0:00

At Fresh Time Market, we have a

0:02

healthy obsession with produce. Not only are

0:04

we committed to offering the freshest selection

0:06

of organics, seasonal favorites, and Midwest grown

0:09

fruits and veggies, but our team members

0:11

have tips, tricks, and other info up

0:13

their sleeves. Like, did you know cherries

0:16

have melatonin, or that you shouldn't wash

0:18

blueberries until right before you eat them?

0:20

Or that when cranberries are ripe, they

0:22

bounce like a ball. Crazy! We know!

0:25

For all your fresh produce and

0:27

unrivaled expertise, stop by your neighborhood

0:29

fresh time today. Hello

0:43

and welcome too, not another

0:46

one. The podcast with me,

0:48

Steve Richards, Ian Martin, Miranda

0:50

Green and Tim Montgomery, thank

0:52

you very much for tuning

0:54

in. And as ever, it

0:56

seems these days, we gather

0:58

with fast-moving events. Kiastama has

1:01

announced on the eve of

1:03

his trip to Washington that

1:05

the government will increase defence

1:07

spending to 2.5% by 2027.

1:09

and further commitments beyond that.

1:11

We're going to explore the

1:13

many implications. It's going to be paid

1:16

for by cuts in the aid of

1:18

budget. But before all of that, Ian,

1:20

you've brought your guitar in to play

1:22

us a song. No, I'm Jacob. I

1:25

promised the listeners I definitely would never

1:27

ever do that. And that's one pledge

1:29

you, you, uh... I'm saying, do you

1:31

want it on a pledge card? Sort

1:34

of retro 1990, 1970. What was it?

1:36

A ledge stone? The tablet of stone.

1:38

But you can... But you will never

1:40

sing live on this podcast. Doubt's

1:43

about delivery, I'm creeping in. I

1:45

promise. Yeah. It's a cast-iron guarantee.

1:47

Did you have a good time

1:49

you were going up to watch

1:51

the rugby? it was in, it

1:53

was at Twickenham on... I was

1:56

just testing you. Thank you for

1:58

mentioning it. It was a Scottish

2:00

disaster. I don't follow rugby as

2:02

you can tell. We didn't even

2:04

know where it was playing play.

2:06

I was actually I tried to

2:08

wave to you because I was

2:10

stuck in the traffic jam. Oh

2:12

really? Just outside the stadium which

2:15

was considerably long and tedious. I

2:17

said to everyone in the car

2:19

who didn't care. I think my

2:21

friend Ian's in there. I'm waved.

2:23

I didn't see him on the

2:25

road. It's just being you waving

2:27

to him in the stadium. Yeah.

2:29

I had a novel experience though

2:31

in that I've decided with this

2:34

six nations campaign, this is the

2:36

second game I've done it, watching

2:38

Scotland, to not have a drink

2:40

at all until after the game.

2:42

Because usually you can meet people,

2:44

have a couple of pints and

2:46

then have a pint at the

2:48

ground or something. And it's a

2:50

completely different experience. Watching sober. I

2:53

mean totally so I'm not saying

2:55

I'm in the habit of watching

2:57

rugby drunk but I just mean

2:59

it's a very very different thing

3:01

you're actually concentrating on the game

3:03

so that was why we can

3:05

all the listeners were already concluded

3:07

you normally what? yeah just recall

3:09

podcast completely exactly but it was

3:12

a great day out with friends

3:14

yeah despite the result yeah okay

3:16

well look now this defense spending

3:18

announcement we've know from Tim and

3:20

Ian even before the election They

3:22

were keen on a big increase

3:24

in defence, they were happy for

3:26

the National Insurance Cup to be

3:28

reversed in order to pay for

3:31

it. So all regular listeners will

3:33

know that that is their position.

3:35

So I want to ask something

3:37

slightly different to you, Ian. There

3:39

are many layers to this and

3:41

we're going to explore all of

3:43

them in our time together. The

3:45

first one is this. A huge

3:47

focus has been made about this

3:50

defense review. First of all, you

3:52

find out what the priorities are,

3:54

then you work out the spending.

3:56

Because of the looming trip to

3:58

Washington for Kiestama to meet Donald

4:00

Trump, the reverse has happened. We

4:02

get the figure before the review,

4:04

so we don't know what it's

4:06

going to be spent on or

4:08

why or what the strategic sense

4:11

is. Don't you think as... our

4:13

resident defence specialist. It's still the

4:15

wrong way round. Now, I know

4:17

you wanted it years ago, the

4:19

spending in Greece, but surely you

4:21

get the strategic review first and

4:23

the only reason we're not having

4:25

that is Donald Trump is basically

4:27

running the show. Yes, well put.

4:30

And I think that, you know,

4:32

there are people, people around the

4:34

SDR who would say that actually...

4:36

Well, strategic defense review. Yeah. Needs

4:38

to be more like 5% and

4:40

then others that say that three,

4:42

three and a half and what

4:44

Starmer's done, you know, Starmer's announced

4:46

this week is not nearly enough,

4:49

but at least it's a start.

4:51

I mean, I take the point

4:53

and take the criticism, but... thinking

4:55

of it from Starmer's perspective for

4:57

a moment, he's going off to

4:59

Washington in the most bizarre circumstances.

5:01

He needs something to say to

5:03

Trump, it may be that even

5:05

2.5 isn't quite enough and that

5:08

the Americans are looking for a

5:10

number that begins with three, but

5:12

I completely understand why he's done

5:14

it. It would have... I'd be

5:16

sitting, if he hadn't done it,

5:18

I'd be sitting here saying what

5:20

on earth are you playing at?

5:22

You know, you're going into the

5:24

Lions Den on Thursday and you've

5:27

got to show progress and you've

5:29

got to say to Trump, message,

5:31

understood Europe is not doing enough

5:33

to defend itself. We'll come to

5:35

the whole question, I'm sure later

5:37

on the podcast about whether actually

5:39

the transatlantic relationship is bust or

5:41

is salvageable or you know, we'll

5:43

get to all of that. But

5:46

I'm pleased that he's done it

5:48

with the caveat, and we're recording

5:50

this shortly after the announcement. I'm

5:52

sure that people will be picking

5:54

at the numbers and looking at

5:56

precisely how it heads up. I

5:58

think the IFS are already asking

6:00

questions, so we'll see how reliable

6:02

that number is. Okay. Tim, again,

6:05

regular listeners will know, you have

6:07

been wanting a big increase in

6:09

defense, so let's take that. As

6:11

read, I want to ask you

6:13

a slightly different question. I'm afraid

6:15

I'm going to bring Brexit into

6:17

this briefly, briefly. What fascinates me

6:19

about a lot of Brexiteers. They

6:21

supported Brexit because they wanted the

6:24

sovereignty of the Westminster Parliament to

6:26

prevail against interventions from Brussels and

6:28

so on. We all agree that

6:30

the only reason this announcement is

6:32

being made is because of President

6:34

Trump. So why are you okay

6:36

about President Trump? determining British policy.

6:38

But you were a Brexiteer because

6:40

of the sovereignty issue, weren't you?

6:43

But you weren't happy with a

6:45

sort of pooling of sovereignty with

6:47

Europe, but here's Trump saying you

6:49

ought to do this and right

6:51

away, Starmer does it. Well I'm

6:53

not happy, I'm not happy, you

6:55

know, that an American president has

6:57

to force us to do what

6:59

we should have been doing anyway.

