Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. I'm Tom Keene with
Speaker 1: David Gura. Daily we bring you insight from the best
Speaker 1: of economics, finance, investment, and international relations. Find Bloomberg Surveillance
Speaker 1: on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, Bloomberg dot Com, and of course,
Speaker 1: on the Bloomberg Bruce castmans I said, joining us here
Speaker 1: in our bloombergod levon three studios. He's the chief economist
Speaker 1: at JP Morgan. Great to have you with us, and
Speaker 1: I wonder if we could just start with your forecast
Speaker 1: for for global growth. We were oh, I thought you
Speaker 1: were gonna start bitcointka, Well, fair enough, We'll go, oh yeah,
Speaker 1: two blocks, you can wind our way to that baby
Speaker 1: enough fair enough. Uh. We were focused on what the
Speaker 1: im from the World Bank concluded. We're saying last week
Speaker 1: while Tom was in Wahington, d C. How's your forecast changed,
Speaker 1: if at all, and what's your out look here as
Speaker 1: we as we had two So we've been upbeat and
Speaker 1: we've been basically looking for a transition as we moved
Speaker 1: through the middle of this year from an economy that
Speaker 1: was getting some benefits from just fading the drags that
Speaker 1: hit us in two thousand fourteen and emerging markets in
Speaker 1: the commodity space to one where we have a more
Speaker 1: organic business led recovery is behavior combines with supportive financial conditions,
Speaker 1: sentiment rising and starts to be synchronized across the world.
Speaker 1: And the good news is that's exactly what we see happening.
Speaker 1: I think the big news in the last few months
Speaker 1: is a pick up in business spending. The capex story
Speaker 1: is looking good, and the breath of that I think
Speaker 1: carrying across the world. There's a tempering force I think
Speaker 1: from China, which we do think is slowing into the
Speaker 1: second half of the year, but I don't think it's
Speaker 1: gonna hurt things too badly. Uh And I think the
Speaker 1: outlook looks bright and I think it's helped, of course
Speaker 1: by the fact that at this stage we don't have
Speaker 1: a central bank inflation issue, but that is looming. I
Speaker 1: think labor markets keep tightening. I think we do have
Speaker 1: a problem that markets are very complacent about where central
Speaker 1: banks have to go. But the good news is I
Speaker 1: don't think that's a story for the next two or
Speaker 1: three months. I think it is a story as we
Speaker 1: look out for the next twelve eighteen months. Fair to say,
Speaker 1: a theme of those annual meetings with global inflation, low
Speaker 1: inflation globally, and I wonder sort of how unique it
Speaker 1: is in each part of the world. Is there is
Speaker 1: there something unifying the low inflation that we're seeing. Well,
Speaker 1: I think there's a structural set of stories here around globalization,
Speaker 1: around the idea that UM technology is helping keep prices low.
Speaker 1: But I think there's a business cycle story that's working here.
Speaker 1: I think you can see it in the pipeline, you
Speaker 1: can see it in the commodity markets. Uh. You can
Speaker 1: also see the labor market tightening continuing here. So I
Speaker 1: think the balance here is that we're in a low
Speaker 1: inflation world. We've been in a low inflation world really
Speaker 1: for two decades right now, at least in the advanced
Speaker 1: economies UM. But I do think the arrow is pointing
Speaker 1: modestly higher here, and it's pointing modestly higher of course
Speaker 1: in a world and with central bank policies are still
Speaker 1: super accommodative, and that's the tension here. The saving grace
Speaker 1: would be if we get the business spending pick up
Speaker 1: provide a productivity boost, and I think there is a
Speaker 1: bit of that happening. I just wouldn't count on that
Speaker 1: so much to to offset the natural dynamics of what
Speaker 1: we have, which is a strong demand picture with still
Speaker 1: pretty weak supply picture around it. What's holding that back
Speaker 1: domestically as you see it or as you you think
Speaker 1: about what might be beholding it back? Of course, Kevin
Speaker 1: Hassets from the Council of Economic Advisor suggesting that UH
Speaker 1: tax reform would be the thing that would catalyze a
Speaker 1: big change there, laying out his case that you know,
Speaker 1: corporate tax reform would would change a whole lot, including
Speaker 1: the situation for a lot of people here in the US.
Speaker 1: How much of a catalyst do you think that would be?
