Piers Morgan Uncensored - Piers Morgan Uncensored: Economic Frailty, Development of AI, Grand National Protests

Episode Date: April 13, 2023

On tonight's episode of Piers Morgan Uncensored, Rosanna Lockwood is in Piers and discusses what is the reason for our fragile economy. Also Rosanna looks at to whether race to develop AI is out of control. Rosanna delves into the threat of an Animal Rights group to protest at the Grand National this weekend. Watch Piers Morgan Uncensored at 8 pm on TalkTV on Sky 522, Virgin Media 606, Freeview 237 and Freesat 217. Listen on DAB+ and the app.  Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Hello there. Tonight on Pierce Morgan Uncensored with me, Rosanna Lockwood, Britain is said to remain on course for the worst economic performance of any country in the G7 this year. But what is to blame for our unstable and fragile economy? Is it global turmoil or is it Brexit? As the latest AI-generated broadcaster makes her debut in Q8, leaving mere mortal newsreaders questioning their future, will be debating whether the race to develop artificial intelligence systems is out of control. And after animal rights groups confirmed their plans to disrupt the Grand National this weekend, we'll be taking a closer look at horse racing's flagship event as calls for a boycott to grow. Live from London, this is Piers Morgan Uncensored with Rosanna Lockwood. Now, I know, I know we're sick of talking about it.

We had a vote. The people decided that's democracy. Let's get Brexit done and move on. But the point is, every month, with more data, we get more concrete evidence that Brexit has had and is going to continue to have a material negative impact on our economy. The UK, I'm afraid to say it's not prospering at the moment. We are forecast to be the worst performing large advanced economy this year. Our goods exports are the lowest in the G7. GDP figures out today for February show our growth flatlining.

And British living standards are forecast for the biggest two-year decline ever required. Now, I don't need to tell you all this because you can see it, can't you? You're experiencing every day when you go to the supermarket, when you're at home, when you look at your savings, saying all of this that it doesn't make me unpatriotic to point it out. It doesn't mean I hate the UK. In fact, it's my love for the UK that makes me so passionate about this topic. I'm really proud of this country. That's why I don't like seeing us at the bottom of the pack.

And none of this is about questioning the 2016 vote or asking for another one, God forbid. I don't personally care how you voted. back then, but I do care how we deal with this now and how we deal with each other. In fact, let's stop using these Ramona, these Brexiteer titles, shall we? All they do is pit us against each other. We're stronger together and when we look at the facts in front of us and demand honesty and demand better performance from the people who led us into this situation. Joining us in the talk TV studios presenter and staunched Brexiteer, I think it's fair to say.

Richard Tice, just going to give you the opportunity to respond to me. Absolutely. Rosanna, I can't believe you've fallen for it. You've asked for honesty, but you've fallen for the Ramon language. Look, it's quite clear what's causing the flatlining at the moment. Even the IMF that have produced the forecasts in the last few days, the IMF who were against Brexit, who would look for any opportunity to say that it was all Brexit's fault for our flatlining.

They didn't use the word once. Why? Because it's got nothing to do with it, Rosanna. I'm delighted to have this opportunity to explore this. What actually it's all about is, first of all, the huge number of strikes we've got, which is recognised. Our rate of inflation is one of the worst in the G20. Then, of course, we've got the very high gas and energy prices, all because of the madness of net zero. That's causing a massive problem for consumers and for businesses. So we've got the strikes.

And then also taxes and regulations. One of the great opportunities for Brexit that the con-socialist stories have failed to take advanced job is the ability to cut taxes hard and to go for growth, cut unnecessary dafty regulations. They haven't bothered any of that. And here's a point which lots of people on the remains I'd say is to blame is the labour shortages. But actually, we haven't got a labour shortage. Yes, we do. We don't have a labour shortage.

We've got the highest population ever. I've just come back from France. They've also got labour shortages. They're still in the European Union, as you well know. It's got nothing to do with that. We've got 5.2 million people of our own on out-of-work benefits. we've got a willing worker problem because there are taxes are too high, so work is not paying in this country.

For too many people on modest or low incomes, the reality is that work doesn't pay relative to, for example, being on benefits and working, let's say, 16 hours ago. These are the sort of issues that are causing our economy. You didn't mention in your intro that also Germany is forecast to be flatlining. And Germany, again, is still in the European Union. Why are they struggling? for the same reasons to do with energy.

Because they also have adopted the madness of net zero, which means that instead of using nuclear fuels, which they've done in the past, they've got rid of all that, they've gone down the renewable thing, and then they got exposed to Russia, and that's had a huge impact on their economy and their growth.

The reality is these numbers are all flatlining. They're all terrible. We agreed on that. You said, let's move forward with honesty, and you can't grow in economy if you tax our way out of existence with high regulations. That surely is what we've got to agree. We've got to cut taxes, go for growth,

cut up wasteful, unnecessary government spending, and then we will be much more prosperous as a nation. Richard, I can't believe you said you couldn't believe I'd fallen for it. The Ramona language, when I couldn't believe the way that the country was led into this decision by certain people who were voting for Brexit at the time. And, you know, the points that you've laid out, yes, there is a labour shortage.