7:02

That's my view, we should have

7:04

been doing this anyway. But equally,

7:06

Steve, I could turn around to

7:08

you and you and say... Why

7:10

do you support a European membership

7:12

of a European continent which is

7:14

so dysfunctional it could even be

7:16

bothered to pay for its own

7:18

defence? You know I think there's

7:21

different ways of you know looking

7:23

at this issue and I as

7:25

regular listeners will know I'm a

7:27

on the whole still a supporter

7:29

of Trump I think what he's

7:31

how he's behaved in the last

7:33

10 days is outrageous but the

7:35

most outrageous thing that underpins this

7:37

whole story is the fact that

7:40

Europe has free-ridden on American defense

7:42

for a very long time. Europe

7:44

is a selfish continent that has

7:46

spent the dividend that it's basically

7:48

had from the American umbrella on

7:50

itself. It hasn't invested this money

7:52

in a sort of a new

7:54

world order or aid or whatever,

7:56

which is, you know, a little

7:59

footnote of this. I think I'm

8:01

probably one of the last people

8:03

on the right who actually believes

8:05

in the aid budget. It's quite

8:07

something really that Labour are funding

8:09

all of... this increase with the

8:11

cut and the aid budget and

8:13

well it's early days but Labour

8:15

Party seemed quite happy to accept

8:18

that. Now I think there is

8:20

something artificial about these 0.7% 2.5%

8:22

targets we throw around we don't

8:24

have that for any other budget

8:26

we decide what we need to

8:28

spend on health or whatever and

8:30

that's the way the conversation should

8:32

begin. So it may well be

8:34

that Britain still can have an

8:37

effective... help for the poorest people

8:39

in the world with 0.3% but

8:41

it just seems like we are

8:43

the way we are making these

8:45

decisions you know that's how you

8:47

began without linking it to a

8:49

proper defense review I think it's

8:51

fine on defense because we do

8:53

need to spend more it's just

8:56

a question of how high we

8:58

need to go so putting more

9:00

money into the system now is

9:02

I'm not against it but you

9:04

know there are and the way

9:06

it was done by sooner the

9:08

first time There were projects going

9:10

to a very vulnerable people in

9:12

the world feeding them, developing agriculture

9:14

for them, and we left in

9:17

the middle of those projects despite

9:19

promises that we've been given for

9:21

multi-year funding. So it's not, you

9:23

know, I think the aid budget

9:25

was an important part of our

9:27

soft power. And China and Russia

9:29

are very involved in developing countries,

9:31

not so altruistically as us, but

9:33

that's partly how they build relations

9:36

in these countries. I'm sorry that

9:38

the aid budget has been cut

9:40

as the only way of funding,

9:42

something I otherwise think is necessary.

9:44

I want to, as Brian Walden,

9:46

say, I want to come on

9:48

and explore that very subject in

9:50

a moment. But beforehand, while we're

9:52

just sort of examining the top

9:55

line of the announcement, Miranda, it

9:57

seems to me that what is

9:59

also interesting. So we've had basically

10:01

the incoming German Chancellor basically say

10:03

they're going to increase defence spending.

10:05

Macron has said the same. Well,

10:07

and in very dramatic narrative terms,

10:09

couching that announcement by saying, you

10:11

know, the old order is dead

10:14

essentially, I mean, at the moment

10:16

of his election. German Chancellor seemed

10:18

to be in the moment where

10:20

he decided to say we've we've

10:22

been handed over to our own

10:24

devices by President Trump we better

10:26

get real. To the point where

10:28

he said NATO might be dead

10:30

by the summer. But Article 5

10:33

for sure. Which raises the question

10:35

again slight kind of sorry about

10:37

this. No I'm not sorry Brexit

10:39

echo. Well you should be. We

10:41

are we great Britain the other

10:43

European powers. The United States is

10:45

a huge superpower, perhaps walking away

10:47

from some of this. Which raises

10:49

the question, are we inevitably moving

10:52

towards some form of common defense

10:54

policy with European powers? And in

10:56

which case, that is huge, isn't

10:58

it? Because think of the debate

11:00

about the single currency. No, Britain

11:02

wants to decide its own interest

11:04

rates, its own monetary policy. and

11:06

under the EU system there was

11:08

no common defence policy, no common

11:11

foreign policy and yet we might

11:13

be moving towards something like that

11:15

now. Well and interestingly the sort

11:17

of spectre of a supposed European

11:19

army capital EA was raised by

11:21

the Leave campaign quite frequently as

11:23

something that you know UK... skeptics

11:25

would not want to be part

11:27

of. So in a funny sort

11:30

of way, the fact that our

11:32

defense was part of the Atlantic

11:34

Alliance, you know, with the American

11:36

Pole more powerful than the European

11:38

Pole, gave a sort of cover

11:40

to what defense cooperation we did

11:42

have with European allies. I think

11:44

that we are going to have

11:46

to think much more carefully and

11:49

sensibly about... defense and even foreign

11:51

policy, you know, coterminous policies, even

11:53

if not joint policies, let's put

11:55

it that way, you know, dynamic

11:57

alignment of international affairs between the

11:59

UK and... the EU in some

12:01

way, not least on the funding

12:03

actually. So there's a sort of

12:05

interesting theory doing the rounds this

12:08

week which is reported in the

12:10

FT that Europe in the wider

12:12

sense, I mean not just the

12:14

EU but also other countries in

12:16

the European continent and NATO members,

12:18

might try and create something akin

12:20

to the European Bank for Reconstruction

12:22

and development, which after the iron

12:24

curtain came down helped reconstruct Central

12:27

and Eastern Europe and then if

12:29

you do something like that you

12:31

create a vehicle that can borrow

12:33

a lot of money and when

12:35

I say a lot of money

12:37

I really mean a lot of

12:39

money on the bond markets for

12:41

reconstruction but not for defense no

12:43

no no but this would be

12:46

modeled on that sort of structure

12:48

but calling it you know a

12:50

defense fund or a rearmament fund

12:52

and to sort of replace I

12:54

suppose to compensate for the fact

12:56

that there are domestic political difficulties

12:58

for individual nation states to suddenly

13:00

increase their spending on defence. So

13:02

you'd create some sort of supernational

13:05

body, but not crucially, to all

13:07

the leavers out there who are

13:09

listening to our podcast, not crucially

13:11

an EU body, but a supernational

13:13

body that's wider across Europe and

13:15

other NATO allies. That's being talked

13:17

up. I mean, I don't know

13:19

if it'll, you know, if we'll

13:21

go there. It's got Brits at

13:24

the house of it. people like

13:26

Ed Lucas and various other people

13:28

with good European connections are trying

13:30

to get it going. They've been

13:32

encouraging statements from the Polish government.

13:34

The European Commission is said to

13:36

be encouraging in certain respects but

13:38

discouraging in other respects and saying

13:40

this should be a European Union

13:43

business. Let's see where it all

13:45

gets to. I mean I take

13:47

your point Steve on the Brexit

13:49

question. I'll be very open about

13:51

it. I think there are two

13:53

ways to... view it and I'm

13:55

trying to be open-minded about it

13:57

and think it through because I

13:59

hear two bits of competing analysis.

