:00:00. > :00:07.Message from the EU to member states - stop trying to get
:00:08. > :00:20.What does Uber make of this pronouncement on the collaborative
:00:21. > :00:23.economy? Obviously something
:00:24. > :00:24.that is happening not only in transportation but in many other
:00:25. > :00:26.sectors and great We'll ask whether the concerns
:00:27. > :00:30.about technology and its power This is not
:00:31. > :00:35.about scaring anybody. I am genuinely worried
:00:36. > :00:37.about what would With just three weeks
:00:38. > :00:49.to go David Cameron faces And serious people are
:00:50. > :00:53.taking this seriously. You wake up in your bed and believe
:00:54. > :01:03.whatever you want to You take the red pill, you stay
:01:04. > :01:09.in Wonderland, and I show you Could we really be living an
:01:10. > :01:23.advanced civilisation's video game? Technology can boost
:01:24. > :01:28.competition and help consumers. It's undermined the newspaper,
:01:29. > :01:30.virtually wiped out travel BHS could be said to be a victim -
:01:31. > :01:36.we'll be talking about that later. But the revolution is not over -
:01:37. > :01:38.it's hitting minicabs and hotels through companies
:01:39. > :01:43.like Uber and Airbnb. And today, the European Commission
:01:44. > :01:48.took a stand in favour It declared that EU member states
:01:49. > :01:54.should not be unduly restricting companies in the so-called
:01:55. > :01:56.collaborative economy, or banning them,
:01:57. > :02:00.except as a last resort. The verdict was aimed
:02:01. > :02:02.at cities that have tried But the Commission view will only
:02:03. > :02:07.exacerbate the arguments over those services,
:02:08. > :02:09.and the fears of some here, that their uncontrolled explosion
:02:10. > :02:11.will disrupt businesses, It is Uber that has caused
:02:12. > :02:20.the biggest arguments. Private hire minicabs on demand
:02:21. > :02:23.via an app. Convenient, sometimes
:02:24. > :02:26.cheap, cashless. It operates in cities and towns
:02:27. > :02:30.across the country, but it is The sheer numbers of drivers signing
:02:31. > :02:40.onto it in the capital are huge. Since 2013, 25,000 drivers
:02:41. > :02:43.have hit the streets - that's equal to the
:02:44. > :02:47.number of black cabs. The drivers are self-employed
:02:48. > :02:51.and work flexible hours. They just pay a commission to Uber
:02:52. > :03:05.of 25% of takings for the When a Uber comes along at work soon
:03:06. > :03:09.industry as Uber house there will be complaints and a lot will be
:03:10. > :03:15.dismissed. But the company raises an important issue. Is it creating a
:03:16. > :03:21.Uber competitive society? Because the technology it employs enables a
:03:22. > :03:25.huge increase in the supply of drivers, of labour in the taxi
:03:26. > :03:29.industry, which is great for customers but it does imply a change
:03:30. > :03:33.in the balance of power between Labour and consumer. For the
:03:34. > :03:43.workers, the fear is it creates a race to the bottom. Minicabs have
:03:44. > :03:48.begun to invade the streets of London, small cars charging a third
:03:49. > :03:50.less than ordinary cabs. Taxi drivers thing, blimey, they will be
:03:51. > :03:52.using scooters next. This is from 1961, when the cabbies
:03:53. > :03:55.resisted the arrival of But as we see opposition today,
:03:56. > :04:01.the question arises - is the economy Uber is helping
:04:02. > :04:06.to shape having effects on a different scale and at
:04:07. > :04:09.a different speed to anything we've Well, the EU Commission policy
:04:10. > :04:17.is that the Ubers of the world should not be stopped
:04:18. > :04:19.or restricted with Earlier today, I spoke to the woman
:04:20. > :04:24.who runs Uber in the UK and several other European
:04:25. > :04:25.countries, Jo Bertram. First question - what's her reaction
:04:26. > :04:35.to the Commission policy? It is great to see the European
:04:36. > :04:38.Commission is looking forward and embracing the collaborative economy
:04:39. > :04:43.and starting to issue guidelines in this area. It is something happening
:04:44. > :04:48.in transportation and many other sectors and great to see the
:04:49. > :04:52.Commission embrace that. There is a concern there will be too many
:04:53. > :04:57.people touting for passenger higher on the roads of London. Is it your
