 Let's move on to an event in June 2016, an event that we tried to prevent. We campaigned on the same side, what we at DM25 referred to in and against, in the EU, against ECU. This was the line that John McDonnell and I were peddling in Tonkoste, in Leeds, where we went and campaigned. You were accused of being sophisticated by the media. Being sophisticated? Yes. They didn't put it in those terms. That's a new one. I've never read that before. You had the official Remain campaign, which was infantilizing the British public with the Project Fear. And you had the official Leave campaign, which was infantilizing the British public with those monstrous claims as to what Brexit means for the country and the NHS and all that. You had Jeremy Corbyn and some of us who were saying the EU is a cartel of big business. It's a pretty awful set of institutions, but we're better off staying in and fighting to change it from within in association and collaboration with our comrades, progressives across Europe. That's a sophisticated argument, and you were being accused of not being fully behind the bureaucracy of Brussels, of Barnier, of Merkel, of Holland. How do you feel being accused of being sophisticated? It's a low blow. It really is. It's a low blow, but I cope. What we were arguing for was Remain and Reform. There are very strong social arguments for the EU, very strong arguments on workers' rights, directive on Charter of Fundamental Rights, on its connection with the European Court of Human Rights, environmental protections, consumer protections, absolutely very strong arguments for all of that, and I would never want to walk away from those. There are also criticisms of the EU on its competition policy. I want our mail system to be in public ownership. There is a competition directive and there's arguments around that. There are arguments around the competition element within some EU policies, which I think have to be challenged, and so what I was saying was Remain in the EU, but we would be a force in the EU for reform of it, and that was the whole point I was making in the campaign. I hadn't heard that I was being over sophisticated, but that's what they meant. I'll reflect on that. Because you had people like Nick Legg and Tony Blair and David Cameron who were just adopting the EU mantra as if it was sacred, and then you had the Brexiteers who were saying that Satan had created the EU and it was the time. Well, also we were in the middle saying, look, it's pretty bad, but we're better off staying in and fighting within it. But that is a sophisticated position to have. Britain is not in the Euro, obviously, but we could, we saw the way in which the European Central Bank treated yourselves and also the austerity that was imposed on Ireland, on Portugal and Spain. It's not just a state. They committed a crime against the Irish people. The head of the Central Bank of Europe put a gun on the Irish Prime Minister's head and demanded that overnight the losses of private investors mostly from Germany should be transferred onto the books of the Irish state, and the Irish Prime Minister succumbed. Now, that's, you know, robbery. Just daylight robbery. That's what they did. As far as with, you will allow me to make one part of it. You see, I actually was, I challenged the whole Maastricht idea, which established the European Central Bank, because it was a central bank based on price stability, not on living standards, not on rights and sharing. It was entirely on price stability. It was a purely ideological construction, which nevertheless, besides being ideologically quite putrid, it was technically and financially ridiculously stupid. We created a central bank without a state to be the central bank of 19 governments without the central bank. Go figure. But having said that, now we are on the road to Brexit, article 50 process. We have a government that is completely in disarray. It's a dog's Brexit process from where I'm standing, which is Athens. What are you going to do? Let's say that there is a May Collapses, and you move into 10 Downing Streets before March. We would obviously take over the negotiations. We'd obviously look for a substantial transition period, and our fundamental position would be access to the European market, and we would accept the regulatory alignment. We do indeed go further than it, and I'd go further than the European Union on a lot of trade deals, but we would not be saying, look, hang on a minute. If you don't give us what we want, we're going to go off and do a private deal with Donald Trump, which will be about deregulation, it'll be about the diminishing of working conditions, which is happening in the United States, in the concurrency of Trump and his administration, and we will not be going to that sort of protectionist trade war that he's going into at the present time. So we'd be seriously negotiating with them, and we recognize that there's always going to have to be a very close relationship with Europe. After all, half our trade is with Europe, and so you can't walk away from it. May I convey to you what our position as the Democracy in Europe movement is on this transition period? There's not a single word of what you said that I disagree with, but to tie down a little bit more, our proposal would be that you go for as close an alignment as possible for a five-year period renewable, that would mean something like Norway Plus, which would effectively respect the leave verdict of the British voters, create a period during which not much changes except common agricultural policy and fisheries, and it gives the House of Commons breathing space during which to debate what kind of longer-term arrangements you want, or the people of Britain want, between the European Union and the United Kingdom without the ticking clock, without the gun on your heads as parliamentarians, as a country. But in the meantime, we've got the urgency of it, that unless they make some serious moves and serious agreement, then there are a whole lot of jobs all over the UK, mainly in manufacturing industry, that are going to be seriously at risk. But Norway Plus preserves them, because nothing can change. Absolutely. You have customs union single market for a five-year period. Yeah. I take a point on that, but unless they do something, then there's an urgent situation where the supply chain disappears. When you say they, you mean whom? The Tory government. You heard about them. The Tory government will never do anything decent. They will bring a terrible deal back from Brussels. They will not have a parliamentary majority. And my fear is that you're going to end up with no deal like Brexit. That's our fear, I suspect. And you better make sure that you storm the Downing Street as quickly as possible to prevent that. My preference would be that since they clearly are not capable of negotiating this, they're resigning. We have a general election so that we can have that choice before the people of this country. I am wholly opposed to the idea of a second referendum for a very simple reason. You need a binary choice. You can't have a binary choice anymore. Now you have four options on the table. One is a deal like Theresa Mays. Second option is a hard Brexit Boris Johnson style. A third one is end the Brexit process altogether. A fourth one is a Norway kind of agreement. For that you need a general election. But also judge what you do by the effect you can have on people's lives. What can we do about the levels of poverty in Britain? What would you do about the levels of inequality? What do we do about the way the housing crisis is so much else in this country? Do you have a government that's serious about doing that or do you not? That has to be the judge of what a government does. And I think that the great success of your manifesto in the last general election was that you managed to shift the focus of the debate back on that, on what matters for people and to effectively escape, at least for a while, for a few weeks during the election campaign, this polarization between Brexiteers and Remainers.