Piers Morgan Uncensored - Piers Morgan Uncensored: Female Footballers Equal Pay? Should Donald Trump Suspend his Campaign?

Episode Date: July 19, 2023

On tonight's episode of Piers Morgan Uncensored, Piers debates to whether female footballers should get equal pay as Women's World Cup nears it's beginning. Also Piers assesses to whether Donald Trump should stand down after a second criminal indictment, this time of over the January 6th riots. 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

I'm Pierce Morgan. Uncensored tonight, female footballers make fresh demands for equal pay, ahead of the Women's World Cup. Is it time for sport to pay its female talent fairly? Or do men still earn their advantage? We'll have that thorny debate. Also tonight, former President Trump faces a third criminal indictment, this time over the January 6th riots. Governor Azza Hutchinson, one of his rivals as Republican candidate to be president, demands that Trump now suspends his campaign and joins me live. Plus, a controversial barge for housing refugees is docked in Britain as officials order children's murals to be scrubbed from the walls or a detention centre.

The UK has to solve this migrant crisis, but aren't we forgetting our humanity will debate? From the news building in London, this is Piers Morgan Uncensored. Well, good evening, from London. Welcome to Piers Morgan Unsensor. Many of the stereotypes about millennials, almost as lazy as some of them are. They like avocados on toes. They take photos of them. avocados on toes, bad tattoos, skinny jeans, dating apps, cats, you get the picture, and censorship of course. Like a lot of stereotypes, they begin life with a kernel of truth. A major survey in the US found that a plurality of people age 25 to 34 now think using the wrong

pronouns should be a criminal offence. Almost half of them think you should be prosecuted to saying he instead of she, if that he is becoming a she, or if he or she just wants to be they, or thinks they should be a she, he, they or something like a cat. You could be forgiven for being as confused about this as some of them are. And that's the point. Most decent people have no real problem with referring to trans people by their chosen gender. I try and do it myself. There nothing else is just polite and good manners.

But most decent people also find all this completely baffling. Stop someone in the streets of Barnsley or Baltimore and ask them for their personal preferred pronouns. They'll ask you what the hell you're talking about. Look what happened when CNN. The very paragon's of virtue signaling analyzed the disastrous impact that trans influence of Dylan Mulvaney, who until last year identified as a gay man, had on sales of Bud Light. They don't like the way Dilvan Mulvaney was treated after this whole controversy started. He, of course, is the transgender person they were going to sponsor and go along with with Bud Light.

They didn't like how Bud Light didn't stand by him. Him? Oh, dear. Well, he was a him last year, but not only. And the next day, CNN, where I used to work, full of fine people, all very well-intentioned, had to issue a groveling apology. Before we wrap up today, we do want to make an important note. Yesterday in a segment about transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney, who was featured in Bud Light's recent campaign, she was mistakenly referred to by the wrong pronoun. And CNN aims to honor individuals' ways of identifying themselves, and we apologize for that error.

I mean, really, execution is too good for them. But you see, that's how difficult it all is, isn't it? Should CNN journalists now be jailed for that obvious hate crime? And criminal offence or not, the tyranny of the pro-inand police is all around us. Misgendering can get you kicked off YouTube, which for some people who've removed their main source of income. It briefly led to the What Is a Woman documentary by Matt Walsh being banned on Twitter. In Oxford College, she just warned it will expel students for misgendering each other. government's long-ready guidance for schools on trans pupils has today been delayed reportedly because of legal wrangling over where the teachers must use a student's preferred pronouns.

Many businesses now require their staff to wear pronoun badges or sign off their emails with their pronouns. And if you accept all of that, criminalisation probably looks like the logical next step. Yeah, sling the miscreants in prison. Now, in my view, what should actually be illegal if you're going to get into gender criminality might be the idea of biological men? destroying women born with biological female bodies in women's sport. That's a bit of a crime to me. Or biological men demanding access to female changing rooms full of biological females, many of them very young.

Or biological male rapists who identify as women at their trials to get into women's prisons. Maybe that should be a crime. And if you think that makes me a transphobe, I'd say you're the one with the phobia of common sense. Well, joining me in the studio is socialist and author Grace Blakely and YouTube

commentator Pearl Davis. Both, I would imagine, identifying as provocateurs. Of course. Let's talk about this, first of all. Pearl, I just find the whole personal pronoun thing honestly absurd. My personal pronouns on my Twitter biography

are now hot, hotter, hottest. And frankly, if people don't call me those, then they have to be jailed. I go along with that. But I did that to highlight that when I do that and say that,

people then accuse me of being ridiculous. I think the whole thing is ridiculous. Why do we need personal pronouns? We don't need personal pronouns. I honestly, I don't think it's kind to allow people to live in delusion.

At the end of the day, at the end of the day, at the end of the day, at the end of the day, we don't, look, we all know what a man and a woman is, okay? Just because you dress like a woman, talk like a woman, act like a woman, it does not make you a woman.

