The Fight House

Hey mate, what's with a giant pile of letters? Letters? Ah, my billroom. Billroom? Yeah. Can't open them, can't throw them out, so they go in the pile. You've got a giant pile of unopened bills, big enough for a room, and you don't want to open them because... Don't want to know. Right, well, maybe if you open them, you wouldn't have to sleep in the bath. Yeah.

Our relationship with money is formed from a young age. That's why our expert Barclays team is here to help you take control of your money today. Barclays, make money work for you.

Well, let's remind ourselves, I suppose, of the Oval Office spat, shall we? Because, I mean, some of you might have missed it. I don't know. I don't know what you've been doing for the last three days, but have a look at this. We're trying to solve a problem. Don't tell us what we're going to feel. Because you're in no position to dictate that. You're in no position to dictate what we're going to feel.

We're going to feel very good. We're going to feel very good and very strong. You're right now not in a very good position. You've allowed yourself to be in a very bad position and he happens to be right about it. You're not in a good position. You don't have the cards right now.

With us, you start having cards. I'm not playing cards. Right now, you're playing cards. You're playing cards. You're gambling with the lives of millions of people. You're gambling with World War III. You're gambling with World War III.

You're gambling with World War III. And, of course, many people got more upset with Donald Trump for having a row with Vladimir Zelensky than they did with Vladimir Putin for invading Ukraine in the first place. I mean, you'd think that, you know, it was war criminal Trump we were talking about here.

to Tobias Elwood though former defence select committee chair Tobias very good morning to you Good morning to you. So here we are. We're not quite sure where we are, but we're somewhere. A peace deal apparently is being worked upon by the people of Europe, which is kind of what Donald Trump wanted them to do in the first place. But they don't seem to know exactly what the plan is. is they just have said that they want to have a plan yes but to be clear what donald trump was wanting to do

was secure a deal that was on Russia's terms. So after those really unfortunate events in the White House, which I think took everybody by surprise, Britain and Europe... have had a better day yesterday, moving prospects of how we confront Russia and end this war in Europe.

from the theatrics that we saw in the White House. We're in, I think, a more professional space. But isn't this just a different kind of theatrics, though? Because you've got Keir Starmer talking about, you know, stepping up and standing with Ukraine for as long as it takes. I don't know what that means. Maybe you can explain it.

talking about how he's not going to rule out having British boots on the ground. I don't think he should be doing that without consultation with Parliament and perhaps without even consultation with the nation. And also most of the European leaders just three weeks ago...

had no clue about peace in Ukraine, didn't even talk about it, never mentioned it, and have suddenly now been galvanised into it by Donald Trump. And you say that he was trying to do a deal with Putin. You don't really know that, because everything that Trump does... turns into something else. I mean, you know, the previous week before Zelensky went to Washington, everyone was saying, oh, he's throwing Zelensky out of the deal. But then he turned up in D.C.

Let me unpick that a little bit. Firstly, what happens in Ukraine doesn't stay in Ukraine. So in response to some of the callers that said, why does this interest me? If war starts to grow there, it will impact and it's impacting on us already. Daily, we are attacked by Russia in the gray zone, whether it's been those cables in the English Channel, whether it's cyber attacks and so on, disinformation, coercion.

It is happening and going to get bigger and bigger and bigger. It's a real war in Ukraine. And if that fire isn't put out, it will spread. Well, why have they only started talking about it in the last four days then?

I don't know why. Well, you should know. You used to be chair of the select committee in defence. Why didn't you talk about it then? Well, you have to firstly let me finish the sentence before you then ask me... I don't actually have to do anything, Tobias, but you carry on. Well, then don't invite me on your show, sir. If you want my views... Don't come on my show if you can't put up with me questioning you.

I enjoy hearing your questions. You've got to enjoy, give me a bit of latitude. I haven't got to enjoy it, actually. But carry on, I am enjoying it, so carry on. Right, we're wandering way off the point here. This is far more important.

the basis of the current discussions that took place yesterday was actually about continued military support for ukraine and continued economic pressure on russia recognizing that if ukraine fails or is able to cede any territory russia will rearm regroup and do it all again and that will impact us this is 1938 all over again and what i'm afraid that

Donald Trump was doing was appeasement. So what we've done, Britain and France and others, has taken over responsibility for crafting a potential peace deal rather than America and Russia doing this. And there seems to be unity with a sense of purpose now. that we can actually support Ukraine because they're doing the fighting for us.