:04:58. > :05:02.position you will limit the number, or will you let the numbers grow and
:05:03. > :05:08.if the drivers are there to do it, you will let them sign-on and be
:05:09. > :05:11.drivers? We want to make sure the opportunity to earn money at the
:05:12. > :05:15.touch of a button continues to be there for drivers. If there were too
:05:16. > :05:19.many drivers compared to the number of people wanting to use the act,
:05:20. > :05:24.they would not be able to earn enough money. There was research
:05:25. > :05:29.done about congestion in London, where they found the numbers of car
:05:30. > :05:34.vehicles going in and out of the congestion charge but also central
:05:35. > :05:39.London has not actually changed over recent years, so it suggests if
:05:40. > :05:42.anything, the growth of companies like Uber is replacing people who
:05:43. > :05:46.would have otherwise taken their private car into the capital. Do you
:05:47. > :05:51.know how many of your drivers earn less than minimum wage? It is
:05:52. > :05:56.probably not a good comparison. All the drivers are free to use the
:05:57. > :06:02.platform as much or as little as they want and on a nonexclusive
:06:03. > :06:07.basis. Most work part-time and combine it with starting their own
:06:08. > :06:11.business, other sources of income or family commitments, and they may use
:06:12. > :06:15.their car with other operators as well. It is not difficult finding
:06:16. > :06:20.the drivers who say they are earning less than the minimum wage per hour,
:06:21. > :06:25.does it surprise you? There are a few who say that and it depends on
:06:26. > :06:31.when they work. We find on average drivers working in London take home
:06:32. > :06:36.after the service fee, ?15, ?16 per hour. After the service fee. What
:06:37. > :06:43.are they taking home after their cut? It depends on their costs. You
:06:44. > :06:48.must have researched it. We have but for example if you own your car and
:06:49. > :06:53.use it to work with us and another private hire operator... The average
:06:54. > :06:59.drivers earn after reasonable costs are deducted, after what they pay
:07:00. > :07:03.you, do you know the answer? It is probably not a mean. If you have
:07:04. > :07:09.your own car and work 30-40 hours per week you could be taking home
:07:10. > :07:14.more than someone renting their car and is only working a fewer hours a
:07:15. > :07:18.week. Let's take someone who owns the car. You said you know the
:07:19. > :07:23.answer. What are they roughly getting per hour they are working on
:07:24. > :07:28.Uber? It is a computer business. It depends on how many hours a week
:07:29. > :07:34.they work. They pay fixed costs over the month and insurance. Suppose
:07:35. > :07:38.they do a 40 hour week. They could take home ?9, ?10 per hour. And what
:07:39. > :07:44.proportion take home less than ?6 per hour? We do not know the details
:07:45. > :07:49.exactly how many drivers rent and hours they work. Because of the way
:07:50. > :07:54.the private hire regime works in the UK you probably need to work a
:07:55. > :07:57.certain number of hours a week. If you get to 60,000 drivers, one would
:07:58. > :08:05.expect the rates huge driver gets will go down. Only if the demand
:08:06. > :08:08.does not rise in a similar way. 30,000 riders are downloading and
:08:09. > :08:14.using the app every week in London and demand for the service has been
:08:15. > :08:17.huge. We did polling of drivers and the results were amazingly positive.
:08:18. > :08:25.The biggest thing coming from that was the drivers are valuing the
:08:26. > :08:29.flexibility. Most drivers coming from other operators tell us they
:08:30. > :08:33.moved because they do not want set hours and they want to take holiday
:08:34. > :08:38.and switch off when they can. They can now get work at the touch of a
:08:39. > :08:42.button. You are a data driven business, do you know how many of
:08:43. > :08:46.your drivers work more than 60 hours per week? I don't have those numbers
:08:47. > :08:54.but on average they use the app 28 hours a week. This is one of those
:08:55. > :08:59.ones where I don't mind if they are working 28 or 40, even 45, I don't
:09:00. > :09:04.want to get in a car where the driver works 70, 80 hours per week.
