06/06/2016 Newsnight


In-depth investigation and analysis of the stories behind the day's headlines, with James O'Brien. Is Clinton the candidate? Might civil servants delay Brexit reforms?

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 06/06/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



But wasn't it supposed to be immigration?


Does a shift in course for the Leave campaign suggest the wind


And what they called their counter attack on the economy.


The economy was supposed to be their Achilles heel


but the latest round of campaigning suggests some Leavers believe it


And we've learned that even if the Leavers do prevail,


Whitehall mandarins are considering plans that


would kick any curbs on immigration into the long grass We'll ask this


minister if post-Brexit Britain will bear much resemblance


Also tonight: I believe the Republican nominee should never get


near the White House. Hillary Clinton edges ever closer to


history. neither an unemployment benefit nor


a Dire Straits song? When it's part of a universal


basic income, of course. And apparently it's


on the agenda for Labour. It's internecine, intra-party


and increasingly international. But if there's one thing


upon which most participants in the Referendum campaigns can


agree, it is that you can't There might be a new one


popping up every day but, in the shadow of last year's epic


failure to predict anything close they are to be taken with a cellar


full of salt. And yet there is a sense abroad that


Leave campaigners today turned their attention back


to the economy, arguably their weakest card,


because they feel they've more or less sewn up immigration,


inarguably their strongest. And while this may not be


prompting conniptions on the Remain side just yet,


it seems to be causing concern. Newsnight's Political Editor Nick


Watt joins me now to run a rule over all


things Referendum. Just how much concern? The mood in


Remain is nervous. I was speaking to a senior figure. He said it is time


to quote Sir Alex Ferguson, it is squeaky bum time. He said that the


Remain side had had a good run. But this morning there was a poll that


said Leave one redhead had were driving immigration as a concern


among voters. -- were ahead and worse. One minister said, while we


not hearing from the PM talking about his great deal on Europe where


he imposed a four year ban on EU migrants claiming in work benefits.


Another minister said, the PM must talk about immigration but he can't


because it would mean talking about his proposal target to bring net


migration and out of the tens of thousands and this minister said


that, of course, is unworkable. Will we see a shift in tone or tactic?


The message is clear from the Central command of the Remain camp,


they say the economy is their trump card and they will stick with that.


It will only make Brexit more angry. The issue on which you can swing


voters is the economy. That is why in increasingly buoyant and


confident vote leave campaign were not just talking about the economy,


they were delivering what one source described to me as a counterpunch.


Let's come in and make the case that staying in the EE was the greater


risk on the economy, talking about how the UK might be liable for


future Eurozone bailouts. -- EU. Disputed by the PM. But vote leave


say it will not be plain sailing. More issues to come ahead. There


will be a mansion house speech from David Cameron as a statement from


Christine Lagarde, head of the IMF. Thanks. Andrea Leadsom, part of the


vote leave campaign, joins me now. The day the referendum was


announced, the day Boris Johnson gave a mighty boost to your site by


announcing he would support it, and the day the polls seem to be turning


in your favour, the pound fell on all three occasions, do you know


why? -- your side. It has dipped, that's true. It is a floating


currency. It goes up and down every day. If you look at whether Pounders


versus the Duro, it is roughly about where it was when the PM came back


with his renegotiation. -- pound is versus the euro. Every time it drops


a cent against the euro or the dollar, everybody goes on about


it... That wasn't my question. It is not every time the pound drops that


they are claiming every link -- a link. There must be a unifying theme


is to buy the markets respond so pessimistically. Every time the sun


shines on the leave campaign the pound drops. By a small amount.