Yes, but the point is, though, surely, Tobias, even Keir Starmer says that they cannot do it alone, that Europe alone cannot do a peace deal with Vladimir Putin in Ukraine because they need America's backing.

We absolutely better to have America's back. It is absolutely huge. But look at what America is doing. America is choosing to call. Zelensky a dictator, not Putin. America is actually redefining who started the war. That's the narrative that's coming out. It's not really, though. That's the narrative. Let me finish my point. Let me finish my point. America chose to vote with Belarus, North Korea and Russia at the United Nations. America is openly siding itself with Russia.

with russia that is what's happening now whether we like that or not you understand why that is what's happening but do you not understand why ourselves we have to ask ourselves what do we then do about it because there are massive geopolitical consequences if this happens. So America is less interested in any peace deal in Ukraine. America wants the minerals, wants some of that money back. But ultimately, we're left picking up the situation here in Europe with Russia.

given space to be able to do all this all again, pushing further west. That's what we're facing right now. And that's why it's so important that Europe does lean in. One thing I agree with, Donald Trump, we should have been spending far more. on defence. I've been saying this for the last four years now. Well, you were in government when this started, Tobias. You were the chair of the Defence Select Committee. Why weren't you pushing to spend more money then?

I was. I was many times. An article in The Times, I was looking back at it. 2019, calling for 3%. By the way, being chair of the Select Committee doesn't put me in government. It actually scrutinises. That's what we do. We scrutinise government. We didn't do very well, did you?

Well, you can say whatever you like. Well, you also lost your seat in the last election. So, I mean, you haven't got a lot of friends in the room. But let me ask you this. Keir Starmer agrees with Donald Trump. He says Donald Trump wants lasting peace. He does not say that he's appeasing... Vladimir Putin. So either he's wrong about that or you are. Have a look. Have a look at the clip. Well, I'm clear in my mind that he wants a lasting peace. That comes from my discussions with him on Thursday.

had extensive discussions. I've obviously met him before that, back in September in New York, and I've talked to him a number of terms on the phone, including Friday night and Saturday night. So my strong view is that he wants a lasting peace, and I agree with him. about that. President Zelensky agrees with him about that. And I think nobody wants this conflict to go on, least of all the Ukrainians. It's not in our national interest. So...

You must be wrong about that, then. I'm making it very clear from where I sit, and I study these things very, very carefully. And I'm a dual national, so I say this with some sadness, that we're seeing an absolute change in geopolitics between Russia and America.

And there's a bigger picture here where I believe that Donald Trump no longer is interested in supporting the global order. He sees the world order fragmenting. He sees the world where there's a number of big beasts, if you like, geopolitical power bases of which America is one, Russia is another. They each have their sphere of influence. And Ukraine, I'm afraid, does not fall in America.

sphere of influence as Panama or Greenland or Canada does. But Ukraine falls in Russia's sphere of influence. And America, Donald Trump, will respect that because he respects President Putin. That's where I believe the world is going. Now, you and I can disagree about this. But history will prove one way or another. And as I say, the evidence right now, when you pick up all the pieces, when the vice president of the United States goes to the Munich Security Conference and criticizes Europe.

rather than actually coming out with any detail of a peace plan, then we know that we're in trouble. That transatlantic relationship is fundamentally changing. But he wasn't wrong to criticise Europe, because Europe has jumped. And when they said jump, right, Europe has now decided... they suddenly want a peace deal, which before JD Vance went anywhere near the Munich conference, they weren't even talking about.