14:02

from people who I respect. On

14:04

the one hand, it leaves Britain

14:06

massively isolated. Because the calculation that

14:08

people like me made about things

14:10

like Orcus is that the, and

14:12

that's hinged on the American relationship,

14:14

which I do ultimately think will

14:16

in technology turn to survive. That's

14:18

a sort of a defense pack

14:20

with Australia, the US and the

14:23

UK, to build some nuclear-powered submarines

14:25

for the Australians, but also to

14:27

pillar two is the... you know

14:29

is fascinating in that it it's

14:31

a defense technology sharing pack between

14:33

the three countries which the Japanese

14:35

might join eventually and Boris made

14:37

a great play of signing it.

14:39

They could be called raucous now

14:42

that Russia's doing it. Well then

14:44

the UK would have to leave

14:46

but yeah so I don't know

14:48

what that makes it but then

14:50

so so there is that analysis

14:52

which you know there are credible

14:54

people saying look this is a

14:56

this is a condemnation of Brexit

14:58

because Britain is now in the

15:01

middle having to decide whether it

15:03

jumps and goes completely back in

15:05

with the EU or jumps over

15:07

to being part of the Trump

15:09

universe which is not going to

15:11

be particularly popular with with lots

15:13

of the voters. There is another

15:15

analysis you here which is that

15:17

actually I tend towards this not

15:20

just because I vote for Brexit

15:22

but I tend towards thinking that

15:24

actually I'm quite glad. that we're

15:26

out and one of my favorite

15:28

leavers made this put this favorite

15:30

remainers made this point to me

15:32

this week that actually he could

15:34

see for the first time some

15:36

advantage and as just standing outside

15:39

the EU structures because this defence

15:41

conversation is not going to be

15:43

about the EU. It's going to

15:45

have an EU component which is

15:47

procurement and spending and the EU's

15:49

about to get together a big

15:51

fund in two, three years time

15:53

at some point separate from this

15:55

bank that Miranda is talking about.

15:58

We're not in that. We won't

16:00

be in the borrowing. part of

16:02

that or part of those programs.

16:04

I think that's a good thing

16:06

and we we stand there with

16:08

a bit more freedom of maneuver

16:10

our nuclear deterrent which also has

16:12

a European dimension to it, it's

16:14

always since it's founded, been regarded

16:17

as sort of part of NATO,

16:19

unlike the French nuclear deterrent. So

16:21

all I'm saying is that there

16:23

is a live debate about it.

16:25

I'm interested in people and leave

16:27

and remain putting to one side

16:29

their prior assumptions, but I just

16:31

had a question for everyone about

16:33

Europe and Britain is part of

16:36

Europe. is about European delusions, mass

16:38

delusions. So much what I see

16:40

in this conversation is just completely

16:42

detached from reality about what we

16:44

have. I think, I'm not blaming

16:46

people, but I don't think, I

16:48

don't think our politicians or anything

16:50

lots of people have been paying

16:52

attention. People turn around now and

16:55

say, what can we do? What

16:57

can we do about this? Well,

16:59

we've spent effectively 20 odd years

17:01

since the Cold War process, but

17:03

then also... we pivoted to Iraq

17:05

and Afghanistan, all of that changed

17:07

our military approach and reduced numbers

17:09

and cut spending, which Osborne and

17:11

Cameron did, and then now I

17:14

understand why people say to me,

17:16

look, you work a bit in

17:18

this field, what can we do?

17:20

And I think it has to

17:22

begin with the recognition of just

17:24

how exposed we are. And I

17:26

hear talk of sending troops to

17:28

Ukraine, it's going to have to

17:30

be a very small number. because

17:33

simply the British army has been

17:35

reduced to such an extent and

17:37

this runs through all of the

17:39

you know through all of the

17:41

services and this applies across Europe

17:43

so I think we have to

17:45

begin with the truth. Well let

17:47

me answer that question on another

17:49

level what can we do because

17:52

it seems to me the delusion

17:54

has taken other forms as well

17:56

and I thought Robert Skidelski wrote

17:58

interestingly on this the other day.

18:00

which is that the European powers

18:02

have rendered themselves to some extent

18:04

marginal players in this attempted peace

18:06

negotiate. because of the contradictory stance

18:08

from the beginning where they said

18:11

they taught big Boris Johnson and

18:13

it was partly to save his

18:15

job frankly I'm sure he meant

18:17

it but it was to save

18:19

his job in number 10 Ukraine

18:21

must win Russia must be defeated

18:23

and the only way that could

18:25

have made sense is if those

18:27

European powers were willing to possibly

18:30

contemplate war against Russia and help

18:32

Ukraine win, which they were never,

18:34

rightly in my view, going to

18:36

do. Given that they weren't ever

18:38

going to do that, was it

18:40

not a delusional mistake to play

18:42

the Churchillian cry without any backup?

18:44

So now you have America seeking

18:46

a negotiation. Of course they don't

18:49

bring Europe in at the beginning.

18:51

Europe has declared they want Putin

18:53

to be wholly defeated. That won't

18:55

be the outcome of any negotiation.

18:57

So I think delusion has taken

18:59

many forms. Let my friends and

19:01

colleagues answer, so I'm not just

19:03

banging on the whole time, but

19:05

I disagreed fundamentally with the Skidelski

19:08

analysis in that it seemed to

19:10

miss a key point, which is

19:12

that Putin is now being... in

19:14

some sense, handed victory because of

19:16

the way this process is being

19:18

handled. But hold on, hold on,

19:20

let me finish. Ukraine was saved

19:22

by the Ukrainians primarily, but also

19:24

by the Europeans, backstop by the

19:26

Americans. Let's not forget, the first

19:29

thing the Russians did in that

19:31

war was try and get to

19:33

Kiev. They failed. On the third

19:35

anniversary of the invasion, European leaders...

19:37

and other leaders were able to

19:39

go to Kiev still a free

19:41

city under assault from the Russians,

19:43

but still he failed in that

19:45

regard. So I don't think what

19:48

the Europeans did. It might have

19:50

been not enough to guarantee full

19:52

victory to push the Russians back,

19:54

but it has protected the Ukrainians

19:56

in the forefront bravely, have protected

19:58

most of Ukraine and Kiev is

20:00

a free city. I think he

20:02

misses the, you know, misses the

20:04

point. Tip, can I ask you,

20:07

because, you know, most podcasts have

20:09

just two remainers, excellent to my

20:11

view, but we are unique in

20:13

having two, remains two, Brexit, are

20:15

you okay or even enthused by

20:17

the idea of some body overseeing

20:19

a, for want of a better

20:21

phrase, in your perspective, a common

20:23

defense approach. by European powers because

20:26

without that are we... You're obsessed

20:28

with this European dimension. Well it's

20:30

only because you know the Starmers

20:32

announced increased defence spending France and

20:34

Germany going to do the same.

20:36

Are they going to do it

20:38

together or adapt different... I'll give

20:40

you one example. France and Britain

20:42

have said yes to the idea

20:45

let's see if it ever happens

20:47

of a peacekeeping force. Germany was

20:49

opposed. Shultz was a good point.

20:51

I mean Shultz won't now be

20:53

deciding but I mean who knows...

20:55

Part of the coalition. Yeah, but

20:57

isn't it? So, but that could

20:59

happen again, you know, if each

21:01

individual government takes its own decisions.

21:04

Should there be a coordinating agency?

21:06

So that doesn't happen? Or are

21:08

you more up for individual governments?