Speaker 1: What would it take to to get that soft data,
Speaker 1: to move the hard data to to get that optimism
Speaker 1: to translate to companies spending more or hiring more. Well,
Speaker 1: I think we are seeing companies spending more. I think
Speaker 1: the hiring picture has been good and will continue to
Speaker 1: be good. So I think the question is what can
Speaker 1: we do to catalyze an improvement in an underlying productivity
Speaker 1: perhaps labor supply as well. I think if we had
Speaker 1: good reform on the tax front, I think we could
Speaker 1: generate some of that. I think sometimes people overestimate the
Speaker 1: benefits of that from the supply side relative to the
Speaker 1: demand side influence. And that's I think the problem here
Speaker 1: is we have an economy operating in full employment right now.
Speaker 1: So I think you have to be careful here and
Speaker 1: not to push too much on the demand side and
Speaker 1: focus more on supply side evidence. I think in the
Speaker 1: tax reform debate here we've shifted from a Republican plan
Speaker 1: that you know, a year ago looked like very heavily
Speaker 1: on reform and now is shifting much more towards talking
Speaker 1: basically about tax cuts. Brice Casman with JP Morgan, David
Speaker 1: Kerran time Keene said, good morning to all of you
Speaker 1: across Yankees America. What a great games. Actually watched too much.
Speaker 1: I love this five o'clock start. It's a great and
Speaker 1: beautiful thing, like, oh look the seventh inning. I could
Speaker 1: watch it, don't you agree? Oh yeah. When I was
Speaker 1: a kid, we used to have day games in the
Speaker 1: World Series, and uh, these ideas of starting the games
Speaker 1: at eight and going on to midnight or one. I
Speaker 1: mean I remember veda pencon of the Cincinnati where and
Speaker 1: so it was one of my heroes, I believe against
Speaker 1: Tony Quebec in the New York Yankees, and you could
Speaker 1: actually watch it as a kid. How novel and I
Speaker 1: idea which goes you know, which frankly goes into the
Speaker 1: work week that we're in right now. We so someone
Speaker 1: have two America's. We have an America working seventy yards
Speaker 1: a week and we got an America working twenty two
Speaker 1: point four hours a week. That's not healthy, is it? No? What?
Speaker 1: What what you're saying? I think is what's not healthy here,
Speaker 1: primarily is we have a labor force where we still
Speaker 1: have underutilized resources in some places which don't look easy
Speaker 1: to access in an economy in which we were they
Speaker 1: always there back to seventeen seventies six. Is that always
Speaker 1: been the case or is it really unique this time around.
Speaker 1: I'm not familiar with the data for the eighteenth century,
Speaker 1: but I do back. I'm sure I'm sure if we
Speaker 1: had my care he would be able to pine on that.
Speaker 1: But I do think something that has happened in the
Speaker 1: last ten to teen years, which is pretty important, is
Speaker 1: how low the participation rate has become. Some of that
Speaker 1: is the demographics. It's people like us Tom who are
Speaker 1: getting older and leaving the workforce, But the participation rate
Speaker 1: of prime age mails has gone down in a way
Speaker 1: which I think is unfortunately, uh, you know, partly reflecting
Speaker 1: the forces of disruptions in the economy, people on disability,
Speaker 1: things like that, which structurally is not not a good
Speaker 1: thing for the economy. David, here's an email from l
Speaker 1: from New Jersey leaving the workforce good idea. I mentioned
Speaker 1: China a few moments ago. We had to kick off
Speaker 1: of this Party Congress a few hours ago. What are
Speaker 1: you listening for? Is all of this as this plays
Speaker 1: out invasion? We had the opening speech from the Chinese premier.
Speaker 1: What are you gonna be listening for when it comes
Speaker 1: to policy? What are you gonna look for signs of
Speaker 1: how changes to policy, continuation to policy is going to
Speaker 1: be telegraphed. Well, I think we have to look at
Speaker 1: the Party Congress as being more long term oriented in
Speaker 1: terms of what kind of policy initiatives were in here.
