It looks like a dog.
It's a cow.
Do I just take these off or just fold them under all of this? You cannot say that either. 저는 이것들을 빼기만 하면 됩니까, 아니면 모든 아래로 접습니까? 당신도 그것을 말할 수는 없어요.
Right.
Go on then.
OK.
Brexit...
the absolute State of the Union. 절대적인 연합 국가
Robert, the Conservative and Unionist party has been in charge of the British government now since 2010. 보수 동맹당의 로버트는 2010년부터 영국 정부를 담당하고 있습니다.
But Boris Johnson...
It's a completely new government. 그것은 완전히 새로운 정부입니다.
...this Conservative and Unionist prime minister... ...이 보수적이고 유니어니스트 총리...
Totally unrelated. 전혀 상관없어요.
...may go down in history... 역사에 남을지도 몰라요.
or not...
as the prime minister who presided over the United Kingdom actually falling apart. 영국 총리를 지낸 총리가 실제로 산산조각 난 것처럼.
So I thought we should discuss this. 그래서 이것에 대해서 이야기를 해야 한다고 생각했습니다.
Because it's not unserious. 심각하지 않기 때문입니다.
It is one of the ironies of the Brexit process that a plan designed to make Britain stronger and freer in the world could actually end Britain. 세계에서 영국을 더 강하게, 더 자유롭게 하기 위해 계획된 계획이 실제로 영국을 끝낼 수 있었던 것은 영국의 이탈 프로세스의 아이러니 중 하나입니다.
So it's a big issue. 그래서 그건 큰 문제죠.
While you're chatting, I'm just going to use my famous map-making skills here to do England and Scotland. 당신이 채팅하는 동안 저는 여기서 제 유명한 지도 작성 스킬을 사용하여 잉글랜드와 스코틀랜드를 진행합니다.
A bit like a tree, but you know. 조금 나무 같지만 당신은 알고 있어요.
As we've established, I'm not really in a position to criticise. 우리가 확립했듯이 저는 정말 비판할 입장이 아닙니다.
OK.
Some people didn't like my fish last time. 저번에는 제 생선을 싫어하는 사람도 있었어요.
People were rude about the fish. 사람들은 그 생선에 대해 실례였다.
They're just wrong. 그들은 단지 틀렸습니다.
They're just wrong.
It completely shattered my confidence. 그건 제 자신감을 완전히 깨뜨렸어요.
So I've not put any borders in right now, because that's what we're discussing. 그래서 지금은 국경을 두고 있지 않아요. 왜냐하면 그게 우리가 논의하고 있는 일이기 때문이에요.
So at the moment, we have... 즉, 현시점에서는...
hang on a minute. 잠깐 기다려.
We've got the Republic of Ireland, we've got the UK, encompassing Northern Ireland as well, but we've got some very, very, very unhappy Scots, and we've got the Welsh quietly getting on with it because they also voted pro-Brexit. 아일랜드 공화국, 영국, 북아일랜드도 포함되어 있지만 매우 불행한 스코틀랜드가 몇 개 있고 웨일스어는 조용히 그것을 계속하고 있습니다. 프로브렉짓도 투표했다.
Quite a lot of angry English. 화가 많이 난 영어
Quite a lot of angry English.
And then, of course, we've got Ireland staying in the EU. 그리고 물론 아일랜드는 EU에 머물러 있습니다.
So the Republic of Ireland stays in the EU. 따라서 아일랜드 공화국은 EU에 머물고 있습니다.
Scotland is very unhappy because it wants to stay in the EU and is getting a further boost to Scottish nationalism and to the separatist movement. 스코틀랜드는 EU에 머물기를 원하고 스코틀랜드의 내셔널리즘과 분리주의 운동을 더욱 뒷받침하고 있어 매우 불행합니다.
And then we've got a lot of really uneasy outcomes to the Brexit process so far, in terms of how far Northern Ireland remains both in the UK and in various European arrangements. 그리고 북아일랜드가 영국과 유럽의 여러 가지 약정에 얼마나 남아 있는가 하는 점에서 지금까지 EU 이탈 프로세스에 정말 불안한 결과가 많이 있습니다.
So I literally, at this point, don't know where to put my European flag, other than not on the British mainland. 즉, 말 그대로 현시점에서는 영국 본토 이외에서는 유럽의 깃발을 어디에 두면 좋을지 모르겠습니다.
We could put it in Northern Ireland and pretend we'd come up with the Northern Ireland flag, which we didn't do. 우리는 그것을 북아일랜드에 두고 북아일랜드 깃발을 생각난 척 할 수 있었습니다.
Don't write in. 쓰면 안됩니다.
No, do write in, but only if you're going to... 아니오, 적어주세요.단, 이하의 경우만...
Yes, but to Miranda. 네 하지만 미란다로~
So the whole thing is sort of up for grabs because of the Brexit process. 그래서 Brexit 프로세스를 위해서 전체는 어느 정도 준비가 되어 있습니다.
The most dramatic in recent days has been huge changes in the Republic of Ireland, where Sinn Fein, the Irish nationalist party, have done incredibly well. 근년에 가장 극적인 것은 아일랜드의 거대한 변화이며, 아일랜드의 내셔널리스트당인 신페인은 믿을 수 없을 정도로 잘 하고 있습니다.
They could end up in government. 그들은 결국 정부가 될 가능성이 있습니다.
...in the elections there and could end up in government. ...그곳에서 선거가 치러져 최종적으로는 정부가 될 가능성이 있습니다.
And they are talking about pushing the idea of referendums, both in the Republic of Ireland and in Northern Ireland, for reunification of Ireland. 그리고 그들은 아일랜드의 통일을 위해 아일랜드 공화국과 북아일랜드 양쪽에서 국민투표 아이디어를 추진하는 것에 대해 이야기하고 있다.
This is back on the agenda in a way that it hasn't been for a long time. 이것은 오랫동안 행해지지 않은 방법으로 의제로 돌아가고 있습니다.
It is, although there are two points that we have to know. 그건 우리가 알아야 할 두 가지 점인데요.
One is that it is absolutely for the British government to decide whether this poll takes place, for the UK government. 하나는, 영국 정부에 있어서, 이 여론 조사의 실시 여부를 결정하는 것은 절대로 영국 정부라는 것입니다.
It has an absolute veto on whether that happens. 그것이 일어날지에 대해서는 절대 거부권이 있습니다.
In the north. 북부에서
In the north, yes.
Which therefore means it's of no use if you don't have that poll in the north. 따라서 북부에 투표소가 없다면 그것은 도움이 되지 않는다는 것을 의미합니다.
Secondly, although completely Sinn Fein are a nationalist party, it wasn't a wave of nationalist sentiment... 둘째, 완전 신페인은 내셔널리스트 파티지만 내셔널리스트의 감정의 물결은 아니었습니다...
No, that's true. 아니오, 그렇습니다.
...that got them to their success in the Irish election. ...아일랜드 선거에서 성공한 겁니다.
It was much more to do with the state of the Irish economy and anger with the two established parties. 그것은 아일랜드 경제의 상태와 확립된 두 정당에 대한 분노와 훨씬 관계가 있었습니다.
So it will be interesting to see how they push this line. 그래서 그들이 이 선을 어떻게 밀고 나가는지 보는 것은 흥미롭습니다.
Even if they're in coalition talks, et cetera, will they make this some sort of red line, or will they make a lot of noise about it? They have to. 그들이 연립 교섭 중이라 해도 그들은 이것을 일종의 붉은 선으로 만들까, 아니면 그것에 대해 많은 소동을 일으킬까? 그들은 해야 한다.
Mary Lou McDonald's talked about having one within about five years, hasn't she? She said she wants one. 메어리 루 맥도날드는 약 5년 이내에 혼자가 되는 것에 대해 이야기를 했지요. 그녀는 갖고 싶다고 말했다.
Well, during the last few days of the Irish election she was talking about having one very fast indeed, within a year. 음, 아일랜드 선거 마지막 며칠 동안 그녀는 1년 안에 아주 빠른 것에 대해 이야기하고 있었어요.
But they seem to have slightly rowed back on that. 하지만 그들은 그것에 대해 조금 반박한 것 같습니다.
So who knows? And obviously, in coalition negotiations a lot of this would... 그러니까 누가 알아요? 그리고 분명히, 연합의 교섭에서는 이것의 대부분은...
Obviously, what's interesting is if they do give in to coalition in the republic, which, as we said, is not a guarantee, they will be in government in both sides of the Irish border, which is quite something. 분명 흥미로운 것은 그들이 공화국의 연합에 굴복할지 여부입니다.우리가 말했듯이 그것은 보장이 아닙니다, 그들은 아일랜드 국경 양쪽의 정부에 있을 것입니다, 그것은 상당히 무엇인가입니다.
It really is quite something. 그건 정말 상당한 겁니다.
So the polling I was reading shows that in the republic there is quite a healthy majority in favour of holding these referendums in both parts of the island. 그래서 제가 읽었던 투표는 공화국에서는 이들 국민투표를 섬의 양쪽 지역에서 개최하는 것에 찬성하는 상당히 대다수가 건강하다는 것을 보여줍니다.
It's 57 per cent in favour of actually consulting the people in both areas. 양쪽 분야의 사람들에게 실제로 상담하는 것에 찬성하는 그것은 57퍼센트입니다.
But as you say, the UK government decides whether that would go ahead in the north because of the Good Friday Agreement. 하지만 당신의 말처럼 영국 정부는 굿 프라이데이 협정을 위해 그것이 북쪽으로 나아갈지 여부를 결정합니다.
And that's there. 그리고 그것은 거기에 있습니다.
And in fact, Leo Varadkar - who's had a terrible time in the last few days, because, obviously, he's been in government in Dublin - he has said that a referendum on unification would be really dangerous at the moment. 사실, 레오바 래드카-지난 며칠 동안 끔찍한 시간을 보낸 것은 분명히 그가 더블린에서 정부에 소속되어 있기 때문이에요-통일에 관한 국민투표는 현시점에서는 정말 위험하다고 말하고 있습니다.
It would make a bad situation worse in the north, because it's really quite unresolved still what happens to the economy in the north, what happens to the status of people in the north who were happy with the kind of equilibrium after the Good Friday Agreement but are now unhappy about Brexit. 그것은 북 경제에 무엇이 일어날지, 성금요일 협정 이후 모종의 균형에 만족하고 있는 북 사람들의 상황에 무엇이 일어날지는 아직 매우 미해결이므로, 북의 나쁜 상황을 악화시키겠지만, Brexit에 불만을 품고 있다.