We have got record employment in the UK, rather, but we have got a huge amount of vacancies that are unfilled. Speak to anybody anecdotally in the business market. They will tell you there is a massive labour problem. And they don't tell you that one in eight of our working age population is out-to-work benefits. We've got a willing worker shortage, not a people shortage. And when it comes to other countries, when we look at global issues, things like COVID, the pandemic, the energy crisis, inflation,

those are global issues that have been caused by a myriad of economic factors that have affected countries around the world. one of the highest, most wasteful spending of government money through the whole lockdown process because of our lockdown policies. It wasn't COVID, it was our response to it, which was fundamentally flawed. Our response was not unique. The British response in lockdown was replicated and stronger in many other countries. We were the only country to unilaterally place trading barriers on our closest trading partner.

That is what sets us out as different. The Germany example I want to highlight because Italy, France and Spain, absolutely bouncing into recovery. Eurozone, very, very healthy too. Because they weren't as generous on their lockdown policies. That's the reality. Look at Sweden, for example, which took a completely different view of lockdowns. They didn't suffer the huge extra cost expense, and now their economy is doing much better.

So there are multiple reasons, but I do come back to the fundamental point. If anybody was going to use Brexit as an excuse, it would be the IMF, and they didn't because it's not true. And I'm being honest with you. Look, I want to bring up anecdotal things here because you speak to people in the UK, And I think this is really important to listen to businesses, to listen to people and what they're saying. This letter was sent into the Financial Times by the managing director of a lace company in Derbyshire. They make lace, they send it to France to be dyed and then they get it back. He said, in their case, with these post-Brexit trade rules, HMRC are levying an 8% duty backdated to Brexit.

He finishes by saying they have spent more than 200 years building their business in Derbyshire. They fought for 30 years against the global textile trend of moving to the Far East. and they have now been, quote, killed off by our own side in a couple of years. And those HMRCs, and this government's, this Tory government's utter stupidity. We don't need to do that. The whole point of doing Brexit was so that we can make our own decisions. This Tory government, they got Brexit over the line,

but they haven't taken advantage. That's their fault. It's not the fault of those of us that recommended Brexit as being the right thing to do. It's still a great platform of opportunity, and we should unify and go for it, put the shoulder behind the wheel, put the foot flat on the accelerator of growth and success.

But you can't do that if you've got an HMRC and a Tory government that refuses to do it. Look, there was a poll recently, a statistic poll, that asked Britons if they would still vote for Brexit. 55%, this was a poll taken last month, said that they think it was the wrong idea to leave the EU. Of course, that's a different size of people than was. That's almost identical to the poll, Rosanna,

that was taken in the polls just before the Brexit vote. All the polls then said, that Remain would win and all the polls were wrong because they didn't understand the gut instinct of the great British people and that people voted for. But what people did quite reasonably expect is that the government under Boris Johnson would then take advantage of the opportunities they espoused

and that's what they've utterly failed to do. So it's a failure of this Tory government rather than the failure of the fundamental concept in the first place. Isn't that a bit convenient for you to see? say, given that you were such a staunch Brexiteer back in 2016, and you still are, clearly, but that you say it's an implementation issue with the current government, isn't that? Because I'm not in the current government, because I lead a different party that obviously was the Brexit party. We know how to make a huge success of it, and we are still absolutely banging the cause that it's the right thing to do, because it is.

But like anything in life, if you're going to do a job, do it properly, or don't do it or don't do a half job, and that's what the Tories have done. They've sort of limped out, they've left the Northern Ireland handcuffed into the EU, and then they haven't taken advantage of the opportunities that they said they would. They haven't even cut levies and VAT on energy bills, which we could do. They haven't cut VAT on energy and on consumer goods, which would reduce inflation. All these things they could do, they haven't. Knowing what you do now, because hindsight's a glorious thing, isn't it? It's 2020. Would you have campaigned for Brexit in exactly the same way that you did back in 2016,

knowing what you do now, knowing the data we've got out, would you do it the same way? Even harder. Really? With more spirit. But what I would have done absolutely, what you've got to do in any negotiation, you've got to be prepared to walk away. Because Theresa May's government wasn't,

that was why the negotiations went wrong. So we didn't get the right sort of deal, and we limped over the line. Richard, we brought you on because we knew the position you were going to take. You haven't surprised me one bit. I do hope you'll join us at the end of the show to talk through a few more stories of the day

in the regular pact. But now I want to get the views of an economist on this issue. Professor Danny Blanchflower, form of it. Bank of England policy, rather, advisor joins me live. Danny, thanks so much for making time for us. Hope you listen to that debate just now with Richard. Just get your immediate response. Well, we had Gremlin, so I only heard a little bit of it. I mean, I think it's kind of, you know, the ship has sunk and no regrets. I mean, the reality is that Brexit, as an economist,