There is a saying in the city, by on the rumour, sell on the fact. It


means it is a bit of jargon which means, what happens is volatility in


advance of a big event, where traders position themselves to try


and make money. That is their job. When the event happens, they hope to


take their profits and to carry on with the new reality. That is why it


was so disturbing that the governor of the Bank of England should make


an intervention in this debate and start claiming unprovable


assertions. Because his job is, in fact, financial stability. The


talking down of the economy by people on the Remain side is


increasing volatility. You will find on June the 23rd, if we vote to


leave, those things will settle down. You mentioned the city and the


euro. Your former employer in the city has focused on the euro and


warned that sterling may reach parity with the euro from its


current level of 1.25 if it is a vote to leave. That is your former


employer. Economic forecasting is an honourable profession, but it is


only as good as the assumptions you put into it. We have seen a raft of


economic assumptions, including from the Treasury, that effectively say


that if we leave we wait the geisha at any trade other than a basic


free-trade -- that effectively say that if we


leave we will only negotiate trade, other than a basic free-trade


agreement... You mentioned Treasury forecasts being unreliable, whether


unreliable when you were in the Treasury? No. Economic forecasting


is an honourable profession. But it is only as good as the assumptions


you put in. To answer that question, the person I worked with there for


many years, one of the great investors in the UK, who invest


daily in day out in our pensions and so on, his company says, actually,


there will not be a huge impact from Brexit. People like Roger Bootle.


Highly regarded in the city. Saying there may be some short-term


volatility but long-term it will be better off. It is only as good as


the assumptions you put into it. It is difficult to find somebody to


trust. The voters are finding it difficult to find people to trust.


That isn't the issue. I am a vote and it is the issue. It isn't. You


cannot predict what you are going to have for dinner next week. -- voter.


I accept the middle ground. Can we find somebody, like Martin Lewis,


the journalist, from the money saving expert website. Here's a man


most trusted by the British public to provide guidance on this issue


and he did today. He described himself as a risk averse, which is


why he is in of Remain. People who prefer to gamble are in favour of


Leave, for example, he said. Can we trust him? This isn't an issue of


trust. The issue is it is not possible to see with a crystal ball


into the future. Economic forecasting relies on assumptions


going into the model. Martin Lewis is saying he is risk averse. His


assessment, his personal opinion, is that it is riskier to leave that


remain. My assessment after 25-year is in finance is that it is far


riskier to stay. Leaving means we can negotiate trade with the world,


the 80% of the world not in the EU. And then to stay in the EU risks our


economy being incredibly damaged by the stagnation of the European


economies. And by the fact our budgetary contributions are under


control of the EU, not under control of the UK. Can we trust the man who


has been roundly told by the IMF he has used the figures wrong? Michael


Gove, of course. -- wrongly. It is not possible to predict with


precision every prediction relies on your assumptions. If you assume


negative inputs, you will get negative outputs. It isn't a matter


of trust, it is a matter of those are the facts. Many thanks.


Given that they pretty much run the gamut from apocalyptic nightmare


to a land of milk and honey, you could be forgiven for thinking


that all predictions of what the UK might look like in the event


of a vote to leave had been exhaustively explored.


There is a new option gathering momentum in Whitehall that would see


civil servants working furiously to hold on to as much commercial


union as possible in the event of a political schism.


It's even got a neologism of its own: Flexit.


Whichever way we vote in this referendum, Britain will go


The destinations on offer are not too clear.


Especially as campaigners fighting on each side cannot promise


Newsnight has learned that civil servants are seriously


considering a route to Brexit which is not the same


The question on the referendum ballot sheet is extremely simple,


should we remain members of the European Union,


But on both sides there are uncertainties.


For Remain, we don't know how the future political and economic


circumstances of the EU will change it.


For Leave, the principal set of unknowns are about our future


trading relationships with our big partners.


Particularly the European Union itself.


The official Vote Leave campaign wants us at some


They argue that would let us trade more with faster growing parts


of the world, cut EU red tape, and cut net immigration.


If Britain does vote to go it alone and leave the European Union,


an important principle to consider is this, the more Britain


uses its new liberties to vary its rules from those


uses its new liberties to vary its rules from those applying


from across the European Union, be they about veterinary care,


or immigration, the more likely it is that Britain will find


itself facing barriers to trade in with the EU.


Be they tariffs, or be it simple administrative tariffs,


Vote Leave's principal argument is that any losses we might suffer


on access to the EU's internal market will be more than made up


for by trading elsewhere in the world, and by the loss


To its fans, the appeal of Vote Leave's plan,


which envisages a lot of difference from now, is precisely that it


It is important to remember that even if Vote Leave win


on the 23rd of June, Vote Leave won't be


And they won't be deciding what our future relationship


with the EU will be, that will be up to the officials,


I have been speaking to a lot of civil servants who are likely


to be involved in any renegotiation with our relationship with Europe


And one thing is quite striking, their vision for what Britain's life


will be like outside the EU is quite different to the one being put


A number of very similar plans are being considered in Whitehall


on the potential road ahead from a Brexit vote.