The Good Friday Agreement and being in the European Union, both Ireland and Britain, essentially calmed the whole Northern Irish question for quite a long time. 성 금요일 협정과 아일랜드와 영국 두 유럽연합에 있는 것은 본질적으로 꽤 오랫동안 북아일랜드 질문 전체를 진정시켰습니다.
Apart from those who were most committed, for a lot of people, this is OK. 많은 사람에게 가장 열심인 사람 빼고는, 이것은 문제가 되지 않습니다.
We can live with this. 이걸로 참을 수 있어.
It's going to be very interesting to see whether the terms, the special arrangements worked out for Northern Ireland, are enough to keep people content. 용어, 북아일랜드를 위해 작성된 특별한 약속이 사람들의 만족을 유지하기에 충분한지를 확인하는 것은 매우 흥미로울 것입니다.
As Dominic Rabb hilariously said, they were a fantastic deal for Northern Ireland. 도미니크 러브가 쾌활하게 말했듯이, 그것들은 북아일랜드에 있어서 훌륭한 거래였습니다.
The ambiguity. 애매함.
Exactly.
The half in, half out. 하프인, 하프아웃
So it is possible that when the dust settles people look at it all and think, well, not much has changed. 그러니까 먼지가 진정되면 사람들은 그걸 다 보고, 잘 생각하면 별로 달라지지 않을 수 있어요.
The issue, however, is going to be the border checks going from Northern Ireland to the British mainland. 하지만 문제는 북아일랜드에서 영국 본토로 가는 국경 체크가 될 것입니다.
OK, so what we should do is we should emphasise that the Brexit withdrawal agreement has actually inserted this, which is a sort of customs border, in the Irish Sea. 오케이, 그래서 우리가 할 일은 EU이탈협정이 실제로 이를 일종의 세관 국경인 아일랜드해에 삽입했다는 것을 강조해야 합니다.
A regulatory one, yeah. 규제상의 문제입니다.
A regulatory border. 규제의 경계
Which Theresa May, when she was prime minister, said no British prime minister would ever agree to this sort of thing. 테레사 메이는 그녀가 총리였을 때 영국 총리가 이런 일에 동의하는 일은 결코 없을 것이라고 말했다.
But it has been agreed to. 하지만 그것은 동의했습니다.
So it now makes the mainland UK different in its relationship to the EU to Northern Ireland. 그렇기 때문에, 지금은 영국 본토와 EU의 관계나 북아일랜드와의 관계가 다릅니다.
This is a huge deal. 이거 큰일입니다
It is.
It is.
I think we should build a bridge. 다리를 놓아야 한다고 생각합니다.
We should build a bridge. 우리는 다리를 놓아야 합니다.
Good idea.
Who else thinks that's a good idea? The prime minister thinks it's a good idea. 그 밖에 누가 그게 좋은 생각이라고 생각하세요? 수상은 그것을 좋은 생각이라고 생각하고 있어요.
So that's completely right. 그러니까 그건 완전히 맞아요.
The prime minister is still actually denying there will be any change. 수상은 아직 실제로 변화가 있는 것을 부정하고 있습니다.
It's quite something. 그건 상당히 뭔가 있어요.
He is still denying checks altogether. 그는 아직도 체크를 완전히 부정하고 있어요.
We're going to have to see how this plays out. 이것이 어떻게 기능하는지 확인해야 합니다.
But the Unionist vote in Northern Ireland is now not a majority of the population. 그러나 북아일랜드에서의 북군 투표는 현재 인구의 과반수가 아닙니다.
Unionist parties at the general election got 34 per cent, I think it was, of the vote. 총선에서 공산당은 34%의 표를 얻었다고 생각합니다.
They don't have a majority in the Stormont polling, which had been recalibrated. 재조정된 Stormont 투표에서 과반수는 없습니다.
So the tide is against them. 따라서 조수는 그들에게 반대합니다.
The hand they played in the Brexit process has not impressed anybody, including in their own community. 그들이 Brexit 프로세스에서 플레이한 핸드는 자신의 커뮤니티를 포함하여 누구도 감동하지 않습니다.
It's a bit unfair to talk about the percentages of the votes in the 2019 election because there were electoral pacts which confused and actually slightly probably depressed the Sinn Fein vote. 2019년 선거에서의 투표 비율에 대해 이야기하는 것은 조금 불공평합니다.혼란스러운 선거 협정이 있어, 실제로는 조금 심페인의 투표를 떨어뜨렸기 때문입니다.
It's up for grabs there. 그것은 거기에 잡기 위해서 있습니다.
Yeah.
Just a few months ago the DUP were still these huge players in the Brexit negotiations because they had been in coalition with the Conservatives propping them up at Westminster. 불과 몇 달 전까지 DUP은 브렉짓트 협상에서 여전히 이 거대한 플레이어였습니다.
Yeah, absolutely.
Now, it's a totally different picture. 지금 그건 전혀 다른 그림이에요.
And those hardline Unionists in Northern Ireland have lost their influence. 그리고 북아일랜드의 강경 유니어니스트는 그들의 영향력을 잃었다.
Yeah.
The prime minister's approach, too, for Northern Ireland is curious. 북아일랜드에 대한 총리의 행보도 흥미롭다.
In the reshuffle is happening, indeed, as we're recording. 실제로 우리가 녹음하고 있는 것처럼 재편성이 이루어지고 있습니다.
He has sacked the Northern Ireland secretary, who secured the return of the Stormont parliament, who finally got a deal within Northern Ireland that brought the parties back together and working together in devolved government, a man who's been described one of the best Northern Ireland secretaries for a while. 그는 스토몬트 의회의 복귀를 확보한 북아일랜드 비서를 해임했고, 그것은 북아일랜드 내에서 최종적으로 두 당사자를 되돌려 위임받은 행정부에서 함께 일한 계약을 따냈으며, 남성은 한동안 북아일랜드 최고의 비서 중 한 명으로 알려졌습니다.
And Boris Johnson's just sacked him. 그리고 보리스 존슨은 마침 그를 해임했다.
Well, that's what you get for competence these days in modern politics though. 음, 그건 현대 정치에서 요즘 당신이 능력 때문에 얻는 거에요.
It is what you get for competence. 그건 당신이 능력을 위해서 얻는 겁니다.
It counts for naught. 그것은 쓸데없이 셀 수 있습니다.
Which suggests that the well-being of Northern Ireland is not top of Boris Johnson's agenda. 이는 북아일랜드 복지가 보리스 존슨의 의제 1위가 아님을 시사합니다.
Although they would absolute deny it, I've always believed there are very few people in government who really, really would fight very hard for Northern Ireland. 그들은 절대로 그것을 부정하지만, 저는 정부에 정말 정말정말 북아일랜드를 위해 치열하게 싸울 아주 소수의 사람들이 있다고 믿었어요.
Or even necessarily understand it that well. 또는 반드시 그것을 잘이해할수도 있습니다.
But indeed... 하지만 확실히...
who think long-term that its future lies with the republic. 그 장래는 공화국에 있다고 장기적으로 생각하는 사람들.
Scotland, on the other hand... 스코틀랜드...
Scotland.
Yeah, the Ireland issue is very live. 네, 아일랜드 문제는 아주 활발해요.
But we'll have to see how it plays out. 하지만 그것이 어떻게 기능하는지를 확인해야 합니다.
We need to organise these flags for the drone view. 드론뷰의 이 플래그들을 정리해야 합니다.
Yes, OK.
So look, let's talk about Scotland. 그럼 스코틀랜드에 대해서 얘기하겠습니다.
You've put Scotland on the wrong side. 당신은 스코틀랜드를 반대편에 두었습니다.
It's there.
It's that one.
Well, that's in the sea! Oh, my goodness gracious. 자, 그것은 바다입니다! 아, 우아한 나의 좋은 점.
It's in the sea! So 2014 was the Indyref, as it's known. 바다 속에 있어요! 즉, 2014년은 인디레프였습니다.
We don't know when we might get Indyref 2, as it's known in the jargon, right? Nicola Sturgeon, first minister of Scotland, has done incredibly well out of talking up the pro-European, the Remain nature of the Scottish electorate. 전문용어로 알려진 것처럼 언제 Indyref2를 구할 수 있을지 모릅니다. 스코틀랜드의 초대 장관인 니콜라스타정은 스코틀랜드 유권자의 나머지 성질인 친유럽파를 입에 담는 것으로 믿을 수 없을 만큼 잘했다.
That plus the usual sorts of resentments against London - now resentments against a Tory government in London - this could really help her. 여기에 더해, 런던에 대한 통상의 종류의 원한-현재 런던의 토리 정부에 대한 원한-이것은 정말로 그녀를 도울 수 있었습니다.
But it's a delicate balance, isn't it, holding another referendum? Because she doesn't want to hold another one that she loses, right? 하지만 그건 미묘한 균형이죠. 그녀는 잃어버린 다른 것을 간직하고 싶지 않기 때문이지요?
In the general election last year, in which the Scotnats absolutely swept the board - they got 80 per cent of the seats at Westminster 스코트너츠가 이사회를 석권한 작년 총선에서 웨스트민스터 의석의 80%를 차지했습니다
- they did it with around 45 per cent , 46 per cent of the vote, again, which is roughly what the independence vote was. 그들은 그것을 투표의 약 45%, 46%로 실시했습니다.이 또한 독립투표와 거의 같습니다.
It's roughly the same place. 거의 같은 장소예요.
It is worth saying that the parties that supported independence did not win a majority of the vote in the UK general election, even with Brexit. 영국의 이탈에도 불구하고 독립을 지지한 정당이 영국 총선에서 과반수의 표를 얻지 못했음은 물론입니다.
Which is the SNP plus the Green party, which is a separate entity north of the border, which is very pro-independent. 이것은, SNP와 그린 파티이며, 국경의 북쪽에 있는 독립적인 엔티티이며, 매우 독립하고 있습니다.
And the Greens allow the SNP minority government in the Scottish parliament to function and would provide it with the votes for a second referendum. 그리고 그린스는 스코틀랜드 의회의 SNP 소수당 정부가 기능하는 것을 허용하고 그것을 두 번째 국민투표 투표에 제공할 것입니다.
Nevertheless, they don't yet have a majority for it. 그럼에도 불구하고, 그들은 아직 그것을 위한 과반수를 가지고 있지 않습니다.
And I think the British government's position is very clear, which is to say we're not going to have a second referendum. 그리고 영국 정부의 입장은 매우 명확하다고 저는 생각합니다.즉, 2차 국민투표는 하지 않는다는 것입니다.
And that position, I think, holds quite comfortably until the Scottish parliamentary elections next year, in 2021. 그리고 그 견해는 내년 2021년 스코틀랜드 의회 선거까지 아주 편안한 위치에 있다고 생각합니다.
