All Episodes
Previous Next
Plain Text
Feb. 2, 2023 - Uncensored - Piers Morgan
47:24
20230202_piers-morgan-uncensored-brexit-3-year-anniversary
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|

Time Text
Brexit's Economic Nightmare 00:14:42
Tonight on Piers Morgan Uncensored, Britain's economy is in the gutter.
Even Russia will grow faster than us this year.
Three years on today from Brexit, is that dream turning into a nightmare?
We'll debate.
Whilst a top US general criticises the British Army amid dire warnings of an ammunition shortage and a nuclear submarine fixed with superglue.
So is Britain still a top military power?
We'll hear from our Defence Secretary and one of our great generals.
Whilst Donald Trump vows to ban schools from teaching children about gender ideology as a landmark court case brings that ferocious debate to Britain.
So how young is too young for children to learn about things like gender and sex?
Live from London, this is Piers Morgan Uncensored.
Well good evening London, welcome to Piers Morgan Uncensored.
Nothing in living memory has done more to defy this country and define our politics than Brexit.
I didn't support it, but frankly I do understand why 17.5 million people did.
It wasn't as the critics said about bigotry, racism or hate in the most part.
It was about rolling the dice and striving for something better as they saw it, for our freedom and independence.
Project Fear warned the British people that their lives and their country would collapse if they dared to gamble on the unknown, and that's with Donald Trump and the US.
Many people answered back by saying the status quo wasn't good enough anyway.
The people promising the apocalypse were the same people who promised to make our lives infinitely better for years and failed.
But exactly three years on, it's time for some cold, hard truths.
The promises made pro-Brexit have also been broken.
This whole debate is about democracy.
Is it not time we took back control of our immigration policy?
Take back control of the £350 million that we send to the European Union every week.
The free trade agreement should be one of the easiest in human history.
The UK has voted to leave the European Union.
Let June the 23rd go down in our history as our Independence Day.
Brexit means Brexit and we are going to make a success of it.
We've got an oven-ready deal.
Put it in the microwave.
Anybody turn that microwave on?
Today the IMF said that the UK economy will shrink this year.
It will be worse off than any other significant economy, including Russia.
Think about that.
A nation pounded by sanctions, locked out of the global banking system, cast aside as the world's pariah, will grow faster than we will in the UK.
Britain's the only G7 economy that will actually shrink this year.
That's the forecast.
The US, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, they all had COVID lockdowns.
They're all battling the same cost-living crisis caused by Putin's war.
So why are we worse off?
Well, Bloomberg said today that Brexit's cost of the UK economy £100 billion a year.
The economy is 4% smaller than it would have been if it had never happened, they say.
So where are the benefits?
That's my big question.
Vote Leave promised £350 million a week for the NHS.
The NHS is on its knees.
Brexiteers said we'd take back control of our borders.
Well, that's not happening.
Immigration's rising.
The borders are in chaos.
Many industries are short of workers.
Ask anyone, in hospitality.
They said we'd strike lucrative trade deals across the world, not least with the US.
We haven't, have we?
Disarray over Northern Ireland, anger in Scotland attesting the very existence of the United Kingdom.
Britain, frankly, feels like a bit of a basket case lurching from shambles to chaos.
Maybe that's why a staggering new poll published by Unheard shows that 647 of the 650 UK constituencies now think Brexit was a mistake.
Having voted for remain, I backed Brexit in the end because I believe in democracy and the will of the people.
I didn't back the principle of it.
I just backed the principle of you give the people of the country what they voted for.
And the majority voted to leave the European Union.
But the will of the people... may now be changing.
Well, joining me now, clinical journalist Ava Santina, talk TV presenter Richard Tice, lawyer and activist Gina Miller, who took the government to call over the Brexit process and won twice, and the founder of the Black Pharma and Brexit backer, Wilfred Emmanuel Jones.
So welcome to all of you.
Richard Tice, here's my problem with Brexit.
I wanted it to work.
Didn't vote for it.
Wasn't completely sure, if I'm honest.
It was a complex debate.
Understood a bit of both sides, but in the end, voted remain.
Once I knew my side had lost, I voted for democracy.
I voted actually for Boris Johnson's Conservative Party because they were the only party in that election that said they would honour the result of the referendum.
I thought that was more important than anything else.
But as we sit here three years on from it actually coming into fruition, I'm really struggling to see any of the benefits that we were promised.
And in fact, all I'm seeing is the opposite.
That it's become a millstone around this country's net.
Right.
Great intro.
Lovely.
Look, the first major benefit...
Am I wrong?
No, you're completely wrong.
But the first major benefit was the vaccine rollout.
Literally, Brexit saved lives because we ordered the vaccines.
It's the truth, Gina.
You know it.
No other EU country.
Can we please like?
No, no, no.
No, Gina, it's the truth.
No other EU country.
Okay, wait a minute.
Completely explain why it's not fair.
Can I explain why?
Here's how it's been.
It's not true.
That's even faster than I thought.
It's not true.
Okay, wait a minute.
Here's what we're going to do.
Let Richard say what he thinks happened.