:09:05. > :09:09.Can you tell if they work 70 hours a week and do you stop them working 70
:09:10. > :09:15.hours? We monitor the hours drivers working and notify them if they work
:09:16. > :09:18.excessive hours. Do you stop them if they work excessive hours? It is
:09:19. > :09:24.difficult to know if are taking trips. We can tell when they are
:09:25. > :09:30.logged on but they might be logged on at home. I think you can tell
:09:31. > :09:36.when they are driving, can't you? You can see if they are doing trips
:09:37. > :09:41.but what we find is after every trip, we have the customer rating
:09:42. > :09:45.the driver. We get real-time feedback no other companies have to
:09:46. > :09:51.see how they are performing. I don't know whether my driver has driven 80
:09:52. > :09:56.hours when I take a Uber. I can tell you he has not crashed while I have
:09:57. > :10:00.been in the car but I would hold it to a higher standard than that. I
:10:01. > :10:04.would expect you to know the driver has not driven 80 hours because you
:10:05. > :10:08.know when the driver is driving stop I am surprised you don't know, or
:10:09. > :10:14.you don't tell the driver, get out of the car because you have driven
:10:15. > :10:18.80 hours. We monitor the hours the drivers work and notify them and
:10:19. > :10:27.ensure they are not working excessive hours. You notify them,
:10:28. > :10:32.instruct them,? We notify them and talk to them and look at driving
:10:33. > :10:35.behaviours and if there are safety concerns but essentially the drivers
:10:36. > :10:38.are independent business people who are running their own business and
:10:39. > :10:45.combining it with many other things as well. Do you think the scale of
:10:46. > :10:50.the disruption Uber is causing, causing people to say, let's think
:10:51. > :10:56.about how this is working, this is not a minicab office, a company with
:10:57. > :11:00.30,000 people at its fingertips, what do you think about it? I
:11:01. > :11:07.believe the competition is good for consumers. Three or four years ago
:11:08. > :11:11.you could not have got a car within three minutes anywhere in London and
:11:12. > :11:17.many other cities in the UK. One thing that worries me is I think
:11:18. > :11:22.that the drivers' stories are not being heard. Every time I get in a
:11:23. > :11:27.car I talk to the drivers and the stories of how they have used Uber
:11:28. > :11:32.to change their lives are inspiring and their appreciate it and we want
:11:33. > :11:34.to tell those positive stories, not just the handful of drivers who are
:11:35. > :11:40.unhappy. Thanks. I'm joined now by the economist
:11:41. > :11:43.Ann Pettifor, director of Policy Research in Macroeconomics
:11:44. > :11:45.and a member of Labour's And by the venture capitalist
:11:46. > :11:58.Julie Meyer, who specialises in I can see your face frowning as he
:11:59. > :12:04.listens to the interview. Do you think Uber is a force for bad in
:12:05. > :12:09.society? I do and not because of the relationship between driver and
:12:10. > :12:11.consumer. The consumer benefits and there is demand for this form of
:12:12. > :12:18.transportation. It is the relationship between Uber and
:12:19. > :12:23.California, via a smartphone, the remoteness of the smartphone and
:12:24. > :12:28.these drivers, who invest all the capital in the venture. They buy the
:12:29. > :12:33.car, they pay for petrol and pay insurance or don't pay insurance, so
:12:34. > :12:38.they are the capitalists, investing in these assets, and someone in
:12:39. > :12:44.Santa Monica, California, is diverted the cash flow from that,
:12:45. > :12:50.25% of that. Nobody forces the driver to give 25% to Uber, they
:12:51. > :12:54.have to log on to do that. What she said it is these drivers are
:12:55. > :12:58.probably flipping burgers during the day and earning little and having to
:12:59. > :13:02.supplement their income. It is what is happening to the economy, the
:13:03. > :13:07.flattening of incomes and prices which in the end is bad for
:13:08. > :13:12.business. I want to say one thing stock can you draw the distinction
:13:13. > :13:17.between workers and consumers you are drawing? These drivers, who are
:13:18. > :13:22.low paid, maybe going to a low-cost supermarket that has squeezed down
:13:23. > :13:31.prices, getting on a low-cost airline, they may be beneficiaries
:13:32. > :13:36.of the squeezed price. They are both being milked, drivers and consumers.
:13:37. > :13:40.Consumers get a cheap ride but at risk. They take the risk because
:13:41. > :13:46.they are not sure if they have done 80 hours a day already driving and
:13:47. > :13:52.whether they have insurance or are covered. There is the risk to
:13:53. > :14:00.women... Consumers are taking the risk. How is the consumer taking the
:14:01. > :14:05.risk, they just pay perhaps a cheaper fare for a convenient taxi?