It's possible.
There are people within the SNP who are challenging this, saying, let's hold a referendum without the British government's permission. 이에 도전하는 국민이 SNP 내에 있다고 말하고 영국 정부의 허가 없이 국민투표를 개최합시다.
Joanna Cherry, who played a really interesting role in the Brexit battles, who's clearly quite a formidable legal brain, thinks there is a way to do it legally. 분명히 매우 벅찬 법적 두뇌인 Brexit의 싸움에서 정말 흥미로운 역할을 한 조안나체리는 합법적으로 그것을 할 수 있는 방법이 있다고 생각합니다.
But at the moment Nicola Sturgeon's been pushing back on this. 그러나 현 시점에서는 니콜라 스타정은 이를 뒷받침하고 있습니다.
But she really doesn't want to do that. 하지만 그녀는 정말 그러고 싶지 않아요.
Because if you start going down that road you potentially turn Scotland into a sort of Catalonia, where holding referendums that are actually not legally allowed has led to appalling brutality, imprisonment. 당신이 그 길로 내려가기 시작하면 스코틀랜드를 일종의 카탈로니아로 바꿀 수 있기 때문에 실제로 합법적으로 허용되지 않은 국민투표를 개최하면 끔찍한 잔학행위, 투옥으로 이어집니다.
It's lit a fire under the secessionist sentiment. 그것은 분리주의자의 감정 아래 불을 붙였다.
That's not the way that Nicola Sturgeon, the leader of the SNP, wants to go. 그것은 SNP의 리더인 니콜라 스타전이 가고 싶은 방법이 아닙니다.
But she's got this balancing act. 하지만 그녀는 이 균형을 잡는 행위를 하고 있어요.
Because she's got fundamentalists in her movement, and she's got people who think, look, we run Scotland. 그녀에게는 운동의 원리주의자가 있고, 그녀는 생각하고, 보고, 스코틀랜드를 경영하는 사람들을 가지고 있기 때문입니다.
We will get there. 거기에 도착합니다.
It's our destiny, but not now. 그건 우리의 운명이지만 지금은 그렇지 않아요.
I don't think we're going to get to a place where the British government is locking up Scottish nationalists. 영국 정부가 스코틀랜드의 민족주의자들을 가두려고 하는 곳에 갈 생각은 없다고 생각해요.
Though undoubtedly, Boris Johnson must've flirted with this in his quieter moments. 틀림없이, 보리스 존슨은 그의 조용한 순간에 이것으로 장난을 친 것이 틀림 없습니다.
He's probably written a column at some point - let's face it - saying, let's imprison the SNP. 그는 아마 어떤 시점에 칼럼을 쓰고 있다-그것에 직면하자-말하고, SNP를 투옥하자.
I think that the other issue with the Catalonia comparison is that the key to a second referendum for Scotland would be saying, we're going to break free and join the European Union. 카탈로니아의 비교에 관한 또 다른 문제는 스코틀랜드의 두 번째 국민투표의 열쇠가 되는 것이라고 생각합니다.우리는 자유로워지고 EU에 참여할 것입니다.
And what they don't want is a country like, say, Spain vetoing their membership on the grounds of being an illegal separatist movement and encouraging the Catalans. 그리고 그들이 원하지 않는 것은 예를 들어 스페인이 불법 분리주의 운동이라는 이유로 멤버십을 거부하고, 카탈로니아인을 장려하는 것과 같은 나라입니다.
I think that would be them. 그게 그들이라고 생각해요.
But they want to stay in, right? It's serious for Scotland. 하지만,그들은머물기를원하죠? 그것은 스코틀랜드에 있어서 심각합니다.
Completely, yes.
They really want to stay in the EU. 그들은 정말로 EU에 머물고 싶어해요.
And this is also not just to do with "we don't want to be part of an exiled nation along with the hated English." This has to do with Scotland's economy. 그리고 이것은 "미움받은 영어와 함께 망명국의 일부가 되고 싶지 않다"는 것만이 아닙니다. 이것은 스코틀랜드의 경제와 관계가 있습니다.
Scotland has a serious demographic issue. 스코틀랜드에는 심각한 인구 문제가 있어요.
The population has been going down very fast. 인구는 급속히 감소하고 있습니다.
And in terms of EU immigration it's been very necessary in Scotland. EU 이민에 관해서는 스코틀랜드에서는 매우 필요했어요.
So the end of freedom of movement is very bad, for example, north of the border. 그래서 국경의 북쪽 등 자유의 끝은 아주 나쁩니다.
And in general, Scotland voted quite heavily against Brexit. 그리고 일반적으로 스코틀랜드는 브레그짓에 상당히 반대하여 투표했다.
Not everyone, right? No, no. 다들 아니야? 아니오, 아닙니다.
So in recent opinion polls, we are seeing a majority - a very, very narrow majority - for independence in Scotland- 51 per cent, 52 per cent, that kind of thing. 따라서 최근 여론 조사에서는 스코틀랜드의 독립성에 대해 51%, 52% 등 과반수의 매우 좁은 과반수가 나타났습니다.
The other reason why I think Nicola Sturgeon rightly doesn't want to do this is that's not a big enough majority going in. 철갑상어가 바르게 이것을 하기 싫다고 생각하는 또 다른 이유는 그것이 대다수가 아니라는 것입니다.
No, quite.
As you say, you can't have Indyref 3. 당신이 말하는 것처럼 Indyref 3을 가질 수 없습니다.
So if you lose it this time, it's done. 그래서 이번에는 그것을 잃어버렸을 때는 완료입니다.
And I think she would want to be more certain. 그리고 그녀는 더 확실해 지고 싶어 할 것입니다.
The logical thing for her to do, even leaving aside the political problems that the SNP has, which I'm sure we're going to come to, is to spend the year stoking up the grievance, finding every possible way you can show that London is slighting Scotland, build up that anger heading into the Scottish parliamentary elections in 2021, get a majority for the nationalist parties, 그녀가 하는 논리적인 것은, SNP가 안고 있는 정치적 문제를 별도로 하더라도, 1년을 소비해서 불만을 제기하고, 당신이 그것을 제시할 수 있는 모든 가능한 방법을 찾는 것입니다. 런던은 스코틀랜드를 압도하고 2021년 스코틀랜드 의회 선거를 향한 분노를 쌓아 내셔널리스트당의 과반수를 획득했으며,
and, on the back of that, say we're doing it, and defy the British government to stop you then, which means that the single best way to stop a second Scottish referendum is to knock the SNP back in those elections, which is a lot easier said than done. 그리고 그 뒤에서 우리가 그러고 있다고 말하고 그리고 당신을 말리듯이 영국 정부에 반대합니다, 그것은 두 번째 스코틀랜드 국민투표를 중지하는 단 하나의 방법은 그 선거에서 SNP를 노크하는 것입니다, 그것은 말하는 것보다 훨씬 쉽게 말했다.
So that's really hard because of the collapse of the Labour party in Scotland. 스코틀랜드에서의 노동당의 붕괴 때문에 그것은 정말 어렵습니다.
So the SNP is in this incredible position. 따라서, SNP는 이 놀라운 입장에 있습니다.
They've got a lot of local difficulties. 그들은 현지의 어려움을 많이 겪고 있습니다.
Since they've been in government, which is a long time now, they've got problems with education standards, they've got problems with the NHS, they've got problems with the police service. 그들은 오랫동안 정부에 소속되어 있었기 때문에, 교육 기준에 문제가 있고, NHS에 문제가 있어, 경찰에 문제가 있습니다.
All of the normal ways in which you would measure a government's competence and success, there are issues with the SNP. 정부의 능력과 성공을 측정하는 통상적인 방법은 모두 SNP에 문제가 있습니다.
Plus they had the resignation last week of their finance minister. 게다가, 그들은 지난 주에 재무장관을 사임했습니다.
On the morning when he was supposed to deliver the budget. 그가 예산을 제공하기로 했던 아침.
For an inappropriate text with a 16-year-old. 16세의 부적절한 텍스트.
You've got the looming trial of their former leader, Alex Salmond, which we can't really discuss under contempt of court rules. 당신은 그들의 전 지도자 알렉스 서먼드가 다가오는 재판을 가지고 있습니다, 그것은 법원의 규칙 모욕 아래 실제로 논의할 수 없습니다.
But it's not going to be fun for the SNP, whatever happens. 그러나, 무슨 일이 일어나도, 그것은 SNP에게 있어서 즐거운 일은 아닙니다.
They've got lots of political gremlins coming their way. 그들은 많은 정치적 그렘린이 온다.
And yet their fundamental position remains very strong, because they are essentially the only important voice of nationalism in Scotland. 그럼에도 불구하고 스코틀랜드에서는 내셔널리즘의 중요한 목소리가 본질적으로 유일하기 때문에 그들의 기본 입장은 매우 강력합니다.
We've mentioned the Greens, but it's the SNP. 저희는 초록색을 말했습니다만, 그것은 SNP입니다.
We know that over 40 per cent of Scots support that, which means they have a bedrock of support which is very large and quite close to being able to give them a majority. 스코틀랜드의 40% 이상이 그것을 지원하는 것을 알고 있습니다.이는 스코틀랜드가 매우 크고 과반수를 줄 수 있는데 매우 가까운 지원기반이 있음을 의미합니다.
And I think your point is exactly right about Labour. 그리고 저는 당신의 포인트가 노동에 대해 정확히 옳다고 생각합니다.
I think a Labour revival is the key to the SNP being stopped in 2020. 2020년 SNP가 중단되기 위해서는 노동의 부활이 관건이라고 생각합니다.
Well, let's hope the Labour leadership candidates are watching. 이제 노동당의 리더십 후보자들이 지켜보고 있기를 바랍니다.
Because they have a responsibility to keep the union together in that respect. 그들은 그런 점에서 조합을 묶을 책임이 있기 때문입니다.
I hope we're not getting into unionist sentiment here. 여기에서 조합주의적인 감정에 빠지지 않기를 바랍니다.
Unionist sentiment? No, never. 유니어니스트 감정? 아니요, 없어요.
But what the SNP is able to do is it's able to operate at the same time as a political party, but also as a campaign. 그러나 SNP를 실행할 수 있는 것은 정당과 동시에 캠페인으로도 운용할 수 있다는 것입니다.
What I find very interesting is the degree to which the Conservative party has also managed, in the last couple of years, or since Boris Johnson took over, to be the Brexit campaign and a political party. 제가 매우 흥미롭다고 생각하는 것은 지난 몇 년 동안 또는 보리스 존슨이 물려받은 이후 보수당도 브렉짓 캠페인과 정당이라는 정도를 관리해 온 정도입니다.