Okay, on the vaccines.
And on the vaccine, then you can immediately respond.
And by the way, I do know what happened.
It'll be very interesting how this plays out.
Richard.
So, on the vaccines, we were able to order the vaccines early because we made the decision not to join the EU's own vaccine acquisition.
Whereas some of the other countries, like Germany, like the Netherlands, they wanted to order their own vaccines and they were stopped by Brussels.
That's what happens on the other side.
That's not true for three reasons.
One is we were in the transition period, so we were still under EU law.
Secondly, no country, not even us or existing members, had to join the joint scheme.
That was not part of the agreement.
The reason they did was not for sovereignty and was not for law.
The EU countries decided for technical and medical reasons not to actually join the rollout vaccines and not to go the route we did.
It had nothing to do with sovereignty and it had nothing to do with law.
It's funny, isn't it?
And it had nothing to do.
I'm sorry, it's the truth.
We were under EU law at the time.
We were in the transition.
And who ended up with the fastest vaccine?
The UK did it.
Save lives, Brexit slave life.
But the reality is that, but that was not because of Brexit.
That's the lie.
It's funny, isn't it?
How all the other EU 27, they all had their own acquisition.
But we could have done it without being in the EU.
Ava, Ava.
No, but just the fact is we didn't need to be in the EU.
We could have done exactly the same way.
But we wouldn't have done.
None of the other countries did.
The problem with the Brexit discussion is that your argument is steeped in ideology and it's steeped in an ideology that harks back from 1950.
And the problem with 1950 is that we had the empire and we were able to pillage other countries and we were able to take labour in from other countries.
But nowadays, but nowadays, we have to go and entice people to come and work here.
And our services do not function if we can't bring people in.
What about getting our own people to work?
We've got five million people.
I hate that.
It's such a silly argument.
It's not, it's absolutely right.
There is not a restaurant owner in the country who won't tell you that Brexit's been a disaster for recruiting staff holding staff.
But hang on, Pizza, we've just had record lawful immigration of over a million people last year.
We haven't got a people shortage.
We've got a willing worker shortage because we are truly highly taxed in this country.
What the Tories have utterly failed to do, if you're going to do a job, do it please.
Give me two other benefits of Brexit.
We should have cut taxes.
No, give me two other benefits.
Other daft EU.
Two other benefits of having...
They haven't done this in the same way.
There's that law now attacks.
So when we say, Richard, haven't we got a platform?
Hang on.
Hang on.
You can't, on the one hand, say that my monologue was very eloquent but completely wrong when I say where are the benefits of Brexit.
And then when I pin you to the ground and say, well, what are these benefits?
You say, well, they haven't happened yet.
Because they haven't taken advantage of the business.
So I'm right then.
I'm not wrong.
I'm right.
Look, the point is...
There have been no discernible benefits.
So far, but the opportunity is still there.
So how can you say I'm completely wrong?
What I said was...
I'm actually completely right.
The point is that the country.
It's a bit like that picture of Prince Andrew in the bathroom to prove that he couldn't have got up to anything in the bath.
All it did was prove the opposite.
But you're then saying after three years, therefore, that means we should stop and we should go.
No, no, that's why you're in the middle of the day.
No, nobody's saying that.
Here's what I'm asking.
Here's what I'm asking.
Gina, I want you to come in here.
Here's what I'm asking.
At what point, if we do not see discernible benefits, and we see a lot of negatives.
Negatives.
Well, a lot of negatives.
Gina will explain them in a moment.
But at what point do we as a country, if it looks more and more like an act of self-harm, do we at the very least consider going back to the country and asking the country what they think?
Because if that unheard map looks right, then that looks like a lot of people are having buyers' remorse.
No, I don't agree with you on that.
I think that it was so destructive.
Where we are at the moment is that we have to limit the damages being done.
Because the idea, some people say that we could actually, it will get better in 10, 15, 20, whenever it is years.
That's not going to help people now who are suffering.
That's not going to help people who are using food banks.
No second referendum.
No, no second referendum.
But all the tools.
Period, right?
None.
What we need to do is fix the deal we have.
And actually, forget about single market going back in, renegotiating any other deal.
Everything we have to do is already in the existing agreements that we signed.
Both sides signed up to the Trade and Cooperation Agreement and the Northern Ireland Protocol.
Both of those bills, those acts and treaties and agreements are international, actually have clauses in them that could fix the things that are not working.
But the problem is there's no political will on any party at the moment to go back.
All the clauses are there.
We've just got to.
We've just published an opinion from two of the leading lawyers in the EU called Addressing Brexit Problems.
It's on our True and Fair Party website.
It says exactly the clauses and how you can fix them.
Okay, so is your view then that Brexit could work if they fix all the clauses?
No, what I'm saying is we have to go sector by sector around the country.
But do you think it could still work, Brexit?
We have no choice.
Well, we have a choice.
What's the choice?
Well, listen, we had a choice because in the space of 40 years, we made one choice and then made the opposite choice.
But you're not going to let us back in.
And it takes about 40 years ask you.
Well, actually, I'm not so sure about that.
I want to bring in the man who hasn't spoken yet.
