Speaker 1: Yeah, Welcome to the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. I'm m Keene
Speaker 1: Jay Leye. We bring you insight from the best in economics, finance, investment,
Speaker 1: and international relations. Find Bloomberg Surveillance on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud,
Speaker 1: Bloomberg dot Com, and of course on the Bloomberg. Yeah.
Speaker 1: I want to bring in our guest now. I'm really
Speaker 1: please to say joining us here in New York with
Speaker 1: a distinguished career in both public service and the private sector.
Speaker 1: Our guest is Robert Hormats, the vice chairman of Kissinger Associates. Bob,
Speaker 1: it's great to have you with us, and I was
Speaker 1: just flicking through what is a fantastic career in public service.
Speaker 1: You helped manage the Nixon administration's opening of diplomatic relations
Speaker 1: with China's communist government. UM, as you know, typically these
Speaker 1: are much orchestrated events when two leaders meets each other
Speaker 1: with predetermined deliverables. Do we have any of that with
Speaker 1: this Well, they're not predetermined at this point. But I
Speaker 1: think that Trump has made a number of statements which
Speaker 1: have been divisive in terms of US relations with Europe
Speaker 1: and US relations with our allies, in particular in NATO.
Speaker 1: But he also has an opportunity, as other heads of
Speaker 1: state have had in the past, other American presidents have
Speaker 1: had in the past, to really exercise leadership at the summit.
Speaker 1: I wish the President well. I hope he succeeds to succeed.
Speaker 1: I think is very important and other presidents have understood
Speaker 1: this as well, to take a strong leadership role, particularly
Speaker 1: in standing up to Russia or the past Soviet leaders,
Speaker 1: and that is to really exercise leadership and say, we
Speaker 1: need you to stop imposing your will and your pressure
Speaker 1: and your disruptive measures on the Ukraine. We need you
Speaker 1: to work with us in Syria to stop the continued
Speaker 1: movement east in particular and southwest in particular of the
Speaker 1: Syrian regime. We need you to work together to strengthen
Speaker 1: the ties that we could have between us. So he
Speaker 1: could make a leadership statement by making progress on cooperation,
Speaker 1: constructive cooperation on Syria, constructive cooperation on Ukraine and u
Speaker 1: and many other areas as well, and back off on
Speaker 1: his meddling in the US. If the President were to
Speaker 1: take a leadership role, he could really exercise a lot
Speaker 1: of influence in this summit, strengthen our alliances strengthen our
Speaker 1: relations with the EU. So I wish him well. It's
Speaker 1: a great opportunity for him if he wishes to take
Speaker 1: that leadership role as Reagan and Nixon and other presidents
Speaker 1: have done before him. I would like to pick up
Speaker 1: on that. What success, Bob, How do you define six
Speaker 1: sense at a summit when there is no pre defined agenda. Well,
Speaker 1: that's of course one of the questions. There's no defined agenda,
Speaker 1: but doesn't mean you can't make progress on these issues.
Speaker 1: One would be to have an agreement whereby the Russians
Speaker 1: would stop the Syrian regime from moving eastward to the
Speaker 1: eastern side of the Euphrates. America has troops there. We
Speaker 1: need to keep those troops there until their stability and
Speaker 1: not allow the Syrian regime to just go in. That
Speaker 1: will simply strengthen the Russians and the Iranians. Also on
Speaker 1: the question of Ukraine, to get uh some arrangement to
Speaker 1: maintain the ceasefire that was once again reinforced or agreed
Speaker 1: in July, but has now begun to deteriorate a little bit.
Speaker 1: That would be a success and some degree of of progress,
Speaker 1: or at least pressure on Putin to stop interfering in
Speaker 1: American politics. We've already had these indictments. Those could be
Speaker 1: a point of strange for the president if he takes
Speaker 1: them seriously and says we have the evidence. We probably
Speaker 1: have more evidence that we haven't released yet, and we're
Speaker 1: going to do that if it will release it if
Speaker 1: we have to. That's a big problem for you. Russia
Speaker 1: needs closer economic cooperation with the US because economy is
Speaker 1: not doing very well. So if you do these kinds
Speaker 1: of things putin we will do something to be helpful
Speaker 1: to you economical, but we need evidence that you're cooperating Syria,
Speaker 1: Ukraine and backing off interference in the US. Tough order,
Speaker 1: but areas where presidential leadership could be a very positive thing.