These route maps by pro-Brexit thinkers are known by names


like Flexit, Europe 2.0, or, in Roland Smith's case,


How would you go about leaving the EU?


We have to, initially, protect the economics.


That means getting into an EEA position rather


That means retaining lots of EU rules and regulations?


At that point it means retaining a lot of stuff to do


So yes, we do jettison a lot of other things to do


with political union, and we jettison some big policies


like the common agricultural policy and common fisheries policy.


Lots of civil servants like a Norway style European Economic Area


membership as the first leg of any Brexit journey to minimise


We could then disentangle further at a slower speed


Some even think this strategy could prove a model


You would have a Europe which is a small, incredibly


integrated space where you have one single currency.


Where those countries really pull sovereignty and in effect become


And you have everyone else in Europe who is part of a free-trade space


in close partnership with Eurozone Europe,


but it's not done as intensely, regulated, and is sort


It would allow those who want maximum integration to have it.


It would allow everyone else to do it at their own pace.


But these schemes have a big political weak spot.


Why is it you think Vote Leave haven't gone for your road map?


I think perhaps because they have chosen immigration


Immigration is a big issue in this country.


As we all know. As I accept, as well.


My issue with it is that the economy is a bigger issue, and that keeps


coming up in polls time after time, and therefore, for me,


that is what we actually need to focus on in the first instance.


The Remain campaign has plenty of criticism of this model, as well.


The Leave campaign have said if we leave the EU,


they want us to leave the single market, leave the EU entirely,


If we were to follow the Norwegian EEA model,


that wouldn't have a mandate,


and it wouldn't achieve the things the Leave campaign say


We wouldn't be able to stop free movement of people.


We would still have to accept most EU rules with no say over


And we would still have to pay into the EU budget.


So it is far worse than the deal we have now.


Today, BBC News revealed that lots of Pro-Remain MPs


They will have Whitehall allies, too.


But if Vote Leave win this campaign


ministers may feel they will have to cut immigration,


especially as the Prime Minister might well soon be from Vote Leave.


This is what happens when you post simple referendum questions


STUDIO: Still with me is Energy Minister Andrea Leadsom,


and joining her is former head of the World Trade


The European project feel slightly threatened by the prospect of Brexit


but that report notwithstanding, in the event of a vote to leave, the


union will bend over backwards to keep Britain as close to the centre


of business as possible, surely? That is speculation and the reality


is quite different, the reason the UK joined the European Union 40


years ago was free trade. If the UK leaves, it leaves the union, and it


leaves this free trade zone and the single market. It will import more,


because of the zero tariff which the Brexit campaign says will occur


after having left, so less exports, because of tariffs in the European


Union, 50% of UK export, plus the 50 other countries with which the EU


has preferential trade agreements. More imports, less exports, less


production, less jobs. That is the equation. That is also speculation,


of course. I have been in trade negotiations for 20 years, they are


not about love, they are about hard numbers, they are about clout, they


are about bargaining capacity. Standing alone, the UK loses the


bargaining capacity that it has with other countries because it belonged


to the European Union and because the European Union is 500 million


consumers. That is the reason the US, Canada and Mexico have a


free-trade agreement. Trade is a world of elephants. 500 million.


China, India, more than 1 billion! That is what trade is about, that is


what trade negotiations are about. Look at the UK, outside in the cold?


More imports, less exports. That is roughly what I call shooting oneself


in the foot! We will not be an elephant anymore, I'm not sure what


we will be but it will not be anywhere near as big. The EU has


Nick Dougherty negotiated free-trade agreements with economies of the


size of about 7 trillion US dollars, that is the EU elephant,


Switzerland, population of less than 30 million, has negotiated


free-trade around the world with the economic size of about 27 trillion.