:14:06. > :14:10.It is cheap and very convenient but the key relationship is between the
:14:11. > :14:15.remote capitalist milking if you like a cash flow, not just from one
:14:16. > :14:21.industry but from a whole sector. Is that how you see it? Not at all. The
:14:22. > :14:28.world has been driven by networks and Uber, Airbnb, these companies
:14:29. > :14:33.are networks and platforms and that is the future, we cannot stop it
:14:34. > :14:36.happening. What is interesting is these platforms enable people with
:14:37. > :14:43.excess capacity, a spare bedroom in the case of Airbnb, to leveraged
:14:44. > :14:48.their freedom and the excess capacity to make money. If you have
:14:49. > :14:53.a free bedroom, know how to drive, you cannot say you cannot make money
:14:54. > :14:58.and get a job. There is an ability to earn money and so what I see
:14:59. > :15:05.happening is you can choose to optimise. There is an optimisation
:15:06. > :15:09.model to optimise to the platform in California, to a car in France,
:15:10. > :15:14.those decisions about who makes more money, it is an optimisation play.
:15:15. > :15:22.Do you think the Commission that a Uber charges which is not out of
:15:23. > :15:26.line with other minicab proprietors, from what they've brought to the
:15:27. > :15:32.party which is a sophisticated piece of software, is the 25%, 20%, is
:15:33. > :15:39.that it if their return for what they have done? Uber is the
:15:40. > :15:45.fastest-growing company in the history of the planet. They have
:15:46. > :15:48.enabled people to become drivers. They have enabled the future
:15:49. > :15:53.infrastructure of the transportation industry. What is fair? It is that
:15:54. > :15:59.they determining the economics of this 3-way split between the driver,
:16:00. > :16:06.the passenger and Uber. So that is why they are winning. So if the
:16:07. > :16:11.black cap industry could have done that... Other people could have done
:16:12. > :16:15.that, they did not. They do not differ any bit from the barons in
:16:16. > :16:22.medieval times that stood through the roads in that land and collected
:16:23. > :16:27.a toll. This is an idea. What you could do is, if it is so easy and
:16:28. > :16:31.simple to set up a network like this, you could set one up and it
:16:32. > :16:35.could be called something else and you could take a smaller Commission.
:16:36. > :16:40.I give them credit for the network and the technology. I think that the
:16:41. > :16:43.driver should form their own workers Association and negotiate their own
:16:44. > :16:51.terms. The terms gets set by Santa Monica in California. They basically
:16:52. > :16:55.said when I did ask about that, we really prefer to talk to the drivers
:16:56. > :16:59.one on one rather than the collective and that is a weakening
:17:00. > :17:03.of the Labour power. There will be certain places where those attempts
:17:04. > :17:07.to do that will happen. But what is interesting as a social trend is
:17:08. > :17:13.that we are going to see that the winners in any industry,
:17:14. > :17:17.transportation, hotels and so one, it will be the organisations who
:17:18. > :17:22.organise the economics for these ecosystems. So we will see this in
:17:23. > :17:28.banking, insurance and retail. Just because Uber does its super well.
:17:29. > :17:36.That is a utopian idea. No, it is a fact. The economics happened to be
:17:37. > :17:40.in organised -- organised by Uber and Facebook, it could be the banks
:17:41. > :17:44.of the future and the retailers but they have to understand the problems
:17:45. > :17:52.and the solutions. It is a delusional utopian idea and it is
:17:53. > :17:59.working. And what do we see? Trump in the United States. Marine Le Pen
:18:00. > :18:07.in France. It is nothing to do with that not assist! Nothing to do with
:18:08. > :18:12.Trump, nothing. It has everything to do with him. It is a fascinating
:18:13. > :18:15.topic that raises great emotion, thank you very much indeed.
:18:16. > :18:18.Well, there was a huge piece of separate business news
:18:19. > :18:21.in this country today - the demise of BHS.
:18:22. > :18:26.No saviour in sight, it is to be liquidated.
:18:27. > :18:34.The BBC's Business Editor Simon Jack joins me.
:18:35. > :18:40.Simon, would you categorise this as a normal business failure, companies
:18:41. > :18:45.do have bad luck and bad performance and they go out of performance, or
:18:46. > :18:50.is there more to this? In one way, it is not a unique story, it is, is.