Speaker 1: So I wish him well if he takes these kinds
Speaker 1: of positions. I hope he does Investador harmts Um, I
Speaker 1: think of the Imperial Hotel in Tokyo is a set
Speaker 1: piece of Cold War architecture. I'm standing in one right now,
Speaker 1: the acclaimed Hotel Vacuna build in nineteen fifty two, and folks,
Speaker 1: if you ever want to see the ground zero of
Speaker 1: Swedish and Scandinavian design, Bob I I assume you stayed
Speaker 1: in this hotel various semi trips. Is well, this hotel
Speaker 1: where I'm standing and brings back the nostalgia that President
Speaker 1: Trump always seeks for. Are we wrong in our nostalgia
Speaker 1: for another time, in our fading memory of the Cold
Speaker 1: War and the tensions between Russia and America. Well, I
Speaker 1: think we should bear in mind that during the Cold
Speaker 1: War we were able, in fact to work with UH
Speaker 1: then Soviet Union leaders to deal with some issues. And
Speaker 1: one issue that he can deal with, and you go
Speaker 1: back to the Cold War, the so called New Start Agreement,
Speaker 1: which is to continue to reduce nuclear capabilities on both sides.
Speaker 1: That's something that we we did to a degree during
Speaker 1: the Cold War with Start one. The other two starts
Speaker 1: didn't work so well. But now we have a New
Speaker 1: Start we could reinforce that. So we shouldn't we we do.
Speaker 1: We should not yearn for another Cold War. We're fortunately
Speaker 1: out of that period which was very dangerous, but we
Speaker 1: don't want a new Cold War. And therefore, I think
Speaker 1: it is important to bear in mind the lessons of
Speaker 1: the past and figure out ways of working now with
Speaker 1: who if he's willing to do it. But the only
Speaker 1: way to do it is to be very strong and
Speaker 1: resist his pressures in the areas that I mentioned. He
Speaker 1: understands strength, and if he sees openings for dividing the
Speaker 1: U S from its allies, the U S from the EU,
Speaker 1: fragmenting Europe, he will take advantage of. So the strength
Speaker 1: that President Trump demonstrates is going to determine whether we're
Speaker 1: able to work with the Russians successfully or not. And
Speaker 1: I hope he does show that strength because I wanted
Speaker 1: to succeed. I don't want us to go back to
Speaker 1: another Cold War. Well, let's pick up on that point.
Speaker 1: You've just mate. Um. If President puts In sees an
Speaker 1: opening to divide the rest of Europe from the United States,
Speaker 1: it's that opening there at this summit. Well, if you
Speaker 1: look at what the President has said about going it
Speaker 1: alone and his criticism of the EU and some of
Speaker 1: his criticisms of NATO, Trump may be inadvertently perhaps signaling
Speaker 1: Putin that he can divide the West, that he can
Speaker 1: divide the US from Europe. So, therefore, I think that
Speaker 1: it's important that Putin be disabused of the notion that
Speaker 1: whatever Trump has said in the past, that he can
Speaker 1: continue to pursue his divisive ways and divide the US
Speaker 1: from its friends and allies which are critical to our
Speaker 1: security and to theirs. Bubbalo mats, it's great, can't you
Speaker 1: have the really really appreciate your time here on the
Speaker 1: bloom ducks of Islands. The vice chairman of Kissing To
Speaker 1: associates with Tom Kaine in House, Saint kim My Saft,
Speaker 1: Johnathan Pharaoh in New York City, John Farrell, and I
Speaker 1: are now advantaged to have with this Charlie Saloni's pastor Neck,
Speaker 1: who is well not a military brat, but he grew
Speaker 1: up traveling the world as a banker brat. His father
Speaker 1: was a leading banker, and he lived here, he lived there,
Speaker 1: and he ended up in Middletown, Connecticut at Wesleyan University.
Speaker 1: For a guy from Finland, what was the first day
Speaker 1: on the perfect gorgeous liberal arts campus of Wesleyan University,
Speaker 1: one of the toughest ants in America. Well, I exactly.