And I am so tired of us allowing these people to let us live in delusion. It is delusional to think you are the opposite gender. And it is not kind to enable that. I can't even go on a fly in British airways, right? My preferred airline, a wonderful airline. And they always used to, it always be a lovely, posh voice saying, good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, welcome to British. And I used to felt soothing. particularly if I came from another country back to Britain.

I felt immediately at ease. My captain was there, sounding like he was, you know, from some wonderful Pathy News bulletin, and he referred to us as ladies and gentlemen. That's now being banned. They're not allowed to say ladies and gentlemen because there might be one person on the plane who says, oh, whoa, hang on.

I don't identify as a lady or a gentleman. Well, okay, fine, I don't care. But I do. So where's my right to be called a gentleman? Here's, you know how I feel up with this. I'm so, so bored of it all. I'm so bored of the fact that this is the one item that's constantly coming up over and over and over again.

And you can completely see why, right? Conservative governments have destroyed our economy. We're in the middle of a massive climate crisis just after the hottest week ever. I've just come over from Europe. It's extremely hot. And instead of talking about that, we spend hours and hours and hours talking about pronouns,

talking about going into bathrooms, talking about, you know, all of this. stuff that just doesn't matter. It doesn't matter. Hang on, it doesn't matter to you. I'm so bored of it is. But it does matter to women in sport. It does matter to women whose young daughters

might be using these dressing rooms. It does matter to the victims of male rapists who see their attackers identify as women to get into women's prisons. Sorry, so when you say they don't matter, they really do matter. Let's have those issues aired in the appropriate, you know, spaces.

We are. in sports have that discussion amongst sports people. But like, literally, it's about priorities, isn't it? There's a certain number of time that we have on these shows to discuss the issues that matter. You don't think women's... Hang, before we come to our next... I don't think women's sport matters as much as climate change.

I think that having a planet in which we can play sport matters more than the rule of school. Does women's equality matter to it? I know that that could be probably absolutely in the day. Does women's equality matter to you? Well, I mean, yeah, of course, but actually, I mean, the whole point that I was going to make on this segment actually is that like, you cannot separate feminism from class issues. Like if you're just going around saying, like, I don't know, I think the female CEO of a weapons manufacturer

should be paid the same as a male CEO, and that's the hill I'm going to die on, I'm not fighting that fight with you. Because ultimately, like, what I care about are the struggles that ordinary women face every day. Well, let's come to the main point of the segment, which is this issue of women's rights to be paid the same as men in sport.

Now, the Australian women's football team have criticised the pay gap in the upcoming World Cup prize money. Let's take a look at what they said as a team. 736 footballers have the honour of representing their country on the world's biggest stage, this tournament. Yeah, many are still denied the basic right to organise and collectively bargain. Collective bargaining has allowed us to ensure we now get the same conditions as the soccer ruse. With one exception, FIFA will still only offer women one quarter as much prize money as men. for the same achievement. Well, okay, this is an interesting poll,

because if you look at the revenue, for example, in 2019, FIFA generated 586 million pounds in total revenue. The men's, for the 2019-22 cycle, 5.8 billion, record revenue through the men's World Cup. So the women's game has come on in leaps and bounds. The English lionesses' fantastic win, sell-out crowds, they're making a lot more money. They're definitely way, way further now towards where the men are commercially than they were.

But they're still a way off. And when you saw at Wimbledon, for example, the men's final was watched by three times as many people. And yet they were both free to wear on the BBC. You could watch both if you wanted to. So there was three times as much interest in the men's game. They played two sets more per match than the women do. And yet the women get equal pay. I'm not quite sure why.

I don't think it's a matter of equality. It's just a matter of fairness, isn't it? Yeah, well, I won. I think all of the women should thank the men for funding our leagues because most of our leagues would not exist without the men, number one. Number two, when we have the same numbers, then we should get the same pay. I'm sorry, I play volleyball at the highest level. And it's like when we make what the men make and get the crowds that the men draw,

then we should get paid the same. Why is it actually a fight for equality grace? I mean, why, if women in a particular sport, for example, turned out to generate more revenue, right, because they were, more watchable. And in America, the women's football team is better than the men, and they do generate, even at school level, far more interest from girls than boys, for example. I don't see why equality should be the aim. Why shouldn't they get paid more than the men? Well, look, I mean, there are all sorts of problems with the way that this market for labor, and it is basically a market for labor works. Like, I personally don't think that the top football players in the world should be paid as much they do. I think it's ridiculous the amount. That's market force. Exactly.

It's market forces. Why shouldn't they get that? Should that be the way that we decide, you know, who generates what is? Personally, I'm very much in favor of the fact that they came out there and said, collective bargaining. Ultimately, like, the average worker in this country hasn't had a pay rise in over a decade. How is that going to change? That's going to change when they organize with one another.

I am so tired of women whining. It's like, the only person whining at the moment is you. The men, literally the men fund our leagues and we will. still whine that we don't get paid enough. And honestly, when athletes do shit like this, it makes all of us look bad. Because instead of being thankful for the league that we have, we go out and whine and complain about the pay.