-- the EU has negotiated free-trade agreements. The fleetness of it is


vital, the EU's own numbers themselves showed that because of


their failure to negotiate free-trade agreements with some of


the biggest economies in the world, the UK's jobs have been impacted


negatively to the tune of nearly 300,000 jobs. Had we negotiated


free-trade with big economies, that could have been what the UK


achieved. If we leave the EU, we will be able to negotiate those


free-trade agreements on our own. I'm sorry to say but free trade is


about negotiations. What will you negotiate? What will you offer to


the people you negotiate with? Your policy is zero tariff on the UK


market. What will you offer to the others? If they have free access to


your market, they will not give you anything, if they have free access,


it does not make sense. What is a trade negotiation, it is a deal, I


give you something, you give me something. If you have given me free


access to the market, which is what is being said, then there is not any


more reason to have a deal! The campaign is not saying that the UK


will have zero tariffs. Of course it is, I have read very carefully what


you're colleague Patrick Milford has said, and he said, zero tariffs.


He's not speaking for the vote Leave campaign, he has his individual


views... I'm sorry to say, then, you are going to close the economy?


Let's hear from her. We will undergo shed free-trade, you will be aware


that the average time taken is 28 months, on average, as I have said,


the likes of Switzerland and Iceland and Singapore, they have negotiated


free-trade agreements with all of the world's biggest economies. The


UK will plan to do the same. They have negotiated an agreement because


they have a protected economy, which they have open. I know Switzerland,


and Switzerland is a very protected economy. These countries have a


protected economy, and what they do in a negotiation, they love the


protection for the price of market access everywhere. That is why


Switzerland negotiated a free-trade agreement with China, except... And


the European Union has not. Except in that case, the deal is fairly


unbalanced because China is a huge market and Switzerland is a small


market. The UK is the world's biggest economy. Unbalanced trade


deal, if that is what you want...? It is not a good reason, you may


have other reasons, and I am not entering into that because this is


my area of expertise. I sense this conversation has barely begun, but


unfortunately, for the purpose of this evening, at least, it must come


to an end. Thank you very much for joining us.


Hilary Clinton is tonight within touching distance


of becoming the first female Presidential nominee


Barring a surprise of Biblical proportions,


tomorrow's primaries in five US states


will see her secure enough support to see off Senator Bernie Sanders,


her remaining rival for the Democratic Party's candidacy.


But it has been an angry and occasionally vicious battle,


except, I suppose, by the standards of the Republican Party this year,


that she will need to heal some serious wounds in her own party


Newsnight's Diplomatic Editor Mark Urban reports.


VOICEOVER: Running for president is not for shrinking violets, shake


that many hands, down another drinks, should enough hoops, you may


soon not know when it is time to quit. That at least is how many


Democrats feel about Bernie Sanders, the last primaries are looming, all


of the polling insists it will be a trump Clinton battle. Over the last


month, where the maths has not been there for him anymore, and he has


stayed in the race, there has been an increasing impatience from the


supporters of Hillary Clinton for him to get out but it is appropriate


for him to stay in until tomorrow. There are primaries in six states


tomorrow, California alone has 546 delegates up for grabs. Hillary


Clinton is just 23 short of getting the 2383 delegates that she needs to


secure the nomination. It is almost impossible for Bernie Sanders to win


now, but he may have shown his party a path to a different type of


politics. What the party establishment is learning from this


experience in 2016 is that the party is going through a transition, the


real energy in the Democratic party here is in the progressive wing, and


it foreshadows a lot of fights to come within the Democratic party as


it evolves into something considerably more progressive than


it is right now. Everyone now expects this election to be Clinton


against Trump, and his supporters have been stepping up attacks at


that way on public distrust of the Clinton plan. I never told anybody


it is a lie... These allegations are full. She, too, is turning her


campaign towards the main event. -- these allegations are false. In the


last few weeks he has criticised places allies, has praised


dictators, like in North Korea, has advocated pulling out of Nato, our


strongest military alliance...! Has said, in very cavalier ways, and he


doesn't really mind if other countries get nuclear weapons,


including Saudi Arabia. As for that apparently unstoppable Trump


bandwagon... The Clinton campaign now seems confident that a little


humour and light character assassination will work just fine.


There is a way to talk about his statements, there is a way to paint


a picture, if you will, for the general electorate, the voters who


will vote in the fall, about what a Donald Trump presidency might look


like. Her strategy between now and election day is to make that


unacceptable to a large percentage of people who will vote in the fall.


