Speaker 1: Ye, Welcome to the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. I'm Tom Keene
Speaker 1: Jay Ley. We bring you insight from the best in economics, finance, investment,
Speaker 1: and international relations. Find Bloomberg Surveillance on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud,
Speaker 1: Bloomberg dot Com, and of course on the Bloomberg. I
Speaker 1: want to bring Nakis, drag him into this conversation strategy
Speaker 1: at Lombard Odier. Does this make a difference. It's a
Speaker 1: lot of noise and I'm just trying to work out
Speaker 1: whether it really disrupts this f O WEMC. I think
Speaker 1: it's definitely disrupting for the f MC um or all
Speaker 1: these noise, all these rumors. Again, I'm on the same
Speaker 1: page as you are in that I don't subscribe to
Speaker 1: these rumors. I think the the the FMC, the Federal
Speaker 1: Reserve has maintained it's it's full independence and autonomy in
Speaker 1: making all decisions. UM. One may has to question the
Speaker 1: timing of of the shift in what actually changed between
Speaker 1: December and January so that we have such a massive shift,
Speaker 1: because in December we already had a collapse in market.
Speaker 1: But nonetheless, you know, I'm still in the camp that
Speaker 1: the fed UM is operating in a total independent environment.
Speaker 1: But as you said, this is definitely not helpful and
Speaker 1: it is putting a lot of pressure on them now
Speaker 1: in terms of the fifty basis points cards. Look at
Speaker 1: what I think is interesting is that we find ourselves
Speaker 1: free of us and potentially a lot of other people
Speaker 1: that are actually discussing that the US administration is the
Speaker 1: one that's looking for a fifty basis points card. And
Speaker 1: I find this absurd. This is the job of the
Speaker 1: Federal Reserve, that's the job of the Central Bank, and
Speaker 1: the US Administration has no business into contemplating hikes or
Speaker 1: cuts in in in the federal funds rate. Right, But
Speaker 1: so as Kevin wars somewhat power. Like with Randall Crassner,
Speaker 1: appointed a zillion years ago, he got some real criticism
Speaker 1: on his confirmation, And I would suggest the zeitgeist as
Speaker 1: Governor worsh delivered the goods over his tenure, that he
Speaker 1: did a pretty darn good job. Given that the theories
Speaker 1: that he was younger and experienced and Morgan Evil Morgan
Speaker 1: Stanley and all that. Why would we think anyone appointed
Speaker 1: by the president other than a complete homer. But why
Speaker 1: would we think Chairman worsh would do what the President wants.
Speaker 1: But I don't think this is the issue. I think
Speaker 1: the issues that it creates a precedent if something happens
Speaker 1: that I think the main problem is that it has
Speaker 1: never happened, and I'm not entirely sure that the legalities
Speaker 1: of it if it can actually happen. But let's say
Speaker 1: that it does happen, and and personally I think it's
Speaker 1: a very very low probability event, but if it does,
Speaker 1: it creates a really ugly president. John I've got it interrupt.
Speaker 1: I believe right now I'm seeing live Prime Minister May
Speaker 1: and Mr Corbyn and they're going out at John is
Speaker 1: me as a foreigner, I've never seen it. Primenster's questions
Speaker 1: taking place in the house apart really going out. We'll
Speaker 1: try and bring you some highlights of that a little
Speaker 1: bit later. I think Vasilios, this issue is largely been resolved.
Speaker 1: I think the administration recognizes now that they can't get
Speaker 1: rid of Chairman Poal. What I worry about is that
Speaker 1: the President is getting bad advice, and he's getting bad
Speaker 1: advice from those around him, and I think he realizes
Speaker 1: he's had some bad advice from Treasury Secretary Stephen Manuchin
Speaker 1: on Chairman Powell. These are the individuals in and around
Speaker 1: the President suggesting who he should nominate for the f
Speaker 1: m C. He chose Chairman pal on the advice of
Speaker 1: Secretary Manu Chin Chairman Poal was never going to be
Speaker 1: the Federal Reserve chairman that the President wants it. And
Speaker 1: let's be clear, if Kevin Walsh was the second suggestion
Speaker 1: for the President of the United States, Kevin Walsh was
Speaker 1: never going to be the chairman of the Federal Reserve
Speaker 1: the President wants it. Kevin Walsh is not the uber
Speaker 1: dove of this cycle. It's no way, shape or food.