I mean, as I said, I'm not whining. You sound like you're maybe doing a bit of whining. But, like, personally, I don't think we should be whining. I think people should be organizing. If you want a pay increase, join a union, get out there and fight for it. Should the women footballers get the same as the men? Yeah, I think it probably makes sense.

Even if they're not making anything like the revenue. Ultimately, like, it's not going to change. It's not going to change unless they organise. That's actually true across every sector and run the economy. If you want to pay rise, join a union and fight for once. Let me ask you this, though. They have got unions. Exactly.

Let me ask you this. On talent alone, for example, as a yardstick, the US women's football team were beaten by a group of under 15 boys from Texas, who were very good under 15 boys, but they're under 15 boys team, beat them, I'll think, about 8, 9-0 or something. So why should... women footballers who are clearly nowhere near as good as their male counterparts, just technically.

Why should they get paid anything like as much money? Well, I mean, you know, it sucks, doesn't it? That like, as a woman, okay, you play volleyball. I'm a surfer. I absolutely love surfing. It's very hard for women to build up a body strength. This is something that I've learned very much the hard way. And so, you know, it is...

Surfers, by the way, there is equal pay. Yeah, there is. And actually, you know, it's one of those sports where... Can a woman be as good as a man or not? Well, it's different. It's a different sport. really. It's not, you know, is the same sport, but it's very different watching a woman surf than is watching a man's stuff. Because, you know, the average male body is different from the average woman, like, women's body for all these women's.

But is there any actual technical reason why a woman can't do with a surf ball what a man can do? Yeah, I mean, there's loads of reasons. Like, it's about the upper body strength. It's about, like, the way that the body is built. So should women surfers at the elite level get the same as men? But, like, again, I think it's, it just is different. Like, it's a different kind of game when people watch it. Oh, you're shaking your head. No, I just think we'll be. we start making the same amount of money as the men, then we should get paid the same as the men. I don't hear the men whining about OnlyFans models getting paid more than them.

I don't hear the men whining about models getting paid more than them. Kendall Jenner is the highest paid supermodel. Where are the male supermodel? But whenever men dominate in an industry, women will just complain. I mean, I don't know if that's true about OnlyFans, because there are a lot of men on OnlyFans as well. But, I mean, look, the main point. You think they make the same?

I have no idea, but like, maybe if you averaged out the number of men and women that are on that website. Anyway, look, the main point here, the point that I came on here that I wanted to make was that the problem that we have in our economy at the moment is not that, like, the average football player isn't played the same as the average man. It is probably an injustice, and I'm glad that they're organizing and working together to fight for that. But ultimately, the problem we have in our economy is that nobody's getting paid enough money because inflation has eroded people's wages. Even before that, no one had a pay rise in a really long time. And the lesson from this is, as I've said, I'm going to say it again because it's an important lesson and no one knows about them anymore because they see them as a hangover from 1970s, join a union

because otherwise your boss is going to walk away. But there are unions for all these. They're all, it's the unions that are fighting for them. Exactly. But just as a general point, though, the principle you think that women should get paid the same, even if they're not technically as good and not producing as much revenue.

Well, it's a subjective judgment, isn't it, on whether or not they're like technically is. Well, not. No, it's not. Because if people watch men and women's sports for different reasons. Well, let me give an example. An example would be the Olympics.

If you made it non-gender specific, how many women would win medals? Well, I mean, none. Okay. I mean, maybe in equestrian, maybe in shooting, I think, you're the two, where there's no sense that the men might win.

You can say like, oh, you know, this group is better than this group. But again, I think it's different. Men are better than women at sports. Yes, let's not live in this delusion. And in most of all, And in most cases, more people, men and women, want to watch men play sports. Correct.

That's just a demonstrable fact. That may change. And my point is, if it changes, I don't see why equality should be the only ambition for the women. If it turns out that in some sport, women get more viewers watching and therefore draw more revenue, I'm more for them getting more money than the men. Can you name five WNBA players? Five female soccer players? I mean, I can't name any soccer players already.

That's crazy. I wish we had the support from the feminist. We would get equal pay if we would. just get the support from the feminine. Well, let me tell you. Name five. Let me tell you. I didn't even know what the WNBA is.

We need our support. You're asking the wrong person. Yeah, you really are. But I do want to mention one thing, which is I had Dale Vince on the program. He's this, he's been funding Just Stop Oil. And also, he was very, very keen to show his feminist credentials because he just, he owns a football team. And he had just hired the first female manager of a football team.

But there was a slight problem. He only made of the caretaker, and I saw a potential floor here. So let's see what went down when I interviewed him. You didn't think by appointing the first female caretaker manager of a professional men's team, you would get any attention. She's the best candidate for the job at the club. This is what happens. You look at within the club, you find your best coach,

and you say, take the team in an interim period while we do a proper recruitment process. That's all that's happening here. Do you keep coming back to that? Because she's only a caretaker. of appointments. She's only a caretaker. Look at our record of appointments. So if you believed in that much, you'd have made a manager. You've got all the publicity, but actually she's not got the full job.

