Speaker 1: Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news. President Trump is taking
Speaker 1: this economy in a different direction. He ran on that,
Speaker 1: he promised it, and now he's delivering. We're in the
Speaker 1: process of imposing reciprocal tariffs. This is going to hurt
Speaker 1: our economy before we get to any possible retaliation. Thank
Speaker 1: you for being such a pro business and pronavision President.
Speaker 1: We're very excited to see what you're doing to make
Speaker 1: all of our companies in our entire country so successful.
Speaker 2: The big promise was that he was going to bring
Speaker 2: down prices and make America affordable again, and everything he's
Speaker 2: done is the opposite of that.
Speaker 1: We have the greatest economy in history. This economy, in
Speaker 1: my opinion, is going to blow it away. Let's face it.
Speaker 1: The globalist idea that we should all do the same thing,
Speaker 1: have the same regulations, have the same targets, and the EU,
Speaker 1: of course, is the epicenter of all of this. For
Speaker 1: the life that's now for the birds, there's a change
Speaker 1: of debate. There is now something called national interest and
Speaker 1: that's the new politics that you're saying.
Speaker 2: I'm Stephanie Flanders, head of Government and Economics at Bloomberg,
Speaker 2: and this is trump Anomics, the podcast that looks at
Speaker 2: the economic world of Donald Trump, how he's already shaped
Speaker 2: the global economy and what on earth is going to
Speaker 2: happen next. This week, wanted to play you a lively
Speaker 2: conversation I had with Nigel Farage, leader of Reform UK,
Speaker 2: on the sidelines of last week's World Economic Forum in Davos.
Speaker 2: Probably no single individual better embodies the conflicted and contradictory
Speaker 2: mood in politics today than Nigel Farage. He's deeply associated
Speaker 2: with Britain's exit from the EU, something that a significant
Speaker 2: majority of Brits now regret. He's also made a virtue
Speaker 2: of close ties with Donald Trump and the MAGA movement
Speaker 2: in the US, celebrating election night with mister Trump in
Speaker 2: Mara Lago at a time when barely twenty percent of
Speaker 2: the UK population have a favorable opinion of the US president,
Speaker 2: a number that's falling fast thanks to the row over
Speaker 2: Greenland and Trump's deeply insulting comments about the service of
Speaker 2: non American soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq. And yet, despite
Speaker 2: all this, Reform UK, a party which won only five
Speaker 2: seats in the UK Parliament in the election just eighteen
Speaker 2: months ago, is now more than ten points ahead of
Speaker 2: both of the main parties in the opinion polls, and
Speaker 2: the political betting sites give Faraj a much higher chance
Speaker 2: of being Britain's Prime minister after the next general election
Speaker 2: than the current incumbent, secure Starmer. So it seemed like
Speaker 2: a good time to dig into what a reform version
Speaker 2: of Trump and Nomics would look like, whether the UK
Speaker 2: could get away with being quite a cavalier as Donald
Speaker 2: Trump has been about boring things like central bank independence
Speaker 2: or inflation target In a week when populists all over
Speaker 2: Europe have also been rushing to distance themselves from the
Speaker 2: Trump administration on many issues, I was interested to find
Speaker 2: out what reforms foreign policy would look like and whether
Speaker 2: reforms voters would really want him to put quite so
Speaker 2: much trust in the US. I think our chat was revealing.
Speaker 2: It was also, I have to admit, rather fun a
Speaker 2: bit surprised to see you used to really slag off
Speaker 2: all the globalists at the wef oh.
Speaker 1: I slagged off the European Parliament for twenty years, but
Speaker 1: I still went there once a month, and I think
Speaker 1: I genuinely upset them virtually every time I turned up,
Speaker 1: isn't it interesting. I mean, you know, five years ago
Speaker 1: here at Davos, the main topic of conversation was climate change,
Speaker 1: DEI or that baloney. And here we are five years
Speaker 1: on and the debates completely different. It's being dominated by
Speaker 1: AI tech energy and the one thing I've enjoyed over
Speaker 1: the last couple of days, there is genuine debate. There
Speaker 1: are different opinions now, rather than the sort of consensus
Speaker 1: view that I certainly felt was coming out from the globalists.
Speaker 1: So yeah, no, no, I found it really interesting and worthwhile.
Speaker 2: It is quite funny that there's so many honest conversations
Speaker 2: this week, and it sort of suggests, you know, what
Speaker 2: were the conversations like before.