Speaker 1: Which makes me one that why aren't they making suggestions
Speaker 1: to the president that a palatable for the Senate and
Speaker 1: ultimately have the policies that the president would like Once
Speaker 1: he sits down, she sits down, German Card in the chair,
Speaker 1: why not Sherman Card long, He's earned it with public service. Honestly,
Speaker 1: I don't know. I don't have the answer to this,
Speaker 1: and I have to say that, you know, I've been
Speaker 1: puzzled by a lot of things that this administration is
Speaker 1: going through right now. I think I get the sense. However,
Speaker 1: and irrespective of specific names um for that could be
Speaker 1: nominated later for FED and everything. I think the administration
Speaker 1: right now is getting the feeling, is starting to get
Speaker 1: it that the fiscal stimulus that it was an active with,
Speaker 1: in my view, was totally untimely because it was implemented
Speaker 1: at the full employment exactly when the economy was firing
Speaker 1: at all cylinders is going to start fading. These impult
Speaker 1: physical impulses are going to start fading and potentially getting
Speaker 1: war it about this because we're getting closer to the
Speaker 1: next elections, and then they are trying to come up
Speaker 1: with potential suggestions or discussions that will be able to
Speaker 1: cushion the blow that is going to come from waning
Speaker 1: physical impulses. This has been wonderful for Silius Jannakis. Thank
Speaker 1: you so much. It's so feel very strong, and thank
Speaker 1: you so much at Lombard the Ft reporting that the
Speaker 1: US and China have resolved most of the key issues
Speaker 1: standing in the way of a deal, with the exception
Speaker 1: of two sticking points. One is the fate of existing
Speaker 1: tariffs and the second one, and maybe these two are combined,
Speaker 1: is the enforcement of any perspective trade deal. So that's
Speaker 1: hanging over the market in a good way today. Together
Speaker 1: with the better than expected services data, I believe that
Speaker 1: we can get the thoughts now if Jane Furley of
Speaker 1: Rabba Bank she's the head of FX strategy and joins
Speaker 1: us from London for more Jane, the mood music is
Speaker 1: better this Wednesday morning. Is that all it is mood
Speaker 1: music or is it something better than that? You know?
Speaker 1: I agree. I think I think ned movement music is
Speaker 1: a good sign because certainly it does seem that risk
Speaker 1: on has developed over the course of the week. We did,
Speaker 1: of course at the start of the we kept better
Speaker 1: manufacturing per marge for both China and the US, and
Speaker 1: I think that's at the market off on a positive turn.
Speaker 1: And of course the FT report about the the trade
Speaker 1: deal is almost done is it's just if you like
Speaker 1: the icing on the cake. But I don't think we
Speaker 1: need to scrape too far below that to see something
Speaker 1: a little more ominous, and that is of course related
Speaker 1: to get the slower world growth story. Now, at the
Speaker 1: end of last week, that was the one that was
Speaker 1: rising to the surface and spooking investor sentiment, and I
Speaker 1: think that will probably happen again. It needs but potentially
Speaker 1: some bad news on the trade fronts and bad and
Speaker 1: I might news and the market is going to be
Speaker 1: fearful of this all over again. Are you in the
Speaker 1: camp Chayne where you believe that if we get a
Speaker 1: trade deal, it unlocks some of the global growth concerns,
Speaker 1: does it? Well? I mean, it certainly would be good
Speaker 1: news to have some sort of trade deals that I
Speaker 1: think an awful lot of people are skeptical as to
Speaker 1: whether or not this is the end of the story.