That's not how it works. And I suspect what's going to happen is you're going to go find... I thought you understood football. You're going to probably go find a bloke to replace it, and then you're going to have to deal with that. I thought you understood football, piss. I do. I thought you did. Well, you might be massively unsurprised to learn that 12 days later, Anna Ninkley

has been removed from her job as caretaker manager and placed by a man. Yeah, Dale talked a good game on feminism and women's rights and boasted about it and got all the publicity, and in the end, he got rid of her after 12 days and put a bloke in charge. And you can

make your own view about Mr. Vince for doing that. Lovely to see you both. Thank you both very much indeed. Unscensored next. Former President Trump says he expects to be arrested again by a federal inquiry into US capital riots on January 6th last year. Republican Governor Hazer Hutchinson, who is running

as a Republican candidate to be president, says that Trump must now suspend his campaign. He joins me next live. Welcome back to Pierce, Wilgen, I'm Sensor. Former President Donald Trump says he expects to be arrested and indicted again, this time by federal inquiry into the capital riots and efforts to overturn the 2020 election. Trump posted on his truth social platform that it was a scam and a hoax,

saying deranged Jack Smith, the prosecutor with Joe Biden's DOJ, sent a letter stating that I'm a target of a January 6th grand jury investigation and giving me a very short four days report to the grand jury, which almost always means an arrest and indictment. Where former Arkansas Governor Azah Hutchinson, who is running against Trump for the Republican nomination, has called for him to suspend his campaign, saying anyone who truly loves this country

and is willing to put the country over themselves would suspend their campaign for the President of the United States immediately. It is disappointing that Donald Trump refuses to do so. And Azar Hutchinson joins me now. Welcome to you, Governor. It does seem quite extraordinary. I have to say particularly, now I've come back over this side of the pond,

having been in America last week. People are incredulous here that a presidential candidate already facing serious criminal charges is now potentially about to face yet more in an attempt to thwart the result of a democratic election and could potentially, after that, face another raft in relation to phone calls he made in Georgia. How is this happening?

Well, first of all, it's not a happy day for America. This is not a good representative. of our democracy, and how did it happen? It happened because of Donald Trump's irresponsibility and potential criminal conduct. I've said all along that he was morally responsible for January 6th and what happened in the attack of the Capitol. But now Jack Smith, the special prosecutor, is through the grand jury saying he's criminally responsible as well. That has to be tested through the courts. But my point is that this is an incredible distraction from all the issues that we face as a nation. It's a distraction from the campaign. It's a distraction to Donald Trump.

And if you put your country first, then you just step aside because this is too much for the country and for him and for everyone to deal with during this critical time in our country. And that's what, I mean, I've been a federal prosecutor. I know what's at stake here when you've got two pending indictments, and you've got another one that's coming, this is not going to be a pretty sight for the next six months. Here's the problem. I think that you have certainly as a Republican candidate, but that America also has, I guess, democratically,

which is that Trump, each time he gets indicted simply goes on the attack, and he's doing it again here before he's actually been formally indicted, but it's almost certain that he will be. He basically turns it into a political thing. he says that it's a third indictment, and it's the arrest of Joe Biden's number one political opponent, i.e. himself, who is largely dominating him in the race for the presidency.

Well, he's way ahead in the polls, and each time one of these things happens, Trump's popularity in the polls seems to go up, not down, which is also extraordinary. What can you, as a Republican candidate trying to make him suspend his campaign, which I don't think he will for a moment, what can you do to stop the Trump machine from just barreling through all this,

given that his own supporters, his own base, simply don't seem to care. Well, you're right, Pierce, that he's very likely to go up in the polls, get a bump from this because of the indictment, and there's a perception that this is politically motivated in some way. And, of course, who drives that? That's driven by Donald Trump. And what's happening here is that he's not talking about the facts. He's talking about the politics of it.

And so, you know, if this is going to change voters' things, it's going to be over the course of time when they realize that the Republican Party can't win with Donald Trump as the nominee with all of these external pressures. You can't attract independence, you can't attract suburban voters, so we're going to lose.

And so that has to be absorbed. And then secondly, the seriousness of the allegations, I can't speak to the January 6th because I don't know what he's going to charge. But whenever you look at the mishandling of classified information, these are our nation's secrets. And for a former person,

president to use those with entertainment value. These are important facts and whether they're brought out in terms of the court case. I'll certainly be bringing them out in terms of the campaign because they're relevant. What kind of commander-achief are we going to have? You, as you say, we're a federal prosecutor. When you saw what was laid out in the charges just for the documents alone, obviously the Stormy Daniels thing, I think, is a smaller affair legally. But the stolen documents, When you read the charge sheet there, how serious do you think it is and how likely is it that he could be convicted? Well, those charges are as serious they get in the criminal case context. Jack Smith laid out the facts very clearly.

