James O'Brien VS Jacob Rees-Mogg On Brexit | FULL Interview | LBC

um why is it all gone so wrong well there's that mr. O'Brien on the line loud and clear Jacob now what a pleasure to be joining your program I'm normally with mr. Ferrari who's I think it's likely sander but it's nice to have a chance to come on and talk to you had too late than never so why is it all gone so wrong but why is what gone wrong brexit Jacob well brakes it hasn't yet happened so why are you saying it's gone wrong before it's happened oh this is going to be fun so how have we ended up where we are now well you'll be voting against your own government that's delivering a withdrawal from the European Union that you're keen to withdraw from can you just talk us through why well first of all it's not my government to Majesty's Government so let let's try and get things accurate the deal is a bad deal the government has negotiated poorly and is spending thirty nine billion pounds of taxpayers money or wishes to without getting ending in turn it's not delivering the leave what should they have done differently what should they have done differently they're in a can they should not have accepted the sequencing that the European Union asked for in the first place so we're going back just over two years now well you asked what should not everybody listening is as informed as you are so things started going on over two years ago Oh at the beginning of the negotiation the very beginning of strategy issues was wrong and David Davis was overruled by the Prime Minister in this he was very keen not to agree there sequencing and why would the EU have changed their position after we refused to accept well because it's a negotiation in a negotiation both sides have to agree in the end and they will they have and you're you're complaining well because it's an agreement that doesn't deliver on brexit it's a negotiation and both sides have to agree in the end and they have C right but they've agreed something that is not going to be accepted in Parliament so I'm asking you why you think they would have agreed to what you would have accepted two and a half years ago well because the EU wants the thirty-nine billion and once we'd agreed to give that to them there's very little reason for them to make a leave with no intention if we leave with no deal they don't get the thirty-nine that's absolutely right so we shouldn't worry about leaving with no deal right so can I ask again what why you think things have gone so wrong we start with the sequencing what happened that went wrong after that I think the negotiating strategy has been poor and I think we've got basically a remain as brexit that we've got a brexit that seeks to shadow membership of the European rights it hasn't happened yet as you reminded me a moment ago yes that's what let's let's reexamine your own words talking about the withdrawal agreement yes it is a remain as brexit what does that mean it means that it's shadowing membership of the European Union it's half in half out that it would tie us in to the common external tariff it would tie us in that via Northern Ireland to the e use rulebook in vast swathe of activity and when people warned that the Good Friday Agreement would render that inevitable why do you think they were dismissed because it doesn't the so regulatory alignment isn't in the Good Friday Agreement no it isn't okay it isn't it's not a matter of the Good Friday Agreement the Good Friday Agreement wasn't considering those sorts of issues you don't think the Good Friday Agreement insists on regulatory alignment on both sides the Irish border no it doesn't you're confusing two things if I miss a say well of course you may say well I think we're getting all a little bit of rushes we'll carry on so how would you have conducted negotiators in a more fruitful fashion Jacob Riis Maud well the EU about a year ago offered a Canada style free trade deal and I think that would be worth paying thirty nine billion pounds for and what would the difference be between that and what we're getting oh well the difference would be that we would not have the backstop we would not have the superiority of EU law and we would not be tied in to potentially an why would Canada style deal do away with the need for the backstop because the issue around the backstop is essentially a phantom one the EU the you can see why would the Canada deal as specified by the European Union why would that have done away with the need for the backstop because if you'd had a comprehensive free trade agreement with no tariffs between the two sides what would you've been trying to stop on the border stuff coming in that doesn't have regulatory alignment with the European Union but of course there's no regulatory alignment in the how can you have trading standards without checking what's been traded you don't need to check what's being traded at the border so what do you mean by the phrase trading standards then well we have trading standards all the time how do we check those standards without checking what's being traded but the issue of the hard border is checking out the border not having no checks at all anywhere so in the event of a Canada style trade deal why would there be no need for the backstop Jacob the backstop has always been a failure of British negation stop at all because nobody's going to implement no hard to know what I asked though is it why would the candidate radial have done away with the need for the backstop because there's no need for a backstop anyway oh I see so we don't need it now all right that's my view yes it's not unfortunate the government's view no or your unions or the Irish governments or the architects of the Good Friday Agreement or every single politician involved in drawing it up so what are they what are they see what are they missing that you can see mr. Reiss you have just said is simply not accurate Lord Trimble David Trimble one of the architects of the Good Friday Agreement won the Nobel Prize for it the DEP were opposed to the Good Friday Agreement nor Trimble was not a member of the DUP he was the leader of the Ulster Unionists and now sits as a conservative peer in the House of Lords and why does he why does he think there's no need for a backstop well you should invite him on to explain too but you're telling me he's your recital so you tell me he said this publicly and has supported a Canada style free-trade deal without a backstop so explain his reasoning to me if you want to explain your own well I tried to explain my own but you then went off on a wild goose chase about something wrong I apologize the explanation is very straightforward that nobody is planning to introduce a hard border and therefore the backstop is only there to prevent a hard border which neither the EU nor the British are going to implement so what happens next what happens next I imagine the Prime Minister will go back to the EU and say this deal will not work and we need to try something else and what do you think they will do well I think they're quite keen to get our thirty-nine billion pounds and I think it would be sensible for the government to get back to the offer the EU made as I said nearly a year ago on a comprehensive free trade agreement and if that doesn't happen that doesn't happen we leave without a deal we go to WTO what does WTO terms mean in the context of normal consumers buying food in the shops the price of food should come down because we can reduce tariffs on food which are very high because of the e use common external tariff you know this isn't true you know there's absolutely nobody informed who thinks that following what WTO guidelines would reduce the price of food in this country or I guess your fellow leave campaigning Michael Gove is mistaken and wrong or or perhaps a bit dishonest there are lots of people who think that it would be in the government's hands that the government sets a schedule of tariffs at the WTO it currently