has warned 7:00. jd vance has warned britain and the eu over what he claimed was backsliding, free speech and democracy. addressing the munich security conference, the munich security conference, the us vice president suggested there has been a retreat of fundamental values in europe. vance also praised munich's hospitality, despite the city reeling from yesterday's car attack that left 30 injured. a 24 year old afghan asylum seeker responsible has been arrested and is due in court. vance warned that the biggest threat facing the west is not external but the threat from within. >> i worry the most about vis a vis europe is not russia, it's not china, it's not any other external actor. and what i worry aboutis external actor. and what i worry about is the threat from within. the retreat of europe from some of its most fundamental values, values shared with the united states of america. >> in other news, an nhs children's surgeon has been

suspended after nine surgeries fell below expected standards. a review was commissioned in october after colleagues raised concerns about the doctor. the review was completed in january and looked at the number of complex paediatric hip surgery cases performed at addenbrooke's hospital over two and a half years. now it may be valentine's day, but love is not in the air for bolt, uber and addison drivers who are striking today, causing travel chaos across the uk. thousands of drivers are logging off during peak hours today in a campaign for better pay today in a campaign for better pay and working conditions. the strike action is taking place across the country from 4:00 pm until 10 pm. tonight, and meghan markle has released a new image of her and prince harry together on valentine's day. it comes just hours after the prince and princess of wales shared their first ever valentine's day post. william is seen kissing kate on the cheek

as they sit in a wooded area. the image, taken from a video released last year when she ended cancer treatment. the couple shared it on their official x account with a heart emoji. those are the latest gb news headlines. more in an hour. >> for the very latest gb news direct to your smartphone. sign up to news alerts by scanning the qr code , or go to the qr code, or go to gbnews.com/poll. >> william kedjanyi. >> william kedjanyi. >> welcome to lee andersen's real world. i'm lee anderson, the reform uk member of parliament for ashfield, and joining me tonight on the show. she's back the very lovely reem ibrahim of the institute of economic affairs and gb news favourite, matthew stadler. and he's back to lock horns tonight. so look guys, this week we've seen more nonsense coming from from that madhouse that i work at, and we've seen a decision where a judge is allowing to

allowing a gazan family to claim to come to this country through the ukrainian scheme. this is madness, surely. really? >> yeah, it's absolutely madness. and it is effectively, as suella braverman said, human rights gone wrong. i mean, basically what's happened is they've allowed the scheme that's already being used for ukrainians and there are a couple of different schemes that we currently have for specific asylum claims. so, for example, for ukrainians, you've got a couple of schemes for hong kong people from hong kong and indeed a small number of those ukrainians themselves. the fact that a palestinian has been able to claim on this scheme and claim asylum on this scheme, just shows that the scheme itself doesn't work. but what i thought was particularly interesting is kemi badenoch, the leader of the conservative party, and her strategy towards attempting to criticise starmer for this policy. now keir starmer was wrong when he said at prime minister's questions that this was a policy that was allowed under the last conservative government. however, when she asked him

about the scheme, he said i'll look into it. we'll try and close the loophole to be fair to him. and she continued to berate him. and she continued to berate him on the exact same topic, not moving on , and just entirely moving on, and just entirely unable to move on to this particular question. so i think what's interesting here is the scheme itself is entirely wrong and absolutely needs to be fixed. and the human rights element of it, that conversation needs to happen. but also, if we get an answer from government, we should be able to look into that and scrutinise it specifically. >> okay guys, just just have a look at this clip from gb news earlier this week, what suella braverman had to say on the subject. >> well, it's an egregious example of human rights gone wrong. and this case is a very bad decision and it presents very terrible consequences, potentially for our immigration system. the basis upon which this judge has reached his conclusion is flawed, and it represents a constitutional abomination, frankly, a great and bad example of judicial overreach. >> so, matthew, obviously, i

tend to agree a little bit with what reem has to say and what suella had to say. what? >> i thought you were entirely neutral. >> i listened, but you can have an opinion, matthew. i'm sure you have on this subject. >> if you've got an opinion. no, not neutral. what do i think about this? starmer has been quite clear that this loophole will be closed. quite. how it is closed isn't so clear. my understanding is that he was wrong, as reem says, to say that this was allowed this claim under the tory government. the claim was rejected while the tories were still in power, and when labour came into power, it was allowed on appeal. that doesn't mean it's because there was a labour government. so if there is a loophole which there seems to be, or the judge has interpreted it as such, it appears, then that is a legacy of the previous government. but on the substance of it, clearly it seems to me that the ukraine scheme should not be able to be used by asylum seekers from