I recognize that there's always a different side of this that's presented in court. But it doesn't get any more serious, particularly for someone who wants to be our commander in chief again. There's a presumption of innocence. it's going to be tried in court, but this is serious, and the allegations on January 6th are serious. Now, they're particularly serious on the body politic, the entire voting base. The Republican Party needs to wake up and say, we can't have someone who opposes a peaceful transfer of power under our democracy. And that's exactly what happened. And the question that Jack Smith has got to prove, did he know that?

at the time he summoned everyone to the Capitol and wanted them to oppose the transfer of power, which caused them to march on the Capitol. What did he know at that time? Again, what I would say, though, here is the problem politically is it doesn't stop him if he's indicted multiple times from running as a candidate. The Constitution allows that.

It doesn't stop him even if he's convicted. Even if he's sent to prison, Donald Trump could continue to not only... you run as a candidate be actually be president. Now, it would be completely unprecedented, but most things Trumpian are. So how do you, look, you're currently polling at 1% yourself in the race.

He's over 50% in many of the polls. He's so far ahead of everybody. All these indictments seem to do, as I say, seem to help him. They seem to pump up his numbers. Kevin McCarthy was saying that today. I just don't know how you can stop him winning the nomination.

And he would then think, Trump, I know him very well. In a two-horse race against Joe Biden, who looks like he's barely functioning and were still 18 months away from an election, he'd have a very good chance of winning. Well, that's the only hope that Joe Biden would have would be if Donald Trump is on the other side,

indicted not being able to pull independent votes. And that was what we had in 2020 when he wasn't under indictment. And he lost. He lost that race, and a lot's happened since then. ask what's going to change it? I don't know. But I know that as a candidate who cares about this country, you don't sit on the sideline when our democracy's at stake, whenever our country's at stake. I'm engaged in this fight. We got six months before the Iowa caucuses. And I know that Iowa is

looking at this and potentially looking for an alternative. The other candidates were in mostly single digits. It's going to be who surfaces out of that and who takes on Trump. straight on, and I think you've got to do that if you're running for president in the Republican primary. There are two clips I want to play. One is Donald Trump when he talked about what he could get away with because of his popularity, and he talked about shooting someone on Fifth Avenue.

Take a look. They say, I have the most loyal people. Did you ever see that? Where I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters, okay? It's like incredible. Now, he was presumably joking, but actually, he's probably right now. now. It would look like he could almost certainly do what he said there and it wouldn't move

the needle at all. Secondly, I want to play a clip. This is of you being booed at the Turning Point Action Conference yesterday. Let's take a look at this. So the two things that. One, I think he's reached that point where he can basically do what he likes and his base isn't going to, we'll just listen to his explanation and believe it. But secondly, for you as a conservative, a long-time Republican who really cares about his party in his country to get that. kind of response at a conservative event, how did you feel about that? And what does that tell you about where the party now is? Well, on the first clip that you played, what that tells you about Donald Trump is that he's full of arrogance. I think everybody knows that. And whenever I think

about public service, I think more about humility and serving the public versus serving your own interest. The second clip that you played was me speaking really at a protractual. gathering. And I go to that audience because I know they're not all aligned with me by any means, but I make the case of a conservative vision for America and where we need to go. You've got to reach out to those audiences. Thank goodness there were a lot of young people there, thousands of them who were very interested despite some bad leadership and behavior on the part of some of the adults in the room. If Donald Trump is watching this, he probably is, what would you say to him? Well, I would say, step aside for the good of the country.

You're not going to be able to successfully win. You know that, just like you knew that you lost in 2020. So think this through. I hope that you'll make that decision and drop out for the good of the country. You know the problem, Aza Hutchinson, is that that's exactly what so many people told him in 2016. I remember, everyone said, you haven't got a chance, drop out. And he just barreled on and he won the presidency. and I'm sure part of him's thinking,

if Biden's the opponent, I've got every chance. Good point, and that's why if you're going to win the nomination, it's got to go through Donald Trump, we've got to take it in the debates, we've got to take it on the campaign trail and win. Governor, great to talk to you. Thanks for appearing on the show. I appreciate it. Thank you, Pierce.

Well, on says the next, a barge-like into a floating prison docks in Britain. Little House 500 male asylum seekers. Is it a deterrent, or is Britain's migrant policy becoming increasingly inhumane. We'll debate that next. Welcome back to Pierce, Morgan, Uncens. A barge, which is set to accommodate 500 asylum seekers,

has been likened to a quasi-prison and has now docked in Dorset, the arrival of a controversial vessel. It comes hours after the government's illegal migration bill passed the Lords. The Prime Minister's spokesperson has defended the use of barges to house migrants, assisting it's a cheaper alternative to accommodating them in hotels. I'm joined now by the political journalist Ava Santina, I'm a talk to you presenter, Richard Seis. Okay, Richard,

barges for asylum seekers. When you look at it, it does look like a floating prison. Are you comfortable? Completely comfortable. Let me tell you what. Because this barge has been used as an accommodation barge for 30 years. Twice it's been used in different countries for asylum seekers. It's been used for construction workers for offshore wind farms.