follows the government doesn't set a schedule of tariffs at the WTO the government asks the WTO and then every single country that Samantha gets gets a vote on whether or not we're allowed to follow that schedule and it simply is correct no it's not country's gauge the WTO and set their schedule of tariffs and the WTO decides whether or not they can have it no that's what tariff vision the government setting that's not correct that the tariffs then have to be equal amongst all countries so you have to treat all countries my European Union country that's right right that's absolutely right unless you have a specific trade agreement that Ava rides the most nice ones we've got you're absolutely right we do have some deals at the WTO some which have already agreed to be rolled over once we've left and others have already I think eight objects ins that have been lodged with the plan that we've we've courses together I tell you what I want but you're saying that lodging objections does not stop your tariffs taking place and what we could do is we could remove the tariffs which go up to 80% on things like beef so we could have cheaper food present Michael Gove got wrong then when he says that the beef products will go up by 40% because well that I'm fascinated by the in the the the disputes between prominent leave campaigners that have now transferred so in your view because you study these things very closely what is Michael Gove the Environment Secretary missing and the National Farmers Union which have described what you're calling for as a catastrophe do them the favor of explaining what it is you can see that they can't what Michael gave is assuming in that context is that we apply the common external tariff of the European Union to goods coming into this country when we've left the European Union and it'll be under our own control the wiser thing no he's not though he's talking about a 40% higher tariffs than we currently have so what is it you can see that he can't you're not listening I am listen to taker just not falling for it no if we what he is assuming as we apply the common external tariff once we've left the European Union why haven't you explained his do just wait a moment of course because that would be too EU product as well as non EU products but the alternative instead of applying the context and tariff to all products is to lower the tariff to all countries which lessens the price of food it's really getting our beef from well be getting our B from we can get it from all around the world we can get very good beef from Australia and what regulates your East standards or Trading Standards will we be operating our Australian beef is regulated extremely high so we'll be signing up to the Australian regulatory body well we would recognize that beef produced in Australia it's very good quality I don't see any problem with that so we'll be signing up to Australian health and safety legislation No all countries who will be checking the quality of the beef that you're buying from the other side of the world well I'd be quite happy to buy beef that is meets Australian standards so I would be signing up there aren't we surrendering sovereignty by a meeting Australian standards Jacob no I don't think that's right so why are we surrendering sovereignty by meeting EU standards the issue there is meeting EU standards for our own production we're not saying yes I know we're not saying that we would ply Australian standards to mystic production oh I see well the importing stuff from Australia that meets different standards from the stuff that we're growing here are so why not are you saying Australian beef is dangerous I don't have a strong view about Australian beef on English camp so the question again is we'll have two separate regulatory standards for beef where we're depending on where it came from so who will be checking there who will be checking that Australian beef coming here from Australia meets Australian standards Jacob the inspection of food already under the EU from New Zealand for example is done talking about New Zealand now I'm asking about the Australian beef you're so keen to buy new can be challenging simply explaining to you you're simply explaining to me how Australian beef coming into this country when I checked I'm just by and telling you I'm telling you how it's already done with New Zealand it's checked in New Zealand by New Zealand inspectors because the standards in New Zealand are very high the same applies to Australia Australian standards are very high and these these are in terms of a trade agreement you don't need to have a trade agreement you can do it unilaterally right do we do that with New Zealand you know New Zealand is done under the European Union that has right so that's my comparison then so New Zealand has a trade agreement with the European Union does it there's an example Australian food because they're not the same as Australia and I'm asking you about Australian beef well we'll check it what I'm saying to you is very straightforward of course which is why you're using New Zealand to make a point about Australia no I'm just talking generally about terms of talking about the Australian beef that you're using as an explanation of your position what you're trying to do is the cheap barristers trick of badgering the witness and not and your word in edgeways so back to the Australian beef back to the Australian beef Australia has very high standards beef coming from Australia will be inspected in the normal ways it is in Australia we can as a sovereign decision say that we think beef from Australia is very good quality and we will therefore accept it into our country and who check it it will have been checked in Australia before it's let left who will check it here we will say we think that's good enough as our own decision right and it's very high quality beef not that I've come on LBC to give an advert for Australian beef but it is very good beef ok so we'll be going our beef from Australia and it will meet Australian regulatory standards and well we might carry on getting beef from the Republic of Ireland that means EU standards it will still be perfectly safe beef to eat we can trade with countries across the world we already do this use New Zealand yourself as an example really so what will we be able to do afterwards that we can't do now well currently we have very high tariffs on Australian beef so we'd be able to reduce those so the cost of food in this country would be cheaper which is where I started from yes and the meat products that the Australian industry have suggested for export to the UK are hormone treated and you know that whereas we don't have hormone treated be for sale in this country if it is labeled people can decide for themselves I didn't you what does it mean what does it mean me I've been to Australia needand Australian beef quite happy I'm sure you have a bite why why does the European Union regulation outlaw hormone treated pee because it's protectionist and it wants us to play harps it's got nothing to do with hormones no no it's not the EU is all protectionist right so we can buy whole of the EU as a protectionist racket this inefficient European producers at the expense okay so we'll be fine hormone treated beef from Australia and we won't be checking it at our port we'll to make sure that it's okay because Australia would have told us that it's okay trailer has rust Australian standards just as much as I trust and Irish standards yes but ayran don't give hormones to their beef cattle well I'm not worried about that I think that you can ask what your qualifications are in the context of humans country consuming hormone treated beef whether it's perfectly safe in Australia and the Australians don't have any ill effects from this right you've researched this have you taxi that seems quite a good enough answer no it does research on what hormone treated beef is believed to do to human beings it's quite capacious