Trump rolls back key US climate regulation

This BBC podcast is supported by ads outside the UK. If there was a big red button that would just demolish the internet, I would smash that button with my forehead. From the BBC, this is the interface. The show that explores how tech is rewiring your week and your world. This isn't about quarterly earnings or about tech reviews. It's about what technology is actually doing to your work, your politics, your everyday life. And all the bizarre ways people are using the internet. Listen on BBC.com or wherever you get your podcasts. Thanks for downloading the World Tonight podcast for Thursday 12th of February. I'm Jane Hill. This evening, a key long-standing US climate measure is repealed by the Trump administration. The president calls it the largest deregulation in American history. Environmentalists are dismayed. We'll ask what the impact of the decision could be. Here, Sir Jim Rackliffe, the co-owner of Manchester United, apologises for his choice of language as he put it, offending some people in the UK and Europe. We discuss his comments about immigration and ask how should people talk about the subject. And new romcom has opened the Berlin Film Festival tonight. The movie is set in Afghanistan. I've been chatting to its female writer and director. Environmental groups say it's the most significant rollback on climate change attempted so far in the US. Tonight, President Trump announced he was repealing the so-called "endangement finding" of 2009 under the Obama administration, which concluded that a range of greenhouse gases were a threat to public health. The finding from the EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency, became the legal bedrock of federal efforts to rein in emissions, particularly from vehicles. A couple of hours ago, though, to the dismay of environmental groups, President Trump reversed that scientific ruling, saying it would make cars cheaper, bringing down costs for manufacturers by more than $2,000 per vehicle. The president made the announcement in the Oval Office and said it was hugely significant. I'm pleased to announce the single largest deregulatory action in American history. That's a big statement in American history. And I think we can add the words by far. Under the process just completed by the EPA, we are officially terminating the so-called "endangement finding" a disastrous Obama-era policy that severely damaged the American auto industry and massively drove up prices for American consumers. Well, he went on to outline what he believes the decision will mean for Americans and the cars they drive. This action will eliminate over $1.3 trillion of regulatory costs and help bring car prices tumbling down dramatically. You're going to get a better car, you're going to get a car that starts easier, a car that works better for a lot less money. Well, just before we came on air, I spoke to our climate editor Justin Rolats and I asked him about that 2009 finding that Donald Trump has repealed tonight. It is what it says it is. It was a finding by the environmental protection agency based on the science that greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, methane, endangered the American public because of the climate change they cause and the consequences of that climate change in terms of wildfires, flooding, extreme weather of one kind and another. So it said because of these dangers, it's important that the environmental protection agency does what it says on the tin should have the power to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. One wonders where this goes now on a practical level. I mean, we're hearing environmentalists, for example, already talking about legal challenges, but what's your sense of actually despite Trump's very strong language in the Oval Office tonight in practical terms will things change? Well, there's two questions there. Will this actually get through the legal hurdles? I mean, I think what the critics are saying, what they're sort of campaigners, if you like, are saying is, look, there's a really strong scientific evidence of that endangerment finding and we're going to use that evidence to challenge this in court. The Trump administration got a small group of scientists who said, you know, these are questions that we think suggest that the endangerment finding shouldn't stand, but the critics would say there's a huge body of evidence that says it really should stand and that certainly is the consensus among climate scientists that climate change is real and it's serious and it's going to affect lots and lots of people, all of us. And then there's the second question, which is, well, how much difference would actually make to the American economy? So Trump's got three years left as a chance that a new president could re-find or whatever the expression would be re-established the endangerment finding, in which case reversed the position that we're in now. So are people going to make big investments on the basis of this? Frankly, probably not. President Trump, particularly tonight, was talking about the impact on the car industry. He said it's going to bring down the cost of manufacturing each vehicle. Is that going to change the way American automotive companies work? Well, again, we can't be certain that's the case. American automobile manufacturers sell obviously into America. States