Brexit was always going to be an economic disaster. And it's turned out. to be that way. And I've long said to people, please, would you tell me an economic benefit yet of Brexit? And to this point, nobody's actually ever come up with one. And I think the reality has to sort of hit, you know, the reality has to hit the road right here. I mean, yesterday we got a report from the IMF giving a forecast for all the advanced and less developed countries. Guess who's worst for the UK? Why? Well, Brexit. So it's rare. And, I think it's fair to say, isn't it, that economists reach consensus on some issues. There seems to be a consensus that there's a growth issue in the UK.

But how much consensus is there among economists that Brexit is to blame for the UK's growth problem? Well, I mean, I think it's interesting. I mean, Emily Maitliss talked about this some time ago. I mean, at the time of when the debate was on about Brexit, there were thousands and thousands of economists who basically said the same thing as I've just said. And I think there were probably five who got onto every TV. program, essentially say, if you like, just equivalent that the world was flat. And so basically, the consensus before it happened was the same.

The consensus now is the same. The only issue is how disastrous is it? I mean, the question you have to ask, if anybody thinks Brexit was a great idea, what's the explanation of why the UK is basically the sick man of Europe, the sick man of the OECD? And what explains that? There's a simple explanation, which is investment. was falling in the UK. Mobile workers that were here, greasing the wheels of the labour market have left.

And essentially, we saw data today saying the export performance of the UK was completely disastrous and also worst in the Western world. So I don't really know what anyone's arguing about. I mean, you can do the King Canute thing saying, you know, hold back the tide. But I mean, the jury came back. The fat lady started singing.

There is no debate anymore. It's an unmitigated disaster, and you can't eat sovereignty. And that's as simple as it is. Danny, I want to ask you one point that Richard brought up when I was debating just now. He said the UK doesn't have a Labour issue. I think it does. Well, sure it does. I mean, the big issue it has is that people can't afford to pay their bills,

even if they're working. And why are so many people on strike? Public sector pay is so low. People are struggling to survive. their real wages have fallen. So they clearly is a laborish. And one of the big reasons people have retired, actually, is the jobs are not paying enough.

Real pay in many jobs has actually fallen. And older people have decided the benefit of going to work is less than the benefit of not going to work. So the answer is, of course, there's an economic problem. Basically, it's about paying your bills. And obviously we also had a disastrous government trying to trot out right-wing stuff that the Brexit is supported. And the Prime Minister lasted 48 days. And I actually wrote, I think, in July 22, saying that this is always going to be a disaster.

The bond markets, the foreign exchange markets would come after you. And boy, did they. So this is just all a set of economic policies that are a disaster. Danny, just to end on a positive note, if we can, because I want to avoid you and I being labeled as Ramona's in all of this. Realists. We're realists. One of realists, exactly. One of Richard's key points, though, is it's an implementation issue of the current government.

So if that is the argument to take, how much longer do we give them? We don't give them any much longer. We know the answer. What's the answer, then? What's the solution? Well, we have to try and work out ways of making the connections to our close neighbours much greater. We have to deal with the issue of pay. to deal with the issue of goods and people moving across frontiers again and basically do

everything you can to reverse everything that the Brexiteers did. I mean, everything you think, every policy they did, let's just reverse it, start to allow free movement of peoples, allow goods to cross frontiers and not have to bother with ridiculous trade deals with some East Asian, South East Asian country that will raise GDP by 0.000 in a decade. And that was considered to be an overestimate as well. Yeah. I know, I know. The zeros have it. Danny Blanchel. Thank you very much for adding to this debate. Thank you, Richard, in the studio as well.

Now, we do have more coming up on the show. Are we all at risk of losing our jobs to AI? If it's not anything else, critics say AI will lead to mass unemployment whilst others say it will move humanity forward. We're talking about that next. Welcome back to Peers Morgan uncensored. Now, artificial intelligence, is it our new best friend or worst enemy? In Kuwait, AI bots have started reading the news, which means journalists could be out of a job, including you, Rosanna.

I don't think so. Really, really, is that what's going to replace us newsreaders and presenters? I'd like to see them moderate a Brexit debate. But of course, this is a more serious topic. That was an AI bot speaking, the words written by our producer, Kieran. Very smart there, Kieran. But it does raise this important question. Is AI a threat to the jobs of almost all of us?

