 Janice, we're all journalists and labour activists who think about this every day and think about what Labour's Brexit position should be and how it's most likely to play in a general election, etc, etc. Obviously, you have been seeing this whole shit show, you could call it, from the outside. And I was wondering if, you know, distance brings a bit of clarity. I don't know what you have thought about the last three years of British politics and the internal row in the Labour Party over how to approach the Brexit issue. I wish. There's no distance between us, folks. We're in the same cauldron. We are facing exactly the same challenges. Brexit is not a British issue. It's a European issue. It's an international issue. The first item of news I read about every morning in Athens before I go to Parliament to find our new Tory Greek government is Brexit stuff. From the Financial Times, the first port of call, always read the rag of the enemy. Decisiveness. It is so overrated. Look at the Lib Dems. They're very decisive. Joe Swinson said, you know, we'll revoke. But now what we hear from Aaron is that their position is very much like the student fees position. If we're in a position where we're against the travelling of student fees, but if we're in government, we will support it. Thank you. I'm not interested in that kind of decisiveness. On the issue of Brexit. I think you should be very proud of the Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn. From the beginning, the media will always vilify Jeremy Corbyn on Brexit, on anything, as long as he threatens the property rights and the city of London that underpin the business model of the media. So whatever his position on Brexit is, they will find something to say about it. We shouldn't be concerned with what the media says. If you think about it, Jeremy Corbyn is somebody who, like me, we are very skeptical of the European common market in the 1970s. I opposed Greece's entry into the EEC back then, just like Tony Ben, the mentor. I think everybody's mentor. I hope he's everybody's mentor in this room. Opposed it. But at the same time, we are realists. We acknowledge that 40 years, 43 years of being inside a single market and a common market creates facts on the ground. And there is a profound difference between saying we should not have gotten in from saying we should get out. There is a difference between dynamic and static analysis in mathematics. Ignore this point. So I remember having this long discussion with John MacDonald in 2015-16 and with Jeremy and with the other comrades. And we all came to the same position that I had in Greece. I'm exceptionally critical of the European Union. But our job as social activists is to minimize harm, to minimize damage that costs on common folk. So the EU is profoundly anti-democratic. It's a democracy-free zone. It's got many flaws. But exiting it is going to spearhead xenophobic right-wing process and at the same time do a lot of damage to the good people of the north of England, of the south of England, of Scotland, so on and so forth. So we had a radical remain position. I was here because the distance you refer to is not true. I gave 16 speeches against Brexit in 16 different cities, some of them with John MacDonald. And when we were being accused of being ambivalent, ambiguous, rubbish, we were just smart and wise and nuanced. Because it takes, there's nothing ambiguous about a position. I used to say to people in Leeds, in Doncaster, in Bristol, the European Union sucks, but we have to stay in it and to transform it from within. And when people said to me, but what grade would you give to the EU between zero and ten? This is a question that was being asked generally back then. I would say two. But I think, I still think you should remain. And they say, how come you say you would only give two? Not seven, two I gave. And still ask us to remain. I said, look, if you ask me what do I think about the Greek state between zero and ten, I would give 0.8. But I do not believe in the disbandment of the Greek state. I believe in fixing it. So that was a nuanced position. It was not an ambiguous position. It was not a flip-flopping position. And then after that, because we're Democrats, we realize that we lost. And we lost because the good people who were progressive and anti-establishment turned around and said to us, I remember I was with John McDonald in Leeds in particular. There was this wonderful lady who came to me and said, after my speech, look, Giannis, I like you. And I would normally do, as you say, but on this occasion, I'm going to vote to leave. Because you know what? Jeremy is not in 10 Downing Street. So who's going to clash with the EU in order to transform it? This remain and reform. It will be no reform. Cameron is going to take a remain vote as a vote of confidence. And nothing is going to change. And we have to respect that lady. We must, you know, treating her like a vermin who was completely usurped and misled by the Brexiteers and the establishment. So this is a very big mistake. So Jeremy's attempt to unite progressive levers and progressive remain. And to embed a nuanced democratic debate about Brexit within an overall project against austerity, against militarization, against all those components of the broken business model that is Britain with zero hour contracts and all that, the city of London, that has been a remarkably brave thing, an important thing to do. And now you can see the evolution of the Labour, the Guardian and the Telegraph and so on up or down the journey. And the NEC and so on as being dragged by public opinion. Well, that's not a bad thing. It's a democratic thing to allow yourself to be dragged by public opinion. But at the same time, they are leading public opinion. And to say that, look, Boris Johnson entered 10 Downing Street by promising a hard Brexit, a destructive, right-wing, Trumpist, xenophobic hard Brexit. We're going to have a general election. The general election is going to settle the issue on hard Brexit. The only thing that can put hard Brexit off the table is a general election with a Corbyn victory. And immediately after the Corbyn victory, a responsible Labour government is going to put to the people a choice between two options, neither of which is destructive to remain or a customs union plus. And the people of Britain will decide, I have, well, now let me be, let me step off the script of the Labour Party leadership. I'll go a bit further. Things I would like to see, which I haven't seen yet. Well, firstly, I would like to see the special conference take place before he goes to Brussels, not after he goes to Brussels. Because whatever, he's not going to negotiate with Brussels. No one negotiates with Brussels because Brussels does not do negotiations. But if he says to them customs union, they will say yes. If he says customs union plus single market, which means also freedom of movement, they will say yes. You folks will have to decide what takes to Brussels. And then he comes back. So I think this is something that is very sensible to leave for after the election. After you have defeated, we have defeated Boris Johnson on hard Brexit. We have a... I'm learning you my mic. Okay, thank you. But I don't want you to have mine. We'll share this one. We'll share, we'll share. Shared prosperity, right? That's our motto. And the second thing that I would like to add to the Brexit process is the notion that the second referendum will not end the issue. But it will begin the issue, not of Brexit. But the issue of trusting the people of deep democratisation. I would like to see the second referendum as the beginning of a constitutional assembly process, the purpose of which is to give the British voters, citizens of this country, control of a process, the result of which will be the writing of a progressive constitution for the United Kingdom that resolves the issues about the representation of England, which doesn't have any. The Scots have their own parliament, the Welsh have their own. But Northern Ireland joins sovereignty, must be inscribed in a new constitution. The question about private schools and their abolition. I don't think that parliament can do this. I think that this needs to be part of the constitutional process, because you need reinforced, enhanced legitimacy in order to ban private schools. I'm all in favour of banning them. But you can't depend on a House of Commons that has been elected on the basis of first pass the post to do something as significant as that. And to generally open up the discussion about what kind of country you want to have. That should be the, you know, what happens after the second referendum.