Speaker 1: Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, Radio News.
Speaker 2: Welcome to the City of London, the.
Speaker 3: City of the City, the City of London.
Speaker 2: Bank.
Speaker 1: Please mind the gap.
Speaker 2: Between the true and the the financial hearts of the country,
Speaker 2: the city, the City.
Speaker 3: Welcome to in the city.
Speaker 2: Stand clear of the doors.
Speaker 1: So what does a Trump victory mean for UK US relations?
Speaker 1: So welcome to the City of Podcasts from Bloomberg about
Speaker 1: the story is important to the City of London. I'm
Speaker 1: Francis Laqua and I'm alecro Stratton, and I like where
Speaker 1: the relationship between the US and the UK has really
Speaker 1: always been described as a special one.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and people just keep readefining special. It's like sometimes
Speaker 3: it's showed shoulders something. Times it's Blair and Bush with
Speaker 3: them with you know, hands in pockets.
Speaker 1: And so we have this new special relationship like gra
Speaker 1: in the hands of Donald Trump and Prime Minister Cure Starmer.
Speaker 3: Yeah, they have to redefine it for yet another generation.
Speaker 3: It's going to be very, very challenging for Kirs. Darmer
Speaker 3: his team have made big efforts to reach out to
Speaker 3: Trump's team. Let's see how they now work in practice.
Speaker 3: But I think you have to credit them with the attempt.
Speaker 3: I would not get too head up on the one
Speaker 3: hundred labor activists going over to America's campaign. I think
Speaker 3: it was ill advised, but it's happened. I think now
Speaker 3: the question is how the UK navigates the threat of tariffs.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think it's undeniable and agree that the UK
Speaker 1: probably needs the US some kind of special relationship. So
Speaker 1: how could this new relationship change given the new leadership
Speaker 1: on both sides of the Atlantic. That's the question we'll
Speaker 1: try to address on today's show. And we're lucky enough
Speaker 1: to be joined by Sir Nigel Shinwald. He has served
Speaker 1: US for an policy and defense advisor to the Prime
Speaker 1: Minister from two thousand and three to two thousand and seven,
Speaker 1: and then he be the UK Ambassador to the US
Speaker 1: from two thousand and seven to twenty twelve. Ambassador Seinvaul,
Speaker 1: thank you so much for joining us. I mean it's
Speaker 1: a pretty extraordinary political comeback, probably the biggest surprise in
Speaker 1: recent history. What do you attribute that to?
Speaker 2: Well, he has an amazing campaigning style and record now
Speaker 2: and feeds into this selfishness and insularity in many publics
Speaker 2: around the developed world since the recession, and probably enhanced
Speaker 2: by enhanced by COVID and fanned by social media. So
Speaker 2: it's a different political and media world from the one
Speaker 2: and we have completely adjusted to that reality. We see
Speaker 2: a version of it here in Europe, here in Britain
Speaker 2: and elsewhere in Western Europe. And it's true that in Europe,
Speaker 2: unlike in twenty sixteen, there are a few countries where
Speaker 2: the dominant party is on the populace right. So things
Speaker 2: have changed. Europe is still in a different position where
Speaker 2: the traditional right is still mostly in charge or traditional
Speaker 2: left parties. You know, this is a wake up call
Speaker 2: to everyone in the center of Democrat politics.
Speaker 1: But is this really a love of Trump policies maybe
Speaker 1: going also towards more masculine traits for you know, the
Speaker 1: young white but even lautin on black voters, or is
Speaker 1: it a repudiation of the Harris message, especially in these
Speaker 1: northern industrial states known as a blue one.