Speaker 1: I wanted the liberal arts education because I wasn't sure
Speaker 1: what I was gonna want to be. Um, it's a
Speaker 1: little unusually in Finland, where you choose you're to be
Speaker 1: a doctor or a lawyer or whatever you're gonna do. Um,
Speaker 1: I loved it. I mean, you know, you get to
Speaker 1: work every day with brilliant people, learn read and then
Speaker 1: it's your job to see what you get out of it.
Speaker 1: Right that The theme that you studied at Wesleyan at
Speaker 1: Helsinki and your work with the Finnish Institute of International
Speaker 1: Affairs is to pick up and look forward from the
Speaker 1: Westphalian system over to a clash of civilizations. Maybe we
Speaker 1: drag in for red Zakaria in a post American or
Speaker 1: a post Finland world, and we staggered or whatever, we're
Speaker 1: staggering too brief, Mr Putin and Mr Trump? What are
Speaker 1: we staggering to right now in international relations that affects
Speaker 1: all of us? Well, well, this is just it if
Speaker 1: I if I'm looking looking at it from Helsinki right now,
Speaker 1: it is unique that the US and Russian leaders both
Speaker 1: seem hell bent, if I may use the expression to
Speaker 1: weaken and divide boding, can we say hell bent on radio?
Speaker 1: Is that? Okay? Yeah, okay, I got the big thumb up.
Speaker 1: But but both so US and Russian leaders want to
Speaker 1: divide and break up Europe and within it, maybe even
Speaker 1: the EU. That is truly unique because if you're looking
Speaker 1: at it from from across the Atlantic in the US,
Speaker 1: US global power has been built on and is dependent
Speaker 1: on these global alliances and friendships. The distinction to me is,
Speaker 1: as you correctly stay from the Atlantic, it is a
Speaker 1: coalesced Europe wrapped around the symbols of Germany, France, maybe
Speaker 1: the United Kingdom. Europe, which is a larger economy than
Speaker 1: the United States, is the Finland's the Lithuanias, et cetera
Speaker 1: of Europe. How much do we get wrong the parts
Speaker 1: in the sums of Europe. It's not just angela miracle
Speaker 1: and what she says next, well, it's it's correct, and
Speaker 1: it's a small ones that you can desperately needs something
Speaker 1: bigger to belong to, like the EU, because Finland by
Speaker 1: itself doesn't necessarily do well in the geopolitical game globally.
Speaker 1: Um I I guess if you say, is it's where
Speaker 1: you can have innovation. You can you can have small
Speaker 1: business ideas, and then you go to bigger countries to
Speaker 1: get the capital. You go to uh California or somewhere
Speaker 1: else to get capital for for ideas on clean tech,
Speaker 1: environmental stuff, so on. Can Finland become a Helsinki become
Speaker 1: their version of California. Everyone tosses around the word innovation.
Speaker 1: I met with Tyler Monaco, who's called this the most
Speaker 1: livable city in the world. A huge buzzier finner had
Speaker 1: a perfect flight up here from London. Can a California
Speaker 1: ethos come to Finland that informs Europe about entrepreneurship? I
Speaker 1: think it can. Um. There is a sense of wanting
Speaker 1: to make things better. Um it's one of my colleagues said,
Speaker 1: you know, Finns have this cross to bear, which is
Speaker 1: to improve things continuously. And that's maybe why Helsinki is
Speaker 1: such a livable city. Something may be good, but let's
Speaker 1: improve it a little bit. And that I think is
Speaker 1: one kind of startup mentality. Someone's already doing this, but
Speaker 1: let's do it a little better. I'm thunderstruck coming here
Speaker 1: as the ugly American fifty four miles to Westonia, twot
Speaker 1: two miles to St. Petersburg. In my naivete of that
Speaker 1: statue by the Helsinki Cathie rulers are Alexander. Americans were
Speaker 1: clueless about this linkage of Finland to Russia. What is it?
Speaker 1: In two thousand and eighteen. Well, we're neighbors, and as
Speaker 1: as through history and and and through the world, neighbors
Speaker 1: have to trade. You have to somehow communicate, understand what
Speaker 1: is the what are the other people thinking about? And
Speaker 1: that's not how I think most Finns view it. Trade
Speaker 1: sent as many Finnish hockey players, if they don't go
Speaker 1: to the NHL, go to the KHL, do all of
Speaker 1: this stuff, but then prepare if the day comes when
Speaker 1: when arms have to be picked up. So it's not
Speaker 1: necessarily an antagonistic one, but it is certainly a wary one.