Speaker 1: Well, I think it's interesting. I mean, ten years ago,
Speaker 1: we had the Brexit referendum result, we had Trump winning
Speaker 1: the presidency, and I think everyone thought, well, these are
Speaker 1: just aberrations, these are short term Rembertonia Blair saying these
Speaker 1: are sort of short term fits of rage. Normal service
Speaker 1: will be resumed. And now everyone realizes that actually these
Speaker 1: were the first tremors of a very very major change
Speaker 1: in political conversation and debate, and that I think now
Speaker 1: is writ large.
Speaker 2: I think a lot of people were interested in how
Speaker 2: you're seeing foreign policy, the UK's role in this new
Speaker 2: world that we've all been talking about this week. But
Speaker 2: just to get into sort of cool Bloomberg territory for
Speaker 2: a few minutes. One of the consensus views out there,
Speaker 2: if you ask economists, many people in the city, what
Speaker 2: would happen to UK borrowing rates if a reform government
Speaker 2: took power? They go up at least that's the consensus.
Speaker 2: So why do you think investors would be seem to
Speaker 2: be quite nervous about reform?
Speaker 1: Yeah? Well, as a as a former commodities trader, if
Speaker 1: there's a big consensual view, take the opposite trade position,
Speaker 1: I've always believed in that quite strongly. Look, obviously we're
Speaker 1: talking about supply side reform. One of the big frustrations
Speaker 1: is that since Brexit, businesses, particularly with small and medium
Speaker 1: sized businesses, are now more heavily regulated, more penalized by
Speaker 1: whichever regulator is relevant to their area they were before Brexit.
Speaker 1: It's a massive frustration. So do we want to reduce
Speaker 1: the size of the administrative state? Yes, Do we want
Speaker 1: to attempt genuine supply side reform? Absolutely? Do we want
Speaker 1: rich taxpayers to flee the country and young entrepreneurs to
Speaker 1: flee the country every year or come back to the country, invest,
Speaker 1: employ people, spend money. So that's the agenda and people say, well,
Speaker 1: if you do all of that, you're kind of going
Speaker 1: to be following a little bit of the quasi qua
Speaker 1: teng budget and the market's going to take fright. So
Speaker 1: that's where the view comes from. And I think the
Speaker 1: one big lesson from the Trust qua teng budget is
Speaker 1: they did not propose to cut spending. They basically said
Speaker 1: we won't increase spending in line with inflation. So for
Speaker 1: our program to work, what we absolutely have to do
Speaker 1: is to say that people we are going to reduce
Speaker 1: welfare spending, we are going to reduce excessive government waste,
Speaker 1: and I think if we do that the markets will
Speaker 1: applaud it.
Speaker 2: You step back from some of the more sort of
Speaker 2: aggressive tax cut promises, said it's an aspiration, but one
Speaker 2: of the big savings in your plan currently is to
Speaker 2: save money that the Bank of England currently spends on
Speaker 2: paying interest on bank reserves. So as you know, there's
Speaker 2: a lot of concern about that from the Bank of England.
Speaker 2: They think they're going to lose control over interest rates,
Speaker 2: which is pretty core part of their monetary policy, and
Speaker 2: certainly bankers quite clearly see whether it's I mean, I
Speaker 2: think you've said thirty billion, thirty five billion. Yeah, I
Speaker 2: think it's more like twenty billion. But that's a twenty
Speaker 2: billion tax on banks.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Look, that's less relevant now than it was because
Speaker 1: we're not going through the Q programming quite the same
Speaker 1: way we were before, as you know. In fact, the
Speaker 1: opposite has been happening in some regards.
Speaker 2: But that's where some of the savings come from. It
Speaker 2: is from the sales of the QT.
Speaker 1: We were the only party to point out just how
Speaker 1: much this was costing. And I think that's what we're
Speaker 1: good at. What we're good at is introducing new debates,
Speaker 1: and it was it was very interesting when I went
Speaker 1: to meet Richard Tiz and I went to meet the
Speaker 1: Governor of the Marks of England, which was a very
Speaker 1: interesting clash of cultures, I would say, And I just said,
Speaker 1: it's really interesting that you're making massive decisions here that
Speaker 1: have a huge impact on public finances, and yet it's
Speaker 1: being done with no debate in Parliament whatsoever. That's not true.