Speaker 2: I think it shows that the economic and social issues
Speaker 2: trump the political Trump trump the political ones for the
Speaker 2: time being. So among Democrat voters, the issue of democracy
Speaker 2: and the future of democracy clearly was a big issue
Speaker 2: that it doesn't seem to have been a big issue
Speaker 2: for the rest of the public. So the fact for
Speaker 2: me that the Democrats, you know, lost on the economy,
Speaker 2: and lost big on the economy, and weren't able to
Speaker 2: make more of the fact that the US economy has
Speaker 2: recovering and is in many is in any cases now
Speaker 2: and in future in a very position, something we in
Speaker 2: Europe rather envy. I think that ultimately is what lost
Speaker 2: for the race, and the fact that immigration was never
Speaker 2: a subject on which the Democrats were trying to be
Speaker 2: competitive because of her personal weakness on that subject, and
Speaker 2: because the Trump and the Republicans had bagged that as
Speaker 2: an issue. I'm reluctant to go into the detail of
Speaker 2: mail voters and all the rest of it. I don't
Speaker 2: know that will well hold up in the end. I'm
Speaker 2: sure there's something in all of that, but I go
Speaker 2: back to fundamentals that Kamala Harris as a campaigner did
Speaker 2: much better this time in twenty twenty. But she's not
Speaker 2: a star perform and there are weaknesses in her offering
Speaker 2: to the to the public, which meant that there was
Speaker 2: a sort of limit to how far she could go.
Speaker 2: And it's a surprise today because the over the weekend
Speaker 2: polls looked much more balanced but at this time last week,
Speaker 2: I think most people were looking at this sort of
Speaker 2: victory for although not in the popular vote. I think
Speaker 2: that's the big surprise that he came through so strongly
Speaker 2: as across the country.
Speaker 3: I mean, you're right, You're right, Nigel. The inquest is
Speaker 3: already starting on the Democrat side. Some people this morning
Speaker 3: saying this is this is more difficult for them to
Speaker 3: process and digest than the Clinton loss. It is similar
Speaker 3: in terms of these questions around is America ready for
Speaker 3: a female president and so on, questions we can't answer
Speaker 3: or hope to answer right now. But what's your sense
Speaker 3: of whether there was anything they could do up against Trump?
Speaker 2: I think the best chance would have been Biden doing
Speaker 2: what he said, what he hinted he would do in
Speaker 2: twenty twenty, and that is making clear halfway through his
Speaker 2: term that he wasn't going to stand again and having
Speaker 2: a genuine competition among Democrats for who might come through.
Speaker 2: And I don't think it's necessarily the case that Kamala
Speaker 2: Harris would have done. I mean, it was a it
Speaker 2: was a dunge deal in July. The only way to
Speaker 2: salvage the situation in July was to put his vice
Speaker 2: president upfront. But you know, plainly there are others themselves,
Speaker 2: largely untested on the on the biggest stage, who might
Speaker 2: who might have come through and developed a rapport with
Speaker 2: the American people be able to deal with Trump. But
Speaker 2: I repeat, he's clearly exceptionally difficult to deal with on
Speaker 2: the campaign trail. And you know what's extraordinary this time
Speaker 2: is more what has happened in between. And if you
Speaker 2: go from the sixth of January today, that's the that's
Speaker 2: that's the the issue which founds Europeans and many others around.
Speaker 3: The world, and that's that's why people are feeling it
Speaker 3: is more challenging to the Democrat mindset than the Hillary
Speaker 3: Clinton loss, because then it was, well, shucks, what you're
Speaker 3: going to do. You're up against a famous TV presenter,
Speaker 3: is so so, you know, fresh and direct and all
Speaker 3: of this, whereas now it's you know, he has been
Speaker 3: in court as much as he's been on the campaign trail,
Speaker 3: and yet still this this clear victory.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Absolutely, I mean, I think that most of the
Speaker 2: things which have been proven in court cases, whether they've
Speaker 2: been tried or just initiated. People sensed about Trump in
Speaker 2: twenty sixteen and twenty twenty as well. It's true that
Speaker 2: there's much more on the record than the more, but
Speaker 2: they sensed this about him. They you know, it was there,
Speaker 2: and the public you know, deliberately shows those who voted
Speaker 2: for him in twenty twenty, the victory in twenty sixteen,
Speaker 2: They shows someone with that sort of character fundamentally different
Speaker 2: from the presidential character that you traditionally associate with, you know,
Speaker 2: with the with the US. The other thing I'd say is,
Speaker 2: you know, the Hillary Clinton was winning clearly, winning by
Speaker 2: a month out in twenty I mean, Kamala Harris was
Speaker 2: never clearly in the lead extended period. She was always
Speaker 2: coming from behind Nidel.