Speaker 1: So it is important to get a sense as we
Speaker 1: read through the speeches where the priorities are shifting. But
Speaker 1: I think it's a mistake to think we're gonna find
Speaker 1: out anything about what's going to happen in the next
Speaker 1: six to twelve months, that's gonna play out in a
Speaker 1: slower process. Our basic call here is that we're not
Speaker 1: looking to see the Party Congress change the direction China
Speaker 1: is on, at least in the shorter term, and we
Speaker 1: do think that direction is towards some modest slowing um,
Speaker 1: not one that is very disruptive for the globe economy,
Speaker 1: but one. As I said earlier, temper is a little
Speaker 1: bit this very buoyant picture we see across Europe and
Speaker 1: the America's right. Now come back here just a moment,
Speaker 1: but let's set the table for the next block. I
Speaker 1: imagine trade is is still a huge issue in that
Speaker 1: part of the world. We see the number countries there
Speaker 1: are trying to continue with tpp sans the the US.
Speaker 1: How large does that loom the conversations about Chinese to
Speaker 1: the Chinese economy? Well, I think for China, trade is
Speaker 1: a pretty darn important part of their growth strategy, and
Speaker 1: I think they see an opportunity here with the US
Speaker 1: pulling out a t p P to become more integrated
Speaker 1: with the region, would become more integrated with the world.
Speaker 1: I think TPP is a bit of a lost opportunity
Speaker 1: for US. I think it's much smaller in scope than
Speaker 1: the risks we have if we start to tear up
Speaker 1: NAFTA or we begin to engage in more protectionist measures.
Speaker 1: As I say earlier to Tom, I think it's very
Speaker 1: important to realize there are problems in trade, and we
Speaker 1: should be working to try to fix them. But we
Speaker 1: should be trying to work to fix them by opening
Speaker 1: up China, not by closing down the United States to trade.
Speaker 1: Were Bruce Kasmin of JP moregan talking of any number
Speaker 1: of topics. Sometimes in our break, folks, we get these
Speaker 1: great ideas. We're going to talk about Yankees astros, but
Speaker 1: we'll try to get back here to adult material. Uh. Trade,
Speaker 1: Are imports different now than imports of ten or twenty
Speaker 1: or thirty years ago? In the granular data, what you
Speaker 1: guys are claimed on is the makeup of imports different? Um? Well,
Speaker 1: I think what you're seeing is is generally greater integration
Speaker 1: and goods with the continued penetration into US consumers spending
Speaker 1: on the imports side. That's a trend that's been in place,
Speaker 1: and I don't think it's it's really shifted. I think
Speaker 1: we are seeing a slow but steady grind towards having
Speaker 1: some greater integration and services trade, and that to me
Speaker 1: is actually if we wanted to think sort of forward,
Speaker 1: if looking five ten years and want to talk about
Speaker 1: where there's an opportunity for you know, boosting the supply side,
Speaker 1: boosting growth, it's opening up trade in services, which, by
Speaker 1: the way, t p P would have started that process
Speaker 1: with regard to the US and the Asian economies. That's
Speaker 1: still probably an under underutilized part of what the global
Speaker 1: global integration story is about. It's moved forward, and I
Speaker 1: think we have more integration in terms of people doing
Speaker 1: things in the services area, but it's still I think,
Speaker 1: got a long way potentially to go. Are we going
Speaker 1: to do t p P without calling it TPP because
Speaker 1: that has to do with President Obama? I mean basically,
Speaker 1: are we gonna have the same ballet with put a
Speaker 1: different stick, of different label on it. I'd certainly be
Speaker 1: in favor of that, But I don't see the political
Speaker 1: process going in that direction. You know, you maybe maybe
Speaker 1: there's something there I'm not seeing, but I'm I'm worried
Speaker 1: about about things going more more negatively on a whole
Speaker 1: bunch of fronts on trade here. I think that's one
Speaker 1: of the big risks in the in the global outlook
Speaker 1: right now. Our college Jennifer Jacobs yesterday at the Joint
Speaker 1: Press conference at the White House has the President about
Speaker 1: the search for a new FED chair, and he confirmed
Speaker 1: we've got these five front runners. He's meeting with Jenny
Speaker 1: Gellen a bit later this week to talk to her
Speaker 1: about her future, and so we'll find out soon. I
Speaker 1: guess before that trip to to Asia here in a
Speaker 1: few weeks time, who's going to be sitting at the
Speaker 1: head of the table in the Echoes building. What's what
Speaker 1: are you watching is these these interviews take place. How
Speaker 1: much difference do you think it would be to have
Speaker 1: a Kevin Warsh in that chair or a John Taylor
Speaker 1: in that chair in terms of the policy that's laid
Speaker 1: out now, the path that we're on. How much can
Speaker 1: one person I'll be one person heading up the FMC
Speaker 1: make a difference at this point. So I think the
Speaker 1: first thing to say is that, leaving aside the issue
Speaker 1: of hawkish and devish, it's good to see that the
Speaker 1: five names that are there will look like people who
Speaker 1: who would be generally speaking qualified to do the job.