We've been waiting very patiently.
So Wilfred Emmanuel Jones, the black farmer from Chippenham.
You've been listening to this, Wilfred.
I think you voted Brexit.
You've been a staunch supporter of it.
But how are you feeling today, three years on from it coming into play, given all the negative vibes about Brexit now?
Poor Richard is being given a bit of a kicking.
But I just think that's what I mean.
He wiped out my entire monologue.
No, he doesn't.
No, no, he doesn't deserve it because I think what everybody's forgetting, any change involves pain.
Those of us who were Brexiteers, we cannot stand here and say, actually, we are now at this particular moment seeing the benefit.
It does not mean that in another five, ten years we will then see the benefit.
Is that anything is going to actually determine some having some faith that the decision we made three years ago will pay off?
Sometimes the strongest thing a country can do or leaders can do is just admit when they got something wrong.
They don't have to be demonized for it.
We don't have to demonize people who vote for it.
But my question really is, this clock, is it open-ended?
Does it go on forever?
If in 10 years' time Brexit has been a demonstrable disaster, do we just carry on?
Piers, let me talk.
Yes, Wilfred.
What I'm saying is that it's unfair to judge people three years in.
I think we were having this conversation in five, ten years time.
Oh, yes, really.
Because we don't really have the freedom yet that we actually voted for.
If we can't even sort out the immigration, we've actually had five or ten years ago.
We've actually had, I would say, about eight years, right?
Because we had a year before the referendum to get our ducks in a row about what Brexit would look like.
The referendum happened in 2016.
It's now 2023.
It's not three years, is it?
It's eight years we've had.
And so an eight-year period, we now have to accept as we sit here, nothing's working.
Even Richard Tyson loves it.
But that's got nothing to do with it.
It's because of the energy crisis.
It's because of the inflation.
That's ridiculous.
That's nothing to do with the problem.
That is not what.
Come on, Piers, you know that.
Don't confuse people.
I will not be disingenuous and say I don't think they're all contributing factors.
But I also know that there are specific issues about Brexit, which people will tell me who run restaurants and bars and all these things.
They all say that Brexit has been a massive problem for them with staff.
All of them say the same thing.
There's two other things that Brexit has done.
One is it has caused a labour shortage.
Yes, we might get to somewhere.
But record immigration last year.
It will not be a labour shortage.
It's a willing worker shortage.
No, that's the country is facing.
No, because the people we've got.
We've had more than a million people.
It's the highest immigration.
I know that.
I know the people.
No, I haven't.
I haven't agreed with you on that.
What I've said is they're not the people we need who are the people who are in the world.
All the wrong sort of people have come into the country.
They are the people who left who are not picking fruit, who are not working in the care service, who've left the NHS, who are not in hospitality.
Every area is suffering.
But the thing that I get so upset about in all of this is that Wilfrid says, you know, five, ten years.
What about the businesses that are going to go on in that time?
What about the people who are going to die because there's nobody to care for them in the community?
What about the children who have no teachers?
We can't wait to fix these things.
Russia's Nuclear Threats 00:10:43
Why can't we just go to the bottom of the bank?
And that will take time.
That's not a bad idea.
But it will take a lot of time.
It's a great idea.
Look after the British people.
Richard, is there a moment with British people?
Is there a moment for you where if it demonstrably has not worked, you would say, okay, it hasn't worked?
No, because look.
Or is it just never ending?
Let me repeat what I just said, Piers.
The challenges the country is facing in terms of high energy prices, high taxes.
Except all those.
The high cost of you has got nothing whatsoever to do with Brexit.
You are deliberately conflating and confusing the two to suit your own argument.
Let me just remind you.
Let me just remind you, hang on.
I would argue that I would argue those IMF numbers today make...
The worst forecast.
Okay, but if you take the numbers at face value today, what they show is that we are underperforming a number of other senior countries in the G7 who all face the same challenges.
All face COVID, all faced a war in Ukraine.
The common theme for them is that none of them had the additional problem of Brexit, which may explain why we are currently bottom of the class.
Yeah, I just think it's obvious, isn't it?
If you don't have trading links, where you suddenly have a true trade, Richard.
We haven't got an American trade deal.
We're nowhere near it.
Hang on.
But Piers, who have we got the biggest trading surplus with?
The United States.
Right?
Right.
We've got anti-trade deals.
We've got the central trade deals.
It's our biggest surplus.
It's our biggest single trading partner.
Have you read about our trading surplus?
Wow.
And we've got a big trading surplus with them.
Which we have to pay for.
That cost businesses distortion.
Exports have increased by 16% since the end of the transition period.
Ramonas and Remainers don't like to talk about it.
It doesn't help anybody.
Let me bring in Wilfred in.
Let me ask Wilfred specifically.
No, we haven't.
Wilfrid, are there any farmers that you've come across who genuinely believe Brexit has been brilliant for their business?
At the moment, most people will tell you that Brexit has not been good for their business.
But you don't make decisions.
But hold on.
But hold on.
But you do not make decisions based on the pain that you're feeling today.