Everyone from doctors to teachers could see themselves made redundant by new technology that's faster and more intelligent than the average human. But will all of it result in this dystopian future where will be slaves to AI overlords or a more utopian world, freeing us from the shackles of nine to five, living free to pursue more leisurely activities? Here to discuss all of this,

AI skeptic and director of the Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford University, Professor Nick Bostrom, Nick, thank you ever so much for making time to speak to us. And, you know, I know we can oversimplify this and talk about sort of robots taking our jobs. It seems to be that's what the media most grasps onto. But give us a sense of the power of AI, if you could. Well, I think we are just at the early stages of what might become the biggest transition in human history, the arrival of the machine intelligence era.

long ago we have sort of automated a lot of human physical labor first through draft animals and then with steam engines and so forth and now we're starting to automate human cognitive labor. How dangerous is that to replicate cognitive behavior? Well, I've long argued that this development of machine general intelligence and as I think shortly thereafter, machine super-intelligence, will be associated with significant existential risks, like threats to the very survival of the human species. Also, however, I think if we get it right, it presents tremendous opportunities to solve a very wide range of different problems

that have plagued humanity throughout our history. You have argued that sentient machines are a greater threat than climate change at some point. Do you stick by that? that yeah that's that's my assessment um i think um both in terms of time scale um there's a lot of uncertainty about that but in the last several years progress in i has been really quite impressive um and also about the risks if and when we do reach human equivalence and then super intelligence um it's just something completely unprecedented we've never developed superintellences before and

And I think we might only get one try on this. We need to get it right on the first shot. Because once you have an unfriendly antagonistic super intelligence, it might not be possible to sort of put that genie back into the bottle. So we've got to get it right for at the first try. And it looks quite challenging to do that, just to make sure that it's aligned and does what we actually want to do. I mean, it does sound terrifying this idea of super,

I've seen it described as godlike super intelligence. And I remember having beers with a friend a few years ago and he's saying, the thing I'm most scared about supercomputers, and I thought he was off his rocket. This was probably about seven years ago. He was right back then. How far along the curve are we and how fast is the train going in terms of being able to rain it in if we need to? The train is going really fast. I mean, everybody have seen these recent large language models with chat GPT,

KatyPT for it seems like almost every other day, there is like a big new release. The image generation models, like everything you see in this picture is artificial, right? The virtual backdrop actually generated by one of these Dali to image generation models. I'm not even sure whether I'm real or artificial. And it looks like these current algorithms

generalize very well and scale. So you pour in more compute, you pour in more data, and they just seem to reach higher levels of performance with as yet no clear end in sight. There was an open letter being spread around the technology in the AI community. Elon Musk was one of the signatories saying we need to pause the development of AI in order to assess some of these risks. You can see that we can call on all AI developers to stop this immediately.

Pause for at least six months. He's asking for the training of AI systems more powerful than GPT4. I believe that Bill Gates was actually not one of the signatories of those, and he has made the case that we do need to keep the development of AI up in the West, because otherwise we're going to fall out of the race when it comes to competing with China, and obviously there could be risks involved with that. Yeah, right now, the West and particularly certain large Western tech companies, I think, have a lead.

Things are quite competitive in this space. Also in terms of building the computer hardware that is needed to run these large AI models, the key producers of that are in the United States, in Taiwan and in South Korea. And recent export regulations have tried to stymie the sales of AI chips into China. So that might make it harder for Chinese developers to keep up with the cutting. I think ultimately machine super intelligence should be developed. I do think during the key parts of the transition, though, it would be wise to be able to do it carefully and not to have a sort of hyper-competitive situation

where there are 20 different companies that are each vying to get their first, and whoever decides to make some extra precautions or to check their system, actually carefully just immediately falls behind. And the race is won by whoever is willing to take most risks. I think that would be a bad situation. So having some ability amongst the leading developers to coordinate, maybe to slow down for a few months, I think that could be a positive. Yeah, ideally you'd want it to happen in concert.

But of course, in the real world, companies compete and countries compete. And this idea of having one of the most consequential technological impacts on earth, as you sort of laid out at the beginning of our conversation, just how severe it could be. And all these decisions being made by a small handful of tech companies, private companies, don't regular people deserve a say in this? Yeah, I think the development of machine superintelligence is really an issue not just for one company or even one country. It's an issue for all of humanity. We are all in this spot together.

Like if it goes badly, we're all doomed and if it goes well, I think we should all, you know, have a slice of the upside as well. I think this conversation will need to and I think it will broaden and out, policymakers are getting a lot more interested. I think people as they start to get first-hand experience using these systems and seeing how they get better so quickly. I think that that will focus a lot of attention on this over the coming months and years. I think you're right in saying that everyone's sort of experimenting now. A lot of people know what chat GPT is.

They're starting to see the power of this. Hopefully we'll find a way for us not all to be doomed. Nick Bostrom, director of the Future of Humanity Institute. Thanks so much for joining us this evening. Thank you. Well, still to come here on the show, one of the biggest events in the sporting calendar. But is the Grand National a dangerous and morally dubious fixture or simply a brilliant spectacle we should all get behind? We'll be discussing next.