Speaker 1: That's something we couldn't have counted on thinking about the
Speaker 1: process two or three months ago. So then the question
Speaker 1: you're asking, which is important is how much does the
Speaker 1: chair matter? And I think, uh, the chair is always
Speaker 1: going to be given authority at the FED to have leadership.
Speaker 1: But the chair has to get that leadership partly by
Speaker 1: working to form consensus on the committee. So if you
Speaker 1: would think about it, and I don't really want to
Speaker 1: project the stance that individuals will take. If you think
Speaker 1: about somebody coming in who would want to jerk the
Speaker 1: FED into a more uh you know, significant different direction,
Speaker 1: the Committee would pull them back inherently because the power
Speaker 1: of the chair comes from the committee. They don't have
Speaker 1: that by law. Uh So I think I think the
Speaker 1: chair matters. I think you have people who would be
Speaker 1: on the morehawkers side and perhaps on the more dovish side,
Speaker 1: people who have different attitudes about balance sheet. But I
Speaker 1: think it's hard to see a new FED chair come
Speaker 1: in and really change the direction the committee, certainly over
Speaker 1: the over the near term. Does the vice chair matter
Speaker 1: just as much that we we're losing or we've lost
Speaker 1: stand Fishery is the vice chair of the of the
Speaker 1: Federal Reserve. Huge shoes to feel suffice to say, how
Speaker 1: important is that role? Are we paying enough attention to
Speaker 1: the replacement of him going forward? Well, usually the vice
Speaker 1: chair is is to some degree chosen by the chair,
Speaker 1: or at least the chair has an important influence on it.
Speaker 1: So one of the interesting questions is whether or not,
Speaker 1: as we have four seats that are going to get
Speaker 1: filled at the Federal Reserve Board, to what degree is
Speaker 1: the chair shows that and then the other members connected
Speaker 1: to the chair in some way or do we have
Speaker 1: different So if we have someone who's chosen completely independently
Speaker 1: of the chair, then I think you have less connectivity
Speaker 1: and potentially less power for the vice chair by them
Speaker 1: by themselves. But I do think it's important to think
Speaker 1: about out four seats and the chair being the most
Speaker 1: important by far. But the idea that you can have
Speaker 1: a broader shift in terms of FED policy if you
Speaker 1: change all four people in a certain in a certain direction.
Speaker 1: It's hard to do that find four people who will
Speaker 1: who will all shift in the same direction, But certainly
Speaker 1: it matters that we have that many seats open right now.
Speaker 1: Christ Casmin, thank you so much. With Bloomberg Surveillance, television
Speaker 1: and radio this morning. Uh we oh, oh, we didn't
Speaker 1: get to bitcoin too bad. David Garrow wanted to bring
Speaker 1: in our extinguished guest. Some cheers erupted in some corners
Speaker 1: of the Capitol yesterday when a Republican Senator, Lamar Alexander
Speaker 1: announced he that forged a deal with his Democratic counterpart,
Speaker 1: Patty Murray of Washington State on healthcare. Uh, there was
Speaker 1: some cheers. As I mentioned, there was some who were
Speaker 1: not in favor of this bipartisan piece of legislation. Among
Speaker 1: the Mark Palker, the congressman from the sixth District in
Speaker 1: North Carolina. He's the head of the Republican Study Committee.
Speaker 1: We've talked to him from time to time. Good to
Speaker 1: happen with us here, Congress. Let me just start with
Speaker 1: your reaction. You can explain more fully how you feel
Speaker 1: about this piece of legislation that these two senators have crafted.
Speaker 1: It seems like they've created the fix the President said
Speaker 1: he was looking for. Why are you not in favor
Speaker 1: of what they've come up with? Well, I I think anytime.
Speaker 1: First of all, going back to what Lamar Alexander said yesterday,
Speaker 1: that he was encouraged by an increasingly potential group that
Speaker 1: was supported. Let's just watch it in speech, and this
Speaker 1: is csrs have been a mess from day one, uh
Speaker 1: two thousand sixteen. The House sued and it was ruled
Speaker 1: to certainly illegal, and I don't know that it does
Speaker 1: anything long term to be able to resolve some of
Speaker 1: the things that we're seeing. When it comes to the
Speaker 1: increased previous What are your constituents in Burlington and Mevin
Speaker 1: throughout the six district say to you about these csrs.