21:10

I think it has to be

21:12

done in some sort of collective

21:14

arrangement, but I still fundamentally believe

21:16

in NATO. I still think NATO

21:18

is the place where this is

21:20

done. Because I haven't given up

21:23

on America still being part of

21:25

this as well. I don't like

21:27

what Trump is doing, but one

21:29

thing that he has delivered, and

21:31

you've admitted this right from the

21:33

beginning, is he's got Europe to

21:35

spend on defence in a way

21:37

it wasn't before. and it may

21:39

well be, let's see, it's very

21:42

hard to predict. I reckon in

21:44

a couple of years, American sort

21:46

of defense commitment to Europe won't

21:48

actually be that different from now.

21:50

There's a lot of, partly because

21:52

of inertia, I think you may

21:54

find out that arrangements have got

21:56

more continuity than discontinuity. But what

21:58

will have happened is that Europe...

22:01

Finally, we've had so many times

22:03

when I remember Barack Obama asking

22:05

Europe to spend more on defence.

22:07

We've had plenty of opportunities to

22:09

step up. We've never taken it.

22:11

And so it's good that we

22:13

are now taking this. But I

22:15

still think that America is a

22:17

country that believes in the same

22:20

things that we do. And I

22:22

think there's also Canada. There's other

22:24

NATO members, Turkey. we should be

22:26

integrating in our defence as well.

22:28

So doing it at an EU

22:30

level will exclude people, we don't

22:32

want excluded. And I am skeptical

22:34

also about whether countries other than

22:36

Britain and France will actually make

22:39

the increase. Germany, for example, I

22:41

remember immediately after the Ukraine war,

22:43

Shultz was very committed to very

22:45

big increases in defence spending, but

22:47

it's been worn down by internal

22:49

resistance in the Social Democratic Party.

22:51

And yes, Mertz... the German Chancellor

22:53

is much more sort of in

22:55

favour of this but he's in

22:58

coalition still with this SPD. So

23:00

I think Germany is going to

23:02

be a weak link in this

23:04

I hope I'm wrong but there's

23:06

all sorts of historical reasons we

23:08

do not need to rehearse here

23:10

why German's relationship with the military

23:12

as a complex one and I

23:14

think that will continue to be

23:17

the case. Okay well we're going

23:19

to take short break and then

23:21

we will return to... how the

23:23

government is going to pay for

23:25

the increase in defense spending. At

23:30

Fresh Time Market we have a

23:32

healthy obsession with produce. Not only

23:35

are we committed to offering the

23:37

freshest selection of organics, seasonal favorites,

23:39

and Midwest grown fruits and veggies,

23:41

but our team members have tips,

23:43

tricks, and other info up their

23:45

sleeves. Like, did you know cherries

23:47

have melatonin, or that you shouldn't

23:49

wash blueberries until right before you

23:51

eat them? Or that when cranberries

23:53

are ripe, they bounce like a

23:55

ball. Crazy, we know! For all

23:58

your fresh produce and unrivales, and

24:00

unrivaled, time today. Welcome

24:04

back to not another one. We're

24:06

inevitably, we're reflecting on the ongoing

24:08

international crisis and the new twists

24:10

and turns of recent hours and

24:12

days. Now Miranda, if before July

24:14

the 4th, you know, you were

24:16

saying, what would the Labour government

24:18

be remembered for? Oh yeah, cutting

24:20

international aid, cutting the winter fuel

24:22

allowance for relatively poor pensions, I

24:24

know freezing bus fares. God, you

24:26

know, that's Sunak's sort of idea

24:28

of public spending control. Do you

24:30

think that of the options available

24:32

to Starmer and let's be clear,

24:34

Rachel Reeves, who would have been

24:36

involved in every second of this

24:38

decision, they chose the right one,

24:40

cutting public spending and the public

24:42

spending they've chosen to cut aid?

24:44

So I was really interested and

24:46

cheered to hear Tim. use the

24:48

word soft power because only the

24:50

other day I heard somebody in

24:52

the US say there is no

24:54

such thing as soft power there

24:56

is only hard power and that

24:58

is military might. So I applaud

25:00

Tim for hanging on to that

25:02

really and I think it's very

25:04

interesting and also you know as

25:06

you sort of said you remain

25:09

confident that America would actually remain

25:11

a very active and important part

25:13

of NATO, not least in the

25:15

funding of our joint democratic world

25:17

defence, you know, bulwarks. I mean,

25:19

the thing is about the aid

25:21

budget is that who is going

25:23

to be most upset by this?

25:25

Is possibly people appealing away from

25:27

the Labour Party anyway? I was

25:29

looking at some analysis of the

25:31

July 2024 general election. and you

25:33

know who peeled off to the

25:35

left to various sources you know

25:37

by the Greens the new independent

25:39

MPs. all the rest of it.

25:41

And the list of kind of

25:43

grievances are exactly what you would

25:45

think. It's not just Gaza, but

25:47

it's also sort of how Jeremy

25:49

Corbyn was treated, this sort of

25:51

thing. You add the kind of

25:53

cutting the aid budget to that

25:55

list. Those people are probably already

25:57

gone or going. So maybe they're

25:59

making quite a hard-headed political judgment

26:01

as well. You take away what

26:03

a reform parties attack lines as

26:05

well. Yes, the other thing just

26:07

on a policy point on the

26:09

aid budget is actually if America,

26:11

and this is a kind of

26:13

technical thing to do with how

26:15

aid is delivered in the destination

26:17

countries, if you take away the

26:20

US AID. mechanisms for delivery. Quite

26:22

a lot of our programs can't

26:24

be delivered anyway. So there may

26:26

actually have been a white hall.

26:28

So when America decided to just

26:30

stop a whole bunch of stuff,

26:32

there was panic across the parts

26:34

of white hall that deal with

26:36

our aid programs because, you know,

26:38

it's a bit like that argument

26:40

that's made in favor of HS2

26:42

that you can't do the other

26:44

things you want to do in

26:46

Northern Rail unless you've got the

26:48

HS2 infrastructure. The American aid infrastructure

26:50

enables a lot of what we

26:52

do. So I wonder also... whether

26:54

they looked at some of the

26:56

spreadsheet of what we're doing at

26:58

the moment and thought we can't

27:00

actually do some of these things

27:02

anymore. I mean, you know, more

27:04

of this may come out in

27:06

the coming days. I think it's

27:08

really regrettable because like Tim I

27:10

do actually believe that soft power

27:12

is a thing and in a

27:14

medium-sized nation like ours, you know,

27:16

what are our strengths, you know,

27:18

what is it that has the

27:20

union jack on it? One of

27:22

the things is aid, you know,

27:24

aid packages and our expertise internationally

27:26

in that. So I do think

27:29

it's regrettable. I would hope it's

27:31

not gone forever. I mean, you

27:33

know, it was the coalition, wasn't

27:35

it, that set the, the idea

27:37

of a share of GDP? No,

27:39

no. It was new labour. It

27:41

was the Blair Brown in the

27:43

United States. No, it wasn't. It

27:45

was the United Nations in the

27:47

1970 1970s in the 1970s. and

27:49

I think Labour popularised it with

27:51

the Make Poverty History campaign. The

27:53

0.7 was reached under Blair Brown

27:55

and it was a, this is

27:57

why it's a big... I know

27:59

it was enshrined in legislation, wasn't

28:01

it, by Mike Moore when he

28:03

was... No, no, no, I think

28:05

Brown somehow or other made it

28:07

a formalised commitment. I can't remember,

28:09

I might be wrong about that,

28:11

but they were certainly... were committed

28:13

to it. And then it was

28:15

a big moment for the Tories

28:17

when Cameron and Osborne also committed

28:19

to it as part of their

28:21

in-a-verde-coma's modernisation project. Detoxification, because I

28:23

think under Michael Howard they were

28:25

going to cut it. So the

28:27

symbolism of this is quite interesting.