that's why they can sell it more cheap because it makes the stuff grow in a normal healthy fashion I think you're just running along with the hobbyhorse age I think you're right Jacob um let's try again if we may because it's taken me a very long time to get you on the programme and invited me I have we've had an invitation in that your people haven't passed it on I care we're going down and I'm very came on with you last during the breaks it debates on account I know I was being scrupulously impartial so now I'm on LBC every fortnight with mr. Ferrari I'm a regular appearance on on your station and there's the first time I've been asked to come on with you for ages you know that's not true but look let's chalk it up as perhaps a message not being passed along to you so when the when the vote is lost tonight by the Prime Minister and we go back to Brussels and ask them to do what they've said in very clear terms they're not prepared to do what happens then oh well there's then a choice for the European Union as much as there is for us whether we leave with a different deal or whether we leave without one because that's what the law provides for sorry say that again the European Union get to decide what happens to us no there's no choice for both of us oh that's not what you said no I said there's a choice for both of us Brown either we have a new deal which both sides are then willing to accept or will you so that's the option now the European Union if they're telling the truth when they say that we're not going to renegotiate anything we leave without a deal but this is a negotiation so when people say this is our bottom line it very rarely is but time will tell how much time have we got we've got what is it 73 days yes and so the Ender so you think in the next seventy three days the European Union are going to change the negotiating position that has been more or less constant for the last 12 months in reality I think it's more likely that we leave without an agreement and so that goes back to discussing before it does so you're advocating for no deal that's not you believe most likely out it's what we would do what one believes is most likely in what one is advocating for not necessarily the same thing what is why I vacating I would be in favor of a deal but if that proves impossible there was nothing to be fearful about leaving on WTO terms okay and all the people that say there's a lot to be fearful of like the National Farmers Union and the governor of the Bank of England and the CBI you you can see what they can't see which is well the CBI's got everything wrong in its history if one just joined the euro wanted to join the exchange rate I think that's what you just call the red herring or something isn't it so the question is what can you they can't see what I would say is that you should judge people by their previous track record yeah why haven't you taken down that tweet from the Sun about what Terrace really means because the Sun withdrew and it's still on your Twitter account so I'm judging you by your trial right judge away the governor of the Bank of England said we just still call resection takers so much fortunately on our part of judiciary the governor of the Bank of England said we would have a technical recession purely on a vacay the question is what can you see that they can't see and we know that the governor I mean this is so disingenuous the governor of the Bank of England dedicated himself on the morning after the votes are making his own predictions not come true but you know this you just know that if you say it in a mobile and persuasive fashion people will continue to believe you despite the fact that you've led them to the precipice of a no deal brexit which even you know deep down will be disastrous unless you can answer this question what is it you can see that they can't you're you're trying to get up to the hysterical diatribe I think it's all right we can postpone the adverse what can you see that all of the people who warned against coming out with no deal can't say I can see what they've got wrong before and what I'm not asking about the past I'm asking about the future what can change they can't see the past is a very useful guide to the future because you can see why people are making the judgments the CBI protects incumbent interests and therefore it always goes for things have not the consumer interest with the producer interest yes if the government Bank of England is a deep liberal astir sized figure who has been anti brexit from the moment it was proposed what can I see I can see the opportunities of cheaper food clothing a Footwear helping most of all the income so lazy nobody exciting it's a great opportunity it is a call to the failure of the economic model of the European Union which has the Euro and high unemployment even Germany going into recession it is a wonderful opportunity for our nation you should rejoice and be proud of hoping to have reasons for rejoicing at the end of this conversation so I'll ask you one final time the economic modelling that you rely upon has been discredited so badly that even the son withdrew it why do you persist that's not true advice I take is from economists for free trade and Patrick Minford who has the best track record we almost any forecaster you can find in this country and that cutting tariffs does cut prices Patrick Minford let me get right that now Patrick Minford has the best reputation for economic off you got the Exchange Rate Mechanism ride you got the Euro right his role in this in this field golden brown got all right so Jacob Riis MOG is the gentleman that said for brexit to succeed agriculture and industry will be decimated in this country decimated but he said that and he's the manual citing that actually it will be an opportunity for us no no no we need to be clear he's the manual siting and those are his words you're taking one very selective quotation from him he's actually saying it is a real economic it did he or did he not say and we'll get fast did he not say that manufacturing industry and agriculture would be more or less destroyed you've got but what he said in the full context of the economic growth that we will did he or did he not say that agriculture and industry would be destroyed I think you heard the answer I've just given your well I'd like to yes or no did he or did he not say it you might like all those things we did he or did he not say extraordinarily select you so he did say who has forecast so he said he has forecast correctly change rate because I'm on the euro and the opportunities that come from crushing the barriers to trade which have worked in your favorite economic forecaster explain which of the agriculture and industry would be destroyed by your completely exaggerating a comment that he made say what you're saying is inaccurate you're trying to spin something that's mine when he points to it is indeed yes that your reputation absolute it's a fine one and it makes good listening yes so you're not going to answer the question I've answered many of your question but here's the last one did Patrick Minford your economic for tire choice I've already answered that one I've know you're doing the classic thing of taking some selectively and out of context to make a wrong point okay so did he say it or not I've just answered your question IRA fade what I said a moment ago or just remind my list did he say or not they were paying more attention than you now I heard you say that he'd been quoted which would suggest he did say it but you haven't answered my question except illegally so that you cite as an economic czar to be trusted classically and accurate I've answered your question million marshalling away I'm grateful well no I asked a question that admits a yes or no answer and you haven't provided a yes or no answer so we can at least end on a tone of agreement you didn't answer the question in the way that I wanted to and we both know why [Music]