:18:51. > :18:53.Some companies adapt to changing needs and give customers what they
:18:54. > :18:59.need and they flourish. Others lose touch with their customers and they
:19:00. > :19:04.perish and the ecosystem changes. And that is just life. That is, is.
:19:05. > :19:10.But there will be questions about technical and legal issues -- that
:19:11. > :19:14.is business. There will also be moral issues because some people
:19:15. > :19:20.made a lot of money about this and is there -- is it right to take that
:19:21. > :19:24.much money out leaving a company we cut and 11 million employees to fend
:19:25. > :19:28.for themselves? Others say that is rubbish and it is business, grow up.
:19:29. > :19:32.But there are issues, Hartley because of the characters involved,
:19:33. > :19:37.Sir Philip Green is expecting a delivery of another yacht against
:19:38. > :19:42.the backdrop of thousands out of work. It is the end of BHS but not
:19:43. > :19:49.the end of the process because what are the main question is now about
:19:50. > :19:52.that business? Two committees of MPs looking at it, insolvency services,
:19:53. > :19:57.the Serious Fraud Office and may take it further. The key question
:19:58. > :20:03.is, did Philip Green knowingly sell a company to somebody who was
:20:04. > :20:07.totally qualified and had zero retail experience and may be no
:20:08. > :20:10.ability and inclination to turn this business around? And so was
:20:11. > :20:16.knowingly condemning his workforce to the fake that we see today. The
:20:17. > :20:20.other one is, how was it that somebody who was a former racing
:20:21. > :20:24.driver, a former bankrupt with a very patchy business history, how
:20:25. > :20:30.did he take over a concern of this size? Philip Green will say, I know
:20:31. > :20:34.he will because I have spoken to him, this guy had money in the bank
:20:35. > :20:38.and a fleet of professional advisers. Blue-chip firms involved
:20:39. > :20:44.in this transaction. All of whom are supposed to have due diligence
:20:45. > :20:48.controls, corporate governance controls and what has emerged for me
:20:49. > :20:54.from the sessions so far is everybody was looking at this tiny
:20:55. > :20:58.bit of the deal. Rather than anybody taking a long, hard look, does this
:20:59. > :21:03.make any sense? I suspect that will be the question and the only people
:21:04. > :21:06.who can respond that is Sir Philip Green himself. Simon, thank you.
:21:07. > :21:08.Did you see David Cameron on Sky News tonight?
:21:09. > :21:14.It was one of the series of formal so-called referendum debates,
:21:15. > :21:17.except it wasn't a debate, it was a one-on-one.
:21:18. > :21:18.First half with Sky's political editor Faisal Islam,
:21:19. > :21:20.and then with questions from an audience,
:21:21. > :21:26.Watching it was our political editor, Nick Watt.
:21:27. > :21:32.It was a confidence David Cameron who arrived for his first
:21:33. > :21:37.uncontrolled encounter with voters in what has so far been a highly
:21:38. > :21:41.choreographed campaign. The way to meet that challenge must not be to
:21:42. > :21:46.leave the single market and to harm our economy and to hurt jobs and
:21:47. > :21:48.damage our country. All the preparations in the world can read
:21:49. > :21:53.even the most accomplished television performer momentarily
:21:54. > :21:59.phased when voters decided to vent their anger. I have seen nothing but
:22:00. > :22:04.scaremongering, no valid facts I have seen no pros and cons. I think
:22:05. > :22:08.there is a very positive case. You said Sadiq Khan was not to be
:22:09. > :22:12.trusted a couple of weeks ago and a couple of weeks later, you appear on
:22:13. > :22:15.a platform with him. Is that not an example of your hypocrisy and
:22:16. > :22:22.scaremongering over the course of this campaign? Obviously, I do not
:22:23. > :22:27.think so and I will try and convince you why it was the right thing to
:22:28. > :22:30.do. Do you get the personal damage your scaremongering campaign has
:22:31. > :22:34.done to your reputation and legacy. With respect, I do not agree.
:22:35. > :22:40.Attacks about scaremongering go-to the heart of the criticism of the
:22:41. > :22:43.Remain campaign, accused of being alarmist and exaggerated about the
:22:44. > :22:51.danger of a British exit from the EU.