So suddenly the Europeans are now trying to catch up effectively. They've all admitted that he was right to say that they haven't spent enough money on defence. They've all admitted that Trump was right to say that. So at the end of the day, we're in a situation where Europe collectively...

has failed to protect Europe and has failed to protect its own defences. So therefore, now they want to spend more money. Now they're coming to us to say we should do it. But let me ask you this. Presumably you can't do a peace deal without talking to Putin. And without talking to Putin, there will be no peace deal. And so without...

bringing him to the table, which sometimes involves, as Piers Morgan said yesterday on Laura Kunzberg's show, you know, doing and making promises to Putin, which might sound unpalatable right now. But unless you get him to the table, you're never going to get any kind of deal. anyway. Well, that might be the case. And as I say, I make it very, very clear the consequences of that, that if you allow.

russia to claim any form of victory in ukraine if you don't stand up to russia russia will do this all over again how many times i repeated this 1938 what america what donald trump is doing is appeasing russia he's actually well you don't know that though Well, he's parroting the very lines that Russia is actually using. And again...

If America was absolutely committed to European security, it wouldn't be saying, here's the deal. But by the way, I'm not having anything to do with it. And no longer can NATO have anything to do with peacekeeping either.

you're right there's been a failure of nato nato before those troops wandered in back in 2020 should have slid some assets some nato assets across into ukraine look putin in the eye and that would have prevented all this from happening but we blinked and we've lost that cold war statecraft capability of looking our enemy in the eye but america turning up

America turning up, writing the deal and then saying, fine, this is the deal that I've signed with Putin. By the way, I'm now out of here unless I get some minerals. That isn't leadership.

That's leading them. Well, that's not what happened, actually, because until the deal is done... That is what's happening. No, until the deal is done, Tobias, you don't know what the deal is. That is the current state of affairs. No, well, the current state of affairs... Well, the current state of affairs, Tobias, when...

And Zelensky was not in the meeting in Saudi Arabia, was that he was being rowed out of the deal, that nobody was talking to him. Suddenly, the following week, that narrative changed. The narrative changes about every three or four days right now. And at the moment, Keir Starmer's now... saying that we are committed to supporting Ukraine for as long as it takes. How long is that? Well, go back to that, Saudi Arabia. Why would you actually have a sit down with your arch enemy?

and start to agree those terms that your archenemy is then pushing forward without consultation with the very people that you're supposed to be trying to help or indeed your allies that should be there. This happened once before. There was consultation. It happened once before.

Yes, there was. Well, the Prime Minister made it clear that he wasn't involved. Britain wasn't involved in Saudi Arabia and neither was Zelensky. No, Britain wasn't involved. Why would Britain be involved in that? Because... Because we're part of a senior leader in NATO and we're the ones... Well, not according to many, many commentators whose view I would value. Con Coughlin, for example, covered many wars. As a military expert, you probably know him. He works for the Daily Telegraph.

said this whole summit was an exercise of wishful thinking, which is entirely correct, isn't it? No, I don't agree with that. We've just seen increase in defence spending here. We've seen the framework for what a real deal might look like. And if that deal doesn't work...

then what's the frame what's the framework i want to go back well no i want to hear what no i want to hear what the framework is because i've got a lot of time left what's the framework for the deal then that you think the europeans have got

Well, firstly, it's the fact that we're going to send in a coalition of the willing. We can't use NATO. What does that mean? As it says on the tin, it's those countries that are willing to move forward. There's, I think, over 27 nations that were represented yesterday. Many of them will then go back and consult, and some of the bigger countries will step forward. The Baltic states will do that.

Poland will do that. Well, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania weren't even there. Sorry, they've already committed. But they weren't at the summit, Tobias. You're asking... okay you're trying to pick holes in every sentence i say no i'm not trying to give you the facts right you don't like what happened in washington

You know, you can't pretend that everything was rosy in London because it wasn't. If you don't invite the three main countries that are on the border who face the most danger from Russia, then what's going on? Because the point I'm trying to say and take away from this is that they're already signed up. They're already signed up to be part of that coalition of the willing. They were even before anybody else was. Well, so you don't have to have them at the meeting then.