can set their own emissions standards. Historically, California has led the way, it's setting the most stringent emissions standards in America. And then there's the question about foreign markets. So Americans are making cars to sell in to say Europe, China, that have their own regulations. They're going to want to make sure they meet those regulations. They don't want all sorts of different factories making slightly different models for different markets. So you would imagine, again, they're looking to the long term, they're thinking, what is the long term trend? What's the most profitable way to make cars that we can sell to as many people as possible? And it probably isn't abiding by new regulations in America. Justin Rowlett there, well, I've been talking to Mandigan Sikera, who was chief of staff at the EPA during Donald Trump's first presidential term. I asked her why she supported and in fact, had pushed for today's decision. I think it's the president coming through on making life more affordable for Americans. And this included going after unauthorized or ineffective regulations that imposed massive costs on the American economy and for the everyday consumer. It made life much more expensive. So it's really important in terms of curbing unauthorized federal overreach, number one, and number two, also really important for the president to bring down the cost on everyday goods, whether it's the cost of vehicles, more broadly, the cost of energy and consumer goods. It's him following through on those really important policy commitments he's made. So you're talking about bringing down costs for people in the here and now. But what about the much longer term cost, the environmental cost of repealing this? I think the majority of those purported costs are greatly exaggerated. A lot of the cost projections from even 10 to 15 years ago have not necessarily panned out in terms of relative damage, but how they have panned out at least for the US economy is making life much more difficult in the way of expensive electricity, where low cost or fixed income Americans have to choose between putting food on the table or paying for their electricity. But is there a guarantee that things will get cheaper for the US consumer because of this though? Because I mean businesses would warn that this brings in commercial uncertainty. We all know that's what business hates. I think this solves a lot of the business uncertainty equation. You know, that's an argument that's often thrown up. I think it's more of a red hearing because since the imposition of the endangerment finding, there's been a lot of uncertainty around what impacted stakeholders are required in terms of regulatory compliance and those related costs. President Trump talked a lot tonight, particularly about car manufacturers and making cars cheaper for the consumer. But big car companies in your country, they're selling all over the world. They're not only looking to the domestic market. So surely they're going to still want to produce vehicles that can conform to regulations and environmental targets across the world. Well, I think that's a decision for the car manufacturers to make. What the president is charged with doing is protecting the interest of the American people. But if they're exporting globally, they've got to look at the bigger picture. They're not only looking at the US domestic market. Again, that is that's the decision for the manufacturer ultimately to make. What it will mean in United States is that making and producing cars that they can sell that give consumers what they want while providing the latest and greatest access to affordable technical efficiencies. This is going to be the market that you would want to expand in. Do you have any concerns about the impact of this decision on the health of all American people that that air would get dirtier? And we know that the health risks that that poses. Does that concern you at all? No, because the control and reduction of traditional air pollutants is handled through a completely different mechanism of the Clean Air Act and with completely different technologies. So these actions aren't going to impede the continued improvement and reduction of traditional air pollutants that EPA has a very long standing success of controlling since 1970. But if the planet keeps warming, we all saw the images, for example, of the drought. plastic wildfires in California, people lost their lives. There is research that shows if the planet keeps warming, exposure simply to wildfire smoke is going to kill 70,000 Americans every year. Yeah, I think what you're pointing to is some extreme versions of the relative understanding. If you're looking at the carbon life cycle for healthy forests, wildfires are a natural part of that. There's actually much more reasoned analysis that shows there hasn't been this great uptick in wildfires across the country. And I think the more important information surrounding these type of natural occurrences or extreme weather events is that the loss of life has been reduced significantly because of advancements in various technology and infrastructure. So, when you're looking at this from the public health perspective as well as environmental development, it will continue the positive trend that we've seen across the United States. When the endangerment finding was put forward was