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