It's about having faith that the decision that we made three years ago in the long term is going to be a benefit.
We are a lot longer than three years ago.
That's my point.
We made a decision in 2016.
It actually only came into reality.
Yeah, but we've had eight years to get this right.
It's not a three-year thing, is it?
No, no, no.
You're going back to your thing about sort of the small thing.
Gina, final word to you.
The other thing that Brexit has done is that people don't want to invest in our country because we're not seen as a stable, credible political system.
We can't deal with crisis.
And that's why we're not getting inward investment.
And that's going to affect growth.
And people don't.
Well, it doesn't help when you have to.
That's what I'm saying.
So I think Brexit is...
Because we're raising taxes when we should be cutting them.
We should be going for growth.
We're not raising them.
You've got to cut.
You've got to cut.
Liz Truss is not.
We have not got a credible country.
People don't believe in us.
They don't have confidence.
Right, that's our point.
It's one of the reasons that Rishi Sunak is slightly hesitant about that is that he campaigned on not doing that against Liz Truss.
She campaigned on being the fairy godmother, cutting everyone's taxes.
And the whole thing was a complete disaster.
You're saying how she was going to fund it.
Of course, if you're going to cut taxes and go for growth, you say, are you going to fund it?
Got to leave it there.
Gina, thank you.
We're losing you.
I appreciate it.
Wilfrid, thank you.
We're losing you.
Fortunately, we're keeping Richard Dice, who's very fired up this evening.
So we'll get him on this.
And Ava, you're staying around as well.
Next tonight, a top US general warns the British Army is no longer a top-level fighting force.
Is he right?
Should we send Richard Tice, perhaps, to any front line right now?
We'll debate with the former head of the British Army, Lord Dannett, next.
Still the company, Donald Trump running for president again wants to ban gender ideology being taught in schools and this week of South London Primary School is in court letting the kids participate in a pride gay parade.
It's a debate raging here and in the US.
How young is too young to be talking about issues like trans, gender identity and gay sex.
We'll debate all that.
But first, a worrying warning from a senior US general this week who claims the British Army isn't fit for purpose and may not be able to protect the UK from Russian aggression.
Is he right?
Well, Ava and Richard are still with me.
I'm delighted to be joined by the former head of the British Army, Lord Dannett.
Lord Dannett, great to see you.
Happy 2023.
It's our first encounter of the new year.
Pretty sobering reading this.
I have to say, as someone who's had family in the military in recent years myself, to see the British Army described in that way was a bit disconcerting.
What were your thoughts?
Well, the anonymous American general isn't actually far wide of the mark, as Ben Wallace and James Heapey, the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, have both acknowledged.
I mean, the fact of the matter is that the army has received the lowest priority in terms of Ministry of Defense spending for the last 10 to 15 years.
Huge history of underinvestment.
So therefore, it's not surprising that our capability is not what we would wish it to be.
It's a matter of government choice, it's a matter of Ministry of Defence choice, and then eventually when push comes to shove, you have to deal with the consequences.
But, you know, as long as the position is now being realized, there is the chance for Ben Wallace to argue the case for greater resources for defence to try and up the investment as quickly as possible.
What did you make of Boris Johnson saying that Vladimir Putin had basically threatened him with a missile?
Interesting, Piers.
I've heard Boris say quite a lot of things over the years.
Whether he misheard that on the telephone call with Vladimir Putin, I don't know.
I mean, the fact of the matter is that there is an accepted international code of conduct between international leaders that they don't take each other out.
So I think we take that half seriously and half with a pinch of salt.
It was a good Boris line.
It caught a good headline.
And I think let's just move on.
Are you suggesting that our recently dearly beloved departed Prime Minister can't be entirely relied upon when it comes to veracity of his rhetoric?
Oh, I wouldn't suggest that, Piers.
But what I would say is that it was quite colourful.
It was very Boris.
And I'm sure it was rooted in a grain of truth, but it may have been slightly overexemplified to catch the headlines, which it duly did.
We're now at a crucial stage in this war in Ukraine, coming up to the first anniversary.
Isabel Oksha, our international editor at Talk TV, she interviewed Ben Wallace, Defence Secretary.
We've got this particular clip to play to you.
If you just want to listen to this.
Sure.
How seriously do you take the threat that he might use tactical nuclear weapons?
Well, it is always a serious threat simply because it is in Russian doctrine.
They have an acceptable view that you can have such a thing as a strategic nuclear weapon and a tactical nuclear weapon.
And their idea of a tactical nuclear weapon can be 10 times the size of Hiroshima.
I mean, that's, again, a sobering statement for the Defence Secretary to make.
What is the likelihood or possibility that a cornered Vladimir Putin, if he feels like he is losing this war with all the dishonor that would then be heaped on him back home, that he might be tempted to utilize what is still the biggest nuclear force in the world?
Well, Piers, let's just put Ben Wallace's comment into context.
If a tactical nuclear weapon was 10 times the ferocity of Hiroshima and unleashed on Ukraine, Ukraine would then join Pluto and Mars somewhere in the stratosphere.
I mean, that's just not going to happen.