28:29

Blair Brown made a lot of

28:31

it. I bet in a relatively

28:33

obscure podcast George Osborne is very

28:35

critical of this because he and

28:38

Cameron made a big thing of

28:40

sticking with sticking with that. commitment.

28:42

So the symbolism of it is

28:44

interesting. Now, can I just say

28:46

though, but I do think you're

28:48

on to something though with this

28:50

sort of, you know, the percentage

28:52

of GDP as a end goal.

28:54

It is a bit odd and

28:56

I think people do want to

28:58

know what the money is spent

29:00

on and not least on the

29:02

aid budget actually and that may

29:04

have been one of the problems

29:06

with maintaining public support for that

29:08

level of spending. And as I

29:10

said just before we move off

29:12

the A budget, you know, one

29:14

of the other things is if

29:16

we're going to say to certain

29:18

people, you know, we're shutting our

29:20

borders or restricting our immigration numbers,

29:22

which I support, you can't at

29:24

the time to say we're not

29:26

going to do anything for you

29:28

at all. No, I don't think.

29:30

I think there's something inhumane about

29:32

not being a world citizen. If

29:34

you are a country where there

29:36

are persecution problems or there are

29:38

poverty problems or there are poverty

29:40

problems, if we both. I think

29:42

that is a level of globally

29:44

responsibility. I will also add to

29:46

the migration crisis, right? I mean,

29:49

where are those people coming from?

29:51

There are huge questions about whether

29:53

the aid budget is spent well.

29:55

I think, I mean my understanding

29:57

in the kind of hours we've

29:59

had since of all the government

30:01

departments worried by this announcement, it's

30:03

the home office who are really

30:05

worried for exactly the reasons you

30:07

give. And I just want to

30:09

ask something else. My solo rock

30:11

and roll politics focus, I had

30:13

a very interesting email from someone

30:15

who works in the bomb markets.

30:17

And he says, look, if Rachel

30:19

Reeves wanted to borrow more for

30:21

health and the rest of it,

30:23

forget it, they would go bonkers.

30:25

because they would see it as

30:27

a symbol of kind of profligacy

30:29

which would be ongoing. A ring-fenced

30:31

increase in defence, he said, would

30:33

be wholly acceptable to the bomb

30:35

markets. And isn't it interesting that

30:37

she hasn't done it? And it

30:39

seems to me, she is going

30:41

to stick to these self-imposed fiscal

30:43

rules, because if she dreaded a

30:45

headline about... relaxing the rules to

30:47

pay for this, which there seems

30:49

to be a consensus is necessary.

30:51

She's not going to do it.

30:53

No, but it's a very interesting

30:55

point that your correspondent makes. I

30:58

mean, I thought we arrived at

31:00

quite a good position last week

31:02

when we were talking about it,

31:04

and I think we thought there'd

31:06

be a bit of extra borrowing,

31:08

some welfare. cuts. I don't think

31:10

we did spot actually the the

31:12

international aid thing that shows you

31:14

how far we've come in come

31:16

in a week. But I think

31:18

the reality is... We're two left-wing

31:20

for this. The government... Exactly. The

31:22

reality is that this is not

31:24

going to be this is going

31:26

to have to come back several

31:28

times more. This is if we

31:30

are only in week four stroke

31:32

five of Trump term two and

31:34

look how much has changed in

31:36

the last four or five weeks.

31:38

and you know a number 10

31:40

that was just was determined not

31:42

to be pushed on this 2.5

31:44

question that just the public finances

31:46

were completely you know there's no

31:48

room for maneuver at all has

31:50

within a month ahead of going

31:52

to see Trump be forced into

31:54

this 2.5 with a commitment to

31:56

3% in the next parliament. So

31:58

already the rules of the game

32:00

have changed. So you think she

32:02

will still have to change her

32:04

fiscal rules at some point? Let's

32:07

see who's Chancellor in a year's

32:09

time, the way things are moving

32:11

so fast. You said she was

32:13

very much involved in this. I

32:15

assume so. We all assume so,

32:17

but some of what... I'm sure

32:19

she was told it had to

32:21

go up and the announcement was

32:23

there. Sure, but the discussion as

32:25

to how it would be financed,

32:27

the Treasury has had to be

32:29

dragged kicking and screaming to this

32:31

point of 2.5 percent, which is

32:33

not actually that big an increase,

32:35

and it's just a start when

32:37

you look at how the world

32:39

is unravelling. I mean, it's essentially...

32:41

we've sort of touched on it,

32:43

but... It's NATO really, does NATO

32:45

hold? I agree with Tim over

32:47

the next two, three years. I

32:49

think it's like, I doubt that

32:51

America leaves the command structure of

32:53

NATO, which let's not forget, America

32:55

basically is, with the support of

32:57

a few other key countries, but

32:59

America is it. in terms of

33:01

the command structure, in terms of

33:03

heavy lift and how the organization

33:05

works, it is, it's an American

33:07

project. So... And it's also, isn't

33:09

it true that it's a congressional

33:11

decision to leave NATO? I think

33:13

this was changed. Yeah. The president

33:15

can't unilaterally leave NATO. That's true.

33:18

Actually, therefore, and then there's certainly

33:20

not a majority in the Senate

33:22

or Congress. There are a lot

33:24

of very sensible people in the,

33:26

in, in, in, in, in, in,

33:28

in, in, in, in, in both

33:30

houses houses. have no doubt have

33:32

views on America's place in the

33:34

world and there seems to be

33:36

quite a lot of alarm in

33:38

Washington about what's happened in the

33:40

last four weeks. But you don't

33:42

have to leave it to undermine

33:44

it do you? No. You don't

33:46

have to leave it to put

33:48

it on a back burner as

33:50

you pivot to the Pacific and

33:52

try to concentrate on all of

33:54

this. for whatever it is. But

33:56

at the moment it's a default

33:58

position that America is by law

34:00

committed to NATO and that can

34:02

only change by a vote of

34:04

Congress. But we have to we

34:06

have to hope that they can

34:08

run it down certainly. But we

34:10

have to hope that NATO holds

34:12

which I think which I think

34:14

it will but... So would you

34:16

say article 5 is still a

34:18

goer then? I mean this is

34:20

what I was asking you last

34:22

week actually. I was talking to

34:24

a defense expert earlier this morning

34:27

who said was it actually that

34:29

viable even before? Trump, which is

34:31

maybe a controversial view. Stop there

34:33

because that brings us onto our

34:35

final thing we could explore so

34:37

many, which is looking at, well

34:39

specifically now, the relationship between Britain

34:41

and the United States, so-called special

34:43

relationship, and where that is as

34:45

we move towards the end of

34:47

another extraordinary week. But let's take

34:49

a break first. At

34:53

Fresh Time Market we have a healthy

34:55

obsession with produce. Not only are we

34:57

committed to offering the freshest selection of

35:00

organics, seasonal favorites, and Midwest grown fruits

35:02

and veggies, but our team members have

35:04

tips, tricks, and other info up their

35:07

sleeves. Like, did you know cherries have

35:09

melatonin, or that you shouldn't wash blueberries

35:11

until right before you eat them? Or

35:14

that when cranberries are ripe, they bounce

35:16

like a ball. Crazy! We know! For

35:18

all your fresh produce and unrivaled expertise,

35:21

stop by your neighborhood fresh time today.