Speaker 2: I mean, it's true that there's no reform MPs on
Speaker 2: the Select Committee, but they go all the time to
Speaker 2: give testimony to the House of Parliament.
Speaker 1: The Government controls and these subjects.
Speaker 2: Takes these policies actually because these agreements or agreements with
Speaker 2: the Treasury of what.
Speaker 1: They've been doing, and these subjects don't get talked about properly.
Speaker 1: There's no proper open debate and frankly, the committee system
Speaker 1: in the UK doesn't get the coverage, doesn't get the publicity.
Speaker 1: We have not had any debate in the floor of
Speaker 1: the House of Commons on this subject at all.
Speaker 2: But you say you're going to do it, it's a
Speaker 2: part of your plan, it's not just part of your
Speaker 2: plan to discuss it. Then we're going to do it
Speaker 2: at least twenty big We're going to do it and
Speaker 2: tax the banks.
Speaker 1: And some of the banks won't like it. You're well right,
Speaker 1: they will. All I don't like consumers. Well, I don't
Speaker 1: like the banks very much because they debanked me, didn't
Speaker 1: They didn't I wouldn't give me, wouldn't give me an account,
Speaker 1: and trying to force me out of the country. Now, look,
Speaker 1: this will be tough for banks to accept. I get that,
Speaker 1: but how do you think they get I'm sorry but
Speaker 1: the drain on public finances is just too great.
Speaker 2: But how do they make their money if they don't
Speaker 2: make it there? Don't you think it's pretty clear it's
Speaker 2: going to go on too interest margin. It's going to
Speaker 2: go on to the more mortgage costs and the interest
Speaker 2: rates they charge.
Speaker 1: Your VOTs, or they become more efficient, or they cut costs,
Speaker 1: or they do whatever. This money. They should not have
Speaker 1: had this money. Over look. Frankly, the whole QE program
Speaker 1: has not achieved anything very much other than to make
Speaker 1: the rich richer and the poor poorer. And everything we've
Speaker 1: done on que since George Osball and co put it
Speaker 1: into place has been bad for most people in the country.
Speaker 2: That's been really helpful because it's very clear you are
Speaker 2: happy to have a very hefty extra tax on banks
Speaker 2: more anti bank.
Speaker 1: It's not a tax. They're just not going to get
Speaker 1: free money anymore.
Speaker 2: It's taking twenty billion pounds from the banks. It doesn't
Speaker 2: really master.
Speaker 1: They'll adapt what business does You.
Speaker 2: Disagree with the Bank of England governor on that. If
Speaker 2: we have an election on schedule, there'll be a new
Speaker 2: Bank of England governor by the time you would become
Speaker 2: Prime Minister. They'd come in in early twenty eight. One
Speaker 2: of the other things that people are worried about is
Speaker 2: that you're actually questioning one of these key pillars of
Speaker 2: UK economic policy, one of the few stable pillars in
Speaker 2: the last fifteen years or so twenty years.
Speaker 1: The independent Bank of England.
Speaker 2: Will you will you let that new Bank of England
Speaker 2: governor continue in their term their full term?
Speaker 1: Well, given what a catastrophe UK economic policy has been
Speaker 1: over the last fifteen years, I think we should challenge
Speaker 1: every single tenant of it. But one of the biggest
Speaker 1: mistakes I mean that we vote Brexit. Now, if you
Speaker 1: vote Brexit, use it as an opportunity to do things differently.
Speaker 1: And the trouble is from day one the Conservative government
Speaker 1: viewed it as a damage limitation exercise as opposed to
Speaker 1: an opportunity. And Andrew Bays are perfectly plight nice man,
Speaker 1: but they should have picked somebody who was a Brexiteer
Speaker 1: to be in charge of the Bank of England and
Speaker 1: to think totally differently, especially around financial markets financial market regulation.
Speaker 1: We've ignored this.
Speaker 2: Like every other central independent central bank, they think about
Speaker 2: their inflation targets. So you're suggesting that after Brexit. They
Speaker 2: shouldn't have been focused on inflation.
Speaker 1: To take the whole world of cryptocurrencies and crypto trading,
Speaker 1: and we are just lagging so far behind many other
Speaker 1: parts of the world, and yet the Bank of England
Speaker 1: are one of them. I mean, there was even a
Speaker 1: proposal from Bailey just recently to restrict the number of
Speaker 1: stable coins any individual can hold. So you see, I'm
Speaker 1: talking about having people the government the Bank of England.