The success of the Sanders and Trump campaigns ought to have taught


Hillary Clinton's people that the rejection of politics as usual is


now deep in America, Donald Trump has emerged largely unscathed for


months of negative campaigning. Enormous concern on the Democratic


side, there is a Teflon aspect to Donald Trump's candidacy, how do you


run against a candidate like that? Unfamiliar to rain, no candidate has


ever run against a candidate like Donald Trump, with the bombast and


the ability to chew through new cycle after new cycle, it is


something the Democrats are sitting in conference rooms and about what


will stick, nothing has stuck so far. With voting immanent in


California and five other states, Hillary Clinton must now convince


her party and the wider country that she really can be the unifier.


STUDIO: Joining me now is Democratic strategist and Bernie Sanders


And Democratic pollster and Hillary Clinton


Harlan, will your man bow out gracefully, if the numbers stack up


as expected? I don't expect that at all, he has very clearly


communicated that he has the money and resources and backing to stay


through up until the convention, regardless of the results, he has a


very good chance, he has the most momentum going into tomorrow, he


will stay through the convention. Unity be damp? Well, I think he is


putting the middle class, the American worker, before party


politics, a lot of people respect him for that, myself included. -- be


damned. Do you think that Bernie Sanders is motivating Democratic


supporters or damaging the position of your candidate? Bernie Sanders


has played a very important role in the campaign so far, articulated in


economic agenda that is very powerful, spoken to the need for


change, mobilise voters, and I see no reason why he cannot continue to


the convention doing the same thing. What I hope is that we are united in


turning focus on Donald Trump, and I think Bernie Sanders this weekend


gave a very powerful speech, talking about Donald Trump, nothing could be


more of an anathema to Bernie Sanders, then a billionaire who has


profited at the expense of ordinary people who will not unionise his


workers, who has brought in immigrant workforce, because he can


pay them less, who has cheated people out of their college


educations and is a racist and a misogynist to boot!... I would say


that is very unifying the Democrats, I hope Hillary Clinton and Bernie


Sanders speaks eloquently do that. Numbers suggest a significant number


of Bernie Sanders supporters are more likely to support Trump than


Hillary ...? I think those numbers are deceptive.


As Bernie Sanders speaks to Donald Trump and draws the contrast, I


don't think that's true. I think it is a momentary expression of


frustration. The Bernie Sanders voters have no thing in common with


Donald Trump. No issue positions in common with Donald Trump. Do you


recognise that description? Absolutely not. There is commonality


between a candidate like Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. Both


antiestablishment candidates. Both taking issue with trade. Hillary


Clinton is on the wrong side of trade. Her husband was the architect


of this. She negotiated the GP in the State Department. Between the


two, it will lead to lots of jobs being taken overseas. -- negotiated


the TTP. They are doing cold, hard calculations, saying I don't really


like Donald Trump but Hillary Clinton is on the wrong side of


trade. She has supported every war since Vietnam. She voted for every


invasion of Iraq. She is on the wrong side. She is a


multimillionaire in her own right. These dispersions that she is...


That Donald Trump is hard to relate to because he is extraordinarily


wealthy, I think they also stick to Hillary Clinton. You are a


democratic strategist, who would you vote for? Clinton versus Trump, who


would you vote for? Right now I am taking a hard look at Trump. I can't


believe I'm saying it. I think Hillary Clinton has a 30 year track


record of lies, deceit, and fraud. I don't trust her. The e-mail thing


was the straw that broke the camel 's back for me. She put her on


political expediency ahead of national security. She destroyed


evidence as part of the investigation. I have real issues


with her, I don't trust her. This is the real deal, not opinion polls,


this is a Democratic strategist who is thinking about voting for Trump,


this is a problem. He has a problem. But I don't imagine you will vote


for someone who called a Mexican judge, my black voter. And the way


he has treated women. Who wants to expand nuclear weapons. I can


appreciate you are frustrated, but I cannot imagine that any Democrat


would vote for Donald Trump. And the data shows it is less than seven to


9% of voters. I think our bigger issue is turnout. That percentage is


quite meaningful, particularly where it happens. You know better than


anyone. Probably one of the top pollsters in the Democratic party.


In certain states, amongst certain constituencies, that swing vote


could be very meaningful. I am sure Bernie Sanders will endorse Hillary


Clinton. And I am positive he will do everything he can in his power


because of what he stands for and what he believes in and the kind of


person he has worked his whole life to be. To reassure people that


Hillary Clinton is the better vote over Donald Trump. We saw the same


fight in 2008. There was all of this discussion about would Hillary


supporters really vote for Barack Obama, Hillary voted for him and all


of her supporters did, as well. Many thanks.