issued in 2009, there were more than 200 pages of peer-reviewed scientific evidence backing up the finding. Tonight in the Oval Office, President Trump said the finding had no basis in fact. How can he say that? Yeah, he's very justified in saying that. A lot of that information that was used to specifically justify the finding and just so your listeners aware, there were 38 key assumptions that were assessed in making this finding. They were based off of either cherry-picked data or scientific understanding that has since been disproven or it was obvious that they were focusing on the most extreme scenarios. It was peer-reviewed scientific evidence. Yeah, and what I'm referencing as far as what the president was making his decision on is also peer-reviewed scientific evidence and it comes from recent analysis versus what happened in 2009, which referenced some peer-reviewed analysis, but it had been distorted for political reasons. Mandy Gunsakera there with her small child in the background who you might have heard once or twice, but she helped design the US withdrawal from the 2015 Paris Agreement on Climate Change. The man who signed that on behalf of the US was Senator John Kerry. He later became President Biden's special envoy on climate change and he spoke to the BBC tonight immediately after President Trump's announcement. There's a reason that we had an endangerment rule and the reason is that the pollution, which is creating the crisis of climate, is dangerous. It's killer and the fact is that, you know, this decision to just do a way with it really takes or well in governance to a new height and invites enormous damage to people and property all around the world. And it's very clear that the administration is trading facts and trading science for denial and a willful negligence that is going to cost lives and health and countless taxpayer dollars. The fact is that already today, and this is like putting a lit match on the kindling of climate exacerbated hurricanes, fires, droughts that now kill people and now ring up an average bill of $182 billion annually in climate disasters. Was that accounted for in anything that President said? No. John Kerry. Now, let's turn to British politics because there's been another major departure from government today. So Chris Womald is no longer ahead of the civil service and cabinet secretary. He was appointed by the Prime Minister only a little over a year ago at the end of 2024, making him the shortest serving cabinet secretary in the history of the post. The cabinet office said the move was by mutual agreement, although there have been months of negative media reports suggesting Downing Street was unhappy with his performance. His responsibilities will for now be shared by three people. One of them is Dame Antonia Romeo, currently permanent secretary at the home office, and you might know she has been tipped to ultimately get the job. Let's find out more about her. Let's talk to the journalist and author Tim Shipman, political editor of the spectator. Good evening to you, Tim. Good evening. Is this a name we should all be getting familiar with? Why is she the favourite in your opinion and do you think she'll get the job? I think she will. I think she's definitely the choice of Downing Street in what looks a bit like classic care, stahmer in decision kind of a moment. He's given the job to three people. But I think that's because people are kicking off about claims that she's not been properly vetted, that claims that were made against her for bullying and fiddling her expenses back when she was consul general in New York. They've reared their head again. That was all investigated at the time. She was clear of any wrongdoing. There was no case to answer. The implication was it was one rather disgruntled ex-employee who'd made the complaints. And bluntly, she's already been cleared to do the cabinet office job. At the moment that Chris Wormold was appointed towards the end of 2024, four people were judged employable, acceptable, appointable by the independent panel. Antonio Ramayo was one of them. Chris Wormold and Tamara Finkelstein were the front runners. The panel picked Tamara Finkelstein and Keir Stahmer for reasons that defied explanation even to most of his own staff. And then, decided to go with Chris Wormold instead. The panel picked Tamara Finkelstein and she was a bit of a bit of a imp at the moment. I think at this point, it is because Keir Stahmer has many issues and I've written about them at length this week in the spectator. And I think the view in number 10 is that they need a doer, someone who is going to bang heads together, get stuck in drive change and not sit there being sort of passive and not proactive in the way that they have accused Chris Wormold of being. She is a quite a glamorous character. She likes to party when she was in New York. She did a very good job of promoting UK culture and music and the arts. And as a result of that, spent a lot of time hobnobbing with the great good glamorous people of New York. That raised eyebrows at home and I think puts out of joint the noses of the traditional male mandarins who think things should be done in a more deckerous fashion. She is a bit iconoclastic, she is a bit dangerous. But she is also someone who attracts a lot of loyalty. She is very good at working the ministers she works for and developing