for me, unfortunately.
	Not like Varifaka.
	She is a very big, strong Irish communist, independent MEP.
	And to be fair, there was a lot on the liberty and freedom of speech elements that I liked.
	Even some of her conversations on what Israel is doing or what the Americans were doing.
	You know, you could see it from the rights perspective where we could align in some ways.
	But she just would have no truck with anyone who wanted to have uncontrolled migration controlled like myself.
	You know, we're all racist just because we're in it.
	But she makes a really good point.
	But it's not very good news.
	We are not the majority in the European Parliament that we want freedom of speech.
	Words and ideas are weapons and the European Liberals are here to save us from that.
	And this is where the European Union's 17th set of sanctions comes into play.
	Because what you have here is sanctions targeting disinformation.
	Now, what was this disinformation?
	And who were these people?
	Now, a few of them were actually Russians, but there was also a German blogger and there was a Turkish citizen who was a valid EU resident who was also sanctioned.
	Let's look at this case because in that case we have a person who's been subjected to an asset freeze and a travel ban on the basis that he was systematically spreading information which the EU said was false.
	They said he provided pro-Palestinian protesters with an exclusive media platform but what it looks like is a person who was documenting German police crackdown on Palestinian protests and in retaliation the German authorities slapped Them with an EU sanction.
	And if you're targeted by an EU sanction, you don't hear the charges against you, you don't get a trial, you don't get a right to defence.
	You basically, the first thing you find out about this is a letter coming in your door telling you that your bank accounts have been frozen and that you're banned from entering or leaving the country.
	This is not just about speech.
	You mightn't care about whether someone was silenced for pro-Palestinian speech or whatever.
	That's not really important.
	You don't have to agree with the issues there, but you have to recognise the danger of what's going on here.
	Because if it's them today, it's you tomorrow.
	Very good.
	Fair play to her.
	And that is exactly my point.
	This is why we should be very worried about when we're seeing on television the attacks against the individual.
	As I say, I don't like what he said.
	But Lucy Connolly was right to what she said.
	He was right to what he said in terms of the free speech element about it.
	Rise up and honestly say, let's go out and kill somebody tomorrow and do it there and then, then that's a different issue altogether.
	And I don't think Lucy Connolly fell within that categorisation.
	I don't agree with everything that the Palestinian proponents say.
	I don't agree with everything.
	I agree with the Israeli.
	I don't agree with everything that the Israel's IDF do.
	But I don't believe that I should have a sanctions hit on me because the assumption in the European Union is I want to control what you say.
	I mean, we didn't go into what the blogger dealt with.
	I mean, I couldn't really find much about him because he's literally disappeared.
	That's dark.
	That's very dark.
	He's literally disappeared.
	He's a human being existing somewhere in Germany who cannot get money from any source, can't buy anything.
	But here's the key point.
	You didn't even know what happened to you until he got a letter through the post.
	Imagine going through you.
	He's like, hang on, I can't get money from the bank.
	And then a letter comes in.
	You are now a non-person.
	It's a non-person letter.
	We should be all seriously worried about how they're looking at this.
	And so I thought she was very powerful.
	She's no longer an MEP.
	I think she lost her position.
	But there's a couple of other things I look on there.
	Network effects.
	Again, this chap here, not entirely of the right, but again, he is more into the technology side of things, network effects.
	And he looks at this, he covered it, and I don't know where he's gone on that, but he did cover some other aspects about the weaponization of counter-disinformation to promote censorship.
	What sort of world are we in if we're in a Liberal West when this can happen?
	And I don't know if you know Walter Kim at all.
	I find some of his things really interesting.
	But on the back of what Paul Thacker said in the New York Times, Biden ages a campaign.
	How did so many elected Democrats miss Biden's infirmity?
	He just puts out, in relation to this, Orwell thought naively that to pull off this reversal census from the Ministry of Truth would have to go back and change or erase the first headline.
	David Nato.
	Today we are so beaten down, distracted, dazed, that we don't even require this alteration.
	Our brains are the memory holes.
	And I just thought that's absolutely fascinating, that here we are, every single day, we are facing an onslaught from all different organizations and arms of government to try and disarm us of what the truth is, to ensure that we don't think for ourselves, that when we do challenge them, we're deemed to be someone on the other side.
	And I do hope that when we get down to one of the key aspects of what the movement's doing, freedom of speech is somewhere we take because this is the sort of area where if we're accepting what the European Union is doing, and don't forget, we're trying to get closer to them.
	What of our legislation is similar to that?
	I haven't even started pursuing that.
	I haven't got enough time.