Speaker 1: I'm not questioning the independence of it. What I am
Speaker 1: saying is that we need a new, more innovative approach
Speaker 1: to all of this.
Speaker 2: Okay, but if you get rid of the one who's there,
Speaker 2: and there has been a tradition that reflects the independence
Speaker 2: of the central Bank that the terms don't necessarily coincide
Speaker 2: with election terms, you're saying you would suspend that because
Speaker 2: you want to have your own person in there.
Speaker 1: If we don't do things differently, we're going to get
Speaker 1: poorer and poorer.
Speaker 2: I want to know exactly how you're going to do
Speaker 2: things differently, not to say we're going to have a
Speaker 2: big debate and we're going to question.
Speaker 1: We're going to pick different people with a different attitude
Speaker 1: towards everything. To do with including the inflation target or
Speaker 1: the inflation target. Fine, we're not We're not meeting it
Speaker 1: anyway with what we're doing. Of course, inflation needs to
Speaker 1: be controlled. Of course it needs to be controlled. And
Speaker 1: there are other debates too. I mean, you know the
Speaker 1: role of the OBR. I was going to ask you
Speaker 1: about that. I mean, when do they last get a
Speaker 1: forecast right about anything? What useful purpose? That just means
Speaker 1: they're economists. What useful Well, I know they're nearly always wrong, Yeah,
Speaker 1: but what useful purpose does there that? Look, we are
Speaker 1: prepared to think openly and challenge everything, just as here
Speaker 1: at Davos, there is now open debate, honest conversations. As
Speaker 1: you said earlier, no longer a consensual view the way
Speaker 1: Britain's been run. Let's say since two thousand and eight.
Speaker 1: We could go back earlier. The way it's been run
Speaker 1: isn't working, and we're having fresh thinking on all of it.
Speaker 2: I'm sure a lot of people would think, great, who
Speaker 2: can be against fresh thinking? Good start, it's a good
Speaker 2: place to start in opposition. It's not a good place
Speaker 2: to start at number ten Downing Street, that you're going
Speaker 2: to put everything in the air.
Speaker 1: It istually what it worked pretty well in the early
Speaker 1: nineteen eighties, didn't it where we had a radical government
Speaker 1: that changed everything about our tax structures, our laws, and yes,
Speaker 1: there were a couple of difficult years, But did it
Speaker 1: turn the economy around? Did it lead to a change
Speaker 1: of attitude?
Speaker 2: And that's really interesting, Margaret, Thatatchall did not throw everything
Speaker 2: in the air. If you look at the nineteen seventy
Speaker 2: nine manifesto, it didn't have any of the big ambitious
Speaker 2: things that Patcha later did. And the first few years
Speaker 2: she's stuck to the plans that she'd had. There was
Speaker 2: actually a certainty that was offered to the markets.
Speaker 1: And two, well, I would disagree with that. She she
Speaker 1: didn't just.
Speaker 2: Question everything and didn't just suddenly surprise everybody.
Speaker 1: I disagree with that completely. The first budget that Jeffrey
Speaker 1: Howe brought in brought top rate income tax down from
Speaker 1: eighties three to sixty percent. I'd call that pretty radical.
Speaker 2: But there was still some of the core elements of
Speaker 2: her policy. Things like the really dramatic stuff all came afterwards,
Speaker 2: after she'd built up support and after they've got inflation out,
Speaker 2: which she did say she would stop.
Speaker 1: She gave a very clear signal that the country was
Speaker 1: heading in a different direction. And did it take a
Speaker 1: long time to get all the trade union laws through
Speaker 1: and all the rest of it, Yes, it did. You know,
Speaker 1: you can't change things overnight, but you can signal that
Speaker 1: you want to go in a different direction. And look,
Speaker 1: I just think the most ignored section of the British economy,
Speaker 1: the one where we're failing in the biggest way, are
Speaker 1: the five point six million men and women out there
Speaker 1: running their own businesses. And they now want them to
Speaker 1: do quarterly returns as opposed to annual returns. It's just
Speaker 1: one little example of how we punish small business again
Speaker 1: and again and again. And I do believe, I genuinely
Speaker 1: believe that if you look at what happened economically in
Speaker 1: America and in Britain in the eighties, you'll see a
Speaker 1: lot of that growth actually came from the bottom up
Speaker 1: in the economy, not from the top down. So I
Speaker 1: want to complete rethink over all that.