Speaker 1: He's constant reduction subsidies. I imagine a lot of them
Speaker 1: depend on them. And what we have here is a
Speaker 1: president doing away with them, kicking the can over to Congress,
Speaker 1: and it's gonna take some time to figure all this out.
Speaker 1: I know that you'd rather see them go away entirely,
Speaker 1: see this law changed completely. But there's got to be
Speaker 1: people who talk to you who are worried about what
Speaker 1: it means for their coverage. I would be remiss if
Speaker 1: I didn't say that that there is some concern trying
Speaker 1: to find that balance. There's always a challenge. Just two
Speaker 1: days ago, I heard from a gentleman who had received
Speaker 1: a letter from Blue Cross at Blue Shield here in
Speaker 1: North Carolina. He is a cancer survivor. He's mortgaged his house,
Speaker 1: second mortgage. His premiums are getting ready to jump fifteen
Speaker 1: hundred to three thousand dollars. So so it's it's it's
Speaker 1: those folks as well that we have to represent. And
Speaker 1: that's not even talking about Remember former President Clinton talked
Speaker 1: about what it does to the small businesses and uh
Speaker 1: those that's a component this as well, as long as
Speaker 1: these mandates continue to reduce the growth in some of
Speaker 1: these areas, specifically here in North Carolina. I mean asked
Speaker 1: about the role insurance companies should be playing here. I've
Speaker 1: noticed a change in tone on the part of the
Speaker 1: President toward insurance companies. Back in February, he invited a
Speaker 1: lot of big CEOs over to the White House. He
Speaker 1: praised them for the work are doing. Now he's talked
Speaker 1: an awful lot about the degree to which the government
Speaker 1: has been propping up their stock prices. That's one thing
Speaker 1: that that he's mentioned about them. What role do you
Speaker 1: want to see insurance companies playing here going forward? Well,
Speaker 1: I know this under Obamacare, people are hurting, but insurance
Speaker 1: companies are not. And I want to be careful before
Speaker 1: we sent a president that we're literally writing checks out
Speaker 1: of Congress to these insurance company's. Whether you want to
Speaker 1: call it a bill out or anything else as a subsidy,
Speaker 1: that's that's a that's a crucial concern that should be
Speaker 1: um long term. Where does this stop? What happens if
Speaker 1: we start doing this to other companies? Are or are
Speaker 1: there entities? And I think that's one of the reasons
Speaker 1: that many Republicans and others in the House have such
Speaker 1: an issue with it. Just joining us Congressman Mark Walter
Speaker 1: Walker rather the Republican of the Piedmont of North Carolina. Uh, Congressman,
Speaker 1: you are the fabric of the Piedmont. Your father was
Speaker 1: a minister, you're a Baptist minister, and you have a
Speaker 1: campaign approach. It is absolutely original for concern pervatives in America.
Speaker 1: How do you adapt and adjust to the certitude of
Speaker 1: non religious conservatives, particularly the more conservative types. You've pushed
Speaker 1: against that sort to year after year after year of
Speaker 1: your public service. Where's the humility among conservatives today? Well,
Speaker 1: it's it's dissipated. To be frankly with frank with you,
Speaker 1: that that is something that that we are continuing to
Speaker 1: call for that unless there are certain relationships built on
Speaker 1: trust that we're never going to resolve some of these issues.
Speaker 1: We see the rhetoric even continue to grow. One of
Speaker 1: the things that I'm most proud of is is a
Speaker 1: great relationship with the Chancellor of North Carolina A and T.
Speaker 1: I'm privileged to represent the largest historical Black college university
Speaker 1: in the country. In fact, we launched a paid internships
Speaker 1: for HBCU students. That's important to UH my family's even
Speaker 1: personal but my wife being a two time graduate of
Speaker 1: one of the hbc used this is something that we've
Speaker 1: got to be able to continue to work on because
Speaker 1: the condescension that we see from some circles where do
Speaker 1: your right or left does not allow us to really
Speaker 1: bring solutions, but it only creates more divisions. Let me
Speaker 1: ask you lastly here in the time we have with you.