Speaker 1: Within the trade is the issue clearly of the moment
Speaker 1: across all of these populous debates, which is migration. How
Speaker 1: is migration touched Finland. Well, broadly speaking, as we'll see,
Speaker 1: not a great deal. But of course Finland and many
Speaker 1: of the historical innovations were brought by migrants here. They
Speaker 1: had something they wanted to do and they thought Finland
Speaker 1: is a good place to do that. Uh. Now, about
Speaker 1: three years ago we did have something very unhappy happened,
Speaker 1: which is Russia quite purposefully released a set of migrants
Speaker 1: or forced them to cross the border here. Uh, kind
Speaker 1: of as a proof of concept. Saying, hey, we can
Speaker 1: release people across the border, and depending on what you do,
Speaker 1: we have millions more to go. Um. So that was
Speaker 1: a less pleasant surprise. Always say when President Trump not
Speaker 1: urgueser talks, but jaw bones if you will. About American
Speaker 1: manpower in Europe, that's troops that may be not stationed
Speaker 1: in Estonia, but they train in Estonia with British forces
Speaker 1: and and such. Explain why that presence is important in
Speaker 1: this special relationship with Russia. Why do we need American
Speaker 1: troops training in eastern Europe? Well, again, because it almost
Speaker 1: doesn't matter if anyone Washington doesn't know about Estonia or
Speaker 1: tart or telling our health and it's the US global
Speaker 1: military and trade power is dependent on these alliance networks.
Speaker 1: And if the US, let's go of one of them,
Speaker 1: shows he will not defend one ally, then across the world, Japan, China,
Speaker 1: everyone else is following from Finland's perspective, which is doing deep,
Speaker 1: deep cooperation with the US, deeper than I think most
Speaker 1: Finns even realize. It's also important because we don't belong
Speaker 1: to NATO, so you want to have potential partners everywhere
Speaker 1: in the U. S S is an obvious one. You
Speaker 1: mentioned hockey before. I've got one final question that Patrick
Speaker 1: Lane is wonderful the Finnish conversation. Contribution to the National
Speaker 1: Hockey League, to North American hockey is extraordinary. But there's
Speaker 1: a gentleman that played for the Anaheim Button but Ducks.
Speaker 1: I don't know why he had to retire. Tiamo Solani
Speaker 1: was at the peak of his game. It seemed when
Speaker 1: he retired, Boy did he go out with grace? He
Speaker 1: he did go out well and and great to see him.
Speaker 1: In fact, years ago, the first in of you ever
Speaker 1: did was with Tim Moise Helen after it was season.
Speaker 1: Uh so, yeah, great to see him and what a
Speaker 1: what a great career. The best part of this is
Speaker 1: our discussion of international relations. But frankly, the best part
Speaker 1: of this is not talking the World Cup, as I've
Speaker 1: been doing for six weeks. Charlie, thank you so much,
Speaker 1: Charlie Solanes, pastor and achis with the Finnish International Affairs
Speaker 1: John Farrell. That was one of those hockey talk How
Speaker 1: did you squeeze in ice hockey? I got ice hockey
Speaker 1: like eighty five degrees here and I got ice hockey
Speaker 1: into it. I honestly don't know what you're up to
Speaker 1: say this morning, without question, within the tensions of the
Speaker 1: Soviet Union of the past the Russian Federation of the
Speaker 1: present in the United States of America, this is the
Speaker 1: interview of the day. George Friedman, you know from Stratford
Speaker 1: and of course his work with geo political futures. But
Speaker 1: maybe there's not the George Friedman who at age seven
Speaker 1: wandered out of Hungary. Mr Friedman joins us in Austin,
Speaker 1: Texas this morning. George, what was it like when your
Speaker 1: family fled Hungry? Do you remember that as a child?
Speaker 1: I remember very little of it. The Soviets had taken
Speaker 1: over in the country. The borders are closed, mine fields everywhere,
Speaker 1: and my father was on a list to be arrested.
Speaker 1: So does either get out or get out? And we
Speaker 1: went across the Danube in a rubber boat with machine
Speaker 1: guns looking at us. Interesting time, Those are interesting times,
Speaker 1: and that it's a reality from the past. Do we
Speaker 1: need to be informed about machine guns on the Danube now?