Speaker 2: I think a lot of people would hear you on
Speaker 2: those sort of what we would say, you know, microeconomic
Speaker 2: things going wrong. You say, I'm going to change these
Speaker 2: micro things. But if you're putting the whole system of
Speaker 2: the way that macroeconomic policy has been run in the country,
Speaker 2: particularly the independent fiscal Watchdog, independent Central Bank. If that
Speaker 2: is in question when you walk into number ten, you
Speaker 2: don't think there's going to be an enormous amount of
Speaker 2: concern in international markets that will affect your ability.
Speaker 1: To maybe people what maybe people will think. Finally we've
Speaker 1: got a government that actually has within it people who've
Speaker 1: been in business. Because we haven't got that now, and
Speaker 1: we haven't had much of it for many, many years.
Speaker 2: It doesn't sound like you're very worried about having a
Speaker 2: repeat of a sort of list trust type.
Speaker 1: That's because we're going to cut spend it. For example,
Speaker 1: you can now go you can now get benefits if
Speaker 1: you suffer from mild anxiety. Well, I have mild anxiety
Speaker 1: every morning, you know. I mean, we've just reached a
Speaker 1: ridiculous level with all of this, and it can't go on.
Speaker 1: It just can't go on. We're looking at a benefits
Speaker 1: fill of three hundred billion by twenty thirty something like that,
Speaker 1: so it can't go on. And look, you know, of
Speaker 1: course I'm there to challenge all of these things. Bear
Speaker 1: in mind, I've only been back in politics. Eighteen months.
Speaker 1: You know, I escaped, I got out over the wall,
Speaker 1: but I'm back again. I've had eighteen months to try
Speaker 1: and build a political party, a structure from nothing, so effectively,
Speaker 1: I'm the CEO of Reform and we build departments and
Speaker 1: they give their weekly or daily reports into me, and
Speaker 1: we're growing. The next big stage of my development will
Speaker 1: be that this time next year, sitting here on the
Speaker 1: Bloomberg panel with you won't be me, because there will
Speaker 1: be a team of people appointed to take all of
Speaker 1: those jobs. And that's the next that is the next
Speaker 1: big stage of the development. So perhaps the criticism that
Speaker 1: could be leveled fairly against me, There were lots leveled
Speaker 1: unfairly against me, But the fairly against me is that
Speaker 1: I've never been in frontline government, true, and it's a
Speaker 1: one man band. So at the minute I'm asked to
Speaker 1: talk about economic policy, foreign policy, you know, law and order, borders, everything,
Speaker 1: and so it's now about broadening the team, putting different
Speaker 1: people in position, and then formulating firmer policies than we have.
Speaker 1: But we have laid out already some proposed bills, economic bills,
Speaker 1: the concept of the Britannia Card to try and bring
Speaker 1: high taxpayers back to Britain, the digital markets, the sorry
Speaker 1: digital Assets and crypto bill, so that we are showing
Speaker 1: a way forward.
Speaker 2: You mentioned Brexit, mentioned that we should have made more
Speaker 2: of an opportunity.
Speaker 1: Out of bricks. We should have done it immediately.
Speaker 2: We've talked about we are seeing a new kind of
Speaker 2: global order. I haven't heard you say, what is Britain's
Speaker 2: role in this new global order? How do you think
Speaker 2: about your foreign policy number?
Speaker 1: While we have amazing advantages, amazing advantages being outside of
Speaker 1: the European Union leaves us free in terms of trade policy. Ironically,
Speaker 1: you know, the super remainers Starmer boasts at the dispatch
Speaker 1: box now about the fact we've got an independent trade
Speaker 1: policy and we're able to do things. And I think
Speaker 1: in terms of being a bridge between Europe and America
Speaker 1: or in a powerful position, I just think we've underutilized
Speaker 1: the amazing advantages we have across the rest of the world.
Speaker 1: You know, we turned our backs on India, we turned
Speaker 1: our backs on the Commonwealth countries in the seventies. We
Speaker 1: decided that Europe was our future. That became a sort
Speaker 1: of foreign office and political over decades, and we've turned
Speaker 1: our backs on large parts of the world where there
Speaker 1: is still a remarkable relationship between those former colonies and ourselves.
Speaker 1: So we need to think more globally in every way.