Speaker 1: Know you're busy about the the opioid crisis. To aur
Speaker 1: you embarked on a couple of days ago, a two
Speaker 1: day two or throughout your district. I know you went
Speaker 1: to Elon University for roundtable. You went to an alcohol
Speaker 1: and drug abuse treatment center. What did folks there say
Speaker 1: to you about what role they think the federal government
Speaker 1: should play? Of course we've watched here as Congressman Tom Marino,
Speaker 1: you're colleague in the Capital, has stepped away from from
Speaker 1: consideration to be the drugs are as it's called. What
Speaker 1: did they say about the role the federal government should
Speaker 1: play incurving this crisis. Well, obviously, any time you're dealing
Speaker 1: with some of the local even state agencies, funding is
Speaker 1: always the concern. Our job is to make sure that
Speaker 1: every dollar from taxpayers that we receive that we're being
Speaker 1: good stewards. But but it's different than talking with people
Speaker 1: who are working in this area. As a people literally
Speaker 1: walking to the journey of addiction. I wish more of
Speaker 1: us are more people would get out there and see
Speaker 1: some of the heartache of the last six years. We've
Speaker 1: gone from seventeen thousand deaths to over sixty thousand deaths
Speaker 1: last year. This is an epidemic proportion. We've got to
Speaker 1: be working on on prevention, We've got to be working
Speaker 1: with people who are walking through. But we've also got
Speaker 1: to make sure long term, what is it that we
Speaker 1: do to be able to to offer these people an
Speaker 1: opportunity to get back on track to fulfill as a
Speaker 1: person of faith, the very path I feel like God's
Speaker 1: created for Mark Walker great to speak me. That's Congress
Speaker 1: in Mark Walker, the sixth district in North Carolina. Let
Speaker 1: me bring in our our our next guest, and David
Speaker 1: will have more intelligent converse questions than I will end
Speaker 1: to Kenny uh to be direct as a former Prime
Speaker 1: Minister of the courageous people of Ireland, who is anybody knows?
Speaker 1: In the Wall Street Rack were the first people to
Speaker 1: really say we gotta be adult, We've got to take
Speaker 1: responsibility for this tobacco of two thousands, seven two eight.
Speaker 1: We can talk about the financial aspect. Did you know?
Speaker 1: And I went back, David, I looked at some of
Speaker 1: Gordon Brown's comments of oh seven oh eight, did you
Speaker 1: know there's a thing called Brexit? Now? I don't know
Speaker 1: if you're aware of that, but there it is. And
Speaker 1: I'm sure we'll get into that. But I've got a
Speaker 1: far more important question and a Kenny with us. And
Speaker 1: when I was a kid, we would watch Wide World
Speaker 1: of Sports and we were transfixed by Irish football. You
Speaker 1: you are knee deep in this with Mayo. Is it Mayo?
Speaker 1: What do you think of the National Football League in America?
Speaker 1: When the sport you play in Ireland is so tough
Speaker 1: and so visceral. How do you perceive American football. Well,
Speaker 1: first of all, Irish football we call it Gaelic football
Speaker 1: because you have the association football, which which in ordinary
Speaker 1: man's language of soccer, but the the the Gaili football
Speaker 1: is played to the highest level on a county basis.
Speaker 1: It's an amateur sport. The fitness level are extraordinary, as
Speaker 1: are the skill levels, um. And it's it becomes really
Speaker 1: you know, a passionate existence based on the parishes, on
Speaker 1: the teams and other local communities. And then when they
Speaker 1: play for the county, they go to all Ireland level
Speaker 1: and compete at a very very high and if somebody
Speaker 1: scores a touchdown or whatever, they're not doing all the
Speaker 1: fancy dance stuff they're they're Obviously we've had American football
Speaker 1: teams over in Ireland in the last number of years,
Speaker 1: Georgia Tech and Boston College, Author Dame and the Navy
Speaker 1: professional teams like that I understand, and they've they've created
Speaker 1: a great excitement and energy. I mean, the team numbers
Speaker 1: are huge as distinct from sting from Gaelic teams um.
Speaker 1: But obviously the teams that did come to Ireland, you know,
Speaker 1: but a sense of great excitement and energy for the
Speaker 1: period there, and they were followed by twenty five Americans,
Speaker 1: which was good for the hospitality sector. We gotta make
Speaker 1: news for Boston one of six one FM, and of
Speaker 1: course or serious exem in a small town called salthen
Speaker 1: Who gets a bigger turnout Notre Dame or Boston College.