Speaker 1: And particularly does the president need to have an understanding
Speaker 1: about about machine guns on the Danube now? Or is
Speaker 1: that a distant past. Well, the machiners aren't on Danube
Speaker 1: during the Carpathian Mountains. Potentially they're in the Polish border.
Speaker 1: But the Russia and not anywhere as strong as the
Speaker 1: Soviet Union was, and a great deal of what they
Speaker 1: do is bluff. Their economy is pretty close to shambles.
Speaker 1: The military is nothing compared to the American Uh. There
Speaker 1: is of course a feeling of this super intelligence service
Speaker 1: that hacked our elections when they stole some emails and
Speaker 1: they send some twitters and some Facebook stuff. But we
Speaker 1: need to keep this in perspective. The Russians have played
Speaker 1: their hands beautifully, making them here at a global basis
Speaker 1: that they're a major power, but they're struggling. Should we
Speaker 1: put weight to the twelve officers that have been indicted?
Speaker 1: Do you agree with Mr Mueller this is an important
Speaker 1: item or does Mr point Mr Trump have points that
Speaker 1: maybe it's overdone. Well, certainly, you know the idea of
Speaker 1: indicting foreign intelligence officers now open his door for American
Speaker 1: to tell officers to be indicted in foreign countries, which
Speaker 1: you know it'll be tips for tat. But more important,
Speaker 1: I'm really interested in wine Miller, knowing that a summit
Speaker 1: meeting was coming, chose that time to issue the indictments.
Speaker 1: He probably had a reason. He probably had a good
Speaker 1: reason why. It's part of his investigation that had to
Speaker 1: be done now. But it really reshaped the meeting between
Speaker 1: the American and Russian presidents and seems to have pushed
Speaker 1: Putin a little bit off the wall. He made a
Speaker 1: tweet this morning it was extraordinary where he said the
Speaker 1: declining relations with in the United States and Russia was
Speaker 1: due to the stupidity of American foreign policy in the past.
Speaker 1: That is a stunning statement for the President to ake
Speaker 1: on walking into Putin. That certainly puts them in a
Speaker 1: bad position to negotiate Georgia's right where I wanted to
Speaker 1: go And folks, this is why this conversation when Mr
Speaker 1: Freeman is so important. And we'll have this out on
Speaker 1: our podcast I hope later. Uh at Apple and Spotify
Speaker 1: and George Freeman. The bottom line is is Mr Pompeio
Speaker 1: asked to pick up the pieces. Now. There was a
Speaker 1: feature article full disclosure, folks, I can't remember right now
Speaker 1: the New York Times or the Washington Post today about
Speaker 1: General Maddis running essentially a separate Pentagon European policy. Can
Speaker 1: our State Department run a separate policy from the president's rhetoric,
Speaker 1: or is Mr Pompeo tied at the hip linked at
Speaker 1: the hip with the President. I would put it this way.
Speaker 1: General Madis can run a fire a separate policy because
Speaker 1: US military forces are overwhelmingly powerful, and he can do that. Uh,
Speaker 1: the United States economically is overwhelmingly props. And these are
Speaker 1: the fundamental realities. Now, how the administration organizes itself is
Speaker 1: an interesting question and an important question. But the most
Speaker 1: important thing to bear in mind is the relative power
Speaker 1: of the two countries. But it would seem very likely
Speaker 1: that the General Maddie, who has really had control over
Speaker 1: old military political dimensions of foreign policy up to this point,
Speaker 1: is it kind of running the shop of Southsian delegates
Speaker 1: if you're just joining us with us, George Freeman, Geopolitical futures, George,
Speaker 1: I want to go granular now, and I want you
Speaker 1: to inform our global audience and particularly American audience, about
Speaker 1: this area of Syria that is a focal point of
Speaker 1: tension between UH Russia between their support of Syria, between
Speaker 1: Mr Yaho and Israel, between Iran and I guess with
Speaker 1: America as well. And this is the distance of Syria
Speaker 1: from the Israeli border, and what each of these parties wants.