good relationships with them. And most people, I think, say that she can get things done and she is currently at the home office which is one of the trickier departments. She and Shabana Mahmoud have formed what a lot of people in Whitehall would say is the best sort of minister, mandarin relationship there. And it was very telling all this stuff has been swirling around in the last 24 hours with people leveling accusations at her. I did a sort of blog explaining why she might be a good thing early. And I got a lot of people getting in touch. Very few said this is a bad idea and a lot of the people who said it was a good idea were in the home office who are working with her now and saying she is someone who can do things and that is what the Prime Minister needs. Tim, fantastic to have your insight as ever. Sorry to cut you off there but good to talk to you thanks ever so much Tim Shipman there from the spectator. If there was a big grand button that would just demolish the internet, I would smash that button with my forehead. It's about what technology is actually doing to your work, your politics, your everyday life and all the bizarre ways people are using the internet. Now if you think of some of the best loved cinema romcoms, where are they set? New York, London, Paris, probably not Kabul. Until now, the prestigious annual Berlin Film Festival kicked off tonight with a new film set in a newsroom in Afghanistan. I'm not sure if you'll like it. But I'm sure it'll be a good one. Well, in that clip, I can tell you that a young reporter is collecting Vops Pops from members of the public. She's asking a woman about her marriage for a Valentine's Day feature. The character's name is Naro. She's the only female camera woman left in Kabul's main TV station. She's separated from her cheating husband and is trying to get custody of their three year old. She is called No Good Men. Its director is 35-year-old Shabunus Sadat. She now lives in Germany where she shot the film, but it is set in Kabul with a Pashtoo and don't. speaking cast. And I spoke to Shabanu just a little earlier. She was already in Berlin for tonight's film festival screening. She told me what inspired her to make the film. I want to make a romantic comedy because I realize that the expectation of the market is that all the stories regarding Afghanistan, that kind of war, drama, film and any other genre are not allowed. And for me, as someone who was at a time living in Kabul, living in Afghanistan, it was very weird to tell the story of Afghanistan to a war drama genre because as an insider, when you live in Kabul, it's not like your life is sad 24 by 7. You have a normal life and war or chaos or like insecurity is part of it. But it's for a very long time, 48 years now, war is part of everyday life in Afghanistan. So we have a different Wii U on an insecurity and war. So for me, I wanted to talk about the humours and all the comedy that is happening because people still meet, people still fall in love. Definitely because it's just like Afghan people, they are not different with other human beings. Because I have a feeling like most of the time when people or filmmakers, international filmmakers, telling Afghanistan a story, they're kind of unintentionally dehumanizing Afghan characters, just giving them one dimension, making them very flat and all the time sad or victim or the human being is not like that. So I wanted to make characters that I recognize and I understand. And I'm intrigued by the title "No Good Men". What are you saying about Afghan men? I think in the very beginning, you know, it was not about Afghan men, it was about me, how did I feel about men around me? Because I grew up thinking that there's no good men in Afghanistan and I was really believing on that until my early 20s. And I realized that it's not only me, it's also like every single woman that I know and I encounter. And then I realized that this is actually the collective experience of so many women. It was a fact, like as if, you know, like the earth is round. But then later, when I met Anvar who played co-treats in the TV station, we are both working. Then he made me, you know, change my mind and see that there are other realities. Of course, after that I also met like a lot of other good men. And then I realized that, you know, this good man, they never really get credit and you never see that because they're kind of boring. And Afghan men, the identity of Afghan men, they are mostly like these violent men who is beating the wife and they are very, you know, tough and they are like very patriotic. Which we have many of those men, unfortunately, in the world and also in Afghanistan. But for me, I wanted to focus on the good men. And I wanted to give them credit because I think it's very, very difficult to be good learned in such a society. Because they get bullied, they get mocked, the man would be questioned by other men. So it's really, really difficult to be a good man in such a society. That is so interesting. And I wonder whether you think your film might change perceptions a little bit because I mean, I won't lie, you know, from where we sit. We don't hear the voices of the good men who are standing up for the rights of women. We only hear about women who no longer have education, don't have freedom. This is really my wish for Afghan cinema and for more Afghan filmmakers