Channel: LBC

Views: 1,887,933

Rating: 3.4229209 out of 5

Keywords: LBC, LBC973, politics, UK Politics, talk radio, talk, radio, news, lbc, interviews, debate, conversation, brexit, brexit latest, brexit vote, theresa may, eu, europe, european union, parliament, brexit debate, jacob rees-mogg, rees-mogg, mogg, james o'brien, james obrien, james o brien, Jacob Rees-Mogg, jacob rees-mogg interview, jacob rees mogg interview, jacob rees mogg lbc, james obrien lbc, james obrien brexit, nigel farage, james obrien today

Id: DF3OQkWEyZA

Length: 22min 28sec (1348 seconds)

Published: Sun Jan 20 2019

Reddit Comments

[u/ApostateAardwolf]

"Unsmissable" is one of those hypberolic youtube buzzwords that makes me skip a video, right up there with "destroys" and "annihilates"

[u/EHEC]

Why are the titles for O'Brien always so bad?

[u/deeacorn]

I managed to miss it.

[u/GeoffBrompton]

Unmissable? I've seen it posted to this sub at least three times now.

[u/[deleted]]

Damage control in here. That was brutal.

[u/Spotted_Blewit]

Why am I certain this is entirely missable without having watched it?

O' Brien is one of the few people I find more loathsome than Mogg. Self-righteous prick. At least Mogg is vaguely amusing.

[u/stylophobe]

CLICKbAIt RAKES in the REVENUE

[u/ukpolbot]

LBC

James O'Brien's Unmissable Exchange With Jacob Rees-Mogg Over Brexit Vote
Subscribe to LBC:
🕘 0:22:28
📅 2019-01-20
👍 783 👎 767
UKPolitics YouTube content bot™ 🚨