Welcome back to the show. Off to the races, the Grand National, one of the most famous horse races watched by millions around the world. And it's taking place this coming Saturday. It's also one of the most controversial sporting events of the year. Campaigners have spent years calling for a boycott, arguing the race is too dangerous for both horses and jockeys, and therefore morally dubious. Already and tragically, a horse named Envoy Special has died on the first day of Aintree,

first day, rather, of Aentree following a fatal fall. So that gives us a bit of backdrop for this discussion. Joining me now in the studio, Alex Lockwood, a spokesperson for Animal Rising who plans to protest. Well, your organisation does at the Grand National. And Kevin Blake, a horse racing journalist who joins us live from Tipperary.

Thank you, gentlemen, both. I'll come to Alex first, And I should point out that despite us showing the same surname, Alex Lockwood and I do not have any relations in common. We've just sussed that out. So there's no bias in this debate. But I also want to disclose that I probably do have a bit of bias in this debate because I'm a very keen horse rider. So let's get on to talking about this. And give us a sense, Alex, of what you're seeking to achieve by maybe staging this protest at entry.

Sure. Thank you. And first of all, thanks for having us on. So I think in the UK we can be rightly proud of ourselves as being a nation of animal lovers. And the behaviour towards animals, though, sometimes fall short of those values. And that's particularly in the food system, of course, but also in events like the Grand National. As you said, Envoy Special has already died at this year's Grand National meeting. We think that's harmful. We think it's wrong.

We think the majority of the British public support our views and feel the same. and we'd really like to call on people to come down and support us in sort of disrupting the race. Because what we want to do is shine a spotlight on the treatment of animals in this country and show that we've actually got a broken relationship with animals and the natural world. And that's at the centre of a lot of our problems, such as the climate crisis. All right. I want to go into some of those points in more detail, but first want to get to Kevin and get his response to that. And hear a little bit about your knowledge and expertise in this.

And obviously you're probably quite used to coming up against this type of debate. Hi Rosanna. Yeah, firstly, thank you very much for the opportunity to come on. It's much appreciated and very happy to talk about this race, horse racing in general. Look, it's interesting because Alex feels that the majority of the British public would be on his side of this argument. As far as I'm aware, they're expecting maybe 100 or 200 protesters. Alex can correct me if I'm off the mark there. But five to 600 million people all around the world will take time out of their day to watch.

this race on Saturday. The race is not perfect and it isn't without risk. No one would ever claim that. But the fact that 5 to 600 million people are going to tune in to watch it live I feel is an extremely strong vote of confidence from the Court of Public Opinion.

Does the fact that 5 to 600 million people are tuning in to watch this and it has so much support give Alex some ammunition to raise issues about animal awareness? Isn't it something that we should keep in the conversation about the race if so many people are watching. Absolutely, Rosanna.

Look, racing itself is on this and has been on it for decades. Look, it's very important for those that don't watch horse racing every day to know that the Grand National is a very different race this coming Saturday than what it was in relatively recent times. Like, if you go on YouTube

and watch Red Rum winning the Grand National in the 1970s, like what you see is a completely different spectacle to what we see on Saturday. You know, defenses have been massively modified. Everything around the race has been modified with a view to reducing avoidable risk. And they've had very good results in looking to achieve that. The most recent changes were made to defenses after the 2012 renewal. And since then, like the race has never been safer. The fatality rate has dropped to 1.1%.

It's never been lower than that. The average number of fallers in those nine renewals has dropped to five compared to. 11.6 in the previous renewals prior to those changes. So nobody made horse racing make these changes, Rosanna. This was all self-driven in the best interest of reducing avoidable risk. The problem that we have and that we have in life is that risk can never be eliminated. It's about us as intelligent, reasonable people deciding what qualifies as acceptable risk. We do this in our lives every single day. And across the board in British horse racing, the fatality rate has reduced to 0.2% of all runners. And trust me, when I say that there's a whole bunch of people that are working to keep that coming down, but it's reduced by one third in the last 20 years, Rosanna. It's very

important to emphasise that, that we are on this and we care more than anyone about reducing that number as low as we possibly can. I'm hearing some very, very clear action that has been taken. There's very clear statistics I want to put it to Alex here in the studio. You can hear compromises being made, not compromises, actual care for animal welfare and safety. People in the horse racing industry, many do really care for the welfare of horses. Don't you agree with that? I do agree with that.

But what's Kevin said there is that no one cares more, but actually we do because we don't want any fatalities on the course. And look, a horse dies every other day in British horse racing, and that's just on the tracks. back in the stables, back in the paddocks, more die. 2,000 horses end up in slaughterhouses, like 50% of those have racing passports. This is what happens to those horses who can't run fast enough.

So, for example, the jockey, who was the whistleblower, who told about the shooting of young horses, foals, 18 of them, who couldn't run fast enough to make a profit for the industry. What we're about, and what we're trying to shine a light on, is that people making profit off of animals, is wrong. And that's in the food system, in horse racing, anywhere. You know, we're in 2023.