Speaker 1: I mean, we know that the last parts of this
Speaker 1: trade deal are probably the ones that are most difficult
Speaker 1: to negotiate. We know that they're probably regarding how the
Speaker 1: US is possibly going to police some of the elements
Speaker 1: related to intellectual property rights, etcetera that that it wants
Speaker 1: China to agree to. How is that going to happen
Speaker 1: without China saying we'll look, you know, we're not going
Speaker 1: to give up any sovereignty here. So it is going
Speaker 1: to be tough, and I would expect issues related to
Speaker 1: that are going to bubble up to the surface again
Speaker 1: over the next few years. My experience with trade deals,
Speaker 1: including more lateral trade deals, Jane Folly, is the entire
Speaker 1: exercise is to save face based on what you've learned,
Speaker 1: not only the ft story but everything else. Are we
Speaker 1: in a position we're both parties quote unquote safe face. Well, again,
Speaker 1: I think China has been over the last month and say,
Speaker 1: quite concerned that they would have some sort of ceremony
Speaker 1: between the two presidents of the US and China, and
Speaker 1: then Trump would perhaps walk out in the way that
Speaker 1: he did in Vietnam. Hence the news that China just
Speaker 1: wants a signing ceremony. They want all the work to
Speaker 1: be done, first of all, because that would not be
Speaker 1: you know, a collection for China. So there is there
Speaker 1: are certain concerns with respect to that. But certainly if
Speaker 1: they did get something across the finish line, yes it
Speaker 1: would say face for both. That dependent on how of
Speaker 1: course it was. But it doesn't mean to say it's
Speaker 1: the end of the story. So what's your dollar call
Speaker 1: in there? If we get to some form of face
Speaker 1: saving solution, what bank dollar call? Well, this is quite interesting,
Speaker 1: you know, because I think the dollar has certain again
Speaker 1: you look at it today that the dollar has has
Speaker 1: fallen a little bit, and then and the dollar seems
Speaker 1: to be behaving as as a safe haven. So when
Speaker 1: the risk epitade is good. There is a tendency for
Speaker 1: investors to move into risky a current, you say, and
Speaker 1: away from the safe havens. And and that seems to
Speaker 1: be meaning that sometimes when there is good news, the
Speaker 1: dollar isn't isn't faring so well. That said, you know,
Speaker 1: we do think that over the next few months there
Speaker 1: will be concerned about world growth, that they are there,
Speaker 1: that they are very real m, and there will be
Speaker 1: real concerns about some other gen economy. Is that the euro,
Speaker 1: I think is on a weak footing. So we are
Speaker 1: generally speaking quite constructive about the outlook for the dollar,
Speaker 1: not because of the US fundamentals, to say, but because
Speaker 1: of concerns about fundamental elsewhere. Well, Jen, let's talk about
Speaker 1: how you plug in that view into G ten. Right now,
Speaker 1: it's been really difficult to get a weaker euro. Your
Speaker 1: dollar has been stuck in this really tight, narrow trading range,
Speaker 1: and I'm trying to work out how we break out
Speaker 1: to the downside because we have thrown everything at the
Speaker 1: Euro and it's still pretty resilient in the face of
Speaker 1: it all. Well, you say that, but of course that
Speaker 1: the ure really did under play the majority or certainly
Speaker 1: the market consensus expectations stance over the last year and
Speaker 1: a bit year a year in a quarter. I mean,
Speaker 1: if we go back, you know, twelve months we were
Speaker 1: trading one and now we're down at one twelve um
Speaker 1: and an awful lot of people in the market and
Speaker 1: anticipated that we will be back in at one age
Speaker 1: twenty by the end of last year. So the euro,
Speaker 1: you know, has softened. And of course the reason why
Speaker 1: the Euro has softened is because the performance of the
Speaker 1: Eurozone economy has been disappointing. We had that week number
Speaker 1: for Germany into three. Many people in many economists told
Speaker 1: us that we would see a rebound. We haven't seen
Speaker 1: that rebound. Germany, of course, is a massive export are
Speaker 1: very very sensitive to slow down in world grows and
Speaker 1: that certainly does seem to be creeping through. Another really
Speaker 1: bad number earlier in the week for its for German
Speaker 1: final manufacturing p M I. So the Euro, I think
Speaker 1: is is really on the back foot. And of course
Speaker 1: we have the May European elections. There could be uh
Speaker 1: the scope here for the far left of the far
Speaker 1: right to do relatively well in these European that they're
Speaker 1: all really really good points but a big move Law
Speaker 1: and euro Dalla were last spring when we came down
Speaker 1: from the one twenties down to sub one twenty in
Speaker 1: and around one fifteen. But since November we've tested one twelve.