That's mad. That's mad. That's a ridiculous excuse. Why weren't they there? I didn't organise the meeting. I probably would have invited them. Maybe because they'd signed up already, they weren't then required. Or maybe, I don't know. Shouldn't they have been there for the picture, at least? I mean, it's all very performative, it seems to me. We've found nothing.

out from Keir Starmer. He talks about a plan. He doesn't have one. He talks about a coalition of the willing. He doesn't tell us who. He talks about, you know, solving the problem in Ukraine without talking to Russia. You know, effectively, he's doing exactly what you accused Donald Trump of doing, because he's only talking...

talking to Zelensky? Why is he not talking to Putin? I think you personally have decided what you want to take for that meeting and I really can't get in the word in Edgewood. Well, tell me what the difference is between the Americans talking to the Russians only...

and the Europeans talking to the Ukrainians only. What's the difference? Well, because you're getting the view of the very people that we've been trying to support for the last three years, and you're not doing a deal with a dictator. He's doing a deal with Ukraine, though, without talking to Russia. Surely that's the same as what you're accusing the Americans of. Because we went in there to support Ukraine. And if we can't have a framework...

that actually guarantees in the long term Ukrainian security, it will impact on Britain and the rest of Europe because there will be a wider European war. Yeah, and you can't do that without America, can you? It's better to do so. No, you can't do without America. Starmer says you can't do without America. No, I don't agree with that. I don't agree with that. And that is the wake-up call that we need to ask ourselves as to whether we actually have the political courage.

to use our military assets to push Russia back? Or is it 1938 all over again? And we appease. And that's where Donald Trump... I know that you don't want to say, speak ill of him, but I'm afraid... I will speak ill of Donald Trump if I wish to, but I just find it astonishing that all the people that do speak ill of him don't actually have a plan. But Tobias, we've got to go. Thanks very much indeed. Tobias Elwood, former Defence Select Committee.

across the uk on dab plus on youtube on your mobile and on your side this is talk

Richard Tice is here, Deputy Leader of Reform UK. I mean, I don't know where to start, really, Richard. I mean, it's been quite an extraordinary weekend. Well, it has been quite an extraordinary few days since your last show on Friday with the... the scenes in the white house yeah and look i mean i think they made everybody feel uncomfortable but at the end of the day whether people like it or not

President Trump was elected on a mandate to try and secure a peace, and he's been speaking to people from both sides of this horror and trying to... Look at all the different sort of things that are on the table. And the reality is that most wars end in some form of negotiation. Those negotiations will be difficult, tense, and... As we saw on Friday, those difficult discussions are best held behind closed doors. And it's quite common for...

for voices to be raised and for things to get really difficult. That's the nature of compromise, however hard it is. Well, as Ralph Shulhamer said to us, you know, when Tobias Elwood said, oh, we don't do business with dictators, we don't negotiate with them, well, he said, unfortunately...

forgot about Stalin, because at the end of World War II, you know, basically Europe was carved up in a way which perhaps now wouldn't be done. But it was done. At the end of the day, I think the vast, vast majority of sane, rational people... want to see is it possible to get to a durable piece. That can only last work if you've got robust security guarantees. That's in a sense the focus of all the energy.

And it's right to do that. And sure, you've got all this sort of glad-handing yesterday, the meeting of European leaders plus a few others. Yeah, who, by the way, three weeks ago weren't talking about a peace deal in Ukraine, but suddenly are now. Well, I'm actually pleased that Keir Starmer has clearly now read and learnt from the Reform UK contract last July, because we were the only party at the general election that said we needed to have GDP...

on defence spending of 2.5% in three years, 3% in six years. He's now completely mirrored that. The Tories are now sort of essentially copying us as well. So once again, we've led the way. They're catching up. The only way to get peace is through. strength.

And that's what we've always understood. But Europe can't do any of that without America. Because Europe for two or three decades has been riding on the coattails of the US, not paying its bills, it's ended up completely... reliant on on America now look the reality is that the best way to defend ourselves is through NATO we don't want a separate European vehicle right we've got to focus totally on NATO properly fund NATO properly

organise everything through NATO and ensure that the critical element of that, the US... So would you give more money to NATO then? Well, ultimately, we've all got to spend more on defence. And that's why we said it in our election contract last July, up to 3% within six years. We showed how you pay for it and we've got to do that because otherwise you end up in this terrible situation where essentially enemies, opponents, they don't feel deterred. And the thing is about all of this is that...