Speaker 1: What does this all mean for allies of the US? So, again,
Speaker 1: because Donald Trump will have a cinemajority, he'll probably easily
Speaker 1: clear his nominees the cabinet for the FED and so
Speaker 1: policies will be implemented as he wants them. What does
Speaker 1: that mean for the UK US relationship?
Speaker 2: Well, I'm going to take one step back and just
Speaker 2: go back to the last time round him, and I
Speaker 2: agree with you. The implication of your question is that
Speaker 2: there was a different type of cabinet officer last time,
Speaker 2: and that's true. There were grown ups around in the
Speaker 2: first term, Rex Tillerson, General Mattis, people in the National
Speaker 2: Security Advisor slot who had a great deal of experience
Speaker 2: and for much much more of the political experienced political center,
Speaker 2: fair enough, but when it came to the big decisions,
Speaker 2: they didn't actually get Trump to change his views. Even
Speaker 2: his daughter didn't get him to change his views on climate.
Speaker 2: He went ahead with his recognition of Jerusalem, he got
Speaker 2: out of the IARM Deal, his confrontational stance on many issues,
Speaker 2: and denigration of many European leaders and of NATO. That
Speaker 2: all went on. Admittedly he didn't leave NATO, and certainly
Speaker 2: that's going to be the case for the future. That
Speaker 2: will be a battle for in the months ahead. But
Speaker 2: for the UK government you've seen already some inkling of
Speaker 2: how they'll try to deal with this to some degree
Speaker 2: with his own base, Kirstan was taking a bit of
Speaker 2: a risk by having dinner for two hours with Trump
Speaker 2: in New York a couple of months ago, but that
Speaker 2: was absolutely the right thing to do, as it was
Speaker 2: for David Cameron to try and talk Trump through Ukraine
Speaker 2: a little bit earlier in the year. So I think
Speaker 2: that is right, it's inevitable that they should try, but
Speaker 2: particularly with the prospect of a Trump unbound and fewer
Speaker 2: balancing voices in the administration around him, and a much
Speaker 2: more vengeful Trump than was the case in twenty In
Speaker 2: twenty seventeen, I think that you know that here in
Speaker 2: the UK and around the rest of Western Europe, people
Speaker 2: have got to be a little bit cautious and careful.
Speaker 2: I think of the leaders who tried to deal with
Speaker 2: him last time around, the one who emerged with the
Speaker 2: greatest credit was Angela Merkel. She wasn't openly hostile, but
Speaker 2: she just stepped back a bit and said, look, I'm
Speaker 2: not going to play the game of romance. So I
Speaker 2: think an element of distance is correct working out our
Speaker 2: own interests, and the big fundamental issue for the UK,
Speaker 2: I think is accelerating our reset with Europe. There are
Speaker 2: some political constraints on that, inevitably after the Brexit decision
Speaker 2: eight years or so ago, but that I think is
Speaker 2: where he's going to put Kis starmanis to put his
Speaker 2: foot on the accelerator and particularly in the defense and
Speaker 2: security area, really work much more closely with the other Europeans.
Speaker 3: Do you talk deliquently about the diplomacy and the politics,
Speaker 3: but what about the economics. I mean, this morning feels
Speaker 3: to me like a very expensive morning for the UK
Speaker 3: because you've got you know, we had a budget last
Speaker 3: week and she hasn't she the Chancellor hasn't got much headroom.
Speaker 3: And yet we now know that we are more likely
Speaker 3: to have tariffs. Of course, the exact nature of them
Speaker 3: is now you know, to be seen, but that will
Speaker 3: be expensive for the UK unless we're very lucky. And
Speaker 3: then secondly, he Donald Trump will want an increase in
Speaker 3: defense spending and I don't see that they've got the
Speaker 3: space to be able to do that increase.