35:26

Okay, welcome back to not

35:28

another one where we are

35:30

inevitably exploring the current international

35:32

crisis. Now, by the time

35:34

some people listen to this,

35:36

Stama will have been to

35:38

Washington, some will be listening

35:40

to this as he goes

35:42

to Washington, but he goes

35:45

claiming to be a bridgehead

35:47

between Washington and Europe, and

35:49

he goes also hailing the

35:51

so-called special relationship. Now clearly

35:53

that special relationship is being

35:55

challenged now, but is it

35:57

always... partly mythologize. If we

35:59

look at the Suez crisis,

36:01

America didn't back Eden as

36:03

he planned to go into

36:06

Suez and the Falklands in

36:08

82, Reagan was hesitant with

36:10

his close friend Margaret Thatcher.

36:12

Tony Blair gave up virtually

36:14

all political capital to back

36:16

Bush towards the end. Bush

36:18

said as the Iraq war

36:20

loomed, we can do it

36:22

on our own, you don't

36:24

have to join us. You

36:27

know, how special is this

36:29

special relationship. Well,

36:31

not as some of us would

36:33

like it to be, certainly, but

36:35

I think it is still trade,

36:37

intelligence, security. There's a lot that

36:40

links our two nations. And so

36:42

it may well be that it's

36:44

like a lot of things in

36:46

advanced Western nations now. The relationship

36:48

between a prime minister and a

36:51

president, heads of government, still matters.

36:53

But actually countries are linked now

36:55

institutionally in lots of ways as

36:57

well. And just like when... President

36:59

Trump says he's giving up on

37:02

climate change targets. There's a lot

37:04

of institutional sort of energy in

37:06

the bureaucracy in industry that carries

37:08

on. And however fraught relations are

37:11

between the White House and Downing

37:13

Street, all those links still matter.

37:15

And just in terms of international

37:17

travel, investment, finance, intelligence sharing, you'd

37:19

have to say there's no other

37:22

country really that we are still.

37:24

closer to entertainment culture. It is

37:26

at a multi-layered way a very

37:28

important relationship with all inference by

37:30

all of the time. And so

37:33

really the relationship between the president

37:35

and the prime minister on this,

37:37

they're just managing something that's already

37:39

exists and will continue to exist

37:41

for a long time. So I

37:44

would say absolutely still special and

37:46

it's let down more by our

37:48

politicians. than the people and the

37:50

businessmen and the intelligence people that

37:52

support and work for it all

37:55

the time. Isn't this weird thing

37:57

about the so-called special release? How

37:59

much of it seems to depend

38:01

on personal chemistry and a personal

38:04

relationship between the Prime Minister and

38:06

the President of the day? When

38:08

we were preparing for our three

38:11

Thatcher specials, I watched those Charles

38:13

Moore documentaries as there's two about

38:15

Thatcher Reagan and the story of

38:18

their, you know, journey, their political journey

38:20

together and how close they were.

38:22

And as you said Steve, despite

38:25

that, probably the closest relationship, even

38:27

more than Blair and Clinton, that

38:29

we've had between a prime minister

38:31

and a president in our lifetimes.

38:34

Even with that, you know, they

38:36

nearly fell out very badly over the

38:38

Falklands and you know, the invasion of

38:40

Grenada, right? You know, there was a

38:43

wonderful bit in that documentary where Charles

38:45

Moore says he's interviewing someone who was

38:47

in the Oval Office at the time

38:50

that that was chewing Reagan out. You

38:52

can hear the call on YouTube. And

38:54

he held up the receiver to the

38:56

whole of the Oval Office as she

38:58

was shrieking at him about the emergency.

39:01

And he apparently said to the assemble.

39:03

chaps as they all were, isn't she

39:05

wonderful? Is it anecdote for the

39:07

ages? But you know, even that

39:09

very close political relationship that they

39:12

were ideologically close, they had personal

39:14

chemistry, all of it, they were

39:16

involved in the most important, you

39:19

know, existential... enterprise in terms of

39:21

the Cold War together despite that

39:23

they were rocky moments right so

39:26

it's never perfect but now we

39:28

seem to be entirely dependent on

39:30

a president who is all about

39:33

personal chemistry and this his weird

39:35

concept of transactional relationships

39:37

and how does stoma play that that seems

39:39

to me the key thing that's most difficult

39:41

you know we know we know that Trump

39:44

keeps saying about stoma he's nice he's nice I

39:46

can't really do a Trump can you do a

39:48

Trump nice nice nice guy nice nice what does

39:50

that mean nice I mean that sounds extreme that

39:52

sounds sort of like mr. Kipling cake or something

39:55

you know it's nothing it's a nothing it a

39:57

lot so much seems to be riding on this

39:59

vis it this week because can stoma

40:01

take it from nice to close

40:03

nice to trusted nice to the

40:05

guy I'll phone up when I

40:07

want something explained about how Europe's

40:09

you know Europe's behaving or something

40:12

or you know another sort of

40:14

diplomatic issue so I think that's

40:16

that's really tricky for stoma and

40:18

also in terms of the deal

40:20

making okay we now know what

40:22

Trump's interested in Ukraine he's interested

40:24

in the mineral wealth of Ukraine

40:26

what does he what what what

40:28

what use are we now to

40:30

him And I get what Tim

40:32

says about the institutional closeness, but

40:34

I think Starmer should be sitting

40:36

on that plane thinking, well, what

40:38

am I actually selling now in

40:40

this relation? His opportunity though is,

40:42

I mean, I think that's right,

40:44

Miranda, he does have an opportunity

40:46

going there on Thursday and give

40:48

him credit on 2.5% considering how

40:50

hard he had to, you know,

40:52

fight his own treasury on that.

40:54

Yeah. is to go to, forget

40:56

this idea of being the bridge,

40:58

which we've discussed before, which is

41:00

a bit patronizing to a country

41:02

like Poland or France or Germany

41:04

or to any country in Europe,

41:06

but he does have a chance

41:08

I think to lead, and I

41:10

think going, saying whether the number

41:12

is big enough or not is

41:14

another question, but going at least

41:17

saying I announced in Parliament this

41:19

week. an increase in UK defense

41:21

spending and we're heading for 3%

41:23

and we'll get there as quickly

41:25

as we can. That does give

41:27

him some clout, hopefully with Trump,

41:29

and actually because weirdly the macron

41:31

visit, of course it was happening

41:33

against the backdrop of this UN

41:35

vote with the US voting with

41:37

North Korea and with Russia. But

41:39

the- Don't forget Belarus. Belarus, yeah,

41:41

always there. the macron visit went

41:43

weirdly well because it had this,

41:45

although he hates the European Union,

41:47

he seems to quite like macron

41:49

and regards him as a friend.

41:51

So, Starmer's got to, who doesn't,

41:53

I think it's fair to say,

41:55

have that stick. that Macron has.