You know, like, we've got rid of dog fighting. You know, we're trying to get rid of, you know, fox hunting. Hold on there. Is cruel and for the animals, you know, and it's as much as Kevin would like to think, you know, all of these jockeys, all of these things really care, actually, if there's no money involved, they wouldn't care. Kevin.

I can't believe that Alex has just mentioned dog fighting and tried to compare that to horse racing. come on what are we doing here like in terms of it all being about profit like again it shows a lack of understanding of horse racing because the racehorse ownership in itself like it is a huge loss making endeavor like across the industry okay in british horse racing a racehorse owner can expect to get back on average about 20% of the money they invest in they don't do it to make money they do it because they love the sport they love the horses they love the experiences

that being involved in the sport can give them if they go in thinking they're going to make a profit they're foolish because it's just not the case in the vast majority of cases this isn't about a profit making exercise it's the love of a sport and like in terms of you want to talk about care you know I'd be interested to hear

if Alex has ever been in a racing yard on a stud farm and seeing the level of care these animals get like this like There is no animal on the planet that gets a higher level of care every day from the very beginning, from when they're forwards, up until after they retired. Alex, have you been on a stud farm? Have you been to one of these racing facilities? I've been to racing facilities. I've been on farms as well, sort of dairy farm, sheep farms. I've interviewed a lot of these people who work with animals. What racing? What racing stables have you been in, Alex? As a matter of interest, I'd be familiar with most trainers in the UK.

Yeah, those around Newcastle where I live. But what I'd like to get to? What I'd like to get to the point of being? You can't name one. For example, so I understand the attraction and the attachment that people have to horse racing. My mum actually had, you know, she worked in a betting shop when I was growing up. She had a 70th share in a horse. You know, she went to Epson Darby for her Hindu when she got remarried. I understand the attachment that people have to horse racing.

But what we're saying is that no horse should die. You know, we're a nation of animal lovers. We're really proud of our... Every horse dies. Every horse dies. We're really proud of our relationship with animals. Hang on a second. Sorry, Alex.

So what... Kevin chanting out there that every horse dies, but there's definitely the end of an actual life isn't there. And then there is definitely every steeple. I mean, let's talk about... No, we all die, Rosanna. Every animal dies, but not every animal lives with the quality of life that a race horse gets. Like, look, I own a stud farm here. Like, we have brute mares, we breed thoroughbreds. You know, I have a bunch of horses outside from one day old, up to which one.

22-year-old retired mayor. Like, this is my life. You know, when I finish this call, I'd be going outside and check them before I go to bed. When I wake up in the morning, that would be the first thing I see in the morning after my wife. You know, the level of care, these are very high-in-maintenance animals.

I hear you. I hear you. Just last week, I was mucking out four horses, four mornings of the week, spoiling them rotten. There's nothing I love more than horses. But I think I represent a fair decent proportion of the British public, and then I eat meat.

I ride horses, and not everyone ride horses, of course, but I can also respect that the Grand National is this big spectacle that people enjoy going to, but I also care about animals. Like Alex said, the beginning of our conversation, we are a nation of animal lovers. A lot of us have lots of pets. We want to know that animals are being taken care of.

Before we run out of time, I want to talk about this planned demonstration this weekend. Alex, can you give us a sense of what is being planned at Aintree? Yes, so we're going down to Aitree. We're asking for people to come and join us at night, 930 from in front of the gates, at Aintree, we're going to be there all day, we're going to be protested in,

we're going to try to disrupt the race. And we're doing that to bring attention to the fact that we've got a broken relationship with animals and the natural world. You know, like that broken relationship is at the center of many of the problems we face. You know, like the way that we treat animals is responsible for the wildlife problems we're suffering from.

The industrial farms that are polluting our rivers, you know, like all of these things are wrapped up in the fact that we should be a nation of animal lovers. that treat animals well. So we're going to go there. We're bringing many more than 300 people. We've got lots and lots of supporters coming down. We're asking many more people to come and be there with us.

And we're going to try to disrupt the race because we believe it's wrong. I'm getting calls. We've got to move on. But I do want to disrupting the race sounds dangerous to me. But let's see what it is in reaction. And Kevin, I want to just give you a final word as well about how you feel about that disruption to the race this weekend. Oshallok, no one would ever discourage peaceful problems.

protests, you know, it's the right everyone has, but to, you know, illegally disrupt the race, potentially putting horses and humans at risk is just silly. I'm sure it won't happen. Look, the thing is that ironically, like myself and Alex, like are clearly on very different sides of this debate, Rosanna, but we'd actually have an awful lot of common ground. Like, I don't doubt the sincerity of him or his supporters in thinking they have the best interests of thoroughbreds at heart. But look, we know thoroughbreds. This is a breed that we have created. We've curated over 300 years. They have very highly specialised needs. We know how to meet them. We know how to look after them. No one is resting on their laurels. We know the world is changing. But, look, trust me, I'm on the ground day in, day out. The racing authorities, the people involved directly with the horses

are doing everything they can to reduce risk to the lowest possible level we can. But such is life, we can never reduce risk to zero. Kevin, Alex, you've both put across your points very well this evening. Thank you so much for insights. Well, next tonight, Biden's back at it again. In Ireland, another speech, another gaffe. But with the US President appearing to confirm, he'll be running again in 2024. I'll be asking, is Joe Biden too old for office?