Speaker 2: China's the obvious country that there's been a big debate
Speaker 2: about Prime Minister's going to visit. I think it's the
Speaker 2: first prime minister or visit for the UK in eight years.
Speaker 2: Would you go to China? How would you think about
Speaker 2: relationship with China?
Speaker 1: Well, I don't believe our relationship with China is very good.
Speaker 1: I think this government is utterly craven in the way
Speaker 1: that it gives into China at every opportunity. It's a
Speaker 1: difficult problem because they've become so big, and to some
Speaker 1: extent we've become quite dependent upon them and not the
Speaker 1: other way around if you think it through. So it's
Speaker 1: a massive, massive problem, but it's not a relationship we
Speaker 1: should trust and we should be extremely cautious of them.
Speaker 2: I mean, if you're a prime minister, what does that mean?
Speaker 1: It means you don't allow them to build an embassy
Speaker 1: on the site of the storic royal mint, which could
Speaker 1: potentially threaten communications. I'm actually can't believe that Isaac Newton
Speaker 1: will be turning in his grave.
Speaker 2: I like the fact that you know, Isaacton used to
Speaker 2: be the keeper of the role mint.
Speaker 1: He'd be surprised. Why now, if.
Speaker 2: You have that kind of assitude to China, and you
Speaker 2: certainly have your great relationship with President Trump, it does
Speaker 2: sound like you'd be sort of saying, if as you
Speaker 2: go into number ten, we are going to be absolutely
Speaker 2: inextricably tied with us.
Speaker 1: Now, b I'm not saying that, but I do think about, Look,
Speaker 1: what's our growth rate going to be q for What's
Speaker 1: it going to be a zero point two percent? If
Speaker 1: it's zero point three percent, Rachel Reeves will be cheering,
Speaker 1: she might even smile. You never know. And what's America's
Speaker 1: growth rate going to be? Five percent? Five point two percent,
Speaker 1: five point four percent. There's a lot we can learn
Speaker 1: from america attitudes toward business and particularly embracing new technology.
Speaker 1: We literally have front benches in Parliament, both sides, full
Speaker 1: of people who have no comprehension, no comprehension of what
Speaker 1: this world is. And that's why I've said one thing
Speaker 1: that I will do is I want to bring people
Speaker 1: into government from outside the political sphere who are genuine
Speaker 1: experts in their area, who will take on a job
Speaker 1: at personal cost to them for four or five years
Speaker 1: to put something back. So for so much we can
Speaker 1: learn about American business, about tech, but of course we
Speaker 1: can't do any of it if we go on with
Speaker 1: our maronic energy policy, utterly moronic. Actually it was the Tories,
Speaker 1: of course, that wrote this net zero legislation into law,
Speaker 1: and we've turned our backs on gas production, we've turned
Speaker 1: our backs on oil production. This was a consensus of
Speaker 1: both parties, both with the same attitude, and here we
Speaker 1: are with industrial energy prices four times that of America.
Speaker 1: It's insane.
Speaker 2: Going back to the relationship with the US, I mean
Speaker 2: you said you talked about the dangers of being on China.
Speaker 2: We are utterly dependent on the US for many many things,
Speaker 2: including obviously very a deep level at our defense. Yes,
Speaker 2: and you're talking about closer economic ties. A lot of
Speaker 2: people this week have really questioned whether this president is
Speaker 2: a reliable partner.
Speaker 1: Okay. I did not talk about closer economic ties. I
Speaker 1: talked about learning from what the Americans have done, because
Speaker 1: they're getting it right and we're getting it wrong in
Speaker 1: terms of economics.
Speaker 2: So who are we going to have closer ties with
Speaker 2: under a reform government. Not China that would be worse,
Speaker 2: Not the US.
Speaker 1: We've got to think more in terms of the English
Speaker 1: speaking world, and yes that does include America, of course
Speaker 1: it does. But to have a close relationship doesn't mean
Speaker 1: being beholden. You know, friends will disagree from time to time.
Speaker 1: I will disagree with things Trump says, of course, from
Speaker 1: time to time.
Speaker 2: With this president, it seems that doing what you've just said,
Speaker 2: having a good relationship without being beholden.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 2: I think we even learned from Mark Carley this week,
Speaker 2: or at least his argument was means actually working with
Speaker 2: a lot of other countries, and European countries have deduced
Speaker 2: from this week and from the change in the position
Speaker 2: on Greenland that ganging together was the only way to
Speaker 2: would be not beholden to Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: You don't want to do that. Good old Mark Carney
Speaker 1: isn't need marvelous, But.