Speaker 2: Well, they're going to try and do some increase in
Speaker 2: penn spending. George Robertson, as you know, is doing this
Speaker 2: Defense review which will be published early next year, and
Speaker 2: it's inconceivable that he won't recommend some form of defense.
Speaker 2: They've trying to do a little bit more already in
Speaker 2: the in last week's pod. Yet I agree it's a
Speaker 2: hugely constrained area and with so many other demands which
Speaker 2: are higher on people's agendas, health and education and all
Speaker 2: the rest of it, that is going to be a
Speaker 2: scrap inside government. Of course, you know, defense spending, by
Speaker 2: comparison with the other big demands on public services, you know,
Speaker 2: is a more manageable entry. But I agree with you
Speaker 2: your your fundamental point. But the UK already is spending
Speaker 2: about two and a half percent of GDP on defense,
Speaker 2: so we're not the ones most in the American spotlight.
Speaker 2: And I agree with you on tariffs, obviously, I think
Speaker 2: he will pick and choose on tariffs. He will try
Speaker 2: and divide and rule and cause a great deal of
Speaker 2: disunity and trouble within the European pack. I don't know
Speaker 2: whether we would therefore be given a little bit more leeway.
Speaker 2: I just don't know. I agree with you that the
Speaker 2: net result of any tariffs is going to be bad,
Speaker 2: actually for both sides, will be bad for the American
Speaker 2: consumer and the American public as well as as well
Speaker 2: as for US. But I think that's an area where
Speaker 2: he does have some flexibility and there will be an
Speaker 2: element of differentiating which, you know, which in the Trump
Speaker 2: world is bound to be fairly erratic and personal and
Speaker 2: aggressively and aggressively done.
Speaker 1: What's the right way of dealing with Donald Trump? So
Speaker 1: one of the first things he said that you know
Speaker 1: he would do as president, would be to negotiate a
Speaker 1: peace deal with Russia on Ukraine. How does the Prime
Speaker 1: Minister Starmer deal with that?
Speaker 2: Well, I think the broad answer to the question and
Speaker 2: is respectfully and working out how to argue these cases
Speaker 2: according to American interests as well as well as our own.
Speaker 2: You've got to present it to him as being not
Speaker 2: just the sort of European morally better choice, but it's
Speaker 2: having a positive impact on American interests. And I think
Speaker 2: you can explain that that no one is against ultimately
Speaker 2: doing a deal which ends the war. But I think
Speaker 2: you'll find that any sort of balance deal is going
Speaker 2: to be a very difficult with the Ukrainians. We all
Speaker 2: know that. But I'm not sure that he's correctly calculated
Speaker 2: if he thinks he can do it in a day
Speaker 2: what the Rushia would, because there's no sign that for
Speaker 2: putin anything other than abjects surrender by Ukraine is on
Speaker 2: the cards in terms of his own political position. And
Speaker 2: I think, you know, kids Starmer and others will have
Speaker 2: to explain to Donald Trump, and I'm sure there'll be
Speaker 2: lots of in the US too explained to him just
Speaker 2: how toxic that would be for American positions and reputations,
Speaker 2: whether or not they want to be a leading player
Speaker 2: in future NATO or whatever. But I think it will
Speaker 2: just affect his leadership position in the world, which I
Speaker 2: think in a sort of way he wants. He wants
Speaker 2: to have it both ways. He doesn't want to have
Speaker 2: people saying we don't care about you, you're not a leader.
Speaker 2: He likes the attention, likes to be deferred to. And
Speaker 2: I think we've got we've got to try our best
Speaker 2: to do two things. Number one, increase the European contribution
Speaker 2: on to NATO and to Ukraine. Assume more of even
Speaker 2: more of the leadership. Actually it's about half and half today,
Speaker 2: it's not all America, so we need to do more
Speaker 2: of that. But at the same time, keep America in
Speaker 2: the game for the long run. And if they are
Speaker 2: negotiating with Russia, do it in conjunction with NATO allies
Speaker 2: and with Ukraine above all with Ukraine itself, and try
Speaker 2: and try and work out the best, the best the
Speaker 2: way through are genuinely acceptable deal in terms which Trump
Speaker 2: himself might might might understand and warm too.