41:57

No, but if he can be,

41:59

but but which also some people

42:01

find annoying, but if he can

42:03

if he can just go and

42:05

calmly level and say defense spending

42:07

is increasing, then it's in contrast

42:09

to it shows some kind of

42:11

leadership and I think have other

42:13

countries announced anything on this in

42:15

this vein in the last week,

42:17

apologies if they have, but it

42:19

gives him something that Trump will...

42:21

Can I make an awful point,

42:24

right, which is going to sound...

42:26

very superficial but unfortunately with Trump

42:28

I don't think it is. You

42:30

know Macron is very glamorous and

42:32

you know I was watching Jens

42:34

Stoltenberg you know who the former

42:36

NATO chief on newsnight he's also

42:38

very glamorous apparently Trump loved Stoltenberg

42:40

last time he was president right?

42:42

I'm just, anyway, I hope Starmer

42:44

can pull any, every tiny bit

42:46

of charisma that he can muster

42:48

on behalf of the UK. There's

42:50

a wonderful moment in the Trump

42:52

macron press conference where Trump, as

42:54

ever, his mind wandering all over

42:56

the place, praised Macron for the...

42:58

renovation of Notre Dame and he

43:00

hesitated and said in fact I

43:02

don't think this guy has had

43:04

enough credit for it yet he

43:06

will one day maybe when he's

43:08

dead or something and Macron just

43:10

looked up and said thank you

43:12

and then mercy Baku Donald and

43:14

Trump gave him a little wink

43:16

and you could see it was

43:18

a kind of absolute it's a

43:20

little flirtation it was he was

43:22

flirting with with with Trump and

43:24

it was It was very effective.

43:26

I mean, I think the framing,

43:29

and forgive those of you who've

43:31

now seen the, you're listening after

43:33

the Trump, Starmer duo press conference,

43:35

but the framing is set, isn't

43:37

it? I mean, there will be

43:39

some kind of American guarantee revolving

43:41

around this deal over minerals for

43:43

Ukraine. will be involved in the

43:45

negotiation. Those are the two things

43:47

they've asked for, isn't it? For

43:49

now, and they're going to get

43:51

both. So I think, I mean,

43:53

basically, that's what Macron said is

43:55

the turning point. And I think

43:57

that's what Starmel will get to,

43:59

don't you? Those terms would be

44:01

very small, which is lucky, because

44:03

certainly the UK can't afford to

44:05

deploy that many people to Ukraine.

44:07

But then this other... The other

44:09

feature of this, just what Trump

44:11

has unleashed in the last month,

44:13

you know, conversations I'm having with

44:15

people who study this more closely

44:17

than me, is that there's a

44:19

lot of hokum about, you know,

44:21

Europe must unite, Europe must do

44:23

this, and actually the emerging reality,

44:25

which we need to grapple with,

44:27

is just Europe is really badly

44:29

split. I mean, the result post-peace

44:31

deal is most likely, despite what

44:33

Mertz is saying, Germany will go

44:36

back towards Russia. Now, if there

44:38

are German friends listening to this,

44:40

I'm not meaning in an insulting

44:42

way. It's just the logic of

44:44

what the German business community thinks

44:46

about the world. Germany isn't growing.

44:48

And here is a chance to

44:50

trade again with Russia as normal.

44:52

Sanctions probably come off and then

44:54

get some trade going again with

44:56

China and maybe play that off

44:58

against the US. Get the showback

45:00

on the road. That's the broad

45:02

direction of travel, I think, in

45:04

Germany, rather than... spending three, three

45:06

and a half percent of, as

45:08

Tim said, on defense and really

45:10

tooling up for a confrontation, it

45:12

looks as though there's a deal

45:14

or an accommodation coming in the

45:16

next two or three years. The

45:18

question then will be, who joins

45:20

that? Because the polls obviously won't,

45:22

being very sensible and being the

45:24

emerging, interesting, fascinating power in Europe.

45:26

The Swedes and the Finns and

45:28

the Norwegians in their quiet way

45:30

won't. The bolts certainly won't. The

45:32

Brits. won't, I think, and will

45:34

be faced with an interesting choice

45:36

in terms of how London fits

45:38

into this new world. Ukraine itself

45:40

will be simultaneously... a center of

45:43

the European armaments industry as people

45:45

set stuff up there and produce

45:47

masses, but it'll also be a

45:49

center which would be very difficult

45:51

to police with Russian operations running,

45:53

attempting to penetrate politics. It's going

45:55

to be, and then you look

45:57

down to the Balkans, which is,

45:59

I mean, that's a whole other

46:01

episode as a friend of mine

46:03

from that part of the world

46:05

was saying, you know, trouble coming

46:07

in the Balkans isn't there always,

46:09

but there really is this time.

46:11

You look at what's coming next

46:13

potentially in... in Romania as well.

46:15

Now, you put all of that

46:17

together and then Southern Europe won't,

46:19

Southern Europe will say, well, it's

46:21

terrible what was done to Ukraine,

46:23

but it's not really going to

46:25

tool up in any meaningful way.

46:27

So you end up with a,

46:29

in my view, kind of divided

46:31

continent, Northern Europe getting closer and

46:33

closer, think of it almost as

46:35

the Northern Alliance, a German and

46:37

French-shaped hole at the centre of

46:39

Europe, and then a Southern flank,

46:41

which is not really that bothered,

46:43

and then meanwhile... Russia causing all

46:45

sorts of trouble in the Balkans.

46:48

This is not a happy recipe.

46:50

But for another podcast it raises

46:52

a huge question. Say there is

46:54

a peace deal or a ceasefire

46:56

at the very least. How then

46:58

does Europe, perhaps it does it

47:00

in a very fragmented way, then

47:02

deal with Russia. A Russia fully

47:04

engaged with the United States, fully

47:06

engaged it seems with China. How

47:08

does Europe deal with Putin post

47:10

a peace deal? And that question

47:12

has been obscured by the clear

47:14

but simplistic stance of Putin's got

47:16

a loop. I mean that was

47:18

a subject. So what happens next

47:20

when there's a peace deal? But

47:22

I just wanted to ask Miranda

47:24

a question on that. I just

47:26

wanted to ask Miranda a question

47:28

on that. Because I mean that

47:30

was the subtext of the Skidelski

47:32

piece with which I disagreed. Which

47:34

I thought was very good. But

47:36

he's basically saying this war was

47:38

going to end. He's not quite,

47:40

I don't want to misquote him,

47:42

he's not saying back to business

47:44

as usual, but it envisages, but

47:46

you follow it through logically. It's

47:48

a sort of normalisation. But then

47:50

how does that look from a

47:52

culturally and from a city point

47:55

of view considering what London has

47:57

just done and the UK has

47:59

just done in terms of sanctions

48:01

along with the rest of Europe?

48:03

Does Russia come back in? How

48:05

do we feel about that? Well

48:07

the consensus politically would seem to

48:09

be completely the opposite of that,

48:11

wouldn't it? Rightly in my view.