Obviously, we know, the Conservative party is a kind of genius at reinventing itself to adapt and survive. 당연히 보수당은 적응하고 살아남기 위해 스스로를 개혁한다는 점에서 일종의 천재입니다.
But now that Boris Johnson wants nobody to even mention the word Brexit anymore, he's got to operate as a normal government. 하지만 이제 보리스 존슨은 브레그짓이라는 말을 아무도 언급하는 것을 원치 않기 때문에 그는 통상적인 정부로 활동할 필요가 있습니다.
And he's got to turn his attention to things like keeping the UK together. 그리고 그는 영국을 함께 유지하는 것에 대해 그의 주의를 기울여야 한다.
That is how he will be measured in the history books, right? If Scotland breaks away it will be just more significant than the Brexit. 그건 그가 역사책에서 어떻게 측정되느냐죠? 스코틀랜드가 이탈할 경우 그것은 영국의 이탈보다 더 중요해집니다.
And he will be judged as the man who lost the United Kingdom. 그리고 그는 영국을 잃은 남자로 재판을 받습니다.
And he knows this. 그리고 그는 이것을 알고 있습니다.
And it worries him deeply. 그리고 그것은 그를 깊이 걱정하고 있다.
And I think we're going to see quite a lot of effort from the British government, from Boris Johnson, to try and find ways to show Scots that the union is still worth keeping. 그리고 영국정부, 보리스 존슨의 엄청난 노력을 보고 조합이 유지할 가치가 있다는 것을 스코틀랜드인들에게 보여줄 방법을 찾으려 할 것이다.
I'm just adding to the bridge. 저는 다리에 추가하고 있어요.
Because his ideas for keeping the union together at the moment seem to extend to saying he's going to build a huge bridge between Scotland and Northern Ireland, which may or may not be a sensible idea. 현재 조합을 묶기 위한 그의 생각은 스코틀랜드와 북아일랜드 사이에 거대한 다리를 놓겠다는 것으로 보이므로 그것은 현명한 생각일 수도 있고 아닐 수도 있습니다.
One thing.
I think they want to show much more effectively how much money Scotland gets from being in the UK. 그들은 스코틀랜드가 영국에 있는 것으로부터 얼마만큼의 돈을 얻는지를 보다 효과적으로 보여주고 싶어 한다.
Right.
This is important.
But I think the really interesting thing to me is that Boris Johnson, better than anybody else, knows that the emotional argument of independence and "take back control" is. 하지만 내게 정말 흥미로운 것은 보리스 존슨은 누구보다 뛰어나다는 것이지만 독립과 지배를 되찾는다는 감정적인 논의는 알고 있다는 것입니다.
How powerful it is.
And saying to Scots, oh, but look at all the money. 그리고 스코틀랜드에 말한 모든 돈을 보세요.
Re-running Project Fear and being on the other side of the Brexit argument, as it were, is difficult. Project Fear를 재실행하여 Brexit 논의 반대편에 있기가 어렵습니다.
And it's the great irony of any campaign that comes. 그리고, 그것은 오는 캠페인의 큰 아이러니입니다.
You would have Boris Johnson and all the Brexiters saying, oh, don't break up the most successful political union of modern times. 당신은 보리스 존슨과 모든 브렉시타스에게 현대의 가장 성공적인 정치적 조합을 해체하지 말라고 말해 줄 겁니다.
Don't cut yourself off from your largest market. 최대의 시장에서 떼어지지 마세요.
And you'll have Nicola Sturgeon - the Brexit-hating Nicola Sturgeon - saying, no, come on. 그리고 당신은 니콜라 스타 존 브렉시트를 미워하는 니콜라 스타 존을 가지고 있지요, 아니오
Go for it.
Let us be free. 자유로워집시다.
So it's a complete inversion. 따라서 이는 완전한 반전입니다.
And we know, at the moment, which one of these arguments is seeming to be the most powerful. 그리고 현시점에서는 이러한 인수의 어느 것이 가장 강력하다고 생각되는지 알 수 있습니다.
So there's another issue which sort of rumbles underneath these kind of immediate dramas, which is the issue of England, and the fact that the UK is actually quite imbalanced anyway. 따라서 이런 종류의 직접 드라마 아래서 일종의 소동이 발생하는 또 다른 문제가 있습니다.그것은 잉글랜드의 문제이며 영국은 실제로 상당히 균형이 나쁘다는 사실입니다.
Because England is this huge landmass. 영국은 이 거대한 대륙이니까요.
There's a lot of GDP generated in London and the southeast. 런던과 남동부에서 생성된 GDP는 많이 있습니다.
And obviously, the UK parliament is based in London at Westminster. 그리고 분명히, 영국 의회는 런던의 웨스트민스터를 본거지로 하고 있습니다.
And so this has always created resentment elsewhere, including in Wales. 그리고 이것은 항상 웨일스를 포함한 다른 장소에서 분개를 만들어 왔습니다.
We'll just stick the Welsh back on again for a second, include them in the discussion. 웨일스어를 다시 한 번 잠시 기다려 토론에 포함합니다.
There is also a kind of recognition in the Johnson government that you've got to do something about the other areas of England, which have felt left out, left out from the enormous amount of prosperity here in the southeast. 존슨 정부에서는 이곳 남동부의 막대한 번영에서 낙오된 것으로 느껴지는 잉글랜드의 다른 지역에 대해 뭔가를 해야 한다는 인식도 있습니다.
Does that help with this issue of keeping the union together? I don't know. 이것이 조합을 구성하는 이 문제에 도움이 됩니까? 몰라요.
When Alex Salmond was in charge of the SNP, I interviewed him. Alex Salmond가 SNP를 담당하고 있을 때, 나는 그를 인터뷰했습니다.
And he was really sort of canny in talking about the fact that the north of England was as angry with London as the Scots were. 그리고 그는 잉글랜드 북부가 스코틀랜드와 마찬가지로 런던에 화가 난다는 사실에 대해 이야기하는 것은 정말로 이상해졌습니다.
This also plays into the Johnson government's calculations about what they do next. 이것은 존슨 정부가 다음에 무엇을 할 것인지에 대한 계산에도 영향을 줍니다.
It does.
And Nicola Sturgeon is at least as good as Alex Salmond was. 그리고 니콜라 스타정은 적어도 알렉스 서먼드만큼 우수해요.
She's a really first-rate politician. 그녀는 정말 일류 정치인이에요.
Yes, she's a very, very good operator. 네, 그녀는 아주 뛰어난 오퍼레이터예요.
Very good at this. 이건 아주 잘해요.
And one of the things she's done with the SNP, and one of the reasons for its success, in my opinion, is not only the lure of the nationalist argument, but that they have occupied the progressive space in Scotland. 그리고 그녀가 SNP에서 행한 일 중 하나와 그 성공의 이유 중 하나는, 내 생각에, 내셔널리스트의 논의의 매력 뿐만이 아니라, 스코틀랜드의 진보적인 공간을 점거한 것입니다.
No longer the Tartan Tories. 타탄토리는 아니게 되었습니다.
Exactly.
Because they used to known as that. 그들은 그 일로 알려져 있었기 때문입니다.
Which they used to be seen as, yeah. 네, 그들이 전에 보던 것입니다
So they have taken that space from Labour, where, if you are a progressive, socially concerned, believe in social justice, the SNP is a comfortable party for you at the moment. 그래서 그들은 노동에서 그 공간을 차지했습니다, 그래서 당신이 진보적이고 사회적으로 우려하고 있다면, 사회 정의를 믿는다면, SNP는 현시점에서 당신에게 쾌적한 파티입니다.
And for younger voters, which is the future electoral... 그리고 장래의 선거인 젊은 유권자를 위해서...
So they have taken that space from Labour. 그래서 그들은 노동에서 그 자리를 잡았다.
And that's been the problem. 그리고 그것이 문제였습니다.
The problem, in terms of the broader issues is that Scotland is overwhelmingly represented by Scottish nationalists in the UK parliament. 광범위한 문제라는 점에서의 문제는 스코틀랜드가 영국 의회의 스코틀랜드 민족주의자에 의해 압도적으로 대표되고 있다는 것입니다.
And it accounts for nothing. 그리고 그건 아무 것도 설명하지 않아요.
They're ignored completely by this government. 그들은 이 정부에 의해 완전히 무시당하고 있습니다.
It doesn't want to deal with them. 그것들에 대처하고 싶지 않다.
And in truth, they don't want to deal with it either. 그리고 실제로 그들도 거기에 대처하고 싶지 않아요.
Well, it's 4 per cent of the total UK electorate, of course. 물론 그것은 영국 유권자의 4%입니다.
So yeah.
That's absolutely true. 그건 절대 사실이에요.
Whereas, when the Labour party was in power, and with the election of lots of Labour MPs in Scotland, Scotland had a disproportionate clout. 한편 노동당이 집권하고 있을 때, 그리고 스코틀랜드에서 많은 노동당 의원이 선출됐을 때 스코틀랜드는 어울리지 않는 영향력을 갖고 있었다.
And since that has eroded, as Labour took it for granted, that's been one of the things that has fuelled the issue. 그리고 그것이 침식된 이후 노동이 그것을 당연한 것으로 생각하는 것처럼, 그것은 문제를 부추겼던 것 중 하나입니다.
That's a really good point, actually, isn't it? When Scots could look at the British parliament or the British government and see it was full of Scots arguing for their cause, that carried some clout. 그거 정말 좋은 점이네요. 스코틀랜드 사람들이 영국 의회 또는 영국 정부를 보고 그들의 원인에 대해 주장하고 있는 스코틀랜드에서 가득 찬 것을 볼 수 있었을 때 그것은 몇몇 영향력을 행사했습니다.
And they were still neglecting it very badly and taking it for granted, but it made a difference. 그리고 그들은 그것을 매우 심하게 무시했고 당연한 것으로 생각했지만, 그것은 차이를 낳았습니다.
That's a Labour rose wilting. 그것은 시든 레이버 로즈입니다.
I'm not here to criticise. 저는 비판하기 위해 여기 있는 것이 아닙니다.
I might just try, meanwhile. 그동안 저는 그냥 시도할지도 모릅니다.
So I think that's really hurt them. 그래서 저는 그게 정말 그들에게 상처를 주고 있다고 생각해요.
But the focus on England is really interesting. 하지만 잉글랜드에 초점을 맞추는 것은 정말 흥미롭습니다.
And the forces of English nationalism are really interesting. 그리고 영국의 내셔널리즘의 힘은 정말 흥미롭습니다.