being brave and there is always this expectation from inside Afghanistan that we should be the good key or at short of beauty of Afghanistan. Which I do, but I cannot only show the beauty of Afghanistan and close my eyes on the sexism and patriarchy and other problems that we have. On the other hand, because I'm making Afghan story with the money from Europe, there is all this expectation here that I should be this political filmmaker, should be this feminist filmmaker, should I do this, I should do that. I want to know what does it mean to tell an Afghan story? What does it mean to make Afghan protagonists? What does it mean to be the storyteller of our own stories? Because for so many long time, Afghanistan has been represented, misrepresented by other films that a lot of international filmmakers have been made. And today is really like me as an audience when I watch all these films, I do not relate with them, not because I'm criticizing, but just because the point of view, the perspective is so shallow, it's so tourist. It's because they don't have this insider point of view. Because when I wanted to do my romcom, there were a lot of rejection and a lot of, you know, like, why are you doing a romcom is inappropriate. We cannot support a romcom while politically things are going wrong in Afghanistan. I really got official letters from the film fans, like it's from big film fans in Europe that they felt offended by my romcom. And I felt, and I felt offended, the day feels offended by my project. So I think that's one of the reason that it took six years. And my hope is next time if any other filmmaker wants to explore whatever genre, you know, he or she's allowed to. So it's not just because you're coming from Afghanistan, you have to do like a small film, like a grueless style, with like just what documentary film, you know. So if an African filmmaker wants to make a sacrifice, yes, let this person explore himself or herself the way that she wants to. Do you think that people inside Afghanistan are going to have any opportunity to see your film? Oh, you know, it happened with my previous films. It will happen with this film for sure. I know it's going to happen. Like, don't ask me how because I don't know, but the film will end up in YouTube or, you know, they're going to chop the film and put it on TikTok. I mean, of course, they cannot watch the film entirely and experience the film in cinema theater and in proper cinema theater and big screen. It's a technology time. Everyone has a cell phone and everyone is connected to it. So I'm sure to feel fine. It's way to have people inside Afghanistan. Shabani Sadat, the director of No Good Men, speaking to me from the Berlin Film Festival. Former US Senator George J. Mitchell, a name you will certainly know if you're my sort of age or older, a democratic politician with a long and illustrious career on Capitol Hill. He was Senate Majority Leader for six years until the mid 90s. He is revered in Northern Ireland after brokering the negotiations, which led to the 1998 peace agreement, which ended the decades of troubles. But George Mitchell is one of many powerful and famous men whose name has been found in the Epstein papers released by the US Department of Justice. The papers indicate that George Mitchell continued a relationship with the sex offender after his jailing in 2008. That conviction was for soliciting prostitution from someone under the age of 18. Well, the former Senator is now 92. He has previously said he regrets having known Jeffrey Epstein and that he had no knowledge of Epstein's illegal activities. But this week, Queen's University, Belfast, dropped his name from its Institute for Global Peace, Security and Justice because of his links with Jeffrey Epstein. And there is a call to revoke George Mitchell's freedom of the city of Belfast. Councillor Onya Gruegan is the Green Party member of Belfast City Council and she told me why. This is the highest civic honor that we can be still on people and look, of course, Mitchell played an important role in the peace process in Northern Ireland. But we cannot be blind to what is becoming known about their involvement with Epstein and look, I appreciate their allegations, but you know, in terms of safeguarding principles, in terms of listening to victims and survivors. I think that's the very least that we can do at the stage is to take those allegations as seriously as other institutions, like the Queen's University Belfast, to have been able to move quite swiftly. George Mitchell, I'm sure you know, denies any wrongdoing he says he regrets his contact with Jeffrey Epstein. You have said yourself, these are at this stage allegations. Do you not think there needs to be much more clarity here before you make a call to remove an honor from someone on the basis of an allegation? What we're seeing is a product of institutionalized misogyny. It's deep rooted and valent patriarchy. And what we've seen is systems and processes being used to legitimize and prop up rich and powerful men and learn to act with the community. And whatever Mitchell's involvement has been with likes of Epstein, there have been a definite clear and established link there. And what we had known about Epstein alone should give us calls to think. And I think there's something that has been doing the right of the last few weeks that has really stuck