other countries. i mean, it is the ukraine scheme. >> surely. >> surely. >> but there is a but there is another question. starmer is clear about that as well. but there is another question. and thatis there is another question. and that is we've all seen the utter devastation that has befallen gaza. and some people will blame israel, some people will blame hamas, some people might blame both. i would blame both. what we do know is the extent of the human suffering there. unbelievable numbers of children simply ripped out of their homes with nowhere to go. are we? are you guys saying that we should take no palestinian refugees at all? matthew, why do we take ukrainian refugees? why do we take people from hong kong? why would we not take some people, some people from palestine? >> those are entirely different issues.i >> those are entirely different issues. i mean, hong kong, i think is an entirely different issue to ukraine. ukraine is obviously a war in europe. so there's a there is a strategic interest here. >> and hold on a minute, reem, just, just just to clarify this, matthew, we took women and

children from ukraine to keep them safe. >> not fighting aged men. >> not fighting aged men. >> exactly. >> exactly. >> why do you keep talking about fighting aged men? because we don't know the rhetoric. you know what that's doing that is trying to save the. >> martell have. >> martell have. >> a say. it's not about the rhetoric. it's about fundamentally, women and children are much more vulnerable than fighting aged men. why are you calling. >> fighting age men? why they are working age men? >> i'll tell you what the clues are. >> the dark age men. are you suggesting they're coming over here to fight? well, well. >> the clue is in the title. fighting age. men should stay in their own country and fight for. >> are you saying that palestinians should be fighting israel? sorry. all right, let me ask you the question. i've got to be allowed to ask the question. are you both suggesting that palestinians should be fighting israel? >> hold on. >> hold on. >> that's the question. what's the answer? what's the answer? >> the point is, they are already fighting the islamic government. hamas. hamas? >> hamas are fighting israel. are you suggesting. >> you're. >> you're. >> fundamentally men in palestine should be fighting israel? >> matthew. matthew. what you're fundamentally misunderstanding is. >> tied up in knots. >> tied up in knots. >> you're talking. you're talking about the language that i'm using and saying that that's

somehow some kind of negative rhetoric. it's not inflammatory because there's a war going on. so they are fighting. are you are you? >> this is insane. hamas is fighting. hamas is fighting. are you suggesting that palestinians you're fighting israel? matthew. >> this is not ultimately what you're saying is entirely irrelevant. you're pulling up on the language around fighting or working age, whatever the fact, they are much less vulnerable than women and children who we have taken in from ukraine. i also like to make the point that even egypt and jordan don't want to take people from gaza. why is that in those countries? because i'm middle eastern, right. and i would be very, very honest here. i think what is happening is that a lot of middle eastern countries view people in gaza as though they are effectively travellers, they are effectively criminals. they are effectively and, you know, whether rightly or wrongly, these people have been sheltered, they have had much less education than the average person in the middle east. and it means that they just can't cope. i mean, egypt, i'm half egyptian. in egypt they have a huge population crisis. cairo is literally there's so

many people that they've had to build a whole new city to try and alleviate the population pressures. these countries cannot take these people. they're just saying no. and they are bordering these, these areas. >> so where. >> so where. >> do you. >> do you. >> where do you think they should leave? do you think they should leave? do you think they should be ethnically cleansed, like trump suggests, or should they should. should they or should they or should they live in gaza? and if they live in gaza, where are they going to live at the moment they haven't got any houses. okay. and answer my question, guys. you've had a long term answer my question. if you don't want men, that's your view. do you think we should take palestinian women and children, some as refugees, into this country? >> i do, i think we should do our bit, but ultimately we've taken so many refugees from so many different wars over the last few years. i think we have a conversation about what's right for britain as well. and look, we have been a very, very welcoming and open country and look at where it has led us. i think we need to have a balance here. i'm not saying we shouldn't take any palestinians. what i am saying is we need to have an open conversation about where it goes right and where it

goes wrong. and these people, we have no idea what their criminal backgrounds are. we have no idea where they've come from specifically, and we have no idea if they've committed crimes in the past. we also have no idea if they that themselves hamas members. so we have to have these conversations and be very clear. we have to do what's right for britain, and then we can start worrying about the rest of the world. >> well, let me just put on this one to matthew. i'm sure they'll agree with me on this one. ream donald trump's come up with a suggestion, which was quite interesting about ten days ago about about actually taking over the strip and moving people out and making making it into a go to destination. is that a is that ethnic cleansing, matthew, or a sensible solution? >> yeah, i think it's ethnic cleansing and i think it's despicable. as a consequence, the idea that donald trump is wading in with his massive boots and trying to treat this age old problem, or certainly decades old problem, so. what is the, some would argue, what is the centuries old problem? treat it as a real estate deal. that's absolutely unacceptable. what they should do is they what they should do. i'm answering the question. what they should do is rebuild gaza. and if it takes