It's been used in Shetland, in Scotland, for the construction workers for a gas plant. I don't recall hearing Alex Salmond or Nicholas Sturgeon complaining back then when it was working towards their economy. This is a sensible... Such a ridiculous false equivalence. It's not a false equivalence. It's exactly right.

It's been used by construction workers. Who were there by choice? They weren't fleeing war and persecution, were they? We know that many of these are economic migrants, and they made the choice to come here over. So that completely is... I tell you what, it's sometimes having this argument. It's not dull.

So why is it... Why is it... Why is it appropriate for construction workers, but not appropriate for people who've come across the English Channel? Because firstly, they were there by choice. And secondly, the reason that... These people have come here by their own choice. They could have stayed in for the safe country from.

To use this barge is because it looks intimidating and it looks unappealing. Yes, it is. It's been used as an accommodation barge for 30 years and no one's complaint. I tell you what? I'm going to make an offer. Why don't we suggest? I'll go down to the bar. Here's my response to you.

It comes out. They double the number of people. on the barge to what it's normally housing. So that's a fact... That's actually not true. It's not true? No, that's not true. I'm told that is true.

Well, I'm told that's not true. It's been used over 30 years. Apparently, they've doubled it for the asylum seekers. There'd be twice as many people on it. But it was originally used as asylum seekers in the Netherlands and elsewhere with the same sort of number. This is its maximum capacity.

You don't know that. I do know that because I checked it up today. Here's my offer. Let's go down jointly. Let's go and stay for a couple of nights and see what it's like. We could love live, using their good Wi-Fi, we could come on your show pit. That's a great idea.

I'm not going to go and torment people who have already been through so much. It's the question of tormenting. It's about learning the facts. These are people. We're talking about people who fleed war and persecution, and we're talking about them. They're just sort of objects and movable. So disgusting. Isn't the problem?

They're not all legitimate asylum seekers. We know that last year, for example, of the people that came on the boats, about a third were economic migrants from Albania. They weren't actually from war-torn companies. countries at all. So that's not statistically true. And let me speak to that for one moment. Why isn't the Home Office employing more people to process asylum seekers? People who come over with claims, why are we only processing? At the moment, what they're doing? They're just processing them very slow because they're incompetent and woeful.

We're agreed on. But we also have this issue with this hotel, for example, in West Wales, in Sten-Earthly, the Stradie Park Hotel, where apparently they're basically made 100 staff redundant. They're going to put the whole place taken over by asylum seekers. And local residents have gone completely nuts about this. And I can understand what they'd be concerned about that. That can't be right either. Putting them up in four-star hotels at our expense, grapes with people, right?

Putting them on the barge might grate with you. But you've got to do something with them until they sort out the processing centres. Then explain to me something, Piers. There's double the amount of people that should be on that barge. No, there's not. Okay, hang on. All right.

Well, we'll ignore that premise for a moment. What if something breaks out? Come with me and test it. You've got to let me make a point. The barge's capacity is going to be increased from 222 to 500. There are 222 rooms and you can have it as single beds or as double beds. But they're actually doubling the capacity for people. And let me talk to you about what happened in Manston, all right?

What broke out in Manston? Don't do a bit of water bouchery. Focus on the barge and for the netty. That's what we're talking about. It was where we were housing a silence secret? Until we sort out the processing centre, which has to be done, where are you going to put all these people? You need to process them. That's what you need to do.

Where are you going to put them? Tents? So you want tents in armored barracks? If you treated this like an emergency war situation and you actually process people correctly, you wouldn't have to, you know, bring in barges to house them or bring in new hotels. But how are you going to deter the people smugglers and all the people who are just trying it on as economic migrants?

How do you sift through all that and get to legitimate... And I agree with you, we have to be humane about asylum seekers and legitimate refugees from war-torn countries, not least from countries where we've started the wars or engaged in them if they were fought illegally like a right. So you have to sell me on that. But my issue, I think, is on behalf of everybody else who's concerned about this,

is that you've got to do something about all these people coming. Where do you physically put them? And put them in four-star hotels. It's causing a lot of social unrest. You can't have that. The processing isn't up to speed yet. The barge, all right, you can say it looks like a prison camp. It looks a bit like a cheap cruise ship.

Actually, is it that bad to put them there and process things? And tell me why we won't put a processing centre in Calais. That was suggested by Macron years ago. We put a processing centre there, then no one makes that dangerous trip over. We're agreed. I've been suggesting that for months and months and months. But look, hear me out. That barge, it's used for construction workers,

but according to you, it's not good enough for asylum seekers. I was down in Thelenethley yesterday. Let me tell you, the good people are of Thelanethley, they have blocked the access to that hotel. It's on unregistered land. The neighbours deny the access to it. They've got tents there. They're staying overnight.

They're not going to let that be used. They are saying enough is enough. No, I've got a friend of mine who lives in that area. He says there's absolute mayhem down there because they just think it's completely wrong. And I got a lot of sympathy with it. It's the main hotel, the main conference in spa hotel for the whole of Thlinanthalie and the surrounding area.