If we're talking about genuine tactical nuclear weapons, we're talking about a nuclear weapon which could cause destruction and damage over, say, a three to five kilometre area.
Now, how could that be employed?
Let's just go back to last autumn when the Ukrainians mounted a very successful counter-offensive around Kharkiv and they broke through the Russian lines.
That is the moment that if you're desperate, you then consider using a tactical nuclear weapon.
But just think about this one for a moment.
Those four provinces into which the Ukrainians are now counter-attacking, those four provinces were declared by Putin to be forever Russia.
So here's the question.
Why would Putin want to irradiate for the next 50 years some territory that he's declared forever Russia?
It just doesn't stack up.
Should the Ukrainians give one inch of any of their territory, including Crimea, which was seized from them illegally in 2014, and all the latest geographic grabs that Putin's made, should they cede any of this in any kind of deal?
Because they seem very determined not to.
No, I think the whole thing about this conflict now is that there is no basis for a resolution through negotiation.
Zelensky's position is quite clear that every inch, every kilometre of Ukrainian sovereign territory should be Ukrainian.
Putin, on the other hand, has got to show something that he has gained out of the war.
He's got to gain some part of Ukrainian territory.
So their positions are irreconcilable.
Therefore, you have to come back to the conclusion that the only way this conflict is going to be resolved is on the battlefield, which is why it's really important that we have continued to supply Ukraine not only with weapons so they don't lose the war, but to give them the chance in a counter-offensive later this year to win this war.
And can they win it, General?
Can they win it?
Well, I don't know what's going to happen, but I would hazard that from all the evidence that we're seeing, the Russians having mobilised a lot of additional soldiers, 100,000,000, maybe 200, poorly trained, poorly equipped, very poorly led, and terribly motivated, may well launch a new offensive.
On the evidence of all that we've seen since the 24th of February, that offensive will fail in a very bloody way, with a lot of Russian families having tragedies on their doorstep.
At that point, the Ukrainians need to launch a counter-offensive with the additional weapons that we have given them and the training we've given them with their determination to fight for their own country.
Land War in Europe 00:02:59
And they could strike a number of successive blows, which could break the morale of the Russian soldier and the backbone of the Russian army.
Then it's game over for Putin, game over for Russia, and we're in a whole new ball game.
Finally, if Rishi Sumak is watching this, and I'm sure he will be, I'm sure he's an avid viewer of Piers Morgan uncensored.
If not, he should be, Prime Minister.
If he is, what is your message to him about our own armed forces and what he should be doing to bolster them?
Well, the thing about our own armed forces is, notwithstanding what the American general said, rubbishing our army, our army is made up of fantastic people who are well-led and well-motivated, but they've got pretty old and pretty equipment, not across the peace, but in many areas.
The thing is that the army has had the lowest priority in defence spending for quite some years.
So two things have got to happen, one or the other.
Either priorities in the Ministry of Defence have got to change to up the priority of the army and allocate more money to the army, our land forces.
Let's face it, there's a land war going on in Europe that actually makes the case.
Or otherwise, Ben Wallace has got to argue the toss with Rishi Sunak and Jeremy Hunt that the defence budget has got to go up from 2% of GDP to 2.5% that Boris was talking about to 3% that Liz Truss was talking about.
But currently it's pinned back to 2%.
Actually, I think there's a very strong case to say with a land war in Europe threatening the security of Europe, threatening our security, that actually the defence spend should go up from 2% to at least 2.5% and a fair amount of that extra spend be spent on renewing, refurbishing, bringing up to the 21st century our land warfare capability.
I've just thought of another final question actually while I've got you, because I haven't heard you react yet to the revelations in Prince Harry's book that he killed 25 Taliban and wondered, and since you obviously knew Harry quite well and were the head of the British Army at the time this was all going on, what your reaction was to him saying that.
Well, Piers, it's a great question, and I thought you probably would ask it, but I'm afraid I'm going to say what I've said about 50 times to other people who've asked me to comment.
I'm not commenting on any of the Prince Harry stuff.
So, Piers, good question, well asked.
No answer from Dannett.
You're showing an admirable discretion.
If only young Harry would do the same, Lord Dannett, great to talk to you.
Thanks, Piers.
Quick reaction from the pack.
I could interview General Dannett for hours.
He's such a smart guy, but your reaction to what he said there.
So the difficulty is when he thinks that Russia may essentially lose on the battlefield, but I can't see Putin surrendering.
And this is why I'm so worried about that we end up in a forever war where he just keeps sending bombs and shells, just flattening the place more and more in a sort of long-term blitzkrieg, which is all just awful.
Which is his way, right, Avra.
I mean, this is what he's done throughout his tenure.
Pride Parades and Schools 00:08:13
This is how he grinds people down.
And he hopes we all get bored and move on.
Yeah, absolutely.
I mean, that was incredibly sobering listening to that.
But I think there's one really important thing that Geev Hofstad said, actually, which is that Putin may not have even invaded Ukraine had Europe not been in political chaos.
And so that might be an argument.
In fact, he said only yesterday, didn't he?
He said that he thought that within five years, it's feasible that both the UK would return to the EU and Ukraine would also come back in.
