The Rest Is Politics: Leading - 122. How Europe can survive Trump (Frans Timmermans)

Episode Date: February 24, 2025

Are Trump and Putin carving up the world? How should the EU adapt to this new world? What imagination is needed on the political left?  TRIP Plus: Become a member of The Rest Is Politics Plus to support the podcast, receive our exclusive newsletter, enjoy ad-free listening to both TRIP and Leading, benefit from discount book prices on titles mentioned on the pod, join our Discord chatroom, and receive early access to live show tickets and Question Time episodes. Just head to therestispolitics.com to sign up, or start a free trial today on Apple Podcasts: apple.co/therestispolitics. Instagram: @restispolitics  Twitter: @RestIsPolitics  Email: [e-mail] Video Editor: Josh Smith  Assistant Producer: Alice Horrell Social Producer: Jess Kidson Producer: Nicole Maslen Senior Producer: Dom Johnson Head of Content: Tom Whiter Exec Producers: Tony Pastor + Jack Davenport Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Thanks for listening to The Restis Politics. Sign up to the Restis Politics Plus. To enjoy ad-free listening, receive a weekly newsletter, join our members chat room and gain early access to live show tickets. Just go to therestispolities.com. That's the restis politics. Welcome to the Restis Politics leading with me, Alice Campbell. And with me, Rory Stewart. And we are with Franz Timmermans. Now, Franz Timmermans is a Dutch politician. I think, unless we count Nick Clegg, who's half Dutch, I think he's our first Dutch politician on Learie. but he's a very unusual Dutch politician. For start, he speaks seven languages. He was educated in four different countries. So therefore, the job that he took as vice president at the European Commission, you might think, was absolutely made for him. But he left that to become the leader of the Labour Green Coalition

that tried to beat the hard right party of Gert Wilders in the recent Dutch election. And is now there. therefore, leader of the Labour Party in the Netherlands, but has got vast experience of European politics, of climate. It was he who oversaw the introduction of the EU Green Deal, which was one of the big steps forward in the fight against climate change. He's got a lot of interesting experience in Russia, and we're delighted to have him as a guest. Yes. Well, so Mr. Timmermans, firstly welcome. Thank you very much for coming on the show.

I wonder whether we could begin by you giving us the sense of where we are in the world and whether you'd ever imagine that you'd be living in a world in which Hed Vilders' party got the most votes in the Dutch election. Donald Trump has been re-elected a second time. And we have the situation that seems to be unfolding as we speak with Russia, Ukraine in the United States. So based on your experience, what on earth is happening? What's your view of the world's situation? First of all, thank you very much for having me on your show. I mean, I'm a great admirer of your work and I follow you very closely a couple of times a week. You know, the question you ask is a question that bothers me a lot because, you know, like many politicians, I ask myself, what have I missed? How is it that we're in this situation. We saw some trends over a longer period of time. But then still this enormous surprise of, of Trump calling Putin excluding Ukraine out of discussion of its own future,

turning his back on Europe after 80 years of consistent policy, etc., etc. And it's not the first time this happened to me. I remember when the war fell, we were not prepared for that, even though the signs were clear before then. And also when I worked in the Soviet Union, when I started reporting as a young diplomat, listen, the Soviet Union is going to fall apart. Everybody was telling me, you're killing your career with these reports.

It's not going to happen because it's not in their interest. And it's certainly not an arrow interest. So as though the Russians were even interested in taking our interest into account their choices. But my conclusion after what I've experienced is that we have a lack of imagination. We still have a lack of imagination. We just can't imagine the extent of the changes that can occur. and then we can't imagine the consequences of those changes, which mostly are unintended consequences. Who'd you mean by we there, France?