	I'm trying to do enough on immigration.
	Even if it isn't now, the ambition will be to make it that way.
	Absolutely.
	So I know we're conscious on time.
	It's 22 minutes past.
	But this for me, I think, is one of the really, really worrying aspects, not of just the European Union, but how it's going to be impacting ourselves.
	We should, despite all the antagonism that we get from the left, and they won't thank us for it.
	In fact, they would use it against us, I'm absolutely certain, if they were in power and do so to a certain extent, as we've seen with Lucy Connolly.
	But I do think that we should be better than them, bigger than them, and defend the ideas of freedom of speech, irrespective of whether I agree with their views or not.
	And somehow disarm this.
	I just don't know how we can.
	Borderjou.
	Have we got any videos?
	Comment videos?
	Jack?
	No, right, okay.
	In which case, then on the comments, somebody called Skittenhund has said, Charlie, please don't spend too much on your wedding.
	The more you spend, the less you have to start your life with.
	We spent $800.
	Well, so the average cost of a wedding last year was £20,000.
	And I'm quite substantially below that.
	So, all good.
	I don't think I spent that much my wedding, and I did it on a battleship.
	That's pretty cool.
	Did you?
	Different time, though.
	Bellfast.
	Oh, good.
	Was anyone there?
	A few people.
	I didn't want many people to come.
	She insisted on inviting people.
	All right.
	We all restore Britain.
	Do you want to do your comments?
	Yeah, sure.
	I'll go through some of this.
	So, Zesty King, nice name.
	One question I have for you, Charlie, is, was the announcement of Restore Britain planned with Ben Hobe's announcement of Advance UK, or was this a strange coincidence?
	It was neither.
	So, it wasn't planned.
	There was no coordination between what we're doing and what Ben did.
	As I said, Rupert and Ben had been talking, and I don't know how much detail I'll go into here, but Ben was made aware of what we were doing, made aware of when we were launching, and decided to launch his on the same day.
	So that's what happened, and you can make of that what you will.
	Corax 80 says, Charlie, great idea, 100% on board.
	How will you defend against the far left joining up to influence you into being unable to enact what this country desperately needs?
	And this is a very good question.
	I mean, again, like anybody with 20 quid and who cares about the future of Britain is welcome to join, and that includes leftists.
	That doesn't includes the far left.
	I somehow think that our people who agree with us are going to vastly outnumber those people, though, because we do in the general population.
	And in terms of the kind of people who are going to be prepared to put down the 20 quid to do this, if it was free to join, sure, I would be a lot more concerned about this.
	You actually have to put a stake for money.
	I think it's an important point to say that I'm really behind this.
	I don't think people, sorry, Sophie Liv, I don't think people really value the power of pressure groups.
	People often point to Denmark and ask how our politicians can be so based.
	Answer is they're not.
	They're just terrified of losing votes to the Danish Folks Party.
	So they try to make them irrelevant by adopting their policies for themselves.
	And this is the point, right?
	Because we're not party political.
	We want reform and the conservatives and Labour and Lib Dems and Greens and everybody else.
	We want them to adopt our policies.
	We want them to take our talking points and use them.
	Because this is my point.
	We're not trying to, you know, what we're trying to do here is a lot more ambitious, I think, than a lot of people realise.
	We're trying to shift the entire discourse.
	We want the Lib Dems talking about mass deportations, right?
	We want the Greens talking about reversing mass immigration.
	We want Labour talking about, I don't know, bringing about the death penalty.
	And that can be achieved through this movement.
	That is the ultimate goal of it.
	Daniel Butchers says, I've said for years voting for a party is an unimportant part of democracy.
	It's holding the elected to account that's important, and this is exactly how to do it best.
	And that's totally right.
	That's why we didn't go for a party.
	It's because, you know, what people in this country are crying out for, and which really nowhere is offering them outside of places like Lotus Cedars and others in the alternative media space, is a mouthpiece.
	It's a voice so that those in power can hear it.
	And of course, we are uniquely positioned, because Rupert is in Parliament, to actually hold the government's feet to the fire and to present the perspective of the actual will of the British people inside the halls of power.
	Because it's one thing to shout from the outside, and that certainly has its place.
	But to be inside, I mean, that's a different ballgame entirely.
	He's got great opportunities that he'll have, limited because of obviously the size.
	He's not in a group.
	But you can hold events in Parliament, which, you know, without being without and outside of it, if you're in another political party that's not in power, you don't have that small element of influence.
	And that brings more credibility.
	George Happ says, I fully support the Restored Britain initiative.
	Thank you.
	I like that the policies are open to vote by the members.