:22:52. > :22:54.What comes first, World War 3 or the global Brexit recsssion?
:22:55. > :23:00.The words 'World War 3' never entered my lips.
:23:01. > :23:05.The Prime Minister kept his poise at the brand of Cameron may look
:23:06. > :23:09.bruised. Before the debate, there were questions about his brand, his
:23:10. > :23:13.party's strongest asset for more than a decade, is still trusted. If
:23:14. > :23:16.recent poll suggested the Prime Minister trailed Boris Johnson when
:23:17. > :23:26.asked who was more likely to tell the truth about the EU. 21% opted
:23:27. > :23:29.for David Cameron and 45% chose the former London mouth. There is a
:23:30. > :23:33.difference between trusting telling the truth and credibility or wanting
:23:34. > :23:38.what is best for Britain. When we looked at who was best for Britain,
:23:39. > :23:42.David Cameron comes out top. David -- Boris Johnson Haslett on trusting
:23:43. > :23:46.to tell the truth on the EU perhaps because people did not know much
:23:47. > :23:52.about his view previously. David Cameron often wins on credibility
:23:53. > :23:57.more than likeability or popularity. The Remain side have done their own
:23:58. > :24:02.research into Boris. They find he is held in great affection, he is seen
:24:03. > :24:06.as Bonnie and distrusted because voters regard him as authentic.
:24:07. > :24:09.Research also suggests the former London Mayor is something of an
:24:10. > :24:15.entertainer who cannot be taken seriously. Confident the referendum
:24:16. > :24:20.will not be won and jokes, the Prime Minister Chandra jokes but he had to
:24:21. > :24:24.address allegations of scaremongering and to put the debate
:24:25. > :24:29.on his strongest ground, the economy. To me, this is not about
:24:30. > :24:33.scaring anybody, I am genuinely worried about what would happen if
:24:34. > :24:36.we leave. The Prime Minister went home with something of a bloody
:24:37. > :24:40.nose, but he will be hoping that he can repeat the success of the
:24:41. > :24:43.Scottish referendum. Voters may be disgruntled but in the end, they
:24:44. > :24:54.will opt for the status quo. Elaborate on what you took of that
:24:55. > :24:57.60 minute experience. That was an uncomfortable encounter with the
:24:58. > :25:03.Prime Minister and voters, raising this scaremongering and exaggerated
:25:04. > :25:06.claim either Remain campaign, but some of the concerns held within the
:25:07. > :25:11.Remain campaign. There is concern the Chancellor have been
:25:12. > :25:16.exaggerating by saying the average household will be worse off by ?4000
:25:17. > :25:20.by 2030 if we left the EU and the Prime Minister did not mention that
:25:21. > :25:25.figure. He was asked about it and he did not repeat it, he talked about
:25:26. > :25:29.that level of figure. I think there is a feeling that what they need to
:25:30. > :25:34.do is guess one people that there will be a negative effect on the
:25:35. > :25:38.economy but voters are saying, it is you make these predictions into the
:25:39. > :25:43.future, they just voters do not believe them. So simple, de clutter
:25:44. > :25:46.the debate and be much creeper -- and be much clearer. Thank you very
:25:47. > :25:48.much. Now, each week on Newsnight,
:25:49. > :25:50.during this referendum campaign, we've been trying to help
:25:51. > :25:52.you make your decision on how to vote by offering a little space
:25:53. > :25:56.to some people who are not involved in the campaigns, to tell us
:25:57. > :25:58.about their decision. Tonight, the Editor
:25:59. > :26:01.of the Times Literary Supplement, and former Managing Editor
:26:02. > :26:04.of the Sun, Stig Abell, takes us through his thought
:26:05. > :26:18.processes for My Decision. I'm not qualified to
:26:19. > :26:21.make this decision. It's very hard to find people
:26:22. > :26:24.who are qualified to make the decision, because we are
:26:25. > :26:26.basically having to juggle all sorts of macro-economic ideas
:26:27. > :26:28.and futurology to say what's And I don't know what
:26:29. > :26:37.the best is for Britain. So I think what worries me,
:26:38. > :26:40.and should worry anyone in this And one of the unattractive
:26:41. > :26:43.things about this debate The In versus the Out,
:26:44. > :26:52.it's a very binary fight. I would love both sides
:26:53. > :26:54.in the campaign to say, Instead, you have lots of people
:26:55. > :27:01.shouting and tweeting about, you know, Shakespeare would
:27:02. > :27:04.want to stay in, or whatever else And it becomes a row
:27:05. > :27:08.in the playground. So the fear is that our playground
:27:09. > :27:11.row, it becomes the most significant decision the country has made
:27:12. > :27:18.in the last 30 years. Maybe I'll be gripped
:27:19. > :27:20.by the paralysis of uncertainty I don't feel sufficiently strongly
:27:21. > :27:32.at the moment in either direction. You can end up saying,