That's next. Welcome back to Pierce Morgan Undercent. Miros Anilocks. My final night sitting in for Piz before he comes back from holiday. Let's have some fun, shall we? It's already been fun. Joined in the studio now by our panel for the evening to chew over some news. Comedian and commentator, Sejila Kirschi.

Talk TV presenter, Richard Tice, joins us back here. and Talk TV's international editor, Isabel Oakshot. All three of you, lovely to have you. And, you know, with no favouritism at all, but Richard, coming back in after we had quite a heated conversation at the top of the show there about Brexit, obviously we have very different positions, but we wanted to show the viewers this,

because when you and I were talking about the CPPPP, which is the Asian Trade Pact, we're actually talking to Danny Blanche Flower, who's an economist, we were speaking to him in the US, Richard was sitting next to me in the studio under strict orders not to comment to listen to Danny. And this was Danny's, sorry, this was Richard's reaction as Danny was talking. Allow goods to cross frontiers and not have to bother with ridiculous trade deals with some East Asian, South East Asian country that will raise GDP by 0.000 in a decade.

And that was considered to be an overestimate as well. We just had to show you that because it was quite extraordinary in the studio, Richard. I couldn't resist it, but I kept quiet. You did. just had to explain in sort of graphics that he was completely wrong. Rosanna, I actually think you gave him a bit too easy a time

I have to say. I was listening since you let him prattle on for absolutely ages. What did you prattle on? I was telling him, truth about the advantages of Brexit. You can let him have a party-political broadcasts. I like to let people set out their stall to hear it, but I think you know, we loaded up quite hard against you, both me

and Barnes Fowell sharing quite a similar view on things. Look, we're not going to continue to talk about Brexit. because we're just going to be accused of being Ramonas. Let's talk about President Biden, rather, who in Ireland today was having a meeting. Now, there have been all these allegations. Sir Gila, thanks so much for joining us this evening,

that he is too biased in his Irish ancestry and his love for Ireland. Yesterday, when we were talking about this, I was thinking probably over-egged. He's a diplomat. He knows how to handle this. But let's take a listen. You see this tie I have with a shamrock on it?

This was given to me by one of these guys. right here was a hell of a rugby player and they beat the hell of the black and tans oh god, oh, God, I'm going to hear the audience there, not quite sure if they've realised what he said. He said black and tans he apparently, according to the Whitehouse,

meant all blacks, the rugby team. Not the police force that faced the IRA back in the early 20th century, but it is a massive gaff or is it not, Sajula? This is interesting because was it a gaff or did he know what he was saying? I suspect the little mischievous inside of me thinking

so maybe he did it on purpose. Firstly, how has he left the US? How has that happened? Because I go away for a couple of months and I don't watch the news and suddenly, like, Biden's well and like really kind of like energetic. He's out there in Ireland, really claiming his Irish route. And I think back in 2020, they said

that the Irish passport was more powerful than the US and the UK. So maybe he just wants an Irish passport, I don't know. But I think, I just think all these little gaps, I'm not sure now, I'm not actually convinced that he does them accidentally. I think he's, there's a little bit of... Yeah, I do. I do. I mean, that's a classic gaff of somebody who has been reading his brief

on the plane coming over. He's been skim reading it or someone's been verbaling it to him. He's remembered something about history and the black and tans, and he just basically drops it in by mistake. It's completely incredible. You think it's a mistake? A slip-up just association. The idea that it's deliberate.

That is frankly, that's a great. A broodian slip that he is. He is 80. There's another thing though, which is that it transpires that his limousine in Northern Ireland, which should have had the Union Jack flag on it, along with the US flag. He didn't.

It had the flag of the Republic of Ireland. I mean, that is... So I think that some of this stuff is very deliberate. I don't know whether the black and tans is, or whether it's just the fact that he's an 80-year-old who is clearly struggling. But it's nevertheless, it's pretty serious, and frankly, he should just do better.

He's the leader of the free world. Looking back at some of the history of Biden's comments about Ireland and England specifically as well, because he's blamed his father for giving him an English name. And, you know, does that make him anti-British? But there have been so many comments, Julia, over the years, of Biden just basically trying to renounce his English ancestry

but promote his Irish. Or maybe he's confused, and he doesn't actually know which island, I-S-L-A-N-D, he's talking about. I didn't even know what day it is. I mean, he's 80 years old. I think he's going to get away with it.