Speaker 1: What should America want about this most sensitive part of
Speaker 1: the Middle East. Well, put it into broader context, the
Speaker 1: Iranians have managed to take a great deal of control
Speaker 1: in Iraq. They are the dominant force in Lebanon, they
Speaker 1: have become a significant force in Yemen, and they're very
Speaker 1: powerful force in Syria. What we've been seeing is uh
Speaker 1: Iran kind of extending its power. Now it's thin on
Speaker 1: the ground, it's not really powerful if it was challenged,
Speaker 1: but it's there, and the Israelis are looking at them
Speaker 1: very close to their border, knowing that they can fire missiles,
Speaker 1: knowing that they could carry out covert operations, knowing that
Speaker 1: they can do all sorts of things. The Israelis want
Speaker 1: them back from the border. The Russians have agreed sort
Speaker 1: of that they would force them to go back from
Speaker 1: the border. But the question is how far Ten miles
Speaker 1: doesn't make any difference to a missile. The real question
Speaker 1: is here the Iranians are now threatening Israeli national security Metanya,
Speaker 1: who said yesterday that he and the president had to
Speaker 1: talk and they're very close together, and this is likely
Speaker 1: to be the major issue, there are any substantial issues
Speaker 1: at this kind of kind of disc ser I did
Speaker 1: a TV special George last week at broadcast. Folks look
Speaker 1: for it out. I'm Bloomberg Digital with Ian Bremer and
Speaker 1: Robert Kaplan, and of course we talked about Marco Polo's
Speaker 1: World and Kaplan's Duke Book and the Eurasia, which I'm
Speaker 1: going to take from the Straits of Malacca all the
Speaker 1: way around the Persian Gulf. Is there going to be
Speaker 1: a band of geography from Tehran to burn Root? I mean,
Speaker 1: is is that a new geography Americans have to get
Speaker 1: used to? Not really, we don't have to get used
Speaker 1: to it. We don't really have to decide to handle it.
Speaker 1: Ran is well, it Ran is domestically unstable. Uh. There
Speaker 1: was an uprising over the weekend Shiites throughout Iraq against
Speaker 1: the pro Iranian government. So we have to understand one.
Speaker 1: They have their footprint down. So did the Russians. To
Speaker 1: underneath it all that, I'm very strong. So what has
Speaker 1: happened is as do Wes has created, a vacuum has
Speaker 1: been filled by second grade powers. We look at all
Speaker 1: of this, watch China's response to the American trade initiative,
Speaker 1: and it's kind of weak and very nervous. The United
Speaker 1: States has to recognize the most important thing, which I
Speaker 1: think Trump sometimes it doesn't really deal with really very
Speaker 1: strong as a nation, and the one we're facing, like Russia,
Speaker 1: what's the third world power? It lives off of export
Speaker 1: oil and it can't control its price. Iran can spread
Speaker 1: if there's no one resisting it, but it can easily
Speaker 1: be rolled back. And the Chinese have their own powers.
Speaker 1: So I regard this Eurasian thing as a coalition of
Speaker 1: the week. They could get together. They can do these things.
Speaker 1: But uh, in the end, once the United States becomes
Speaker 1: coherent in its policy, there's no question that the guys
Speaker 1: in the back is well. This sounds like a conversation
Speaker 1: to continue. George Freeman just brilliant on this Elsinki and
Speaker 1: the submit. I want to bring in Chris Granville. He
Speaker 1: is a managing director for EMA and global political research
Speaker 1: for TS Lombardimi of course Europe, Middle Eastern Africa. He
Speaker 1: joins US from London. Chris Granville, thanks very much for
Speaker 1: being with us. UM you've you've said that you believe
Speaker 1: that the chances of Britain crashing out of the European
Speaker 1: Union without a deal are negligible. Why do you say that? Hi?
Speaker 1: There what It's a simple observation about the parliamentary arithmetic.