Because one of the things you see when you write about Scotland and you talk about Scotland is the batch of English people going, well, I don't care if Scotland goes, which seems, to us, shocking that people could think so little. 스코틀랜드에 대해서 쓰거나 스코틀랜드에 대해서 이야기할 때 볼 수 있는 것 중 하나는 영국인 집단입니다.음, 스코틀랜드가 가도 사람들이 거의 생각할 수 없지 않을까 싶을 정도로 저는 신경쓰지 않아요.
But there is a constituency of English opinion that doesn't care. 하지만 개의치 않는 영어 의견 지지자가 있어요.
And Boris Johnson is pandering to that constituency in other ways. 그리고 보리스 존슨은 다른 방법으로 그 지지자들에게 접근하고 있습니다.
So the danger is that that just grows in confidence. 그래서 위험은 그것이 자신감 있게 성장한다는 것입니다.
And I remember talking to somebody during the first referendum, this first Indyref, who rather mischievously said, well, England do without Scotland. 그리고 저는 첫 국민투표 동안 누군가와 얘기했던 것을 기억합니다.이 최초의 인디레프는 영국은 스코틀랜드 없이 장난스럽게 말하고 있었습니다.
The state of its economy - England could grow it back in three years with economic growth. 그 경제 상태- 영국은 경제성장으로 3년이면 그것을 되돌릴 수 있습니다.
So there is a degree of contempt that goes both ways. 따라서 양쪽 방향으로 가는 어느 정도의 경멸이 있습니다.
And I think managing those forces is going to be difficult. 그리고 그 힘들을 관리하는 것은 매우 어려워질 것이라고 생각을 합니다.
Because if Boris Johnson stops throwing lots of money and love at Scotland it may not go down well elsewhere, where he's got to find money for that for England. 왜냐하면 보리스 존슨이 스코틀랜드에서 많은 돈과 사랑을 던지는 것을 그만두면 잉글랜드를 위해 돈을 찾아야 하는 다른 곳에서는 잘 되지 않을 수 있기 때문입니다.
So that allows me to use my favourite word and to say that, if Scotland leaves and Northern Ireland leaves, England and Wales become Rump UK, that is, RUK. 그래서 제가 좋아하는 말을 사용하고 스코틀랜드가 떠나고 북아일랜드가 떠난다면 잉글랜드와 웨일스가 램프UK, 즉 RUK가 될 수 있습니다.
Rump.
Rump UK.
It seems to me completely absurd. 저한테는 아주 어리석은 것 같아요.
It's a small set of islands off the coast of Europe. 유럽 앞바다에 있는 작은 섬들입니다.
And all these things may come to pass. 그리고 이 모든 것이 실현될지도 모릅니다.
But the idea that it wouldn't matter is fanciful. 하지만 그게 문제가 아니라는 생각은 공상적입니다.
Of course.
It is ridiculous. 어처구니없다.
Even just economically, rather than in terms of the impoverishment of our identity as Britons. 영국인으로서의 정체성의 빈곤이라기보다는 단순히 경제적으로조차.
Yeah.
I think the risk of Scottish independence is very real, but it's not a given. 스코틀랜드의 독립 위험은 매우 현실적이라고 생각합니다만, 그것은 당연한 일이 아닙니다.
It's not a fact. 그건 사실이 아닙니다.
And I know some Conservatives I was talking to last week, when I was talking about the subject, were saying we don't know if we can stop a referendum. 그리고 지난주에 제가 이 건에 대해 얘기했던 몇몇 보수파들이 국민투표를 멈출 수 있을지는 모른다고 말한 것을 알고 있습니다.
But actually, we're not as gloomy as you might imagine about it. 하지만 실제로는 우리가 상상하는 것만큼 비관적이지 않아요.
There are some very strong lobbies, including the one that says, look what's been going on in our country for three years with Brexit. Brexit에서 3년 동안 우리 나라에서 무슨 일이 일어나고 있는지 보고 아주 강력한 로비가 있어요.
Do you fancy three years of that in Scotland? Do you fancy that degree of chaos? And the nationalists are going to have to answer some different questions, like, what's the currency, which undid them last time. 스코틀랜드에서 그 3년을 공상합니까? 당신은 그 정도의 혼란을 걱정하고 있습니까? 그리고 민족주의자는 몇 가지 다른 질문에 답해야 합니다.
If you join the EU, you have to commit to joining the euro. EU에 참가하는 경우는, 유로에의 참가를 확약할 필요가 있습니다.
That may not be a popular position among lots of us. 그것은 우리 많은 사람들 사이에서 인기 있는 포지션이 아닐지도 모릅니다.
But the key to me is, it's the Unionist Remainers, the people who voted Unionist last time, voted to stay with the UK, but also wanted to remain in the European Union. 하지만 나에게 중요한 것은 지난 번 유니어니스트에게 투표했던 사람들이 영국에 머무르기로 투표했는데, 유럽연합에 머물고 싶어했던 그게 유니어니스트의 잔당이라는 거예요.
And those are the vulnerable target vote, the people who thought that Scotland would have a say and a voice, and, in fact, have seen, on the most important issue of the day, they've been ignored. 그리고 그것들은 취약한 표적 투표였고 스코틀랜드는 발언권과 발언권을 가지고 있을 것이라고 생각했던 사람들, 그리고 실제로 그날의 가장 중요한 문제로 그들은 무시당했습니다.
So it's a very, very powerful argument for the nationalists. 그래서 그것은 민족주의자들에게 매우 강력한 논의입니다.
And if we get into this referendum then the Unionists have got a real fight on their hands, which is why the single best way to win is to not get in it. 그리고 우리가 이 국민투표에 참여할 경우, 유니어니스트는 그들의 손에 진짜 싸움을 가지고 있기 때문에 이기기 위한 유일한 방법은 그것에 참여하지 않는 것입니다.
Which means avoiding the referendum. 그것은 국민투표를 피하는 것을 의미합니다.
To me, it means Labour choosing the right leader, Labour then choosing a better leader in Scotland, and showing to Scottish voters that they are a force to be taken seriously again. 제게는 노동이 적절한 지도자를 선정하고 스코틀랜드에서 더 나은 지도자를 선정하며 스코틀랜드 유권자들에게 그들이 다시 진지하게 임해야 할 힘임을 보여 주는 것을 의미합니다.
Well, there's only one Labour MP left in Scotland. 음, 스코틀랜드에 남아 있는 노동 MP는 하나 뿐이에요.
There's only one Labour MP. 노동 MP는 하나밖에 없습니다.
That's correct. 그렇습니다.
And he's actually making a very good fist of arguing that he should be deputy leader, I would argue, at the moment. 그리고 그는 실제로 그가 부지도자가 되어야 한다고 주장하기에 아주 좋은 주먹을 만들고 있다고 나는 현시점에서는 주장하겠지요.
But maybe he'll get a proper job. 하지만 아마 그는 적절한 일자리를 얻을 겁니다.
I think he probably will. 그는 아마 그렇게 될 겁니다.
Ian Murray.
Ian Murray.
They've also then got to get a better leader than Richard Leonard in Scotland. 또 스코틀랜드의 리처드 레너드보다 더 뛰어난 리더를 획득해야 합니다.
They don't have to do very much. 그들은 별로 할 필요 없어요.
I mean, the Scottish parliament is quite, you know, the SNP is two seats short of a majority. 즉, 스코틀랜드 의회는 상당히, 아시다시피, SNP는 과반수를 2석 밑돌고 있습니다.
The Greens have six MSPs, I think. 그린즈는 6개의 MSP가 있다고 생각합니다.
So you don't have to knock them back very far to take away the majority for a referendum. 그래서 국민투표를 위해 과반수를 빼앗기 위해 그들을 멀리 노크할 필요는 없습니다.
But the Tories did very well last time. 하지만 토리즈는 지난 번에 아주 잘 됐어요.
And you might wonder if they can do as well again, certainly without their charismatic leader Ruth Davidson. 그리고 카리스마적 지도자인 루스 데이비드슨이 없어도 그들도 똑같이 할 수 있을지 의문스러울 수 있습니다.
But a Labour boost would make a real difference. 그러나 노동력 증강은 진짜 차이를 낳습니다.
If I was the Dominic Cummings of Unionism, I'd be working out how I could boost the Labour party in Scotland. 제가 유니어니즘의 도미니크 커밍스였다면 스코틀랜드 노동당을 어떻게 뒷받침할 수 있을지를 생각하고 있습니다.
Because I think that's the key for holding the union together. 그것이 조합을 묶기 위한 열쇠라고 생각하기 때문입니다.
So after our last video, somebody wrote in, and very sweetly said, because you drew some magnificent fish last time, Robert. 저번 비디오 이후로 누군가가 써주어서 아주 상냥하게 말하고 있었습니다.당신이 지난 번에 훌륭한 물고기를 그렸기 때문에 로버트.
Do you remember your torpedo fish? They were really rude about my fish. 어뢰 기억하세요? 그들은 제 생선에 대해 정말 실례였어요.
They were very rude about my fish. 그들은 제 생선에 대해 매우 실례였습니다.
And I think we had some excellent feedback about your fish. 그리고 우리는 당신의 물고기에 대해 몇 가지 훌륭한 피드백이 있었다고 생각합니다.
So I'm going to draw them today. 그래서 오늘은 그것들을 그릴 거예요.
OK.
So Earlofmar wrote: "What do the fish think?" To which obviously, the answer is they're gutted. 알로프머는 이렇게 쓰고 있다:"생선은 어떻게 생각해?" 분명히 해답은 그들이 근성이 있다는 겁니다.
Ah! Oh, no.
Terrible.
So they're the confused fish, not knowing. 그래서 그들은 혼란스러운 물고기이고, 모른다.
Is it a British fish? Is it a European fish? To be serious for a moment, again, one of the things that one of the Unionist people I spoke to last week said to me was, one of the fundamental issues is going to be how we secure a deal on fish in the Brexit negotiations. 영국 물고기요? 유럽 생선이에요? 조금 진지하게 생각하면, 지난 주에 말한 유니어니스트 중 한 명이 저에게 말한 것 중 하나는 기본적인 문제 중 하나는 EU 이탈 협상에서의 물고기 거래 확보입니다.
And if the Scottish fishing federation is even close to standing up and saying... 그리고 스코틀랜드 어업연맹이 나서 말만 한다면.
Oh, yes.
I'm going to do a Scottish fish, actually. 스코틀랜드 생선을 실제로 해요.
Because it's very, very, very important in Scotland, the fishing industry. 스코틀랜드에서는, 어업에 있어서 매우 중요합니다.