some of our cash to. >> be bombed. >> be bombed. >> out in. >> out in. >> two years time, well. >> two years time, well. >> it shouldn't have been bombed down in the first place. far too many people died. >> to be fair. >> to be fair. >> far too many people were killed by the by the israeli state as a consequence of the barbarism of october the 7th. none of this is that difficult to understand, but the idea that they should be simply ethnically cleansed is absolute ethnic cleansing. >> so, so to be fair, i don't agree with the ethnic cleansing description, but i do think that trump's perspective on the on the gaza issue is was quite insane. to be honest, i don't think it's feasible. it's also interesting that in the same week, elon musk is saying we're going to cut all foreign aid spending. trump is saying we're going to spend all this american taxpayer money in gaza. i don't think it was ever a feasible solution. i think it was him basically being friendly to netanyahu. so i don't think we should take that seriously. i think there's also the fundamental point here, what's happenedin fundamental point here, what's happened in in israel and in palestine is absolutely horrendous. but it's been going on for so long. i don't think that foreign taxpayer money should be spent in the area itself. what should happen is

the two state solution be respected. that can't happen as long as hamas exists. it can't happen as long as hamas have control over gaza. and we've seen what's happened this week. >> how do you get rid of hamas then? how do you get rid of these evil? how do you get rid of this evil? because the idea that you can beat hamas through military means has been tested to destruction 90%, isn't it, of palestinians in the let me finish in the gaza strip have been displaced and hamas still turn up with they they still turn up with they they still turn up with their guns. they still turn up with their mosques parading female hostages. they are, they are, they are, they are, they are, they are, they are, they are a cancer on that region. but how have we been able to destroy them, or has israel been able to destroy them? >> no, reem, we are in agreement now. matthew says that hamas are to blame. they are to blame. >> partly to. >> partly to. >> partly to. >> partly the ones. >> partly the ones. >> causing all. >> causing all. >> the problems. >> the problems. >> i mean, they know the israeli government should. it was heavy handed, heavy handed to go in there and displace so many children and women. and by the way, some innocent men. >> so i am sympathetic to that view. i think it's really

important that there is that balance there. but you have to be honest, if a country, a foreign country came and invaded british shores or did what what hamas did on october 7th, we'd. expect we would we would we wouldn't just do what israel did. we would drop a nuclear bomb. >> no, we wouldn't, but this is. >> no, we wouldn't, but this is. >> i'm sorry. >> i'm sorry. >> i'm sorry. this >> i'm sorry. this is >> i'm sorry. this is political insanity. this is to suggest that britain would have dropped a nuclear bomb over matthew. >> i'm using i'm using hyperbole here. what i am saying is that we would absolutely have gone harder and faster than what israel had. we certainly would not. yes, we would have. i'm sorry. but, matthew, if what happened on october 7th happened in the uk, we would have gone in and we would have used all of our military force in order to ensure that hamas had been destroyed entirely. >> we would not have done. what happened to the gaza strip. >> israel are held to are held up to a standard that other countries are not. >> it could be argued, reem, that, you know, during the last war we did much worse in bombing germany. we was relentless. we flattened city. >> we hurt civilians. >> we hurt civilians. >> yeah, we killed tens of. >> yeah, we killed tens of. >> we should have a we should have a jolly good debate about

that part of our history. unfortunately. >> part of war. >> part of war. >> listen. and if that didn't happen, then we'd all be speaking german. >> right. exactly. thank you. another feisty debate. but coming up next, we're going back in the day darts keith devlin.

welcome back to lee anderson's real world is back on my show for the second time. keith deller, former world champion. let me shake your hand and actually bought me a gift. this time he's bought me a set of new darts, which will be i'll be lobbing these at my dartboard next week in. well, i'm not gonna tell you where. it's a secret location in westwood. >> you don't beat me. well. >> you don't beat me. well. >> well, it was a close call last time, keith. but i remember last time, keith. but i remember last time, keith. but i remember last time we spoke something i tell my mates when i've had a few. when i'm name's dropping in my local pub about all these famous people i've met on this show. i tell them a story about when you won the world championship and you didn't really have a big bet on

yourself, did you? what price was you and what could you have won? >> i was 100 to 1 and. but the thing was that what jocky and eric said after i beat them, that the public didn't know who i was. i'd already gone to america. yeah. won the los angeles open. that got me a play off. and i beat bob anderson and bobby george, john lowe on the way. so the players know that i was a good player, but the pubuc was a good player, but the public didn't. in my local estate in ipswich, the chantry estate. yeah, the local pub, they all went on £20, which was decent money then and they all went on £20, which was decent money the