Speaker 1: That's been the line in the sund three times and
Speaker 1: can't sustainably break below one twelve. So what's going to
Speaker 1: do it well? Again? You know, I think, I mean,
Speaker 1: I do see that there is the potential for us
Speaker 1: to go to to one ten. But again, in the
Speaker 1: relects of what you've just been saying, this range trading,
Speaker 1: that would be quite a sizable movie. I think it
Speaker 1: might be the politics, and I think it might be
Speaker 1: the UCB. We have a situation where the US may
Speaker 1: need to add additional liquidity because of the European aspect
Speaker 1: and against some some potential for some wobbly politics in
Speaker 1: the Eurozone too. Got a there in mine that begs
Speaker 1: it is something that doesn't reflect well on the eurozonal
Speaker 1: the EU either. Jane. I just got a brilliant idea
Speaker 1: for John Farrell's new property on Blueberg television parody watch.
Speaker 1: Do you want to do a show called parity watch?
Speaker 1: You should do? Can you imagine how boring that would
Speaker 1: be for the last couple of years. Haven't we been
Speaker 1: my parity watch since? But we're gonna get it in
Speaker 1: one ten and we're all gonna go hysterical over parody Watch.
Speaker 1: You know, the notes will come. I don't know if
Speaker 1: they're gonna come from Jane Foley, but I'm just saying
Speaker 1: the notes will probably count there. Jane Folly, thank you
Speaker 1: so much a short notice. I didn't get to Sterling,
Speaker 1: but greatly greatly appreciate that as well. This is a joy,
Speaker 1: and I think I could state for all Americans in uniform,
Speaker 1: not me, but those that have served this nation a
Speaker 1: special moment that on the seventieth anniversary of NATO, we
Speaker 1: have the advantage of James Travinus. You know him from
Speaker 1: Tells Fletcher School, his wonderful books, uh and also now
Speaker 1: at Carlisle Group. But of course he was a former
Speaker 1: Supreme Commander for NATO. Admiral, wonderful to have you with
Speaker 1: us to say good morning, Good morning Tom, big week
Speaker 1: for NATO, Big week for NATO. Let us go back
Speaker 1: to a president who supported NATO, and that would be H. S. Truman.
Speaker 1: April fourth, nineteen, The Echoes of World War Two we're
Speaker 1: in that room at the Oval Office. There was hunger
Speaker 1: in Europe. The Martiall Plan was gearing up. It was
Speaker 1: I'm going to call it pre Korea is an amateur.
Speaker 1: What was a sweat factor day one for NATO? NATO had,
Speaker 1: right from the beginning of Crystal Clear mission which was
Speaker 1: to keep the Soviet Union out, to keep the Americans in.
Speaker 1: Because Tom, you'll remember in the nineteen twenties, after World
Speaker 1: War One, we walked away from Europe. We failed to
Speaker 1: join the League of Nations that led to the Second
Speaker 1: World War. So a principal goal of NATO was not
Speaker 1: only keeping the Soviets out, but keeping the Americans in.