Absolutely.
It's got nothing to do with the EU.
What it's all to do with is NATO.
It's interesting, isn't it?
Putin hasn't invaded any of the other eastern states where NATO, where those states join NATO.
The only one he invaded was Ukraine, not a member of NATO.
You have to stand up to a bully.
Do you trust him?
Putin, of course not.
Just the most appalling dictator that we've seen in our lifetime.
Thank you, Pac.
Stay with me.
Coming up next, how young is too young to learn about transgender identity and sex?
Is four?
Too young?
I would say that is too young.
We'll debate that after the break.
Welcome back to Pearson Bogan.
Census to come tonight.
Burbury's Valentine's Day advert is accused of glamorising spectamies.
Should brands be activists like this or just think to selling handbags?
We'll debate that later.
But first, she's been nicknamed Christian Mum.
Izzy Montague launched legal action in 2019 against her son's London School over an LGBT pride parade.
Tomorrow her case goes to court.
It's the first case of its kind in the UK.
She will claim a prime parade held at the school promoted gay lifestyles and indoctrinated children.
And her child was four at the time.
It's a debate raging on both sides of the Atlantic.
In the US, 78% of parents do not believe sexual orientation or gender identity should be taught to young children.
And now Donald Trump has, of course, got involved and said it's going to be a central part of his bid to return to the White House, branding gender ideology a cult.
We're going to stop the left-wing radical racists and perverts who are trying to indoctrinate our youth.
And we're going to get their Marxist hands off of our children.
We're going to defeat the cult of gender ideology and reaffirm that God created two genders called men and women.
Well, Avra, I can feel bristling to my side here.
Joined also by Paula Renadrian, who's also bristling.
I don't know, probably nodding away.
Also with me now is LGBT rights campaigner Peter Thatcher and the Fox News contributor Tommy Lehrer.
Well, welcome a stellar panel, I've got to say, for this.
All right, Tommy Lehran, let me start with you.
Because it's been a big burning issue in America now, raging away for quite some time.
It's one of the reasons I think that Ron DeSantis, the governor of Florida, has seen such surging popularity, potentially heading him to the White House in this battle over what you can teach at school with young people in relation to this kind of thing.
What is your view?
Listen, we do not need to be teaching this radical LGBT grooming agenda in schools.
It's one thing if parents want to do that on their own time, that is a parent's right to do that, with some exceptions, of course.
But to bring this in and bake this into a public school curriculum is wrong.
And meanwhile, Chinese students are learning quantum physics, and we've got our students learning how to twerk from drag queens.
It's not going to end well.
This is grooming.
This is ideological mind control.
It's introducing this to a group of individuals, especially to young kids who have no business learning any of this sexually explicit material.
This is not about being anti-gay or as they incorrectly labeled Rhonda Sanders' bill, don't say gay.
This is about keeping this out of the classroom because it does not belong there.
This is a grooming agenda.
It is extreme.
It is explicit.
It does not belong in front of young children at their school.
They should be learning reading, writing and arithmetic, not this filth.
Right, but I think you've made your position quite clear there, Ms. Lehran.
I imagine, Beta Tatchel, you agree with every word of that.
Well, here in Britain, we know from research that nearly half of all lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender pupils in our schools have been bullied.
Bullied, teased, sometimes subjected to physical violence simply because of their sexuality or their gender identity.
So this education in British schools is designed to combat bullying and to promote understanding and acceptance.
None of the teaching in British schools is sexually explicit, nor is any of the material in United States schools.
It is all about promoting understanding and tolerance.
So what's just been said is a complete misrepresentation of the teaching.
And I think that any parent would want their child to be brought up in a school where understanding and acceptance of difference is valued, where people are not bullied because of their sexuality.
Okay, here's what I would say to that, Peter.
Look, I don't disagree with some of what you just said.
I think the issue here is age.
I've got four kids.
You've all gone through, obviously, all this.
I just think the idea that at four any child should be exposed to anything like this is ridiculous.
I really do.
There's nowhere near old enough to understand or even begin to understand any of the stuff that is being taught in this way.
So although this woman in this court case did this on religious grounds, she's a Catholic and this is what her, you know, she believes her religion has taught her to believe.
That's one debate.
But actually the wider debate for me is what age should we be teaching kids about things like gender identity and should they be compelled to go on pride parades and so on at the age of four?
I don't think so.
No one is compelling any child to go on a pride parade anywhere, not in school, not in the street, nowhere.
And when it comes to teaching, the teaching is not about sex at a young age.
It's about relationships and the fact that some kids will be in married heterosexual families, some will be in single families, some will be in extended families and some will be in same-sex families.
It's all about different families that kids in our schools are part of.
And of course, all those kids should feel loved and appreciated.
The essence of this teaching is about love and respect for other people.
It's not about sex at all.
Okay, let's bring in the panel here.
Paula?
Good evening.
I completely agree with Peter and I'm really concerned that a commentator could use the words radical and grooming when we're having a very sensible conversation about helping children to understand who they are.