48:13

All of the voices being raised

48:15

in the commons over the last

48:17

few days have all been... increased

48:19

calls to seize, you know, to

48:21

send those frozen Russian assets of

48:23

which we've got quite a lot

48:25

and there is a lot of

48:27

money. There's sort of hundreds of

48:29

billions across the G7 and use

48:31

that money for Ukraine. That seems

48:33

to be kind of a crescendo

48:35

on that for example. It does

48:37

have issues for the rule of

48:39

law I have to say. Isn't

48:41

all of that noise about in

48:43

inverted commerce making Ukraine as strong

48:45

as possible? in advance of the

48:47

peace deal, or Russia as weak

48:49

as possible in advance of the

48:51

peace deal. It doesn't answer the

48:53

question of what happens if there

48:55

is a peace deal. That's very

48:57

true. And actually I think people

48:59

have not psychologically quite caught up

49:02

with the shock effect of Trump

49:04

post-inauguration. and everything that's happened on

49:06

Ukraine since he actually arrived in

49:08

the White House completely. And so

49:10

I think a lot of the

49:12

kind of energy here is still

49:14

where it was, which is how

49:16

do we, you know, how do

49:18

we prop up Ukraine so that

49:20

when it walks into the negotiating

49:22

room with Putin, it's a significant

49:24

negotiating adversary. I think on the

49:26

normalisation point, it's a really good

49:28

question in because there's been so

49:30

much emphasis over the last decade.

49:32

on kind of cleaning up London

49:34

as you know the kind of

49:36

money laundering destination of choice you

49:38

know whether it's in luxury property

49:40

in the capital or you know

49:42

other forms of the London laundromat

49:44

as it's known a lot of

49:46

emphasis and a lot of policy

49:48

time a lot of resources have

49:50

gone into that cleanup. So what

49:52

are we saying, you know, that

49:54

actually we're happy to have them

49:56

back because, you know, they will

49:58

go elsewhere? Tim, you want to

50:00

think about a point. Fascinating to

50:02

the sort of overview of Europe

50:04

from Ian, then one thing I

50:07

just add to that being only

50:09

really being expert on Britain is

50:11

something of it. I think we

50:13

shouldn't think that it's going to

50:15

be easy for Britain to do.

50:17

this defense builds up, I don't

50:19

know, I know you don't think

50:21

it is, but I think the

50:23

internal resistance that will grow inside

50:25

the Labour Party to spending money

50:27

on soldiers, not nurses, because you

50:29

only really appreciate politically soldiers when

50:31

you're at war. You appreciate nurses

50:33

all the time because you're, you

50:35

know, the health care partners. There's

50:37

an awful lot more votes in

50:39

spending on domestic issues than global

50:41

issues than global issues, and so

50:43

people like me and you will

50:45

cheer him at the right decision.

50:47

but I think the politics of

50:49

this for even just in Britain

50:51

supposedly one of the most are

50:53

going to be very difficult so

50:55

just because we've had an announcement

50:57

now doesn't mean but that wasn't

50:59

the quell I just sort of

51:01

wanted to come back to where

51:03

you started you keep to going

51:05

with it on a Steve I

51:07

think you underestimate you keep talking

51:09

about you know doing this through

51:11

Europe and so I think we're

51:14

on the edge of a massive

51:16

breakdown in relations with all sorts

51:18

of European countries. I think you

51:20

look at the politics of a

51:22

lot of these countries, including Germany,

51:24

I think Europe is in a

51:26

very bad place, partly driven by

51:28

its economic securities, which are growing

51:30

all the time, partly because of

51:32

external line influences. I'm sure your

51:34

reaction is, well, that's more important

51:36

that we come together. But I

51:38

just think it ignores the power

51:40

of the forces that are driving

51:42

us apart. And how... Of course

51:44

we've got to manage it. We

51:46

can't be indifferent to it. But

51:48

I think that's why the strength

51:50

of institutions is already in there

51:52

and work like NATO, rather than

51:54

trying to do something much more.

51:56

Can I just that work? Okay,

51:58

and then I'll ask that, because

52:00

some of that, I mean, some

52:02

of that's true, but could we

52:04

just sort of... go back to

52:06

first principles. These are free countries,

52:08

free and still prosperous countries. One

52:10

of the countries that is neither

52:12

free nor prosperous is Russia. You

52:14

know Russia is in a really

52:16

bad place. Yeah. And actually if

52:18

if if if Europe and with

52:21

America had continued on this strategy

52:23

of let's... prop up Ukraine to

52:25

the point where when they walk

52:27

into the room, when Zelenski walks

52:29

into the room with Putin, he's

52:31

got some, you know, some strengths

52:33

to negotiate with. It probably would

52:35

have gone much better because... you

52:37

know, Putin's situation is not good,

52:39

economically or politically. Let me, briefly.

52:41

But I'm saying there is a

52:43

rhetorical imbalance here and going on

52:45

and on about the weakness of

52:47

Europe, as if Russia was a

52:49

functioning society or a functioning economy.

52:51

It's a desperate, desperate place. Where

52:53

there was a tyrannical regime backed

52:55

into a corner. Yes, yes, but

52:57

in relation to Ukraine, if it

52:59

ever was there in which Russia

53:01

was going to be wholly defeated.

53:03

That moment has passed. Now he's,

53:05

Putin has killed thousands and thousands

53:07

to get to that point, but

53:09

he is at that point. So

53:11

in the context of Ukraine, they

53:13

have terrain and they were not

53:15

going to give that terrain up.

53:17

They also have a defense industrial

53:19

machine, unfortunately. That's, I mean, which

53:21

is, which can produce at scale

53:23

in horrible, in horrible ways and

53:26

with horrible results. that, although their

53:28

population is much smaller than Europe's

53:30

and their economies only attend to

53:32

the size, so much of it

53:34

is concentrated in defense industrial production.

53:36

We're talking about 2.5% there, about

53:38

30%, aren't they? Their economy is

53:40

committed. Yeah. But on Tim's other

53:42

points, I agree with him, there

53:44

will be tensions within the Labour

53:46

Party. I think we mentioned it

53:48

last week. There always are. It

53:50

split the Labour Party throughout the

53:52

entire 1950s when they increased defence

53:54

spending. and introduced prescription charge is

53:56

on the NHS to pay for

53:58

it in 5051. The other way,

54:00

I don't disagree with you on

54:02

Europe either. Clearly there are differences.

54:04

Already I highlighted one of them,

54:06

from Germany under Schultz against being

54:08

part of a peacekeeping force etc.

54:10

The my only point is for

54:12

this defense spending to be effective

54:14

in France if it happens in

54:16

Germany and Britain. There has to

54:18

be some coordination or else you

54:20

might as well not bother spending

54:22

the money. I mean Britain alone

54:24

can't do anything as Ian has

54:26

already highlighted. So you either do

54:28

it together through some agency or

54:30

frankly you might as well spend

54:33

it on hospitals and other things

54:35

because each country going its own

54:37

different way these relatively small European

54:39

countries can be ineffective. It needs

54:41

agency, a binding agency, but on

54:43

that... we could carry on for

54:45

hours, we're going to stop, but

54:47

this is a fast moving story

54:49

and for sure we will be

54:51

returning to it very soon. Thanks

54:53

very much for tuning in and

54:55

we'll see you in a couple

54:57

of days. At

55:13

Fresh Time Market, we have a healthy

55:16

obsession with produce. Not only are we

55:18

committed to offering the freshest selection of

55:20

organics, seasonal favorites, and Midwest grown fruits

55:23

and veggies, but our team members have

55:25

tips, tricks, and other info up their

55:27

sleeves. Like, did you know cherries have

55:30

melatonin, or that you shouldn't wash blueberries

55:32

until right before you eat them? Or

55:34

that when cranberries are ripe, they bounce

55:37

like a ball. Crazy! We know! For

55:39

all your fresh produce and unrivaled expertise,

55:41

stop by your neighborhood fresh time today.