	I'm not too keen on the death penalty and banning the burqa.
	I don't trust the state with the former EU segment.
	And I want the normies to see how many Muslims are in the country.
	So, yeah, I mean, this is the point of the organisation, though.
	I mean, we are saying to you, tell us what you think of these things, because then we'll tell the government what you think of these things.
	And I understand both of those criticisms of those policies.
	But this is the point.
	Restore Britain is not saying this is what the country needs.
	I mean, well, to a certain extent, we are.
	We're suggesting that these things are necessary.
	I do support the death penalty and I do support Bandon de Burke.
	But we are saying, look, this is what we think, but tell us what you think.
	And then we'll tell the government what you think.
	So Justin B says, I hope that Rupert's vetas are good.
	With such an open joining process and the promise that votes determine policy, I can see a lot of Lester.
	Yeah, I mean, I've covered that already, I think.
	Omar Awad says, remember, government, that restore Britain is the peaceful option.
	And this is so right.
	I mean, you know, yeah, I'm not being funny.
	We're on a very limited time scale in Britain with, you know, essentially before we go to hell in a handcart, more so than we already are now.
	And it becomes all but impossible to use the political democratic levers at our disposal to, you know, to save the country and to write the course of the country.
	And what Restore British Britain and what Restore Britain is, is the solution to that problem.
	And Lancelot says, perhaps Rupert should have called it the lowdown.
	Very good.
	Very funny.
	I do cover mine.
	Oh, also, on the Rumble thing, somebody called Accrual says, Charlie, can you convince Elon Musk to do this for the US, please?
	I think he's been.
	Is he talking about starting his own part?
	Yes, he is.
	He is talking about doing something similar, isn't he?
	Well, again, I mean, I can't help but think that the US system being very similar to our own, he'd actually be better off trying to do this same kind of thing.
	You and Elon talk often?
	Is it daily?
	Not that.
	I mean, he's a busy guy.
	But yeah, I mean, I've spoken to him.
	He could take five minutes for you now and again.
	Yeah, I've spoken to him on DMs on Twitter several times in the past, which is quite cool.
	Cool.
	Right.
	Tom Harris asks, opinions on closed-ended investment trust funds, Dan?
	Well, very similar to open-ended funds, except they can trade at a premium or a discount.
	So it is an additional factor to take into account.
	But one way you could use that, I suppose, is, say, a closed-ended investment trust, which was an income-generating fund.
	If that fell to a discount, you'd get a better yield on it.
	So it's an additional thing to think about.
	Henry Ashman says, getting rid or slashing cash ISIS is truly bonkers.
	Moving things to stocks and shares ICE is a lot harder to pull the money from as and when you need it, as there's a lot more risk associated with it, or certainly volatility.
	I suspect stocks and shares ISIS will then be revamped along the lines of pensions where the government is looking to force all the pensions into super pensions.
	I fully expect there'll be new legislation to restrict stocks and shares ICEs to be in super funds the government controls and spat it up the wall.
	Yeah, so it's a way of, I mean, Tony Blair's been talking about that angle a lot of force people to invest in your funds and then use it for things that you want to do.
	Yeah.
	That's right.
	He has.
	Something yours, Stephen?
	Yeah, it's just trying to see what have we got down there.
	I think it's that the EU is the evil stepmother of the fairy tales made into an institution, suffocating her children with false love and infinite worry, says the Roman Observer.
	Then we've got Omar Amwad, who's got, in Soviet Europe, USSR impersonates EU.
	Past authoritarians could only dream of the kind of total control digital systems give government authorities over populations.
	And I think that could be a very big worry for us in the future.
	And when we've got Roman Observer, the Wagner Group weaponizing migrants has been used like two years ago by the Italian anti-immigration government to use the EU lefty anti-Russian sentiment so we could do something to stop the boats, maybe.
	And finally, with Roman Observer, being honestly dictatorial is way too masculine for the EU.
	Well, that's the funny thing about the kind of totalitarianism that the EU represents.
	It's this kind of like feminine, like kind, smothering kind of totalitarianism.
	Like that woman who you had on the screen earlier.
	Yeah.
	You know, at the very least, the Soviet Union had the decency to give you like a Lavrentiy berrier or, you know, some like fuckish, awful looking guy.
	Like there's a there's an honesty to that.
	Yeah, there is.
	Sort of suffocating in your breasts.
	Right.
	I think that's us for time.
	So thank you guys.
	Thank you very much audience for join restore Bretton.
	Yes, do that.
	Do that.
	And also turn up for Stelios, Harry and Cole tomorrow.

▲