Well, as we saw that poll, 78% of Americans would share a lot of the views that Tommy Lehron expressed there.
They do not want to see kids age four getting bombarded with this kind of ideology at school.
But what kind of ideology?
What exactly are we talking about?
And if you listen to Peter, he's a little bit more...
Well, I'll give you an example.
When you start teaching kids, I mean, the BBC, for example, had one of their teaching videos, said there were over 100 genders.
The BBC should not be teaching children.
There are 100 genders.
One of them was astragender, which is an affinity with the stars, right?
The ones flying around the moon.
So I'm sorry.
I do actually think that children should not be exposed to that kind of clamp.
Can we teach the curriculum?
Can we let children be children?
Particularly at that age.
Which if they're growing up in households.
There's an age, there's an approach to their family.
And let their families have the convictions they feel they should have.
We are desperately concerned about what is being taught in primary school.
And the truth is, we don't know what's being taught.
You have just heard about the high percentage of children who suffer bullying, who are vulnerable, where safeguards are.
That's about very relevant to their tolerance and empathy that's got nothing to do with gender ideology and having a pride parade.
Gender Ideology Debate 00:10:45
That's what this is about.
It's not about being proud to be gay.
It's about being proud to be able to be able to get away from the continuity.
It's going to be tolerance and understanding, but not at four, five, six, seven.
We actually do do that.
Aside from all of this, we actually teach sex quite explicitly in heterosexual relationships from a really young age.
You actually have children in nativity plays where you're playing a mother who has an immaculate conception and then gives birth to a baby.
What are you teaching about?
You're talking about that.
As I have done four times, how kids have appeared in these things before?
They haven't got a Scooby-Doo or any of that.
Well, I grew up Catholic and I knew what sex was from a very young age.
Well, I'm sure you did.
What's the purpose of that story?
The purpose of that story is love.
The purpose of that story is bringing people together.
And that is what the four-year-old is being.
I want to bring back Tommy Lehren here because we've had a really scandalous case in the last few days, Tommy, here in the UK, of a transgender person who committed two rapes when identifying as a man, rapes of women.
And before the court case started, it had transitioned to become a woman and then was tried under a female name.
And then when he was convicted, this person, I'm using that term deliberately, I think, because I'm unconvinced by this transition process.
When this person was then convicted, the Scottish government had brought in a law which allowed this trans person to then be put into a woman's prison as a woman who had literally got a penis and raped two women.
So not only were they being punished by being put into a place where they could attack other women, but they were being treated as if they were legitimately exactly the same as a woman born to a female biological body.
What do you make of that?
Piers, you're wrong.
You're wrong.
Yeah, this is a problem that we are encountering.
Okay, Peter, Peter, I'll come to you.
Well, Peter, you can correct me.
All right, well, hang on, let's go to Peter first.
Correct me on what I said that was wrong.
She was put into a woman's prison, but in a segregation unit where she had no contact with other women.
But she shouldn't have been put in there at all.
A raper should never have contact or be a potential risk to other women.
She's now been moved to a male prison, quite rightly.
And again, she will have no contact with women.
Why do you say she has been moved to a male prison quite rightly, though?
Because that immediately to me sounds incredibly confusing.
You're saying she, so you presumably think that she is a woman, and yet she is being moved to a male prison because nobody else actually now thinks she is actually a woman.
She's a man with a penis who raped two women.
I mean, that's the reality.
Even her ex, or his or her or purse, whatever, their ex-wife said that this is all a complete scam to game the system and get into a softer prison.
Well, I think you're probably right.
I think it does look like the person is gaming the system.
But, you know, the fact is that the transfer to a woman's prison was not based on any new law introduced by the Scottish Government.
It was based on existing policy, which was to respect a person's gender identity, but not, under any circumstances, put someone who'd committed crimes against women in contact with other women, and that's why she was in a segregation unit.
Yeah, look, I don't think what I said was wrong, because by new law, by new law, I meant this is a law that's come in in recent years, which allowed that gender identity to be enforced in the way that it was enforced.
And I, Tommy Lehron, I just have a massive problem with people.
This is what I've been saying from the start about this trans debate.
The moment you open the door to this kind of abuse by people, it will happen.
You know, it's a bit like cheating in sport.
Once you allow it, everyone starts to cheat, right?
You're going to get a load of people who, you know, male rapists, male sex offenders.
What's utopia for them if they get convicted?
Being taken from a men's prison where they're pariahs and put into a woman's prison surrounded by people they can attack.
But there are over 200 people.
Yeah, so I want to be very clear about this.
Not everybody who is transgender does something like this.
My turn to talk.
Not everybody who is transgender is going to do something like this, but you're opening the door for this.
And even beyond that, well, we're not even talking about a women's or a men's prison.
Let's just talk about here in the USA, and I know in the UK as well, when they're having biological men compete in women's sports, using the same locker rooms, exposing themselves to the female athletes that are often in high school.
It's inappropriate.
It doesn't belong in schools.
It doesn't belong in society.
This free-for-all you can identify as anything.
You can abuse the system.
You can abuse this whole notion of gender identity.
It's gone too far.
And to even criticise it now has been labeled bigotry.