Speaker 1: Those were the two sweat factors. And also subliminally, people
Speaker 1: wanted to keep the Germans down. They were worried about
Speaker 1: a re arming of Germany. So there was sort of
Speaker 1: three big reasons play and they all came through. And
Speaker 1: then Charles de gal six he says, France out. I
Speaker 1: remember that uproar in junior high or high school whatever
Speaker 1: us uh, Jim, But but the president, President Trump maybe
Speaker 1: would like out to explain to President Trump right now
Speaker 1: listening why de Caen wanted out and how did America
Speaker 1: react to that. Charles de Gaull wanted out because of
Speaker 1: his immense personal ego that he felt was being subliminated
Speaker 1: by the continuing presence of France and the Alliance. And
Speaker 1: once de gall passed from the scene, France reintegrated with NATO.
Speaker 1: As you know, in terms of why we should stay
Speaker 1: in its excellent value proposition for the United States, those
Speaker 1: Europeans spent three hundred billion dollars a year on d sense.
Speaker 1: That's the second largest defense budget in the world. Tom,
Speaker 1: It's the larger than that of Russia and China combined.
Speaker 1: And so should they get up to the two person
Speaker 1: of GDP, Yes they should. The President should continue to
Speaker 1: hit them on that, but overall it's good value for
Speaker 1: a dollar. Ambassador Burns an Ambassador Loot in a study
Speaker 1: for Harvard writing in the Washington Post, I believe it
Speaker 1: was yesterday, Really go after this president of the United States.
Speaker 1: What would you advise the president is his newly minted
Speaker 1: secretary Defense As a joke, folks, what would you advise
Speaker 1: a new president of the United States about writing his
Speaker 1: message on NATO? I would tell him it's okay to
Speaker 1: push the Europeans and you want to kind of bend
Speaker 1: them a little bit to get them to spend a
Speaker 1: bit more, but you don't want to break this relationship.
Speaker 1: And boy, we think of it as a transatlantic bridge, Tom,
Speaker 1: and you kind of hear it creaking a little bit.
Speaker 1: Given some of the tone that's come out of President Trump,
Speaker 1: he could alter his tone, uh, and still get the
Speaker 1: benefits of NATO. That would be the approach to take.
Speaker 1: How are Americans treated at NATO headquarters? You walked in
Speaker 1: the door one day with a lot of fancy brass
Speaker 1: on your shoulders. How are are Americans different at the
Speaker 1: NATO headquarters than those of Europe No? Uh. I would
Speaker 1: say that the Americans are viewed as the leaders of
Speaker 1: the alliance, but not the dominant nation in the alliance.
Speaker 1: It's a very collegial atmosphere, as between all the ambassadors
Speaker 1: from the twenty nine nations and from all the senior
Speaker 1: four star officers who were there as well. Um. I
Speaker 1: had wonderful times with my European colleagues. They remain among
Speaker 1: my closest friends today and I think that level of
Speaker 1: collegiality is what the alliance is all about. And that's
Speaker 1: why the Europeans were willing to come with us to
Speaker 1: Afghanistan and fight after and eleven. The only time the
Speaker 1: NATO Alliance has energized Article five. An attack on one
Speaker 1: is an attack on all. Was after nine eleven. They
Speaker 1: came and fought and died with us in Afghanistan. Does
Speaker 1: President Trump know that? I don't think he fully appreciates that.
Speaker 1: And I'll put a personal note on it, Tom, when
Speaker 1: I was Supreme Allied Commander, I signed over two thousand
Speaker 1: letters of condolence to young men and women who died
Speaker 1: under my command in Afghanistan, over a third or from Europe.
Speaker 1: That's an important point, to say the least. James de Vitis.
Speaker 1: Last week I was in front of college kids and
Speaker 1: I stopped the show two thirds of the way through
Speaker 1: when I said, look, I'm giving you all these books
Speaker 1: to reading folks. You know, am I shut up and
Speaker 1: read this, shut up and read this. And I mentioned
Speaker 1: your leader's bookshelf. NATO is falling apart, the Transatlantic Alliance
Speaker 1: is falling apart. Which book does the President of United States?