with me and that's why it has taken the voice of one dead man over the voices of hundreds and thousands of living women for us to take allegations seriously. Councillor on your grugen. Well, let's discuss all of this with Alison Morris, who is security correspondent for the Belfast telegraph. Hello, Alison. Very good evening. And for those who perhaps don't know quite as much about George Mitchell, just remind us first just how the role he played in the peace agreements in Northern Ireland and the extent to which people really valued his contribution. He was the broker between unionism and nationalism at a time when they were sworn enemies. He managed to bring together loyalist paramilitaries, Republicans in the IRA and Shinfé and together into the same room. He got unionists and nationalists together in the same room. And there were many times during those negotiations that all looked up lists that it looked like this was never going to result. And then they kind of deal and it took that sort of outside voice, the voice of George Mitchell, who was a very experienced diplomat. I do think that a lot of we do revere men at that time who took part in that and remember he also had Martha Pope working with him, who was also a very experienced American diplomat. But you can't overlook the role that America played in our peace process. They made it a key factor. Clinton came here to crucial time when he was in the war. all the talks were at risk of a fallen apart and that is why George Mitchell I think that I remember meeting him and being there at the 20th anniversary of the Good Friday Agreement. At the 25th anniversary there was talk that he was too old and he wouldn't be able to make it and he did and he came and he unveiled that bust outside Queens which has now been removed and at that time he was almost like a symbol of our peace process and what was possible with dialogue and with discussion and it has been spoken about in terms of other conflicts. So became obviously the gold standard for conflict resolution around the world and George Mitchell was central to that. Yes and well and you mentioned that statue being removed of him at Queens. This I suppose this shows he's his very name being in the Epstein papers. That then has done enormous damage to his reputation. He denies of course knowing what Jeffrey Epstein's legal activities were but nonetheless his reputation clearly very heavily dented. Is that fair to say now? But there is a number of things I suppose and we know when we keep saying you know inclusion in the Epstein files is not proof of any kind of guilt but what it does do is there are those who are named and knows files prior to Epstein's conviction and they can't argue plausible denability. I did not know what this man was doing. I just thought it was a financial influencer for the sort of those things. George Mitchell's contact with him was extensive after that conviction which was very public and therefore he cannot say he did not know what Epstein had been convicted of. Now would people have been quick to move if it wasn't Queens which is a university and I think that what Queens have done is say look we have thousands of young women who come through the doors of this university and we have to consider their thoughts and how they feel and how they would feel walking past that bus every day and I think that's why they move so quickly. Had it been something else maybe the name you know where you're in an airport community building after anything else maybe there would have been a pause to sit back and just let's wait and see what exactly was his role with Epstein but when it comes to a place of education we're very young people, young men and women who are obviously looking at these files and realizing that people their age were trafficked and were abused by these Russian powerful male and they're afraid that's why Queens has acted so quickly. Yes, Alison thank you so much Alison Morris there from the Bellfast Telegraph. Now a few years ago Sir Jim Ratcliffe the co-owner of Manchester United topped the Sunday Times Rich List. He currently sits at number seven on that list his wealth estimated at more than 17 billion pounds after he founded the global chemicals firm Ineos in the late 90s. He's one of the country's richest men and he's believed to live in Monaco. Man United and many of its fans are among those who reacted angrily when he described the UK as having been colonized by immigrants. The FA is examining whether those comments have brought the game into distribute the Prime Minister called them offensive and wrong. Well in a statement today Sir Jim said I'm sorry that my choice of language has offended some people in the UK and Europe but it's important to raise the issue of controlled and well managed immigration that supports economic growth. So how do we talk about immigration? How important is the language we use and how do the public feel about the issue and how it's discussed? I've been speaking to Sundukutwala the director of British Future and nonpartisan think tank on the issues of integration and immigration and Scarlett Maguire the pollster and founder of Merlin's strategy. I asked Scarlett first how the people she'd been speaking to were responding to Jim Ratcliffe's comments. I think it's a really fascinating question because with these swing voters and even with some of the reform