 If that's against freedom of speech then I'll happily stay as against freedom of speech. If having the press say lies to the people it's freedom of speech then I don't want to pardon it. Number of tabloids heavily promote the idea that leaving the EU will save the UK 350 million pounds a week. This is later proved to be inaccurate despite being influential in voting behaviour. It is argued that the media should be more heavily regulated and that charges should be bought on companies that promote fake news. Do you agree with the regulation? To calm down on media outlets for expressing a kind of an idea that that's a slip we slope. Does fake news qualify as an idea? Because if you're misquoting for example facts that is wrong that is just misinforming people and it's almost criminal. What's not? You would save 350 million pounds technically by leaving the EU. Through some weird mass the media should be hold like especially if they present something as a fact and not an idea you should be accountable for it. But it's up to the reader too. No information is too weaponised for it to be taken lightly like that. I think if you're in the media you're responsible and you have to take account for that responsibility. So if we clamp down on on on newspapers and things like that then it's only going to serve to empower these alternative forms of media that have grown in the last few years. Journalism in modern democracy is like the fourth face of democracy after the executive, the judiciary and the so all those three powers have checks on them. Why can the press not have a check? It's just unfair. But like then we already have like laws in place for this and that. No they should be probably more mindful but should it be like the business of the state to get into all of this? People who read the 300 million on the bus thing they might not necessarily even completely believe that. I think we potentially underestimate people in thinking that they that they are just so simple. All these leavers are so stupid that they read that and they went straight to the polls and just tick the box just like that. I think people tend to want to blame the media because it's it's it's an easy thing to blame. For me it's more systemic and it's more like the you know by like redoing the vote or editing newspapers are kind of just like tackling symptoms of the problem. The real underlying problem is that there are vast swathes of people in the country who are upset and and feel angry about the fact that their economic situation has effectively deteriorated in the last 20, 30 years. The UK actually gets more money from the EU than it actually gives it and that has been proof time and again so if you're talking about numbers that is a blatant lie. The statistics probably are a lie but the basic sentiment is what is convinced people and I don't think that that many people saw that figure and went straight to the polls based on that I think they were already going to do it. That was the core argument of the Leave campaign. It was made into something much bigger than it was because it was a lie and it's something that the remainers can jump on and say the whole campaign was false. To then say oh people being misled by that it's not it's that they actually firmly believe that it should be the British government who decides where the money goes and that they invest it in things that people care about like the NHS. I don't believe in no platforming. I don't think it's right to shut down avenues of opinion. I think you need to have an open discussion and not demonise people who fall into certain categories. At the same time I do believe that the media is powerful and can lead people to think the wrong things. Why isn't there a discourse around government policy or austerity? The stakes are much higher in developing countries do you know because fake news causes sometimes in countries like India it causes riots. People die because fake news spread through unregulated news channels and social media. Why are we talking about India and Brexit? If you believe that freedom of pressure should be defended then do you believe that it should only be defended inside the borders of the UK? I don't want to get drawn away from something that we weren't initially talking about. I mean it's not getting drawn away from it. It really is a crucial factor because are we saying that we want this press to be regulated only because of the Brexit campaign or do we say we want it to be regulated because it should be regulated. But doesn't it bother you guys to have state interference into press which is like basically like a pillar of freedoms? I really don't think it's state interference into press. It's just state this it's just there being laws about what you can say. You can say only things that are true. You can't claim something to be true when it isn't. It's very risky to put a mouthpiece over the press because all press is going to be biased in some way. To claim something is true when it isn't for me that it's really wrong and if that's against freedom of speech then I'll happily stay against freedom of speech. If having the press say lies to the people it's freedom of speech then I don't want to pardon it. The government begins a campaign to leave the EU following a narrow victory in a public referendum. However internal divisions in government and stored negotiations with the EU has led to cause for a second referendum. Pro-Lee voters call this a clear attempt to undermine democracy. Do you agree with the cause for a second referendum? I fundamentally believe that you need to give people the chance to change their mind and still the parties are split. You have the DUP who are not happy with the backstop so the whole island border is a huge issue which isn't being solved. I think if we want a kind of true answer we need to kind of put it back to the people. Yeah but that's not a good reason to call for a second vote. That's why you shouldn't have voted to leave. That's why people were telling you. It's like oh so guys we don't know how to do it so like are you sure? Question mark like it doesn't really work that way. There should never have been a referendum in the first place. But that's precisely the point. I don't think it is besides the point because I think it was Paulie thought out, Paulie campaign and as a result the results of it are illegitimate. The issue here is that then you're setting a very dangerous precedent going forward. The referendum initially was a particular side there. The precedent becomes when you tell the people actually you guys didn't vote right so voter gig. That is the precedent. That is very dangerous for a democracy. I think it's absurd to ask for a second referendum because the nature of referendums is that you