The US is also focusing on its other challenges. It's not just Ukraine. You've got China. You've got North Korea.

you've got Iran. So there are many other geopolitical challenges. They've also got a bit of a problem on the southwestern border as well, which I know is about immigration more than it is about defence. But it's such a big problem that it's also a kind of defence problem, isn't it? It is, ultimately, because it's all about... defending your own borders and in we'd all we all want peace we've got to try

However hard it is, you've got to keep trying. But you'll only get a proper piece with robust security guarantees. What I've been saying, put everything on the table.

including there's not enough discussion about the $300 billion of frozen Russian assets in Western central banks. People are beginning to talk about it. They've been using the interest on it. Forget that. In my view and the view of people like Sibyl Browder... Use the lot. Because actually, that's why we're not using it for other things. Well, we should be. We should be using it.

to pay for the defence of Ukraine, to look at pay for some of the rebuilding of Ukraine, possibly to repay some of the costs that we've all put in. But that's what Starmer and Reeves said they were doing on Saturday, the 2.26 billion they reckon is coming from the interest. But that's just the interest. We should be using all of it. And that would really, really hit Putin in the pocket. And that's the sort of thing where...

We've got to be prepared to say this is how you can fund a proper security guarantee. in Ukraine to deter Putin from ever doing this again. But it's a bit more complicated than that because I was reading the actual government report on this loaned money and the money would appear to not actually be in the hands of the government at the moment. They have to go and find it. They have to go and get it.

You know, they say that they've got this interest coming in, but it's not clear how it's coming in because it's a G7 sort of organised collection of money, if you like. So it's not solely owned, if you like, by the British government. No, it's not. These are frozen rationales.

assets, but they are in Western banks. Yes, but they're not frozen. What I mean by that is they're not frozen by this government, which means that this government cannot necessarily release them. Correct, which is why you've got to get all of the Western leaders to agree to, which is why I'm saying...

Why aren't they agreeing? Why are they being so reluctant? Yes. Because that is a huge amount of money from which you can build the security guarantees, which is why I've been saying you've got to have everything on the table.

Right, let's have a listen to what Keir Starmer said, I think this was on Saturday, about putting boots on the ground. The UK is prepared to back this with boots on the ground and planes in the air, together with others. Europe must do the heavy listing. But to support peace in our continent and to succeed, this effort must have strong US backing.

So you want strong US backing. I don't know what planes he's going to put in the air or what boots he's going to put on the ground. It's rather profligate with our armed forces. This is the harsh reality, is that... Ukraine's got way more boots on the ground than we have, for example. And I think it's actually it's about the quality of the equipment and the guarantee and the technology.

to protect Ukraine. I don't actually think it's about other nations' boots on the ground. But all of this is in the mix. But what Keir Starmer there has to accept is that ultimately... We are obviously reliant on the US because people haven't funded their defence forces here in Europe. And isn't it interesting? Keir Starmer is essentially...

acting as a sort of liaison link point between Europe and the US, thanks to Brexit. Yes. Because of Brexit Britain, he is now able to be independent and to stand there and act as a sort of bridgehead. whilst he's trying to negotiate a free trade deal with the US, thanks to Brexit. Yes, and he says, of course, that what he's attempting to do with these European leaders is to come up with a peace plan, which he will then present to President Trump to see whether Trump likes it or not.

that he can do that is because President Trump loves the United Kingdom. And he loves Brexit. I think he might love it slightly less today than he did on Thursday. Actually, no, I don't agree with that. And I think that, in a sense, it's because we've left the EU that he's got so much more confidence in our ability.