Speaker 1: Which book does Nick Burns? Which book does Tom Kane?
Speaker 1: Which book to our listeners need to read on this
Speaker 1: magic of the Atlantic Charter and all of the North Atlantic.
Speaker 1: I would say the right answer is the Second World
Speaker 1: War by Winston Churchill, because it is the ultimate cautionary
Speaker 1: tale for what happens when we don't work together as allies.
Speaker 1: And it's in the end a very reaffirming book about
Speaker 1: the work of the Alliance as it came together in
Speaker 1: the aftermath to World War Brilli Alliance exists, so we
Speaker 1: don't do that again. Was that shaped by the fascinatings?
Speaker 1: And this is an h. Larabie book, folks, on the
Speaker 1: on the generals and admirals of World War Two? But
Speaker 1: was was Churchill's book shaped on the Battle of Fdr
Speaker 1: with the assistance of Marshall. Dealing with Churchill and then
Speaker 1: say dealing with Montgomery, just the the huge arguments that
Speaker 1: were in the middle of this war where everybody was
Speaker 1: on the same side. Indeed, and here I'm just going
Speaker 1: to draw a line under one admiral and one general.
Speaker 1: The admiral was Admiral Leahy, who was the President's chief
Speaker 1: of Staff, five star fleet admiral, and the general, of
Speaker 1: course was George Marshall, effectively the chairman of the Joint
Speaker 1: Chiefs as we understand it today, those two were the steady, calm,
Speaker 1: quiet presence in Washington that helped forge the friendship and
Speaker 1: the alliance that ultimately ultimately carried the day between FDR
Speaker 1: and Churchill, which was the most important relationship in winning
Speaker 1: World War Two. James T. Venas, thank you so much.
Speaker 1: This is a joy we've you know, within the debate,
Speaker 1: any given debate, there's always one side. It's easier to get,
Speaker 1: i would say, and it's easy to get euroskeptics. Brexiteers
Speaker 1: is one phrase. Roland Road is a little different. He
Speaker 1: is in the public relations business, but that barely describes
Speaker 1: his commitment to the fabric of London and actually doing
Speaker 1: things instead of talking about it. Mr Rudd has an
Speaker 1: affiliation with one of the jewels of London, the Royal
Speaker 1: Opera House, where in a today rather you will see Barnie.
Speaker 1: Will you be going to the opera tonight? Mr Rudd, Well,
Speaker 1: I'm not actually going tonight. I've got a dinner with
Speaker 1: them very cent piece, where we're going to continue the
Speaker 1: great discussion that you were just touching on the fabric
Speaker 1: of London. If the Brexiteers win, if they push Prime
Speaker 1: Minister May and Mr Corbin aside and we go through
Speaker 1: the tumult that we've we're all exhausted from. Will your
Speaker 1: London change, Well, it will undoubtedly change. I mean, if
Speaker 1: we go for a Brexit deal where we're closely aligned
Speaker 1: to the European Union, it will be you know, incremental slow,
Speaker 1: but a clear decline over a decade. Whereas if we
Speaker 1: go for this, you know, for some reason we crashed out,
Speaker 1: which I really don't think will happen now, but if
Speaker 1: we did, it would be very quick and very brutal,
Speaker 1: and we would see the difference within and it would
Speaker 1: be quite catastrophic I think for our city and country.
Speaker 1: The Times of London has that Labor MP who writes
Speaker 1: without his name. I think it's almost every day in
Speaker 1: the in the newspaper, and he is a remain Labor
Speaker 1: right whose constituents are Leave people. How prevalent is that
Speaker 1: would you say across the Great Britain? I mean, are
Speaker 1: there a lot of MPs talk and remain where their
Speaker 1: constituents are talking? Lee? Yeah, I wouldn't say there are
Speaker 1: a lot. I can think of quite a few Labor
Speaker 1: mtes who are basically remainers, who represent Leave constituencies and
Speaker 1: have steadfastly refused to support putting the any potential deal
Speaker 1: back to the people. So it works the other way
Speaker 1: as well. But I think what you've seen recently is
Speaker 1: Parliament really reaffirming its its authority and really ensuring that
Speaker 1: ultimately it will have the final say, and even the
Speaker 1: Prime Minister, you know, last night when she made her
Speaker 1: decision to cut a drift the sort of far right
Speaker 1: of the party known as the e r G, the
Speaker 1: European Reformed Group UM, but she made clear that if
Speaker 1: she can't do a deal with Corbyn, that's plan A.