Speaker 1: Um well, I think when the when when we tried
Speaker 1: to get the two of them together as often as
Speaker 1: we could because they created a sense of um of
Speaker 1: unprecedented passion in Ireland. Listen, both colleges, both colleges have
Speaker 1: have have huge following, a huge Irish I asked for
Speaker 1: don't ask me the numbers. I couldn't give you. An
Speaker 1: he sounds like a politician, David Sabers from from the fighting.
Speaker 1: I all right, well, let's segue to something lighter here,
Speaker 1: that being the combate over Brexit. And we've certainly heard
Speaker 1: the degree to which those debates have soured, some David
Speaker 1: Davids saying that there was a deadlock when last they
Speaker 1: met in Brussels. How are you observing all of this
Speaker 1: unfold from where you said? Where do you think things
Speaker 1: are headed? Well you know what happened. Obviously, euroskeptics in Britain.
Speaker 1: Prime Minister Cameron said if I win the election, um,
Speaker 1: I give you a referendum. That happened. The referendum was
Speaker 1: lost and he resigned. Was a non binding referenum. So
Speaker 1: Trusa May was lettered as as Prime Minister and she
Speaker 1: gets on with a small majority, finding it difficult, has
Speaker 1: another election, loses that majority is now propped up by
Speaker 1: the Democratic Union's party from Northern Ireland. This is a
Speaker 1: very complicated matter. So so what's going on now is
Speaker 1: the process before the big talks, and the process is
Speaker 1: triggered by the Prime Minster having within the Article Article
Speaker 1: and the letter wanting to leave that's due to take
Speaker 1: place in March. So Michel Barnier is the lead negotiator
Speaker 1: on behalf of the European Union and he wants three
Speaker 1: things dealt with before they get downto real business. Those
Speaker 1: three things are one, what is the cost that Britain
Speaker 1: must pay for leaving the European Union club? Secondly, what
Speaker 1: are the rights guaranteed of European citizens living in Britain
Speaker 1: and British citizens living in Europe? And thirdly, what are
Speaker 1: you going to do about the question of the only
Speaker 1: land border within the European Union after Britain has left,
Speaker 1: and that's through Northern Ireland, which rights are now guaranteed
Speaker 1: under a separate and independent Good Friday Agreement which happened
Speaker 1: twenty years ago, and that has to be preserved at
Speaker 1: all costs and will be preserved at all costs. These
Speaker 1: are complicated matters about some that people didn't ever think about.
Speaker 1: But they've got to deal with those three to a
Speaker 1: sufficient progress level before they start talking about trade. What
Speaker 1: does it mean if this goes through, if we see
Speaker 1: the UK leave the European Union, what does it mean
Speaker 1: for we, say, a fisherman in Ireland who wants to
Speaker 1: sell his wares to UH to Europe saying might customarily
Speaker 1: stop in the UK the way well, fishing is a
Speaker 1: complicated issue, more so than most because for Britain to
Speaker 1: leave fully most of the quotas are caught in British waters.
Speaker 1: It would suit Britain to have a hard bridge and
Speaker 1: just leave in the morning. But the negotiations on fishing
Speaker 1: have been developed over fifty years and they're like layers
Speaker 1: of a fruit. You just can't to dismantle them. Like that.
Speaker 1: But what it means at the moment, the European Union
Speaker 1: is the market of five million people and Britain is
Speaker 1: a very important part of that. And it is part
Speaker 1: of the single market you can move capital, goods, services
Speaker 1: and people. It is part of the customs union where
Speaker 1: you have external tariffs but not only internally. Now that
Speaker 1: Britain wants to leave those two things and still have
Speaker 1: the same response, and that's the problem. You see, there's
Speaker 1: no reason why Britain couldn't be a global power within
Speaker 1: the current European Union, which is evolving and which started
Speaker 1: out as a peace process, the most successful on the planet,
Speaker 1: but which it has to move along with his own agenda.
Speaker 1: So it's it's a real problem here. And until you
Speaker 1: get past those first three base points, you don't ever
Speaker 1: get to where you're going to talk about about real trade.
Speaker 1: And if that continues, politicians are going to have to
Speaker 1: make a decision otherwise you end up in a catastrophic
Speaker 1: situation where there's a heart breaks on the border. Mr
Speaker 1: Prime Minister is black Wine, I hope I'm pronouncing that right.