And I think the efforts that Nigel has done over many years is definitely paying off. And I think that's a great thing. As of all of this nonsense seen in the mail and various people.

saying we've got to withdraw the state visit. Absolute garbage. As juvenile stupidity, we should be doubling down... But wasn't that a bit of a ridiculous move, though, as well? What we should be doing is, at the end of the day, the British monarchy... is probably the most loved around the world it's our greatest piece of soft power and we should be using it as much as we can and the president trump had a huge affection for the late queen loves the british royal family

And so we should be using that. These people sort of short-term headlines, cancel the state of visit, is pathetic. It's juvenile. It's particularly pathetic getting their knickers in a twist about, you know, people shouting at one another. Zelensky doesn't care. He's already said he's going to rebuild whatever the...

he needs to have with the Americans. He's a man that's been involved in a war for three years. I don't think getting shouted at by Donald Trump a little bit is going to bother him. And actually, do you know... And also, by the way, he was shouted at by Joe Biden as well. And I'm not going to criticise the leaders who are trying to secure peace. It's really difficult. They've got huge tensions, massive pressure on them. Obviously, President Zelensky.

Huge pressures on him. All just... relentless decisions and challenges and his own people dying every day, huge pressures on President Trump, believe it or not, because he told his electorate that he would secure a peace. in Ukraine. So all these leaders have got pressure. Well, he said he would do it in 24 hours as well, which of course was a bit rhetorical, wasn't it? He's always bullish. Yeah. But the ambition to get peace, we should all surely get back.

But with peace, whether some people like it or not, there will have to be compromises made. It's impossible not to have compromises because the Russians are not going to stop. You know, as we were saying earlier, they're a war country. You know, they are built around wars. They can run wars because it's not really a democracy. So they can actually do...

whatever they want. And at the end of the day, if it becomes a stalemate, you know, this idea that we back Ukraine for as long as it takes. Well, most people I speak to in this country don't want that. They don't want hundreds of billions of pounds going over to Ukraine, taxpayers' money. to happen. And I think it's very interesting. Just we just look back a little bit in history back in 2008. At the Bucharest NATO conference, America was saying we should let Ukraine

into NATO. And that was rejected by Germany and France. And the Brits didn't even bother to show up to the meeting. Just think. You think about these big decisions. If that had happened back then, four or five years after that, then Russia wouldn't have been able to go into... Crimea or the eastern Ukraine and we wouldn't be where we are. So, you know, these long term strategic strategic decisions.

are very important. And we have to acknowledge mistakes have been made in the past. Well, Chris Parry, who comes on this show very, very often and very often on this station, former NATO commander, said he was raising the issue of Russia as a problem in 2008.

to the then Labour government, and they shut him down and said, we don't want you talking about that. He wasn't allowed. And he was, in fact, his job at the time was to predict the future. That's right. For the Ministry of Defence, yeah. That's right. And he was told to shut up and not mention...

The other thing you mentioned, by the way, was immigration, funnily enough. Let's talk about Chagos Islands, because we've got a little clip here for you. This is Starmer on the Chagos deal with Trump.

Keir Stommer has signed the deal to give away the Chagos Islands to Mauritius. Will you approve that deal? Well, we're going to have some discussions about that very soon and I have a feeling it's going to work out very well. They're talking about a very long-term, powerful lease, a very strong lease. about 140 years actually. That's a long time. And I think we'll be inclined to go along with your country.

Yeah, I think it's a little bit early. We have to be given the details, but it doesn't sound bad. Yeah, please. So, the interesting point there was the last bit of that clip. We haven't looked at the details yet. And that's because, as we have said, they've got so many other, frankly, much bigger things on their plate. What I can reveal... to you and your listeners is that we have it. Nigel has it.

from very senior Republican sources that there's been no discussion by the British government to the US administration about any form of payment. So from the American's point of view... They don't care. They currently occupy the base, right, at Diego Garcia. And presumably they don't pay for that at the moment. Which they're not paying for. No one's asking them to pay any more. They're going to occupy it for the next...

give or take 100 years. So, in a sense, that's the least of their problems. They're looking at the Brits and saying, if you stupid limeys are going to go and pay Mauritius tens of billions of pounds, that's your own stupidity. It's nothing to do with us, Gov. But don't they realise that there's a... Security problem, though.