have you decide in totality but then backtracking after having made a decision is it just shows lack of maturity in a democratic process. I disagree. It's like saying we shouldn't have elections every four years because you're just going to change your mind every time. If we don't have a second referendum then what is the solution to this? Crash out of it with no deal. Yeah you made your bed relying on it. Okay okay taking that sentiment. More people have made the bed of no deal. More people voted to have a dreadful exit from the European Union than did not want to leave. That's ridiculous. There's three parties here. There's people who want to remain. People who want no deal and people who want Theresa May's deal effectively. And the remain vote is the biggest of those three. As an EU citizen I think this is just kind of a way for the UK to put more pressure on the EU to try and find a deal. To try and find a deal with them and I don't think the EU should have to settle a deal with the UK. We've given what we believe our fair standards are fair standards for you guys to leave with a deal. You haven't accepted it. That's not our problem. How will the UK be perceived by the rest of the world? We're already having problems with people questioning democracy in the west. Do we really as westerners want to keep people questioning these democracies? If the politicians are doing their job properly in informing you know the population of what it is they're really voting for. I think it's fair to say oh you regret something. However the problem won't be solved by having just another re-vote. The problem will be solved once we start to change the structures that allow for this to happen in the first place. I mean it's funny that we go from a position in the last question where the referendum was completely flawed because of this disinformation and now we're holding up in different frames of some sort of bastion of democracy. The change needs to be in the structure of the campaign. That's where the change should have been. If you voted based on misinformation all that's telling me is that that misinformation shouldn't re-exist in the future. Now three years down the line when there's been huge amounts of negotiations and there are some like crucial points where the where people can't decide what's going to happen. For example the Irish border. Why can't that be enough reason for people to think actually maybe we should reassess our relationship with the EU? That's fine but not through a referendum. I'd rather have a series of makeup for general election. The Labour coming round. No no no wait for a second because I don't talk that much so let me talk. But like Labour come up and be like vote for us. We cancelled the whole Brexit thing. I think that's much more democratic than call for a second referendum. I think the ultimate thing is that there aren't equal relationships in the world and the EU is definitely a very kind of isolated exclusive bloc and stepping out of that would enable a different form of relationship to happen which would even the playing field because the EU is extremely strong and extremely powerful. It is like a very positive thing. Under EU law the UK cannot dictate the movement of EU citizens across its borders. Brexit campaigners argue that immigration should be dictated by politicians who are elected to represent British people not by politicians elected by nations from across Europe. They say that immigration is a valuable part of British culture but that there should be a limit and it should be dictated by Britain. Do you think Britain should control all immigration across its borders? EU only control part of the immigration policy of the country and on top of that I feel like we're pretty much like we're all pretty much aligned on what we want in terms of like rates of immigration and stuff like that. I think it's a very reasonable request for a sovereign nation to make that I want to control the people who come into my country. It is the idea that is being labeled as odd is absolutely normal outside the EU when you go to some other country you have to get away. This is an exception the EU thing is an exception. Well no I mean I think it's odd for the EU for EU citizens to be able to reside in a country that isn't theirs without having to go through any process. I don't think that there should be like regulations in sense of you know choosing selecting who gets to stay here because of what job they have but I mean I think there should be some sort of process for EU citizens to say well we're living here now I don't think that you know someone coming from Germany should be able to just decide overnight to come to France and be like okay I'm living here now. Ultimately it's anti-democratic so strip a nation of its power to control levels of immigration it's stripping it's preventing people of the democracy from having an effect on policy and policy that they consider to be extremely important. The concept of the EU right is like we get together we're under a union you give up obviously you're going to give up a part of your sovereignty over some sort of a common project a common freedom it's the price to pay I mean it's like very divided because I think people aren't able to understand each other. Whenever these kinds of feelings get in the way of people being able to live together that's where you draw the line and it's not good. I mean you're not losing sovereignty because we're still stronger together. You've got a vast number of people who feel like immigration is a massive issue and they can't articulate that because it's been removed from the national discourse then that's completely against the principles of sovereignty and the first chance to get to do something dangerous like leave the entire thing they use it so by stripping away these rights from these people you risk a further further destabilization down the line. But the problem is that it falls into this discourse that immigration is a bad thing that as soon as you. It is for some people. I don't think it is it's other things though about it's lack of government funding into local areas it's not immigration that is the problem but it's such an easy scapegoat so that's then to say oh let's take back our sovereignty and control immigration and all the problems will go away it's completely the wrong argument to have because actually EU migration that is like a very positive thing. The most important thing to take from this is that there are people who exist and they don't see things from your perspective. Very similar and we all really agree on a lot of things I think generally speak. Yeah I guess we're all limited from our own experience at the end of the day but that's what makes for a beautiful debate right?