Speaker 3: I mean, Nigel, with with your with your with your
Speaker 3: diplomatic ambassadorial hat on. People have been saying the first
Speaker 3: press conference between a convicted president, if that's the sort
Speaker 3: of a way to put it. But you know, the Starmer,
Speaker 3: prime minister who used to be in charge of the
Speaker 3: CPS standing shoulder to shoulder with Donald Trump at the
Speaker 3: press conference. We don't know when it will happen. It
Speaker 3: maybe not be for a very long time, but it
Speaker 3: will come. You know, the journalists on that day will
Speaker 3: have a field day sort of trying to point up
Speaker 3: the differences in disposition and character and so on. But
Speaker 3: do you think there is a credible relations special relationship?
Speaker 3: Do you think you know there is a there is
Speaker 3: a you know, Prime Minister Starmer making himself If not
Speaker 3: genuine friend of President Trump, then then useful.
Speaker 2: I think useful. Yes, I think it's unlikely to be
Speaker 2: a genuine friend of Donald Trump. I don't think Boris
Speaker 2: Johnson was that.
Speaker 3: It was a complicated relationship, Borison and brilliant.
Speaker 2: It was close. And I think that that there's there's
Speaker 2: every chance that Keir Starmer will be listened to. He's
Speaker 2: going to be in power for five years. He's in
Speaker 2: a very stable position himself, He's not of the same
Speaker 2: political persuasions as Trump by any means, but I think
Speaker 2: he he's a centrist, and I don't see any reason
Speaker 2: why they shouldn't have a good working relationship. When the
Speaker 2: term special relationship is used, it's supposed to mean more
Speaker 2: than that. It's supposed to mean that each side sort
Speaker 2: of picks up the phone on a regular basis, that
Speaker 2: there's an underlying or appor on values and the sort
Speaker 2: of worldview. That's much more difficult with Trump in any case,
Speaker 2: I would say the specialness of the special relationship historically
Speaker 2: has been waiting for his heyday under Churchill those years ago,
Speaker 2: and Brexit has changed it. That has made the UK
Speaker 2: a less consequential a life of the United States, less
Speaker 2: able to perform that bridging rule. So things are changing
Speaker 2: anyway in the overall, regardless of the personalities.
Speaker 1: It's very difficult, I guess, to you know, think about
Speaker 1: the special relationship. If we start by saying that Donald
Speaker 1: Trump wants only loyalists in the cabinet, you wonder whether
Speaker 1: his allies need to also be one hundred percent loyal
Speaker 1: to the Trump policeason, the Trump agenda, And then it
Speaker 1: includes how to deal with China how to deal with
Speaker 1: even you know, in North Carolina direction.
Speaker 3: And I think that's right Brant, and we are we
Speaker 3: are unclear at sitting in London right now, which way,
Speaker 3: for instance, at Milliband will come down on that question
Speaker 3: of tarifs on Chinese cars, where the Europeans have been
Speaker 3: very clear and Donald Trump will be wanting to see
Speaker 3: clarity in firmness. I think for me, you know, clearly,
Speaker 3: remember it wasn't long ago when President now President elect
Speaker 3: Trump then Candidate Trump was you know, he understands politics
Speaker 3: and power and as you say, Nigel, he could see
Speaker 3: that kiss Armer had got a thumping majority. So lots
Speaker 3: and lots. But I think that the wrinkle for me
Speaker 3: is if you look at the fights that have then
Speaker 3: forget about one hundred labor activists going over to the
Speaker 3: States in the war over the battle, the legal battle
Speaker 3: about whether that was very long, the Elon Musk and
Speaker 3: the fact that kiss Armer and Elon Musk are you
Speaker 3: know at loggerheads. That I think is troubling.
Speaker 1: But I guess the question is, you know, in Nigel,
Speaker 1: what does the UK need the US for?
Speaker 2: Right?
Speaker 1: Do they just need to make sure they don't make
Speaker 1: an enemy of Donald Trump or do they actually need
Speaker 1: active policies for the UK And what does that mean
Speaker 1: for the UK's foreign policy agenda.