He has a catchy slogan, "new economics",


but shadow chancellor John McDonnel has thus far


failed to offer much by way of policies to fit the description.


It's particularly interesting, then, that he chose tonight to attend


the Westminster launch of a report proposing the abolition


of means-tested benefits in favour of a flat rate payment for everyone,


the so-called "universal basic income."


It is, he said earlier, an idea that Labour will be looking


Joining me now to work out what it might look like is.


Andy Stern's book is getting attention in the US and beyond. And


the cheaper to call commentate at the Independent also joins me. --


and chief political commentator as the independent also joins me.


If you believe a lot of reputable research by Oxford University,


McKinsey, Deloitte, the world economic, or most recent, the noble


laureate who said that a storm of destruction to the job market is on


the way because of the acceleration of technology, we would be really


foolish not to prepare for that storm. -- Nobel laureate. We need to


prepare for the disruptions of the job market. Because people will not


be paid to do a job, the solution is to pay them not to do a job? We are


talking about setting a floor for people. We are not saying people


won't work or earning come, but we are saying that the ability to earn


a full-time job like I was able to do in my lifetime is going to be


become more difficult. Technology isn't just affecting blue-collar


workers, it is in other industries and other areas of finance. We have


to understand that we would arrive at a time when there is not enough


work for people to do that. We want economic stability in our economy.


We don't want all of these means tested programmes. We want to give


people a floor so they have some security. An attractive proposition


at first glance. It is a lovely idea. Imagine there is no heaven.


Everybody who has ever looked at it has thought, wouldn't it be nice if.


Problem is, you cannot actually make it work. It involves spending so


much money on people who wouldn't otherwise need it. You would have to


put tax rate up to... One model I have seen offers a basic income of


8000 per year but it involves putting up the basic rate of tax up


to 48p in the pound. I don't think it is politically possible. That


scheme doesn't even deal with housing benefit or council tax


credit. It is too complicated. It is going to cost too much, B-2 -- it be


complicated, but you are selling lots of books. We have something


very simple in our country, it is called Social Security. It is


universal. It is paid for by contributions from individuals. $1.7


trillion. The current system is worth about 8 billion. Our country


doesn't have VAT. There are lots of things we can in this country. A lot


of the money that is paid to wealthier people would be clawed


back by the tax system. We have to first decide, is this a good idea,


and I think it is one. Then we have to think about how to pay for it.


Charles Murray, a conservative, and Andy Stern both agree on the


concept. We are three Nobel laureates agreeing on the concept.


We should do the maths, I think it would work. Why did Swiss voters


reject it yesterday? It is premature in Switzerland. The poll around it


said 70% of Swiss voters say in the next 25 years they think it is


inevitable. Switzerland is a successful country, doesn't have


much property, technology isn't really affecting it, but I think


they did an enormous contribution. They have sparked a global debate.


It is now in the UK, Justin Trudeau, according to the US, the UN,


everybody is talking about it. Maybe there is a better way to end


poverty, provide benefits, so we can deal with the upcoming change and


destruction in the job market. That's the crucial point, the


upcoming change, do you know they're rather robots who can do journalism?


We will all be out of a job. -- there are even robots. It is as old


and idea as the basic income. The idea that technology will put


everybody out of work, and change the nature of work. Let's wait and


see what actually happens. The problem with the basic income is


that you cannot... Driverless trucks, soon, which is a big part of


the American economy. The British economy has continued to create jobs


at an unprecedented rate, too. The job market will change. It won't


mean people won't have any work to do. That is the old utopian idea of


Thomas Moore, he proposed this and proposed that people wouldn't have


to do more than a couple of hours work each day. Cannot see any


mileage in it at all? I think it is a lovely idea. Andy says do the


maths, anybody who has finds it doesn't work. So let's concentrate


on making the welfare system we have worked better rather than some


utopian scheme which involves tearing it all up and starting


again. Many thanks to you berries. That is all we have time for


In-depth investigation and analysis of the stories behind the day's headlines, with James O'Brien. Is the Brexit campaign resurgent? Might civil servants delay Brexit reforms? Is Clinton the candidate? And is Labour flirting with universal income?

Download Subtitles