Perhaps my class of diplomats, if I can still refer to myself as a diplomat, those of us who try and follow international relations, like you two as well, I shared fully Rory's analysis of the outcome of the United States elections, and we were both horribly wrong about this, simply because we thought, I thought at least, with my experience, that I could make a fair assessment of where we would be going. And at my age, I'm almost 64. You tend to forget when you were wrong and you tend to really remember well when you were right. And all of this combined, the older I get, the more humility I develop for my own analysis. And in the situation we're now in, we can talk for hours about how we got it wrong. But, now we have to get cracking and get things right.

Is there a part of you that we is Europe, that we didn't have the imagination to see what was happening, and we Europe have underestimated the pace of change that has taken so many of us by surprise? Well, I think if I recall my own euphoria in 1989 and the tremendous success that nobody, you know, I remember vividly being in Eastern Europe when there was still always. wall. I remember vividly the huge difference in development, both morally, politically, economically, between East and West. And I would have never imagined that when the wall fell in 89, that by 2004, all these countries would be a member of the EU. That was an

enormous achievement, incredible achievement. Arguably, the biggest achievement in Europe in the past century. This created so much optimism that went in to hubris at some point. And I think it's a hubris that got us, the belief that, you know, everything was moving in the same direction, backlashes were not to be expected. And even though I consistently was very pessimistic about Russia, that nobody wanted to hear that. And we then fell into the trap, the Germans first and foremost, but all of us, certainly us, such as well, to think, well, by tying in Russia, by creating an energy community with Russia, which is, in fact, what the German did and we followed suit, we would make them dependent on us being their customer and

underestimated how we became dependent on their energy. And given the fact that it was cheap, we could compete with the Americans and the Chinese who also had cheap energy. And once the era of cheap energy ended, the European economy immediately got deep into trouble because in the same period, energy prices in the US went down and then Europe went up. And that That's an impossible situation for an industrial group of countries to be in. Let me just pick up on what you said about that amazing moment in 2004. So just to remind listeners, suddenly more than a dozen countries join the European Union. And you have this miracle, really, that countries like Lithuania and Romania, which were relatively poor,

had a complete economic and democratic transformation. And the hope at the time was this would accelerate. And there were all these other candidate members in the Western Balkans, so, you know, around former Yugosavia and even in the Caucasus, places like Georgia, that it seemed 20 years ago were well on their way to joining the European Union, that this experiment would continue to flow. But basically, it stalled and seemed to grind to a halt. and that the final members joining really were part of a process which was still had begun in the early 2000s. What happened? Did Europe lose its nerve? Did its people rebel? Was there an absence of imagination? I mean, how do you see what happened over that 20-year period? Well, I think to some extent there was a lack of political leadership. There was a lack of understanding.

There was all sorts of presumptions with this. I remember very vividly traveling in Eastern Europe just before the collapse of of the Iron Curtain. And when this idea came about, you're going to be members of you. And many of people thought, well, once the Iron Curtain has gone, somebody will drive up with a Mercedes and give me a Mercedes, and I will be as rich as the people in the West.

And in the West, the assumption was, once these countries are going to join step by step, they'll all turn out like we are, and nothing's going to change for us, and everything will stay the same. And we never prepared our population for the fact that joining two sides of Europe changes both sides of Europe. And having a union with 25 and later 27 member states is a lot more problematic than having

a union of 6, 9, 12 and 15, especially with all the differences there were. And these differences are not just economic. Those were the most important differences. But there were huge cultural differences and especially political differences that needed to be accommodated, that needed to find the spot. And obviously the new member states said, okay, we will eat humble pie for a couple of years, but we're going to catch up. And now, rightfully, they're saying, listen, we are equal member states. We deserve exactly the same role.

Our priorities are also priorities for the EU. And this emancipation, which is, in fact, it was an emancipation, a political emancipation, did not always go down well in the old member states, especially not in my country in different countries where people were saying, hey, wait a minute. You were saying this is going to make them like us, but it's changing us as well. And we have all these people coming to work here. I'm not sure we can accommodate them. And they also have their demands. And we don't always get our way anymore.