What's the difference? It's just up north. 차이점은 뭐죠? 그것은 바로 북쪽입니다.
Yeah.
OK, OK.
If the Scottish fishing federation stands up and says, you sold out fish for London's financial services, we're in real trouble. 스코틀랜드 어업 연맹이 일어서서 런던 금융 서비스를 위해 생선을 다 팔았다고 했더니, 우리는 정말 곤란해요.
And therefore, you have a situation where the deal that is done for fishermen is going to be disproportionately important to the future of the UK, even though the future of the fishing industry is very unimportant to the British economy. 따라서, 어업의 장래가 영국 경제에 있어서 매우 중요하지 않은 경우에도, 어부를 위해서 행해진 거래가 영국의 장래에 있어서 맞지 않게 중요해지는 상황이 있다고 합니다.
Though many will argue it's tremendously important in cohesion in the local economies. 많은 사람들은 그것이 지방 경제의 결속에 매우 중요하다고 주장할 것입니다.
What the fish think, I don't know. 물고기가 어떻게 생각할지 저는 모르겠어요.
But people are certainly thinking about the fish. 하지만 사람들은 분명히 물고기에 대해 생각하고 있어요.
OK.
I'm trying, and not very well, to draw an Irish cow over here. 저는 여기에 아일랜드 소를 그리려고 합니다.
OK.
Why are you doing that? Because... 왜그런짓을하는거야? 왜냐하면...
I prefer like this. 저는 이것을 좋아합니다.
Because if we're worrying about what do the fish think, I also want to know what the Irish cows think. 물고기가 어떻게 생각할지 궁금하다면 아일랜드 소도 어떻게 생각하는지 알고 싶습니다.
Well, it does say here: "How is this border down the Irish Sea going to work? It would seem to create lots of smuggling opportunities." And you can see that's right. 음, 그것은 여기서 말한다: "아일랜드해와의 이 국경은 어떻게 기능할까요?밀수 기회를 많이 만들어 내는 것처럼 보일 겁니다. 그리고 당신은 그것이 올바른 것을 볼 수 있습니다.
It is a very, very good question. 아주 좋은 질문입니다.
Because look at our gaps in our border where the smugglers will go through like that. 밀수꾼이 그렇게 지나가는 우리 국경 간극을 보세요.
But also, there's this famous Ian Paisley quote from years ago, which is: "Our people are British, but our cows are Irish." When Boris Johnson started quoting Ian Paisley saying that, we thought that there might be something going on in terms of compromise. 하지만 몇 년 전부터 이 유명한 이안 페이즐리의 인용이 있습니다. 보리스 존슨이 이언 페이즐리의 말을 인용하기 시작했을 때, 우리는 타협에 관해 무슨 일이 일어나고 있는 것이 아닐까 생각했습니다.
A Paisley cow. 페이즐리 소
Yes.
It's an Irish cow tended to by British farmers in Northern Ireland. 바로 북아일랜드의 영국 농민들이 돌보는 아일랜드의 소입니다.
That's point. 그게 포인트예요.
It does look like a dog. 그건 개처럼 보여요.
I'm sorry.
It looks like a dog.
It's a cow.
It looks like a dog.
But so how does this actually work, this different arrangement for Northern Ireland? Because as you've said, even government ministers have said potentially Northern Ireland gets quite a good deal here, economically. 하지만 이것이 실제로 어떻게 기능하는지, 북아일랜드의 이 다른 결정은 어떻습니까? 당신이 말했듯이 정부 장관들조차 잠재적으로 북아일랜드는 경제적으로 꽤 좋은 거래를 여기서 얻을 수 있다고 했으니까요.
The key thing is the checks aren't going to take place here, of course, not least because no one wants to sit on that particular border. 중요한 것은, 특히 여기에서는 체크가 이루어지지 않는 것입니다.특히 그 특정한 경계선상에 아무도 앉고 싶지 않기 때문입니다.
But they're going to take place on the mainland in Northern Ireland. 그러나, 그것들은 북아일랜드의 본토에서 행해질 예정입니다.
They're going to happen away from the border, away from the areas of tension as much as possible. 그들은 국경에서 벗어나 긴장의 영역에서 가능한 한 벗어나서 일어날 것입니다.
There's going to be lots of certification. 많은 인증이 있을 겁니다.
Because of the peace process and wanting to keep the peace process intact. 평화 프로세스를 위해, 그리고 평화 프로세스를 그대로 유지하고 싶기 때문이다.
Because in the past anything that looked like a border, that looked like a checkpoint became a terrorist target. 예전에는 국경처럼 보였던 모든 것이 체크포인트처럼 보여 테러리스트들의 표적이 되었습니다.
And that was a serious issue. 그리고 그것은 심각한 문제였습니다.
But the issue is going to be things going from Britain to Northern Ireland. 하지만 문제는 영국에서 북아일랜드로 가게 될 겁니다.
That's going to be the fundamental area, where there's an awful lot to be pinned down. 그것이 근본적인 분야가 될 것입니다.거기서는 엄청난 일이 많이 있어요.
The European Union is incredibly serious about the sanctity of the single market. 유럽연합은 단일 시장의 신성함에 매우 진지합니다.
And it isn't going to let the British government get away with ignoring this. 그리고 이를 무시하고 영국 정부가 도망칠 수는 없을 겁니다.
Let's put our European flag by that, just to make it absolutely clear. 그것을 완전히 명확히 하기 위해서 그것에 따라 유럽의 깃발을 놓읍시다.
Although they talked in terms of not wanting to be bloody about this and wanting to find ways to de-escalate this issue and take the emotion out of it, there are going to have to be checks, assuming this backstop comes in, which I think we all think it will. 그들은 이것에 대해 피투성이가 되고 싶지 않다, 그리고 이 문제를 부각시키고 나서 감정을 제거하는 방법을 찾고 싶다고 말했는데, 이 백스톱이 들어온다고 가정하고 체크가 필요할 것이다, 그건 내가 생각한다 우리 모두 그렇게 될 거예요.
Frontstop or whatever we call it now. 프론트 스톱 또는 우리가 지금 그것을 부르는 것.
So they're going to happen at factory level. 따라서, 그것들은 공장 레벨에서 발생합니다.
There's going to be a lot more paperwork. 더 많은 서류가 필요할 거예요.
I think the clear hope is to get something like trusted trader schemes, where it's all accepted. 신뢰할 수 있는 트레이더 스킴 같은 것이 모두 받아들여지는 것은 분명한 희망이라고 생각합니다.
But the issue is going to be, what if you're sending things to Northern Ireland, some of which is for the north and some of which isn't? So it's got a lot of work to be done on it, I think is fair. 하지만 문제는 어떻게 될까요?북아일랜드로 물건을 보낼 경우 북방의 것과 그렇지 않은 것이 있다면 어떨까요? 그래서 많은 작업을 해야 될 것 같아요.
OK.
Well, I'm going to finish, then, by drawing a lot of red tape, I think. 자, 저는 마무리 할 생각입니다, 그리고 많은 붉은 테이프를 그려서 저는 생각합니다.
I quite like this question. 저는 이 질문이 너무 좋아요.
What's that? "How do you think Brexit will be taught in the future curriculum? Will it be taught like Suez?" Thank you, Drake Rose. 저것은 무엇일까요? "Brexit는 미래의 교육과정에서 어떻게 가르칠 수 있다고 생각하세요?수에즈처럼 가르칠 수 있어요? 고마워요, 드레이크로즈.
Drake Rose. 드레이크 로즈
Let's hope not, I think, is the only answer. 그게 유일한 답은 아니라고 생각해요.
Well that would be very negative. 음, 그건 매우 부정적이겠죠.
I think that we really have yet to know, because we don't know how the EU might start to change over the next few years. EU가 앞으로 몇 년 동안 어떻게 변화하기 시작할지 모르기 때문에 우리는 정말 아직 모릅니다.
It may be that Brexit is a chapter in a much more complicated story about Europe. Brexit은 유럽에 대한 더 복잡한 이야기의 장일 수 있습니다.
I also, as you've already said Robert, think that, if what happens is that the United Kingdom starts to break up, that's a much more dramatic historical moment. 저는 또 이미 로버트가 말한 것처럼 만약 일어난 일이 영국이 붕괴되기 시작하면 그것은 훨씬 극적인 역사적 순간이라고 생각합니다.
And Brexit becomes a factor - probably the factor. 그리고 EU 이탈이 요인이 되어 아마도 요인이 됩니다.
I studied history as part of my degree. 저는 학위의 일부로 역사를 배웠습니다.
And all the way through, one of the things I used to remember looking at was the history books, and these little paragraphs, particularly when you did GCSE. 그리고 계속 제가 본 것을 기억했던 것 중 하나는 역사책과 이 작은 단락들, 특히 GCSE를 했을 때였어요.
Here's a paragraph on the lead-up to the First World War, and here's a paragraph on the Great Reform Act. 여기에 제1차 세계대전 준비에 대한 단락, 그리고 여기에 대개혁법에 관련된 단락이 있어요.
And you think, God, I hope there aren't that many paragraphs about the time I'm living in. 그리고 당신은 신이시여, 제가 살고 있는 시간에 대해 그렇게 많은 패러그래프가 없기를 바랍니다.
And up until a few years ago, there weren't going to be that many paragraphs about the period we live in. 그리고 몇 년 전만 해도 우리가 살고 있는 기간에 대해 그렇게 많은 패러그래프는 없었습니다.
Now, there are.
What's the old line? Happy the land that doesn't need heroes. 오래된 라인은 무엇입니까? 영웅이 필요없는 땅을 행복하세요.
Yes.
Well, the Chinese curse of living in interesting times certainly applies. 음, 흥미로운 시대에 산다는 중국의 저주는 확실히 들어맞습니다.
So look, I'm just going to do this as a final gesture. 보세요, 이것을 마지막 제스처로 삼아 실행하도록 하겠습니다.
I'm just going to draw a lot of red tape everywhere. 저는 아무데나 많은 빨간 테이프를 그릴 거예요.
Because it seems to me the one thing that we have found out in the last few weeks is there is going to be the F-word. 지난 몇 주 동안 알게 된 것 중 하나는 F워드가 있다는 것입니다.
Friction.
Friction.
And it ain't going to be easy. 그리고 그게 쉽지가 않아요.
No.
And once you accept some friction at the border, a lot of the rest of it becomes easier for the government to decide on. 국경에서의 마찰을 받아들이면 나머지 대부분은 정부가 결정하기 쉬워집니다.