voters that we spoke to as well I think it's a lot more new once than people might expect. There is you know levels of high high levels of concerns about the current immigration system in this country and that that does apply to legal as well as illegal but that being said a lot of the voters I say the majority of the voters I spoke to were also incredibly sensitive to language they felt to be unnecessarily inflammatory and demonizing as well. Sunduk I know you've written today that it's important to differentiate between legitimate and illegitimate concerns about immigration. What is that line? Where is that line? A legitimate concern is what are the numbers? What are the policies? How do we get it right? Immigration has been high and fast not nearly as high or fast as Jim Ratcliffe is saying because he's he's got 25 years of immigration in the last five years in his imagination there but that's the debate about what we do about it. Illegitimate debate about immigration is if you're being racist, if you're being xenophobic, if you're being hateful and I think the word colonized is a very strong word to use. What what's colonization? It's an invasion, it's conquest, it's hostile, it's not people coming to live and work in your country, maybe in higher numbers than you you wanted. It's about taking over, it's about their presence meaning you're enslaved now and that I think is an illegitimate way to talk about immigration. So for you it's illegitimate. I mean is it is a deliberate attempt to stir up anger? I don't know what the motives are of Jim Ratcliffe saying it certainly when people use words like invasion, fighting age men, they're deliberately creating images of conflicts saying interethnic war is inevitable. We've got a climate these days that is getting hotter and hotter and hotter we see it in the United States, we feel it increasingly in Britain as well and so that's why colonization is a really strange way to talk about how do we get the skills and balance right for the immigration system so we don't have, you know, we get welfare reform right too. If Jim Ratcliffe wanted that kind of debate, he ought not to be anywhere near words like colonized. And Scarlett, I'm thinking that from what you've already described about your findings, are you suggesting that actually this is a tricky area for politicians because you talked about people wanting a reasoned debate about immigration but not in flammatory language for some politicians, is that quite a hard hard balance to strike? I think it is actually quite a difficult balance to strike and a lot of the nuance can get lost when they're trying to strike it. It's understanding the strength of feeling people feel about the current system whilst understanding as well that most people have this sort of sense of British fairness and sort of ways that they would like to hear people being treated about. And one thing that I heard over and over and over again in these groups was why are we focusing so much on demonizing some of the people when we've got British people here who won't work as well and they didn't like the idea that it seemed to be diverting from some of the other problems. And again, these were people that wanted to see the migration system drastically reduced. And yet, Sunda, I mean, we remember the prime minister himself got into difficulty when he talked about an island of strangers. I mean, he had to go back on that, didn't he? Or he went, he chose to go back on that. I think he heard what people thought of it and thought he was trying to say, let's have immigration, not segregation. So he hadn't got that across. There's another way this debate is lagging behind what's going on. Everyone knows we had record levels of immigration in the last parliament and they were exceptional levels. And now we've had very, very drastic and dramatic falls in immigration as well. And very few people have heard about that yet. And that I think is partly because it takes time for the debate to catch up. It's partly, I think, because a lack of control of boats in the channel is what people are noticing and they're not noticing where the numbers are. So I think we could get back to the debate we need to have, which is there are pressures of high immigration. There were gains of having immigration as well. If you're health service, your universities, your economy, if you get it right, and many people want that debate. But it gets crowded out of these kinds of sheltered matches of how we do or don't talk about it. Can I just ask you what you make of Jim Ratcliffe's apology where he said, I'm sorry that my choice of language has offended some people? I thought it was very invasive. I mean, I think people will be saying those comments about colonisation feel they racialized and if you acknowledge that and then said, I hope to have a better debate next time about immigration and skills and jobs. That's what I care about. I think if he doesn't acknowledge what was wrong with the comments, it's not a very good apology at all. Sundekamwala and Scarlett Maguire. Closing our programme tonight. That is the world tonight. I'm Jane Hill from me and everyone on the team. A very good night. It's about what technology is actually doing to your work, your politics, your everyday life, and all the bizarre ways people are using the internet. Listen on BBC.com or wherever you get your podcasts.