But there isn't a security problem because they occupy the base, they have done, and they will continue to do so. So from their perspective, it's not a problem. This deal is the worst deal in the history of mankind. And it is in breach of the original 1960s. 1965 agreement between the UK and Mauritius, when Mauritius got independence. And do you know what? We paid them £3 million in old money back then to...

relinquish any claims they may or may not have. That's 75 million quid in today's money. So it's Mauritius who's in breach of the original agreement. What Reform UK are going to do when we win the next general election, Mike, we're going to rip up any deal. done by this Labour government as invalid and gross negligence. And we will stop all the payments.

And we will make it very clear to Mauritius that they're the ones in breach of the original agreement. And if necessary... You might have to go to war over something like that. Forget that. We're just going to make it clear. It's invalid. We're not going to make the payments.

And if that requires serious discussions about visas, about restrictions on direct flights, then so be it. We are not going to be ripped off by a bunch of Mauritians who are in breach of the original agreement. And we have the support.

No question of the vast, vast majority of the British people. I'm sure that's true. Most of whom had never heard of the Chagos Islands until about four or five months ago. But what about the possibility that that then becomes an international law problem? Because you've then, you know, you've got a government... that's handed over control of a territory to another country, right? You can't just take it back, can you? The reality is...

The agreement would be invalid because it's the Mauritians who are in breach. They signed the 1965 agreement with the United Kingdom, relinquishing all claims. They were paid by us. as part of that process. So they're the ones in breach. They were in breach in reactivating the discussion. And let's just remember, this ICJ ruling from 2018... It's only advisory, isn't it? It's an advisory ruling. So the whole thing is an outrage and we will stop it. If no one else will...

we will stop. I mean, it'd be better if you could stop it before it goes ahead. Of course, because we shouldn't start any payments. I mean, if you compound, give or take 3% inflation, which is what we understand the deal to be. The 90 million a year payments over the life of the whole lease. You talk about 50 billion quid plus or minus. I mean, the whole thing's absolutely ludicrous. And we've got to stand up and say this is not tolerable. It's not.

It's just simply unacceptable. The British people will not stand for it. And Nigel, I remember, seemed to say some weeks ago, when he was first in Parliament, I suppose, that the Chagos Islands deal was in some jeopardy because, in fact, he had spoken to some highly...

you know, highly sort of connected members of the Republican Party in the White House who said they weren't going to go for it. So maybe there's a chance that he still won't go for it. And I think as you heard President Trump, they've just got a huge amount on their plate and... As I say, this doesn't reach the top of the pile. If they look to the details in detail, they say...

Of course they say that, we do. I mean, why are you guys doing this? But in a sense, it is actually not their problem. It's our problem if we're foolish enough to have a government that wants to give away loads of our money that, by the way, we really haven't got. Yes, absolutely right. And that's the main point.

We need more money for defence and 18 billion we have not got to spare. It's as simple as that. It's as simple as that. Absolutely. Richard, good to see you. Thank you very much indeed. Richard Tice there from Reform, Deputy Leader, of course.

The home of common sense. This is talk. Bill in Cheshire says this. Pressure Putin and the collapse of Russia. These armchair warriors should be careful what they wish for. If the Russian state fragments and collapses, several provinces will suddenly find themselves owning large nuclear arsenals with all the even greater security issues and dangers that that will bring.

to the world well this is the thing um keir starmer's got a plan except he doesn't know what it is yet let's talk to harry tangy former police sergeant of course we've got a story today another uh overreach you might describe it as by the police police officers questioned a grandfather

for more than an hour after he called his neighbour a nasty name, Mrs Twit, with a slightly different letter, if you get my meaning, in a row about his dog. This all happened in Herefordshire. Lawrence Muir, 73 years of age, was visited by the police twice. at his own home and told not to use the term again seems a little bit over the top doesn't it harry very good morning to you

Good morning to you, Michael. How are you? I'm very well. I mean, just as well they don't send the old thought police round here because they'd hear that word quite a lot in some parts of the world. I mean, I don't know what it was like where you were. But police warning people not to... to say nasty words, really.

Well, the rumours in the past with that particular word was either a part of a steering mechanism of a tank or a pregnant goldfish, I heard. But I've just AI'd it, and it's none of those two. It's more about an anatomical path of a woman.