Because once you accept that there's going to be regulatory checks, there's going to be delays at the border, however efficient it is, you're going to have to hire more customs officers, build more customs posts, and all that kind of stuff. 한번 규제 체크가 이루어지면 국경에서 지연이 발생하기 때문에, 그것이 아무리 효율적이더라도 더 많은 세관 직원을 고용하여 더 많은 세관 포스트를 구축해야 합니다.
And so once you accept what's going to happen, then your path is largely set. "그리고, 어떤 일이 일어나는지를 받아들이면 당신의 길은 대략 설정됩니다"
The only thing to be said, of course, is that part of this government's strategy is to talk as tough as possible at this part of the negotiation process... 물론 단 한 마디가 필요한 것은 이 정부 전략의 일부는 협상 프로세스의 이 부분에서 가능한 한 터프하게 이야기하는 것입니다.
Yeah, it's not over. 네, 그건 끝나지 않았습니다.
...so that it's taken seriously. ...진지하게 받아들여질 수 있도록.
The European Union has seen that movie before, and coped.. 유럽연합은 그 영화를 이전에 보고 대처한 적이 있어요.
And we shall see what happens. 그리고 무슨 일이 일어날지 봅시다.
But the truth is, how this goes is crucial to how this goes. 하지만 진실은 이게 어떻게 이루어지는지는 이게 어떻게 이루어지느냐에 있어서 중요합니다.
Absolutely.
Well, all I can say is, it's a mess. 음, 제가 할 수 있는 말은, 엉망이네요.
And I'm not just talking about our piece of paper. 그리고 저는 종이에 대해서 이야기 하는 것이 아닙니다.
The road to Brexit.
Are we nearly there? Bong.
Bong.
Robert.
I can sense your frustration in the writing.
OK.
So here we are.
It's the end of January, 2020.
This whole thing started in June, 2016, but it's a moot point whether we are, in fact, there.
So I think if we were actually drawing the road, it would have sort of gone like that, and through there, and around here, and dead end, and then it would have gone over here.
But actually, I think we are.
I think we are at Brexit.
It is happening at the end of this week.
31st of Jan.
Even the people who most aggressively campaign to stop it accept it's happening.
It is happening.
Nothing can happen to stop it now.
So I've got a little surprise for you.
Here we are.
Here's one I made earlier.
Excellent.
Here we are.
So...
Bong.
On Brexit night, on Friday night, you may have to do the bongs, because there will not be any official Independence Day bongs from the Big Ben.
There is a party in Parliament Square, which Nigel Farage and his Brexit party crowd have organised, where I believe they have tape recordings of Big Ben bonging.
My favourite aspect of this is that nobody really contemplated the fact until quite late, that the UK is leaving the European Union at midnight, but that's midnight Brussels time.
So in fact, we're leaving at 11.00pm.
And among other things, is the Graham Norton Show on BBC is being postponed, so that we can all watch the great moment of departure.
The interesting thing is that actually as the day has approached, Boris Johnson has sort of taken pains to almost play down any idea of triumphalism, because he's now got this strange task of having to lead a nation which was split down the middle on Brexit.
So he can't really afford to have bongs, parties, call it Independence Day, as presumably the Daily Express and Nigel Farage would like.
Well, it's going to be straight.
He's treading quite a fine line.
So there's going to be a countdown clock, I believe on the door of Downing Street.
He's doing an address to the nation.
Government buildings are going to have lights on them in red, white, and blue.
Red, white, and blue.
It's a red, white, and blue Brexit.
Exactly.
And then in Parliament Square, Nigel Farage and his crowd, him, other people from the Brexit party, and the sundry talk radio figures, are all speaking about what a great day it is.
And as you said, Britain's Independence Day.
It is interesting that a number of the Conservative MPs who have, not all of them, but a number who were very strong advocates for Brexit, they're all trying to take the same tone that you were just saying.
It's like, actually, look, we know, we recognise this is a sad day for a lot of people.
We need to just go about this with a degree of humility, which I think is a good thing, actually.
If they can stick to it, it's a good thing.
OK.
So one of the things that has happened as well, is it not just that Brexit is definitely happening? This place, parliament becomes much less exciting, and, indeed, relevant than it has been for the last few months, because of Boris Johnson's majority.
As it regains his sovereignty.
Yeah.
Exactly.
So as he regains his sovereignty, it's actually kind of sidelined.
So I'm sorry, Big Ben, we're going to put you over there.
Because, the story, as it develops, in fact, the next significant moment is the end of this year, right? Yeah.
And middle point of this year, end of June, because here we are now, Brexit day, but there is another journey to here when a whole load of decisions will have to be made, and then to here.
Yeah.
Just after Brexit day.
So it's very early February.
We get the first sight of negotiating mandates for the European Commission, which are being agreed now.
And we should see them first week of February.
We're also promised a speech by Boris Johnson - again, first week of February - where he sets out what his approach to these negotiations is going to be.
I'm told that the EU mandate is going to be very, very detailed, and the Boris Johnson one is going to be more thematic.
But he's sending his big EU negotiator David Frost out to do battle.
And so we're going to get a first sense of where the battle lines are going to be.
What are we calling this? We're calling this the UK priorities, or...
Yeah, something like that.
Yeah.
These are the battle lines, which will determine the rest of the year.
As you said, June is when the British government has to ask for an extension of the transition period beyond December, 2020 on the assumption that it's not to get the deal done in time.
And nobody thinks that's going to happen.
Which is interesting, isn't it? Because when this started to come up in the autumn there was some chat about how, if you sort of got to here, what happens if you get three-quarters of the way through the year? You're really making a lot of progress on the negotiations.
A deal is very definitely possible.
It's on the cards.
But it is going to take longer.
You're kind of stuffed, because back here you should have asked for an extension.
What happens here? Is there a realpolitik way in which both sides, EU and the UK, start to say, well, you know what? We need another couple of months.
But you're sort of screwed by this legal deadline.
Before the election, I don't know if you remember, Boris Johnson was given to talking about Gatt - was it Gatt 24? I can't remember what number Gatt it was.
But we said that if you were close to securing a trade agreement, the two sides could roll over their existing arrangements.
So in theory, I suppose there's that.
But the truth is that the Conservative side believes in the deadline.
It doesn't believe in paying more money to the European Union.
In the period of transition, the UK has to take and accept all of the rules from the European Union, which no longer has any say.
So just to be absolutely clear what we're talking about, so from Brexit day itself.
To the end of December, '20.
The end of this month, January to December, we are in a period of transition.
So we're effectively out of the EU.
We are no longer a member of the European Union, but we abide by the existing arrangements while we negotiate our end state.
And that's what we still don't know.
And in return for those, I think life goes on as normal.
So the truth is, the morning after Brexit, for most people, nothing will have changed.
Absolutely.
Absolutely.
But the Conservatives do not want to go beyond that deadline.
It was possibly the price of the day of Nigel Farage pulling out of the general election.
And so they've rather put themselves up against it because time is on the European Union's side in this negotiation.
And if the UK is frightened of falling over the edge of another no-deal cliff, then the European Union has a lot of advantages in this.
The interesting question, and it's very hard to know, because at this stage everyone's just being tremendously gung ho, and it's the early opening rounds, is that - I've heard it from enough people to think it's at least possibly true - that the UK actually is prepared to go over the cliff this time.
And one reason for that is that the moment you say you're diverging on regulations, and regulatory alignment, a lot of the issues like lorries at Dover, and all of the friction in trade, becomes a reality anyway.
And the government is committed to regulatory divergence.
So that seems to me the whole battleground.
There is a really horrible way in which there is a kind of deja vu about this.
But we've got the whole of this year before we get back to this threat, this threat of a cliff edge, which we experienced twice.
It felt like so many more times last year in 2019.
Well, I still got the tins of tinned tomato in my house's spare bedroom.
Exactly.
No, but exactly.
So the whole nation, and, indeed, the rest of the EU was sort of poised - this feeling of danger twice last year.
And we might end up back there, so it's not quite the end of a road.
There is a sense of going back in a circle.
Yeah, absolutely.
I mean, it's absolutely...
I mean, if the UK was prepared to do the kind of Brexit that Remainers wanted, which is very close in alignment.
Hopefully incredibly close to the European Union.
There is the easy part of this, the easier part, which is an agreement to have zero tariffs and zero quotas, which both sides fundamentally want.
That's the easier part of this game.
But the European Union looks like it's going to hang very tough on the issue of what it calls level playing field.
Which is not having the UK able to compete against the EU by having much lower corporation tax, by having all sorts of sweeties that it can offer to business to attract business to the UK and away from the EU.
They want the UK to commit to that level playing field, which would defeat any economic purpose of Brexit for those who believe there is one.
And the UK is very resistant to this.
Of course, the chances of it diverging wildly on the 1st of January, 2021 are very slim, but it doesn't want to commit to what's called dynamic alignment, where every time the EU changes rules, the UK has to change.
So that is the bulk of the battleground...
that and fish are the bulk of the battleground.
I'm going to come on to fish.
Please do draw some fish, because this is what I've been looking forward to all week.
This is the fish bomb.
That is a bomb, not a fish.
OK.
Look, he's got an eye.
Now it's a fish.
All right.
I'm going to draw a better fish.
That is a better fish.
There we are.
Oh, it's a shark.
I hear the scales falling from his eyes.
Should we say that? Yes, OK.
It's got to have some fins, otherwise it's not a fish.
There we are.
We come onto fish, because there's fish, there's cars, which stands for kind of manufacturing industry, and then there's the huge service economy of the UK, which is the City of London, but also all of the service sectors of the economy.
But I just want to take you back a stage though, because describing this cliff edge the end of December, and the fact that the government, Boris Johnson, Sajid Javid, to an extent, have been saying very clearly there will be divergence, and this will be the absolute deadline.
There will be no extension.
We have heard that from Boris Johnson before.
Dead in a ditch.
I'd rather be dead in a ditch than not leave on October the 31st, 2019.
This is a prime minister who plays by different rules, is allowed to play by different rules by his party and by the country, it seems.
So if for the moment, but say we did get to here, it's not necessarily political death for him.
I would be astonished if he does agree an extension.
I really would be surprised.
And I think the first half of this year is going to be awash.
There'll be lots of lawyers, lots of anger.
And I don't believe...
I think we'll get to here, which is the German presidency of the EU.
And I think this is where it's all going to happen.
I mean, you're completely right obviously.
It could all be posturing.
It could just be the starting point and opening...
No, it might be sincere now, but how sincere would it be...
sincere would it be on the 20th of June when you're thinking...
I don't believe they will extend.
I really don't.
That part, I believe what the government's saying.
OK.
Whether they're really prepared to topple over, and stick to their hard line, that's harder to say.