Speaker 1: There was a bombing in nineteen seventy for horrific bombing.
Speaker 1: What do you envision is the best outcome for Ireland
Speaker 1: in the United Kingdom at that border of Black Wine.
Speaker 1: What do you envision in sixteen looking like. Well, if
Speaker 1: you drive from Dublin to Belfast, now you drive through
Speaker 1: black line. There is no border, and that's operated since
Speaker 1: the Good Friday Agreement, and that's what we intend to keep.
Speaker 1: If you brought back what you call a hard border,
Speaker 1: customs posts and all of that, what would happen. You'd
Speaker 1: bring back sectarianism, and you would have you'd have untold trouble.
Speaker 1: And we're not going back there. There were three thousand
Speaker 1: people bombed, murdered and maimed in that period. America was
Speaker 1: a great help to Ireland when President Clinton sent over
Speaker 1: George Mitchell and after five years worth, the Good Friday
Speaker 1: Agreement was signed. It's an internationally binding agreement, lodged in
Speaker 1: the United Nations, accepted by America, by Europe, by Great
Speaker 1: Britain and by Ireland. So that's sacrosanct and putting a
Speaker 1: hard border on the top of that would be absolutely
Speaker 1: catastrophic and it won't happen. This is a political problem
Speaker 1: and for those who were advocating, you know that we
Speaker 1: should leave this is a matter that should have been
Speaker 1: considered far more carefully in the run up of the referendum.
Speaker 1: But it's a real it's a real issue, and it's
Speaker 1: going to require a unique situation and a unique solution,
Speaker 1: and there were fewer own who can tell you what
Speaker 1: that is. David jump in here with the I have
Speaker 1: like eight questions and speech you and I have to
Speaker 1: go to Dublin to continue this conversation with the Prime minister.
Speaker 1: But David jump in with your observation. You've got a
Speaker 1: different direction here from my last question. That is, we've
Speaker 1: seen that the Prime Minister of Greece travel to Washington
Speaker 1: to meet with the President United States, and I want
Speaker 1: to ask you just what it's like to be the
Speaker 1: leader of a country meeting with the leader of another country.
Speaker 1: We hear a lot about the relationship that one leader
Speaker 1: develops with with another in such a short time frame.
Speaker 1: How do you get a sense of who the other
Speaker 1: leader is? How do you develop warmth, developer relationship. Polities
Speaker 1: is all as about people who governments, about making decisions.
Speaker 1: The Greek prime minister is right. I was actually one
Speaker 1: of the first prime ministers to have the opportunity to
Speaker 1: meet President Trump in the White House. Um, it's the
Speaker 1: office that you talk about in the importance of it. Obviously,
Speaker 1: you know, the President of the United States the most
Speaker 1: powerful office on the planet, but it's it's one that
Speaker 1: doesn't carry all of the authority that people might imagine.
Speaker 1: The President has responsibility over, you know, foreign affairs, foreign matters,
Speaker 1: foreign policy, the Pentagon, and so on. But when you
Speaker 1: look for money, you've got to deal with the Congress
Speaker 1: and the houses of the Houses of Parliament. So your
Speaker 1: American Constitution, the American courts, the American political system all
Speaker 1: have distinct functions and the impact in one way or
Speaker 1: the other on the presidency. But I think it's very
Speaker 1: important for Europe to be over in America very often
Speaker 1: and America to be in Europe very often to understand
Speaker 1: the mechanics of this. Europe and America were always very
Speaker 1: close allies, the Marshall Plan, World War Two, all of
Speaker 1: these things, the rebuilding of a peace process in Europe,
Speaker 1: which has now lasted for sixty years. There is no
Speaker 1: reason why we shouldn't be able to continue this. In
Speaker 1: the interests of the common humanagement, as we share, we'd
Speaker 1: like to continue this conversation and to Kenney. Thank you
Speaker 1: so much. He as a former Prime Minister of Ireland.
Speaker 1: Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg Surveillance podcast. Subscribe and
Speaker 1: listen to interviews on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, or which over
Speaker 1: podcast platform you prefer. I'm on Twitter at Tom Keene,
Speaker 1: David Gura is at David Gura. Before the podcast, you
Speaker 1: could always catch US World one. I'm Bloomberg Radio