But anyway, now we've researched that. I think the problem we have here is the experience of call takers. We used to always put the lame and the sick in desktop resolution in the police. And so they would filter some of the calls that came in. that weren't got rid of straight away. And the problem you get is once it's in the system, it's quite difficult to get out of and you need some sort of backbone to get rid of these silly calls.

And so we always said we wanted the best people in desktop resolution. Because what the problem is, is so you've got a neighborly dispute, you could define it out very loosely and then unless you are quite robust in your decision making then you could be thinking well we've got to cover our backs if this develops and then

Take it to the extreme. Can you imagine if this ended up in someone having a knife in their chest because no police did anything about it and they had plenty of warnings and nothing was done? So you can see why somebody who, especially when there's a lot of weaker leadership.

in the police now than there was because it's all academia and things um that that it's like well we'll send a couple along tell them to bang the reds together and stop being so silly all right and you can in a way you can sort of see that But we've really gone too far, and we need to bring it back again. It comes back to common sense, Harry, doesn't it, really?

It does. And I was an armed response officer, but I was single crewed because I was, a lot of the time, because I was the sergeant, I was a farms tactics advisor and whatever. And the units, the frontline units used to run out in about five minutes, gone. So, and I was asked...

to go, can you go to a school? There's a 10 year old child going mayhem and they can't control him. And I said, no. i'm not well first of all as a unit not as an arv unit but it wouldn't look good a guy going in there with a gun to sort out a 10 year old child right um but also you know i i said look i'm sorry but the

The school need to use the Children's Act and use minimal force as a parent could be reasonable force. But the reason the teachers don't do that, because they don't get the backing of their managers. And before they know it, they're suspended because there's a... bruise on the child where the teacher had to grab the child to stop to restrain them using reasonable force you know and could you you know

10-year-old children are still relatively small in size. When you get to 12 and 13, you could get a six-foot tall one, I guess. But it takes that to say no, because sometimes it's just easier to say, oh, yes, all right, well, we'll go.

But as you say, no one's going to your burglaries anymore. So you've got to get some sort of compromise here and some... robust leadership which is backed up when things go slightly more awry than was expected that's all because you can't do everything and the trouble is is the perception whether it's right or not

from the public's point of view, is that the police are doing all the wrong things. So there's things not being covered. There's people not being visited. People in Greater Manchester were moaning just the other week because of that woman who was visited over a Facebook post about a counter.

They were saying, well, I had my car stolen. Nobody came to see me. You know, my daughter was groomed by a grooming gang. Nobody came to see us. You know, they can't. If they're going to do the trivial stuff, they've got to do all of it.

well is that but they're losing the trust of the public now because quite frankly that incident which i've waited and waited for more to come out it seems it isn't and even the police spokesperson didn't come up with extra it's not good enough you do not you get rid

of this non-hate crime incident rubbish yeah get rid of it because you're losing the support of the public and they're starting not to trust the police and yet this country has lost free speech without doubt not there anymore yeah um and so but it's going to take an awful it's going to take a generation to clear this out from the decision making and policing now don't blame the front line please don't front blame the front line because there's no good them getting suspended for

Breaking an unlawful order and not going for a lawful order rather to make a stance. They don't need it. They're on bad enough pay as it is. They're stressed out their minds that it is.

We've really got to keep supporting the front line, but we've got to nip it in the bud above and cause pressure onto there above. And that includes our useless politicians, of course. Well, indeed, absolutely right. We're not getting any better. Harry, good to talk to you. Thanks very much indeed. Harry Tangy, former police sergeant.

on the craziness of what some of the police are doing. Now going round to see a pensioner, a grandfather, 73-year-old, for calling a woman who was one of his neighbours a name over a roundabout dog. Unbelievable. What's with a giant pile of letters? Letters? Ah, my billroom. Billroom? Yeah.

Can't open them, can't throw them out, so they go in the pile. You've got a giant pile of unopened bills, big enough for a room, and you don't want to open them because... Don't want to know. Right, well, maybe if you open them, you wouldn't have to sleep in the bath. Yeah. Our relationship with money is formed from a young age. That's why our expert Barclays team is here to help you take control of your money today. Barclays, make money work for you.