:27:33. > :27:36.is Britain strong enough to survive
:27:37. > :27:37.outside the EU? Are there people who believe that is
:27:38. > :27:41.the right thing to do? Is Britain
:27:42. > :27:43.sufficiently strong So actually, I think there
:27:44. > :27:56.is a certain fatalism that can take over and say nobody has made
:27:57. > :27:58.a silver bullet, all-encompassing argument that one way
:27:59. > :28:00.is better than the other. Also, quite a lot of the people
:28:01. > :28:03.on both sides couldn't convince you to vote yourself out of a paper
:28:04. > :28:06.bag, because you wouldn't Probably, that is on the Brexit side
:28:07. > :28:10.of the ball most significantly - if you see the crazed demagogues
:28:11. > :28:13.of Galloway and Farage sort of sweatily exhorting
:28:14. > :28:16.you to do something. It's not your immediate instinct
:28:17. > :28:23.to follow them down the road. Before the Russians reintroduced it
:28:24. > :28:28.for us in the 1990s, the word "oligarch" had more or less
:28:29. > :28:31.disappeared as a contemporary label. But suddenly, along came this
:28:32. > :28:33.new breed of dubious billionaire. Among the oligarchs,
:28:34. > :28:37.one had an extraordinary story. Mikhail Khodorkovsky became possibly
:28:38. > :28:41.Russia's richest man but, at age 39, he openly criticised
:28:42. > :28:43.President Putin, who responded by opening a case against him
:28:44. > :28:49.in court and getting him locked up. He went from having $15 billion,
:28:50. > :28:54.to ten years in a Russian jail. Mr Khodorkovsky has lost most
:28:55. > :28:59.of his money, but he has enough cash to support candidates standing
:29:00. > :29:01.in the Russian duma elections later this year, aligned
:29:02. > :29:07.to his Open Russia movement. Earlier today, I sat down
:29:08. > :29:08.with Mr Khodorkovsky to talk about Putin,
:29:09. > :29:11.Russia and prison, and asked him whether he expected to get anywhere
:29:12. > :29:18.in the upcoming elections. How should we think
:29:19. > :30:20.of President Putin? Is he just a populist like
:30:21. > :30:26.Donald Trump? What was the worst thing
:30:27. > :31:08.you did, the most sinful thing you did, in the
:31:09. > :31:10.accumulation of your wealth Because you've really gone
:31:11. > :31:54.from Russia's richest man I just wonder what
:31:55. > :33:04.you think about the Because some say this
:33:05. > :33:08.is a financial centre that helps corrupt Russians
:33:09. > :33:14.launder their money. Do you have experience or knowledge
:33:15. > :33:17.of whether London is Are you saying you think
:33:18. > :34:39.Western politicians and governments should
:34:40. > :34:41.do more to regulate the banks, for example,
:34:42. > :34:44.and the money they take
:34:45. > :35:09.from Russians, rich Russians? And obviously, the big debate
:35:10. > :35:11.here right now is about Britain leaving, or not,
:35:12. > :35:14.the European Union. Many say the only person,
:35:15. > :35:17.the only international leader who wants
:35:18. > :35:23.Britain to leave is President Putin. Do you think it's something
:35:24. > :35:25.that matters to him? Do you think he would
:35:26. > :35:27.like Britain to leave? Do you think he sees
:35:28. > :35:29.that as a route to Mikhail Khodorkovsky,
:35:30. > :36:28.thank you so much for He's the man behind Tesla, SpaceX,
:36:29. > :36:41.and a co-founder of PayPal. And today, he said something
:36:42. > :36:45.that is either brilliant or barmy. I incline to the latter,
:36:46. > :36:47.but you judge. no, that we are almost certainly
:36:48. > :36:51.computer-generated entities living inside a more advanced
:36:52. > :36:57.civilization's video game. Well, actually, I won't explain his
:36:58. > :37:04.point, because it has been made before by Nick Bostrom,
:37:05. > :37:22.Professor of Philosophy Just explain why this barmy idea
:37:23. > :37:27.might be plausible. The thought is that if technology continues to
:37:28. > :37:31.develop them in the future, perhaps the distant future, civilisation
:37:32. > :37:36.will have the ability to create entirely realistic virtual worlds,
:37:37. > :37:41.with simulated observers in them. Not just create one or two of these
:37:42. > :37:46.simulations, but such a mature civilisation could run millions or
:37:47. > :37:52.billions. A world where everybody has a planet of their own with a few
:37:53. > :37:57.million people in. Then you have to ask yourself, for every person with
:37:58. > :38:03.humanlike experiences that live in the original history there are
:38:04. > :38:06.millions of observers with human life experiences that live in a
:38:07. > :38:16.similar worlds, which one are you more likely to be, and so that then
:38:17. > :38:24.is the thought. I can see it is a possibility. Now you have to get to
:38:25. > :38:27.the bit that makes it an interesting possibility, or a possibility likely
:38:28. > :38:39.enough that this could really be... Elon Musk said... That parts...