Speaker 2: Well, Brexit means the whole terms that in foreign policy,
Speaker 2: in the world, insecurity, the United States has become more
Speaker 2: important to the UK than ever before. I'm afraid the
Speaker 2: bare fact, you know, we've severed our institutional links with Europe.
Speaker 2: We're trying to rebuild them very very slowly at the moment.
Speaker 2: So I think America looms looms larger as a result
Speaker 2: of our own decision in twenty sixteen over over the EU.
Speaker 2: So it remains important to us. It's always been in
Speaker 2: ourn equal relationship in many ways. So I think he
Speaker 2: has to stick at it and will stick at it,
Speaker 2: as he's shown already. And no doubt Alegra's right that
Speaker 2: in front of the microphones and the press corps, you know,
Speaker 2: that would be uneasy to some degree. But I'm sure
Speaker 2: kist On will just say I have to deal with
Speaker 2: the president the public elects. And he's been very, very
Speaker 2: sure footed, you know that, despite the misstep of the
Speaker 2: of the Labor Party a few weeks ago in that
Speaker 2: and making that announcement. I think they'll get over that
Speaker 2: very very fast. But operationally it does depend a bit
Speaker 2: on the Cabinet office. The cabinet members are, you know,
Speaker 2: the relationships down the line with the Foreign Secretary of
Speaker 2: the Foreign Office, Treasury and all the rest of it,
Speaker 2: and that may be much more difficult with the sort
Speaker 2: of people that Trump may put in to these to
Speaker 2: these roles. The role of National Security Advisor is that
Speaker 2: in that full current position in the administration, linking up
Speaker 2: with number ten in a in an idequal world, and
Speaker 2: you know, the person doing that role, if they don't
Speaker 2: have a natural sense for working with allies and consulting
Speaker 2: people and giving people their heads up, that's going to
Speaker 2: be highly problematic.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean, it's sort of in turns funny and
Speaker 3: also very very concerning the kind of Elon Musk gissed
Speaker 3: on a sort of war of words that we start
Speaker 3: started over the summer, over the over the riots, and
Speaker 3: then since are sort of morphed into Musk has clearly
Speaker 3: taken it upon himself to call out a number of
Speaker 3: things that the labor activists and labor say against the
Speaker 3: backdrop of David Lammy manfully, you know, putting a lot
Speaker 3: of effort into building bridges with Trump and the Trump team.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and JD. Vans and all the rest of it.
Speaker 2: And no, absolutely, look, I mean Musk and Kennedy. Know
Speaker 2: the idea of Kennedy is the American Health Secretary or
Speaker 2: healthsar that should you know, legitimately strike fear into into
Speaker 2: people's hearts. So we'll see where he goes with those two.
Speaker 2: I mean, I let's see. I can't quite see on
Speaker 2: Mass sitting in an office dutifully being a cabinet member.
Speaker 2: But you know we can. We've been supported where he is.
Speaker 2: He won't do that.
Speaker 3: He'll do it in his own way, and that's even
Speaker 3: more worry almost better if he did sort of, you know,
Speaker 3: put on a suit and do what he's told. But
Speaker 3: if he if he does a job, then he'll probably
Speaker 3: do it in a nelon mosk way.
Speaker 2: Yeah, probably do it from space. I think that's what
Speaker 2: we should.
Speaker 1: Yeah, no suits, different type of suit. Yeah, Nije Fall,
Speaker 1: thank you so much for joining us. Thank you, thanks
Speaker 1: for listening to this week's in the City from Bloomberg.
Speaker 1: This episode was hosted by Meat franc In LaQuan with
Speaker 1: Legra Stratton. It was produced by Summer Saudi production support
Speaker 1: from Moses and dam and sound designed by Blake Maples Britain.
Speaker 1: Francis Newman is our executive Producerman is Head of Podcasts
Speaker 1: Special thanks to Sir Nigel Scheinfeldt. Please subscribe, rate, and
Speaker 1: review wherever you listen to podcasts