That cannot be right, either. But what I don't understand is why there is this sort of categorisation of people, why you think that people who are fleeing war and persecution are somehow... Are somehow not supposed to be staying in that hotel. Somehow, for some reason, other people... So you don't care about the hundredth of Lenetli community residents who've been made redundant.

Why are they better people? Because they're British citizens. Most of those people have come here illegally. They've broken the law. They've come here without a visa. I was down to Glenthalie yesterday. Talking to the good residents of Lenathely who are absolutely steaming furious.

I'll tell you what the other thing people are steaming furious about, according to a UGov poll released today, 63% of Britain's not consider Brexit to have been more of a failure than a success. Just 12% of those I see Brexit is more of a success than failure. That's unbelievable. I mean, that is heading to the point where...

It's not unbelievable, Piers. What it is, is a reflection of the fact that most people recognise that this government hasn't taken advantage of the opportunity. If you talk to Brexiteers who voted for Brexit, they don't regret the vote. What they're disappointed with is the government hasn't taken advantage of.

Last year we had a net positive migration of 600,000 people. We're now appealing for construction workers to come into the country from other countries. Even though we've got five million home people on our own people on our own country. That's such a false agreement. It's not a false equivalence. The loudest claim of the Brexiters

that somehow we would be controlling our borders is obviously complete nonsense. Because the government have completely failed to do what they're saying. Because I'm not in charge. If I was in charge, it would be very different. They've been trying everything. They've been trying everything.

They deliberately created a low-skilled open borders visa policy. At what point do you accept Brexit hasn't worked? I'd say that to somebody, by the way. I voted Remain, but I then stuck my neck out and said I absolutely on the result of the referendum. I attacked the Ramones who didn't. I said democracy depends on accepting the results of these votes. But I think the argument not to have another vote is that number of Britain...

Piers, we've only left two and a half years. Well, the vote was in 2016. Yeah, but we've only left... Piers, we've only left... That's nearly eight years ago. No, Piers, don't be disingenuous. We left in trade terms at the end of 2020. I tell you what, if I was in charge, it would be a great success.

And frankly... No, because you wouldn't have a trading agreement with the largest trading bloc. We've got a trade agreement with... the largest trading block. Right? We've just signed another one with an even bigger trading zone

in Asia, the fastest growing trading zone. It's almost like talking. It's like there's no point in speaking because obviously you know that exporters are now facing all of this red tape. They're fighting to get their products into Europe and they're paying extortionate fees to do it. You know that.

What you don't know because you haven't done the research is that our trade figures, we're actually exporting more in value terms than we were at the end of 16 or at the end of 2020. You don't know that because you haven't done the research. But you know what, Richard, the truth is, that reflects my own anecdotal chats with people. And it's not that they feel that they were betrayed or lied to any of those things which the Ramoners love to say, although there's some argument, I think on both sides were disingenuous.

It's just they just feel it's not working. And they feel that after a pandemic and a financial crisis and a war in Europe, the last thing we need is to be pouring fuel on our own wounds. And they feel that's what we're doing. It's not working. My question is, at what point does Breggenberg? need to work to justify not having another referendum? What the government of the day who fought for this, as I did,

but I'm not the government of the day, they've got to do, they've got to take advantage of the opportunities. You've got to get rid of the DAF regulations. You've got to cut government waste and cut taxes for people. And you've got to go through it. It's good rhetoric, but they've deliberately opened the board. Why did Boris Johnson, the man who led the Brexit charge, why didn't he do all this?

Very good question. Because Europe doesn't want to do it. Because he hasn't done it. The Tory government... The Tories have utterly failed to take advantage on the back of getting Brexit done. And they haven't done it because they're... Oven-ready deals.

It was all done and dust. It was all easy. That's turned out to be a total disaster. If I haven't turned a bit of a total disaster appears. Let's just remember the Eurozone is in recession. So I don't know why everybody seems to think they're a massive success story like Ava. Germany is in recession.

We're going to out-in- David, do you think we should have another referendum? Tony Blair thinks it's too late and basically the damage is done and to go back in is too painful. I think it's too tough of the question. I mean, clearly this isn't working. I mean, clearly we need to have some kind of access

to the market in Europe. It's absurd. I would just like... Just clarify, right? The Eurozone is in recession. We're not. So we're actually doing better than Eurozone. So actually, most analysts do say that we are in recession.

We just haven't declared recession. We might be heading towards one. I've got a time out. We've run out of time. The debate will continue until or if Brexit works. I'm not holding my breath, Richard. Sorry, mate. I'm not holding my breath.

It will if I'm in charge. Good to see. Well, you may get it. You have to get elected first. Correct. That's what I'm planning to do. Well, good luck. If you do, come back on the show.

Unsense, so next tonight, I'll do Carl Stefanovic and the rest of Australian media called me a big crybaby and the king of the Pommie Wingers following the disgraceful, treacherous, unsportsmanlike behaviour we witnessed from Australians at Lords in the Ashes earlier this month.