Speaker 1: Plan B is literally to allow Parliament to the side
Speaker 1: in a sort of alternative vote system. So Roland, as
Speaker 1: we get down to the final days, although they're very well,
Speaker 1: maybe a further extension, what is the view of the
Speaker 1: EU right now? Do you think they're in more of
Speaker 1: a mood to do some type of deal, to be
Speaker 1: a little bit more flexible to help the UK. Long.
Speaker 1: I think they are, But I think you have to
Speaker 1: divide it. So if you take Germany and someone like
Speaker 1: Donald Tusk present uh, you know, or of the Council,
Speaker 1: If if you take them, then they are very much
Speaker 1: UM in the basis of trying to help us. They
Speaker 1: would like to see us ask for long extension, so
Speaker 1: we could then put anything agreed back to the people.
Speaker 1: Um and of course you have to remember, you know
Speaker 1: with Germany they sell us much more than we sell them.
Speaker 1: If you take France, where we basically sell them by
Speaker 1: rough the same from each other, then President mcon has
Speaker 1: taken a far tougher line on Britain. I would just
Speaker 1: add one rider to that, which is if we were
Speaker 1: clear with him that we wanted a longer extension because
Speaker 1: the plan was to allow the people to have a
Speaker 1: final say, and that there was an option of either
Speaker 1: remaining or revoking Article fifty, so we in effect remained,
Speaker 1: then I think he becomes our friend because he would
Speaker 1: then be able to say, look, here's a country that
Speaker 1: dabbled with this sort of populism and looked over the
Speaker 1: abyss and decided, you know what, it's not worth it
Speaker 1: and came back. So at that point he'd be our friend.
Speaker 1: But before that point, in terms of if we tried
Speaker 1: to get a small extension, he won't agree to that.
Speaker 1: So Roland, you mentioned perhaps putting this whole issue quote
Speaker 1: unquote back to the people. What do you think is
Speaker 1: most likely in la scenario, would it be a second
Speaker 1: referendum or would it be you know, a new election.
Speaker 1: Well you can see you can see the possibility of both.
Speaker 1: So you could have an election and out of from
Speaker 1: the election you then lead into having another um public vote,
Speaker 1: but of course in a referendum. But of course that
Speaker 1: the problem for that the Conservative Party, which of course empower,
Speaker 1: is that not only is Thereason May said she wouldn't
Speaker 1: be here for the next election, which is not really
Speaker 1: due until but she she of course also said she
Speaker 1: would go if her Brexit deal got through. So you
Speaker 1: find it very hard to see any circumstance and which
Speaker 1: the reason May will leave the Conservative Party in the election,
Speaker 1: which means the consertive party then has to have a
Speaker 1: leadership election before a general election. So that makes it
Speaker 1: very contemplated, very very complicated in terms of being able
Speaker 1: to do all of that with in that pulp of times. Right,
Speaker 1: Roland Road, thank you so much, greatly greatly appreciate it.
Speaker 1: With Finnsbury and of course uh with the Royal Opera
Speaker 1: House as well. He is decidedly remained. Thanks for listening
Speaker 1: to the Bloomberg Surveillance podcast. Subscribe and listen to interviews
Speaker 1: on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, or whichever podcast platform you prefer.
Speaker 1: I'm on Twitter at Tom Keane before the podcast. You
Speaker 1: can always catch us worldwide. I'm Bloomberg Radio