Speaker 2: You don't think you should be working with other European countries.
Speaker 1: These everything wrong. He's being promoted. It's remarkable. Look. Of course,
Speaker 1: we understand collective strength through NATO and organizations like that.
Speaker 1: All right, I get that, but let's face it, the
Speaker 1: globalist idea that we should all do the same thing,
Speaker 1: have the same regulations, have the same targets, and the EU,
Speaker 1: of course is the epicenter of all of this. For
Speaker 1: the globalists. That's now for the birds, there's a change
Speaker 1: of debate. There is now something called national interest and
Speaker 1: that's the new politics that you're seeing. That's the new
Speaker 1: approach that you're saying.
Speaker 2: I think a lot of people in this audience would
Speaker 2: say the conclusion from this week was not that was
Speaker 2: that countries cannot go alone, especially in their relationship with
Speaker 2: President Trump. They need to group together. And a lot
Speaker 2: of people in the UK will be thinking and right
Speaker 2: if we know from the polls that they want.
Speaker 1: To be closer to Europe.
Speaker 2: But you're saying the opposite, you don't want to work
Speaker 2: with other countries, and especially not with yours.
Speaker 1: I'm very happy to work with other countries. I love Europe,
Speaker 1: I love Europeans. I just don't like Brussels and the
Speaker 1: terrible autocratic structures that it's built. I don't believe it's
Speaker 1: brought any benefits whatsoever. It may have been good for
Speaker 1: one or two big companies, but beyond that it's been
Speaker 1: a failure, not a success.
Speaker 2: It's been a little bit hard from this conversation to
Speaker 2: see where the direction would be any foreign policy.
Speaker 1: This is the point, actually do an independent United Kingdom
Speaker 1: chooses its own future, chooses its own relationships, makes its
Speaker 1: own decisions. We're doing it in trade policy. Trade policy
Speaker 1: is one example of what you can do if you're
Speaker 1: not part of a structure that tells you what you
Speaker 1: can and can't do. And that's what the EU was,
Speaker 1: and that's what the Brexit world's about. Making our own choices,
Speaker 1: making our own decisions. Yes, of course, in terms of defense,
Speaker 1: NATO is crucial, America is crucial. But you ask yourself
Speaker 1: a question, you know, has Donald Trump made NATO weaker
Speaker 1: or stronger over the last ten years? And I would
Speaker 1: argue he's made NATO a lot lot stronger by waking
Speaker 1: Europeans up to the fat They couldn't go on having
Speaker 1: a free lunch. We're going to run out of time.
Speaker 2: But given that this week has been so dominated by tech,
Speaker 2: I couldn't help noticing you. This week you had to
Speaker 2: apologize for breaching the Code of Contact, for failing to
Speaker 2: declare a load of income to the Parliamentary Committee. But
Speaker 2: your explanation was, I'm an odd ball and I don't
Speaker 2: do computers. Do you think that's going to have to
Speaker 2: change some Prime Minister.
Speaker 1: I'm in a fortunate position. I get staffed to do
Speaker 1: it all for me.
Speaker 2: But that is you're just going to stee clearing of
Speaker 2: computers if you go, if you go to number ten.
Speaker 1: I spent my time meeting people. I could spend my
Speaker 1: time on a screen all day, I choose not to.
Speaker 2: Well, that is an interesting view around here with everyone
Speaker 2: talking about what I do. Will you come back?
Speaker 1: Don't forget I'm an old commodities trailer and I spend
Speaker 1: my life traveling, meeting people and having the honor a
Speaker 1: big on Bloomberg platforms with people like you.
Speaker 2: That is such a sort of cheesy way. Thank you
Speaker 2: so much, Nigel Coruh, Thanks for listening to Trumpomics from Bloomberg.
Speaker 2: It was hosted by me Stephanie Flanders. I was joined
Speaker 2: by Reform UK leader Nigel Farage. Trumponomics was produced by Summer,
Speaker 2: Sadi and Moses and with help from Amy Keene and
Speaker 2: special thanks to all of the team at Bloomberg's Davos House.
Speaker 2: Sound design was by Blake Maples and Kelly Gary and
Speaker 2: to help others find us, Please review and rate us highly.
Speaker 2: Wherever you listen to podcasts,