However, actually, America needs to do better because, you know, he's 80, and I don't want to be ages because I think you can do things at any age and we're all getting older, so we want to keep jobs and stuff. But I just think that perhaps whoever's advising him just needs to do better,

you know, the people around him. I blame them, not him so much. Let's talk about upper age limits for power then because there's even been debate there was in the Sunday Times this week say should people over the certain age stop having driving licences because there's a huge proportional risk of older people and behind

the wheel and the risks that that can have but in terms of holding the office of the United States President we've got Trump and Biden going up against each other by the more or less re-announcing his run is it okay Elizabeth Isabel? I don't think there should be a cut-off point it's all to do with how you're physically and mentally able to cope and it's

quite evident over the course of his presidency that Joe Biden is struggling. You know, there have been numerous gaffs. His delivery in speeches, which is, after all, very important, if you're the president or any leading politician, is extraordinarily erratic. You know, he will waffle on. You lose, if you're the audience, you lose the thread of it.

He's obviously lost the thread of it. I don't think he's all there. There's not fortunately too much longer to go of this presidency, but the idea of him rerunning, I think, is extraordinary. And I would be astonished if the American people voted for more of the same. You more or less accuse Richard are waffling on at the start of the show. Does that mean? He's not 80. He's got no excuse.

She didn't mean it. There shouldn't be an upper age limit. But it is extraordinary that in the United States, you've got the sort of the leading Republican contender is 78. Joe Biden, the president, is saying he's going to run it at the age of 80. How is it that America, in the nicest possible way, can't come up with something a bit younger, a bit more dynamic that sort of unites and inspires the nation.

I think Barack Obama was your lot, basically. You got a good-looking, young, you know. But what did he achieve? But I mean, yeah, but it's just, I don't know. Look, you know, people vote who they vote for. So you can't, you know, it's democracy. And if you vote for old people, then they're going to get in on me. I don't know, maybe America do better.

That was my question. Isn't there any younger, more vibrant, inspirational leaders? Which, Megan Markle? Would it be, as Morgan Unsed, without us talking about Megan Markle and Prince, Harry? Or the Sussex is, rather, I should call them. Okay, the latest in the coronation. We now know that Harry is coming next month. The coronation, we know that Megan is staying behind.

Originally, we heard it was because it was Archie's fourth birthday, the kid's birth. It's on the same day, the prince. Now we're hearing her spiritual advisor saying, well, actually, it's probably best to stay away. Isabel, your reaction says it all. Well, my reaction is just I don't really want to listen to a spiritual advisor. I mean, that's ridiculous. I think they've actually made a graceful decision here. We don't know the extent to which they were forced into it by the palace.

But I think this is absolutely the right decision. Prince Harry needs to come in and be seen to be there. I think you'll get the hell out pretty quickly. She would have been a huge distraction. Doubtless there would have been booing. It would have been very uncomfortable for the rest of the royal family. So I think it was the right decision. I don't know why you're making that funny face.

Well, because we're British. We don't boo people. But equally, equally. Have you not seen Big Brother? You don't, but people would have. Who has a spiritual guru or advice? Californiaans, Richard. That in itself highlights the absurdity of the lady. I mean, it's just ridiculous.

She tries to sort of infer that she understands ordinary people and she cares about things. She's got a spiritual guru. I mean, really? No, I don't think she has a spiritual guru. I think what it is, they got the story more. He did her with her podcast. and suddenly he's come out because it's Deepak Chopra,

which quite frankly, I thought he was dead. I'm sorry, but, you know, I did. And he's, you know, he's obviously come out, 79. He's another person who's, you know, geriatric and trying to get, be relevant. But, God, I'm sounding really ages today, but I really am not. And I just think that it was the right decision. I agree with you. They couldn't have been any other decision.

I wouldn't want to be booed. I know that, you know, the UK hates her. That's how I would feel. And plus, you've got your children. It's birthday. It's the right decision for the. this situation. She's damned if she does. She's damned if she doesn't. It's almost as to what's more of interest is the fact that Harry is coming in and out

and he's not even going to go to the palace to the sort of the party afterwards or appear on the back. And that I think is... You're probably worried to be fistic up. Yeah, but between the brothers. It's extraordinary. It highlights the depth of the collapse, the calamity in the relationship. How do they recover from this? I mean, at his father's own coronation. Is there a path to reform for Harry? I mean, I can't see it. You know, you listen to all the people who are experts in this

and who have spoken to all the people close to them and it just doesn't look recoverable. I think the trust thing is crucial, isn't it? How can they have any conversation, you know? Absolutely. Trust, credibility means lots of the British public. That is it from us. Peirz is back on Monday in this seat. But just a reminder before we go

that our Wall Street Journal colleague, Evan Gershkovich, remains unjustly detained in Russia. And we, of course, call for his immediate release. whatever you're up to tonight make sure it's uncensored want to thank Richard Isabel Sejila in the studio with me it's been great talking to all of you

do stay with us good night