Speaker 1: The there is no majority in the House of Commons,
Speaker 1: the UK Parliament, that is, that would ever support a disorderly,
Speaker 1: crash out style of UK Brexit. On the contrary, there's
Speaker 1: a guaranteed majority that if the worst came to the worst,
Speaker 1: would stop that happening. So whatever whatever else could happen,
Speaker 1: there will be lots of political noise. There could be
Speaker 1: changes of leadership, changes the Prime minister, even changes of government,
Speaker 1: but that will not happen. So in our view, the
Speaker 1: volatility of in the FX markets, so the pounds sterling
Speaker 1: perhaps in why the UK assets is on the one
Speaker 1: hand inevitable because there will be even higher levels of
Speaker 1: political noise on the domestic UK scene than we've already
Speaker 1: been seeing in the coming months until March next year,
Speaker 1: which is the deadline for the Brexit process. But that
Speaker 1: noise will not lead to a true economic and financial shock,
Speaker 1: so there will be buying opportunities along the way. That's
Speaker 1: that's how we look at it, Okay, But but you
Speaker 1: make it sound as if Britain has complete control over
Speaker 1: the process, where by the European Union surely has a
Speaker 1: voice in how this works out. Good question, and I
Speaker 1: should have added that important detail. If the UK Parliament
Speaker 1: refuses to ratify whatever version of the Withdrawal Agreement, that
Speaker 1: is the treaty instrument by which the UK would leave
Speaker 1: the European Union, then um the same UK Parliament that
Speaker 1: refused to ratify that agreement would then instruct with governments
Speaker 1: to to avoid a crash out in March, and the
Speaker 1: obvious way to avoid it would be for the UK
Speaker 1: government to request an extension of the two year deadline
Speaker 1: under the famous Article fifty of the European Union treaty.
Speaker 1: So that is, a departing member state and member states
Speaker 1: who wishes to depart notify as the European Union of
Speaker 1: its wish gets two years to prepare. And now as you,
Speaker 1: as your question implies, any such requests from the UK
Speaker 1: would need to be accepted by the other side, which
Speaker 1: is the other seven remaining member states of the European Union.
Speaker 1: So an important part of our argument is that in
Speaker 1: those extreme circumstances, we're talking about remote scenarios here, and
Speaker 1: the mainstream is just a smooth brexit in name only
Speaker 1: going into a stand still transition lasting a couple of years.
Speaker 1: But in this remote scenario, then the other Member states
Speaker 1: would certainly agree to an extension because a crash out
Speaker 1: of the UK and disorderly circumstances would be for the
Speaker 1: EU to allow that to happen despite the UK request
Speaker 1: that it should not happen, would be an actors self
Speaker 1: harm and they won't do that. A theme that I'll
Speaker 1: be honest, folks, I didn't have until I got to
Speaker 1: Finland is that we have a very three nations centric
Speaker 1: view of Europe Germany, France, United Kingdom. And you come
Speaker 1: to Finland and you really have in your face, folks,
Speaker 1: the periphery in the many other nations of Europe. Do
Speaker 1: they have a big voice in the Brexit EU debate?
Speaker 1: I mean in Brussels, is it about waiting to see
Speaker 1: what chance or miracle wants or Mr McCraw or does
Speaker 1: Finland actually have power within the Brexit debate? Well in
Speaker 1: the in when it comes down to dramatic and extreme
Speaker 1: scenarios like the one I just mentioned Tom, then yes,
Speaker 1: because the unanimous assent of all Member states would be necessary.
Speaker 1: So even smaller countries like Finland, and Finland, by the way,
Speaker 1: is by no means the smallest member states, and the
Speaker 1: think of Cyprus or even Marta, but they would all
Speaker 1: have a voice and they would all have to be
Speaker 1: taken seriously in their concerns, if they had any concerns
Speaker 1: they wished, would need to be listened to. But in
Speaker 1: the day to day negotiations and in the Brexit process,
Speaker 1: it's also the case that smaller, smaller countries have an
Speaker 1: important weight, and in particularly the Republic of Ireland by
Speaker 1: any standards, a small member state of the European Union,
Speaker 1: but one who's vital interests are involved in the Brexit process,
Speaker 1: and the interests of the Republic of Ireland are being
Speaker 1: firmly defended by the central EU negotiatives in Brussels, because
Speaker 1: the EU will always want to show that it will
Speaker 1: stand up for its numbers, and this is certainly doing.
Speaker 1: The Netherlands is a slightly less extreme example, but the Netherlands,
Speaker 1: again a smaller state which would be at risk of
Speaker 1: severe We've got Chris Grantville, We've got to leave it there. Emia,
Speaker 1: Global political research director for t S. Lombard, speaking from London,
Speaker 1: HMM Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg Surveillance podcast. Subscribe
Speaker 1: and listen to interviews on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, or whichever
Speaker 1: podcast platform you prefer. I'm on Twitter at Tom Keene
Speaker 1: before the podcast. You can always catch us worldwide. I'm
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Radio