But there are some reasons why they might.
You've got a majority of 80.
He's got four and a half years.
He's got time to weather any immediate political storms.
Now, obviously some storms are so bad, if you think about Black Wednesday, people look at the government, go, no, you're no good, that's it.
Well, that is the comparison they should be having in their mind as well.
But the difference is, at that point, Labour party was led by John Smith.
And we're not sure who the Labour party will be led by then, but it's not going to be anybody like John Smith.
He may think he's got the political time and room for manoeuvre.
And as I said, if you are refusing to align regulations.
If the level playing field isn't happening, then a lot of the visible grief of Brexit, of a no-deal Brexit almost, will be there, because you will have problems at Dover, you will have friction introduced into trade supply chains.
And they may take the view that this is the price we have to pay to get what we want.
And the problem is, because - it is the same as sort of the madman theory - madman theory - that actually it's only if you can make you believe you'll really do it that you have any chance of breaking through.
OK.
I'm going to let you talk about the fish now.
So you've got your fish.
Yes.
But the fish have opponents, right? The main reason why this is, in fact, an excellent drawing, is because fish could torpedo...
Oh, God.
The whole thing.
It's a fish torpedo.
While you're explaining why fish could torpedo the whole thing, I'm going to try and draw a Nissan car.
This is going to be a first for me.
It's probably going to look like any other car.
As long as it doesn't look like a fish.
Just to warn you.
So look, the point, the fishing industry has become a massive and disproportionate factor in all of the conversations.
I'm sorry.
I'm mesmerised now by the Nissan.
And of all of the conversations that have gone on so far.
Because fishing is less than 1 per cent of Britain's GDP.
It's tiny as an industry.
It is, however, disproportionately important in certain places, particularly Scotland, places that, again, are going to matter a great deal.
And since a big part of Brexit, a big part of the philosophy of Brexit, is we left behind...
Take back control.
Take back control, but also that we left behind and betrayed communities that couldn't compete like London could.
Then, fishing communities, and the fish becomes a template for what you're trying to achieve.
The government wants to show a win on fish.
On the other hand, it is also, in one respect, its best negotiating card, because this matters hugely, the issue of access to Britain's territorial waters, certainly up to 6 miles, I think it is, is a huge issue to French fishermen, to Spanish fishermen.
And they are very worried about it.
And they want this brought right into the trade talks.
And so it is something that Britain could negotiate with, if it's prepared to disappoint the fishermen, its own fishermen, a bit.
And that was the question.
Because it's also the case that much of the fish caught by British fishermen is actually sold in Europe.
So unless we're all going to start eating Pollock ourselves, they do actually need access to the European markets.
It's about 80 per cent.
Now, is this a cod that doesn't have fins, by the way.
So, in fact, the fish come right up here, because the fish are going to be front and centre, as it were, of the negotiations.
Because it's this question of...
One day we're going to call one of these: you've had your chips, haven't you? I can see it already.
Oh, God.
Not...
over my dead body.
But anyway, so this question trading off sovereignty and control over access to EU markets is really what the whole thing is going to be about.
But on the other hand, as you were saying, that's actually, in numbers terms, a very small part of the British economy.
What is far bigger in economic terms, but also as politically potent is the manufacturing areas.
So we've got this, you know, for example, the car manufacturing industry in the UK, which is a huge employer in the Midlands and the North, the areas the Conservatives just won successfully from the Labour party.
They want to hold those seats.
This is no small part of their political task in the next and four and a half years.
But if you take back control without compromise, you really are jeopardising those jobs.
And you're jeopardising employment in those politically sensitive areas.
What sort of a trade off is this? It's kind of bonkers, no? Absolutely.
And it is very striking, by the way.
I mean, some of the comments that were being attributed to quite senior Conservatives, saying, well, we can't worry about legacy industries, by which they mean the cars.
And the British automotive sector is on a downhill slope anyway, which may or may not be true.
I mean, certainly the case I can't imagine Japanese car companies building any new models in Britain unless something changes dramatically.
But you can't just go wiping out whole sectors.
I mean, 150,000 jobs.
It's hundreds of thousands of jobs.
Dependencies.
Fish is a really interesting topic, because for an economist, this is a no brainer, you sell out the fishing industry to get a better deal for the rest of the economy, which is, of course, what happened when we joined the EEC, as it was then.
Which is why it's a political issue around which so much resentment has built up.
Imagine the resentment that would build up politically if you destroyed the car industry in this country.
Yeah.
There is the issue of regulatory divergence.
But no company that is selling primarily into the European market is going to diverge from EU rules anyway, or put itself in a position where it could find tariffs slapped on it because it's in receipt of state aid, or...
it would be judged illegal under European terms.
So there is an aspect to which the market might settle this a bit, but, yeah, I mean, there are some really, really horrible trade...
I mean, someone said to me a while back the trade policy is something that the UK has not had to think about for decades.
Because we've been part of a huge trading block, and they've taken care of the negotiations for us.
And they've been a big guy in the scene.
So anyone in the EU's negotiating with this side from America and China is that the EU has the upper hand.
Trade policy is always corrosive.
It always leads to big fights.
There's always somebody losing out.
There are always interest groups who are against free trade as well, full stop.
So trade policy is going to become a hot issue in all kinds of ways that people haven't got...
and we sorted of a couple of them.
There'll be other ones that hadn't occurred to us at all that will become really, really difficult.
So what about the UK services sectors then, including, of course, financial services, which is a huge earner in terms of the tax take and all the rest of it? Does that also come into this very early part of the negotiations? Sajid Javid, the chancellor, has been talking very tough on, we will diverge, we will divert.
You've even seen Mark Carney, the outgoing governor of the Bank of England, start to say, OK, well, if Brexit is really happening it might be in the City of London's interests to divert.
So what am I going to draw for the City of London? Should I try for the gherkin? Go for a gherkin, yes.
I'll go for a gherkin while you chat.
There we go.
It's not a gherkin without fins.
I'm going to do contouring on my gherkin.
So, again, one of the issues is that the City of London is not a homogeneous unit.
Different people have different interests.
It's not even all in London.
No.
And yet, there is one message coming out.
And it is a message that partly has been led by the Bank of England, which is to say, we don't want regulation - we have to be the regulator.
We have to set policy, and, therefore, we can't have others regulating for our service industry of our financial services.
As a result of which it's very hard to see how you get much more than basic equivalence in which there's sort of mutual recognition, but liable to cancellations with 30 days' notice, I think.
It's very hard to see what the UK is gunning for in this area.
And it's, I think, to some extent, relying on a view that says the City of London, Britain's financial service industry, is so strong and so powerful that we can risk this as well.
We can survive.
Because we carry too much clout.
I think the concern that people have is not that the financial services industry could fall apart in 2021, but that over time power and influence just moves.
And seeps away other global cities.
European capitals have made a number of the major financial services companies open hubs within the European Union.
At the moment those hubs are quite small.
But they starting actually, would be like this bit, if you will, your trading, or whatever it is, coming over, it is a huge issue about which the government has said nothing very notable.
And yet it has been the engine of British growth.
OK, so what we're concluding is that, really, the first half of this year is where the action is going to be.
Are we? No, no.
We're not.
I think it's where the...
Where the noise is going to be.
It's where all of the shouting, and grape shots, and anger will be.
But then after June, where it's too late to extend again, you're still in negotiation.
But you think that's still in play.
You think the extension is going...
Well, the only reason I say this is because it's politics.
And we have a UK prime minister who gets away with stuff, essentially.
And how is it in anybody's interests, either the UK or the EU, if we end up in this kind of no man's land? And so that's why my feeling is that it actually does become clearer, if not totally clear, by the midpoint of the year, what the costs and benefits are.
I do think you have to factor in, though, just how powerful and strong a position Boris Johnson is in.
He has just won an election.
He's got a very big majority.
He's got a party in no great mood to defy him.
We've seen a little bit of defiance this week over the issue around Huawei.
But they're not in a mood to have a fight with him.
They broadly agree with him.
He's going to be there longer.
If you were looking at which European leaders are going to be in place in five years time - well, four and a half years time - well, Boris Johnson you'd bet would be there.
...will be gone.
Macron, who knows? So actually he's quite stable at the moment.
And he's able to use that stability for a while until things start to go wrong down the horizon.
So the thing is, Robert, clearly he's got a majority of 80.
He's looking more secure than any prime minister that we've been used to in recent years.
But that's not saying much, right? And the situation's quite volatile.
And also, if you look at the UK's other important alliances, you know, it's quite difficult to say, for example, that our relationship with...
I wondered where you were going with this.
That our relationship with the US isn't looking all that brilliant in the UK at the moment.
The tensions over the UK decision to let in Huawei to run our 5G network, for example, has really annoyed America.
The British government is supposed to want this great US trade deal as well.
Nothing in terms of the vision of where the Johnson government is actually taking us as an endpoint is as secure as it seems at the moment, I would say.
I think that's right.
And I think if there's one other area where the rubber has hit the road, or whatever the appropriate metaphor - it is Anglo-US relations, because not only has Britain pushed back against some really ferocious lobbying by the US about whether it lets Huawei into the 5G phone network.
And I mean, it was really.
And I think the government was stung by the scale of the opposition, and could blowback within cabinet and among often quite loyal people.
So I'm going to start with that.
They've got the digital services tax, which is due to be introduced in the budget.
It's just coming into effect from the budget, which is going to hit the tech giants.
And, again, that led to threats from Steve Mnuchin.
There'll be retaliation on autos if the UK does that.
So there are all these ways in which we have the capacity to upset the US.
And for some people, the US trade deal was the prize of Brexit.
Having said which, it's very striking that you hear people in government talking about the serious members of government understand that it's the European trade deal that matters.
That all this talk about the US is great, and it's wonderful, but actually, it's all about getting this one.
So the development of the Anglo-US relationship over the next year is going to be...
it's going to be absolutely fascinating to watch.
But then, again, US is in an election, which is never the great place to be having these conversations.
No, indeed.
But what I would say is that even though I wouldn't necessarily bet against you on us keeping to that end of December, 2020 date for having done a final deal, or going over that threatening cliff edge again, I think there is a lot of instability, actually.
And there are still a lot of things up for grabs.
So what you're saying is, I'm not going to bet against you, but I'd like it to be on record.
That's right.
That is exactly what I'm saying.
But I have got something for you though.
I've got your Brexit dividend.
You've got one.
We have got...
it's not one of the special ones.
But anyway, 50p, your Brexit dividend.
With friendship to all, isn't it? Peace, prosperity, and friendship to all.
Yeah.
It's been a great journey.
Got to get one of those.
I'll use them as a pound.