It's not.
It's reality.
We need to protect people.
We need to especially protect young people.
Well, I actually agree with all that.
Peter Tatchell, I mean, I've been watching some interviews you've been doing.
I do think you've been on a mission of discovering yourself about the perils here of this, particularly in this case in Scotland, of this rapist.
But if I was to ask you now a question which has become the most dangerous controversial question in the world for some reason, what is a woman to you?
A trans woman is a woman, but not the same as biological women.
There's a difference between biological sex and gender identity.
Both are equally valid.
Both equally deserve respect and equal rights.
There should not be a competition between biological women and trans women.
They both suffer from very elevated levels of domestic violence, sexual assault, including rape.
That applies to both trans women and other women as well.
So let's find the common ground rather than fighting each other.
The enemy is misogyny.
That's the enemy, not trans woman.
Well, I think the enemy is misogyny in many ways, but I think the enemy is also virtue signalling because the idea that you can let trans women who have massively superior physical bodies compete in professional sport against women born to female inferior physical bodies, I think is for the birds.
But we will, actually, that's an unfortunate turn of phrase.
No offense to anyone who's offended by my use of the word birds.
But thank you very much, Peter Tatchell.
Great to have you on the programme.
Thank you, Tommy Lehran.
see you.
Your pack, you're staying with me because after the break we're going to talk about Burberry going massively woke.
I'll talk to the neuroscientist, accusing them of glamorising breast removal.
Well welcome back.
Luxury Bram Burberry's also new campaign which has little to do with selling clothes but does sell an ideology features gender neutral models.
One of whom appears to be a post-operative trans man bearing scars on their chest from a double mastectomy.
Well my pack's still with me and I'm joined by Dr. Deborah So who's a neuroscientist and best-selling author of The End of Gender.
Well welcome to you Dr. So your thoughts on this Burberry campaign.
Well hi Piers, thank you so much for having me.
Well with this campaign I have to say we can't really say what Burberry's intentions were but I am very concerned about this larger trend of non-binary or of young women getting double mastectomies, presumably not for health conditions but rather for an aesthetic or because they like to live as a gender that is in between male or female or neither male or female.
There's no such thing as being non-binary or gender neutral.
There are two genders, two sexes.
I discussed the science of this in my book, The End of Gender, as you mentioned.
And I am very concerned because in many cases these young women have other psychological issues.
They have a history of sexual trauma.
In some cases they are on the autism spectrum.
They are lesbian and not comfortable with their sexuality.
Or in some cases they've gone through puberty and they're just not fully comfortable in their new more womanly body, which is completely normal.
And I would say every single woman on this planet has had that experience of being uncomfortable in her body at some point in time, especially considering society and the way that society tends to sexualize women, especially post-puberty.
These are all things that we should be talking about.
And especially for young women, we should be giving them that support.
They should be getting a proper psychological assessment before they are deciding on surgery.
And so I can't believe that we are now saying that as a society, yes, young women, if you are at all uncomfortable in your bodies, go ahead and cut off healthy tissue.
Right.
I mean, look, it's a powerful statement about this.
I just don't know, Richard, what are Burberry doing, getting into any of this anyway?
It just seems to be the ultra extreme end of the virtue signaling woke world, where who is this appealing to?
It's a tiny, tiny number of people.
I don't know, just look.
It's fashion company, aren't they?
Yeah, and I just thought the picture was awful, horrible.
What's the appeal of this?
I don't think you're the audience.
I'm not being rude.
I thought imagination is yours.
I think it's a beautiful piece of art, actually.
I think it's high culture.
And I think it's fashion.
I think it's exciting.
It's pushing boundaries.
It's on the border.
It's so tall, isn't it?
I think it looks better.
Actually, I think it's a lot of fun.
Wow, it's a split in the woke people.
Well, for a start, it's not woke.
This is nothing to do with being woke.
Well, it is actually.
It all comes down to what is it.
It's nothing about being awakened to an issue.
This is about fashion.
But when I was young, Burberry used to just basically sell clothes and they used regular ways to do it.
Size, who looked like they were on, you know, on drugs or whatever it is.
We are looking at the fashion industry as if they are some kind of moral code.
They are not.
They never have been.
They never will be.
This is about Burberry attempting to be a little bit controversial to get us all talking.
And then really what they're doing is they're making wonderful people placed in a dangerous situation.
I'm going to avoid the temptation to go to our fashion expert, Richard.
Final word to Deborah.
We've just got a few seconds left, but your final word after hearing a little debate there.
Well, when you look at the scientific research at the moment in terms of how clinicians are being advised, it really is what the patient wants.
So the patient wants to take a bit of hormone here, a little bit there, remove this body part, add this body part in order to live by this so-called non-binary aesthetic.
That is exactly what they should advise.
And also, from a scientific perspective, detransition tends to happen four years post-transition.
So we'll see what happens at the end.
Sam.
Run out of time.
Thank you.
I appreciate it.
That's all for tonight.
Keep it uncensored.
Whatever you're doing, I can try and get the words out.
Good night.
Thank you, everyone.
Export Selection