I thought it was time to go heads ahead with the cocky today's show host. That's next. Welcome back to you, Piersbogne on Sensit. I took a bold stand against the unsporting treachery. Australia's cricketers at laws early this month in the ashes and in turn, the Australian media took a bowl stand against me.

The Australian telegraph newspaper addressed me, Ben Stokes, the Geoffrey Boycott and Rishi Sunnack as giant babies with the headline of wobbly lower lip, Sukhi Poms keeps spitting the dummy. It wasn't just the papers. Carl Stefanovic, a TV presenter, who is flatteringly for him,

known as the Australian Pearce Morgan, said this on the big breakfast show over there. Pierce has said that he will come on our show, show when England win the series 3-2. He's such a lightweight. He's a lightweight. Oh, he's pathetic. Absolutely dreamy.

He's expected more. I can't believe it. What a loser. What a loser. He didn't stop there. He asked Australian Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, to ban me from the country. Is it time to revoke the visas of

English elites like Pierce Morgan? That would be a very harsh measure, Carl. What What it might be better to do as to allow people like Pierce Morgan to come in and to come on your show and remind him of Australia's massive Ashes victory. Yeah, you've won nothing yet, Prime Minister.

We're going to win the Ashes. And ahead of the do-will-die fourth test match at Old Traffat, the stars tomorrow, I decided it was time for me to confront Mr Stefanovic, one-on-one. Well, I'm joined now by Carl Staphanovic. So, Carl, you'd be giving it the big one for the last few weeks.

but you've gone very, very quiet since we rolled you over in the last test match. Is that nerves? Basically, Pierce, you know how it is down under. We don't really worry about things until the very last minute. We've been gathering the troops at the fray, we've been getting our little toys

out of our kids' cot so that we can send them over to you. This is one of the native bilbies that you'll be sent in the next couple of days in the lead up to the test, that you can throw them out of your cot with your dummies when Australia starts to pound you on day one. We are very fired up about this, but in a very quiet way.

Obviously, we wake up like this, Pierce, preparation, handsome, delicious Australians. I know that upsets you greatly. I know that makes you cranky. But this is how we wake up in preparation for a big test, quiet and handsome. Actually, you look as haggard, drawn and old as I used to when I did breakfast television. And thank God I'm now in prime time. you can only dream about, which is why I look, by comparison, so youthful and dynamic. Youthful and dynamic. Actually, I will say this. You have looked better after that last victory.

I know how concerned you were about it. And that's why we gifted you one test match. I mean, can you imagine what would have happened in your country if Australia had won that one? You would have been crying in the streets. The GDP would have gone down. You would have had to replace your prime minister, the toothpick with eyes. as we call him over here in Australia with another Prime Minister. There would have been absolute mayhem. So we've given you to this one. We're giving you an opportunity

to get back into the series because deep down, even though you sent the worst of us to Australia decades, hundreds of years ago, we're back here for you and we still kind of like you in a strange way.

You know what, Carl, when we sent all the convicts to Australia, I never dreamed for a moment that the people there would be still as undesirable as it were when we sent them. But there you are. Undesirable.

Look at this. Who's the person you want to have lunch with whenever you come to Australia and you want me to pay? Come on, Piers. Let me ask you this. Let's get serious for one moment. Obviously, your Australian team

cheated with Sam Papergate. You cheated again when Trevor Chappell bowled underarm. You cheated again with the Berto fiasco. Can you give any undertakings at all on behalf of your country that in the last two test matches, you may at least try and abide

by the laws and spirit of the game? Look, I think this is why we've come to know you as the king of the winges here in Australia, and some of us do love you. But effectively, what we've done is, having been the worst of us sent out from, the worst and the best of us sent out from your beautiful country many, many decades, hundreds of years ago, we've basically used, you get upset because we use your rules to beat you. That's as effective as I can be this morning in my message to you.

So we will use any rules and twist them back on the old dart because that's called progress. You guys are stuck in the 60s and the 50s, and we're progressing as a nation forward at a fast pace. Just to wrap this, we're going to win the next test at Old Trafford. We're going to go to the Oval. We're going to bas-ball you to within one inch of your lives. And then I'm going to come on your show,

and I'm going to do the greatest gloating segment in the history of breakfast television. and you're going to be physically vomiting live on air as I show you the ashes and kiss them after the greatest comeback since Lazarus. And on that bombshell, Karl, Stefanovic, as you call yourself over there, Stefanovic to your friends in Europe, I will bid you farewell until we win.

All right, I'll see you soon, and if you win this next test match, I'll come to London and we'll do it in person. And you can buy me a massive lunch. I'll look forward to it. Take care, Carl. Done. All right, love you, mate.

Bye. So think about Australians, I do, I love them, I love the country, I love the culture, but when it comes to cricket they are utterly unbearable. And yes, I do know this show airs on Sky News Australia. So good evening, good evening, Cobbos, but I think we're going to win. And when we do, I'm going to see Mr. Stefanovic. That's it for tonight. Come on England, bring back that earn.

You can do it, Captain Stokes. Good night, keep it uncensored.