:38:40. > :38:42.There is an argument for taking this seriously and the simulation
:38:43. > :38:51.argument tries to show one of three propositions is true, but it does
:38:52. > :38:56.not tell us which one. The first is that those civilisations in current
:38:57. > :39:03.development go extinct before maturity. Those who reach
:39:04. > :39:06.technological maturity, they all lose interest in creating these
:39:07. > :39:11.answers to simulations, they do different things. There are no
:39:12. > :39:17.advanced beings, or non-that play advance games or they do. And then
:39:18. > :39:22.the simulation hypothesis becomes likely, if most people with our
:39:23. > :39:29.experiences are simulated. One of those three sorters has to be true,
:39:30. > :39:33.doesn't it? Would advanced civilisations have other forms of
:39:34. > :39:37.entertainment, or maybe we do not have the imagination to think about
:39:38. > :39:40.how advanced civilisations will entertain themselves because we have
:39:41. > :39:47.not reached that level. Certainly it is conceivable, but there might be
:39:48. > :39:54.other reasons that entertainment, for creating these realities, trying
:39:55. > :39:58.to figure out how other civilisations bite behave should you
:39:59. > :40:03.encounter them, there might be other reasons as well. If it is the case
:40:04. > :40:08.that anyone mature civilisations could create millions, only a small
:40:09. > :40:12.fraction would have to decide to deploy their resources, even if they
:40:13. > :40:16.are not interested in the scientific study of the past. Only one in a
:40:17. > :40:21.million decides to do this and they would still dominate. We would be so
:40:22. > :40:27.cheap to reproduce. What probability would you put on this scenario that
:40:28. > :40:36.we are sitting in a video game? I tend to dodge that question. What I
:40:37. > :40:40.think is that it should be a substantial probability. I believe
:40:41. > :40:43.in the simulation argument, at least one of the three is true but we do
:40:44. > :40:48.not have strong evidence to pick one. Does this matter? What is the
:40:49. > :40:52.difference between the scenario in which we are virtual creatures in a
:40:53. > :40:57.game and the one where we are not? Is there any way we would ever know,
:40:58. > :41:01.find out or would it make a difference? We do not know if it
:41:02. > :41:05.would make a difference, it would depend on the simulation we were in,
:41:06. > :41:11.the reason for creating the simulation so if you have a theory
:41:12. > :41:17.about why these decided to be one simulation or not alert is hard to
:41:18. > :41:22.tell. There are that would exist otherwise. The world could pop out
:41:23. > :41:26.of existence if somebody switches of the simulation. Was he maybe that
:41:27. > :41:31.could not happen if we were in physical reality. You can read more
:41:32. > :41:42.about this on the web. A quick look at the papers. The Times
:41:43. > :41:46.newspaper... The independent leading on the BHS and so is the Financial
:41:47. > :41:57.Times. Emily Baldwin back tomorrow. Have a good night.
:41:58. > :42:08.Good evening. Time to get the weather details for Friday and no
:42:09. > :42:09.major changes for the eastern half of the UK. It will remain cloudy and