And sometimes we're outvoted. We don't want that. And we haven't been able sufficiently to convince people that, yes, there are things you have to give up, but there's so much more you get back for this. And so the downsides were emphasized a lot. Of course, nationalism made a huge comeback. And this is wonderful fuel for nationalists to use. Then it's drawn into identity. And you remember the first instance?

It was a man who sadly died yesterday, which was a leading Dutch politician, Bulkistan. He was a liberal. When he became European Commissioner, he wanted to liberalize the services on the European scale, which in the UK went down extremely well, but which in France led to almost a revolution because they didn't want a Polish plumber that would destroy the labor market.

So the consequences on a geopolitical scale of European enlargement, it's the biggest achievement Europe has ever had. But for the individual citizens in the old member states, the feeling was also, hey, something's being taken away from me. And I get competition from people who are willing to work for cheaper wages. And it's going to be harder to find a home, et cetera. etc, et cetera. So we really, really were not successful in selling this to our public as a huge achievement for all of us and a contribution to our stability. And because it became more

difficult, instead of making the story of Europe bigger, we made it smaller and smaller and reduced it to simply the common market. And I think this is one of the elements that contributed to to Brexit is that we reduced the European saga, the European destiny, to simply, are we making enough money out of this or not? At the end of the day, this is not something you can rally people around. I'm convinced about that. A couple of questions related to that, France. The first is, if you're one of the current candidate countries, can you really give them any hope that enlargement isn't frankly finished. And secondly, I really grapple and struggle with the idea that Hungary is still in while some of these other countries are still out. And I think that itself sends a very,

very powerful negative message about what the European Union has become. I agree with you. First of all, I think Trump might be with all the misery he's bringing to our transatlantic relationship. He might be a blessing of disguise of EU enlargement because I think there will be a rethink in a number of member states in should we not consolidate also EU membership. I think there will be a speeding up of the process of EU membership of Ukraine.

But you can't do that if you don't offer a real perspective also to countries in the Balkans, also to Moldova, also to Georgia. And in this process, we will have to start from scratch by saying, listen guys, this is something we need to do for our security and our stability, but it's going to be a really different union than the union you're used to. If you don't say that at the outset, people will be frustrated, disappointed,

and will start refusing this development in early stages. Secondly, on your second point about Hungary, you know, I don't know if you know this, but I had huge fights with the Hungarians. I took them to court many, many times in my first mandate as European Vice President. I won all the court cases against them. I was together with Soros, enemy number one for many, many years in Hungary. If you would have asked this question a year ago,

I would have said immediately, they don't belong in the EU. They really don't belong in the EU. They're a thorn in our side. They weaken us. You know, the fact that Macron had to call a summit with only a limited number of member states of the EU the other day is because of Hungary.

They don't want Hungary at the table when they discuss Russia and Ukraine. So a year ago, I would have said, you no longer belong with it. But political developments in Hungary have really changed. And Orbán is really losing his grip on the country. He has let his country down in such a horrible way. Healthcare in Hungary is by far worse than in any other country in the region and in the EU, because he's never invested in that. He's built stadiums in his village. He's done horrible. He's made all his friends filthy rich with EU money. but he's not invested in development of his country. And now Hungarians, they're not becoming lefties all of a sudden.

On the contrary, they stay firmly on the right of the political spectrum, but they want to get rid of corruption, and they're leaving him in drones, and they're going to elect somebody else at the next election, and that will bring back Hungary in the folds of Europe, I'm convinced. France, can you explain for an ordinary British or European voter why they should care about the Western Balkans or the Caucasus. Because if I was to go out, I don't know, on X or Twitter and say, we really need to concentrate on what's happening in the Western Balkans or the Caucasus,

many voters would just say, are you crazy? I mean, I don't even know where these places are. This is completely irrelevant to our lives. Why are we talking about them? So make the case for why these places matter to us. Yes, Roy, I almost hear the echo of it's about people far away with whom we have no etc. What I really hope we could bring across is that what's happening now between Trump and Putin who have taken out their carving knives and said, okay, I'll take a part of Europe, you get a

part of Europe, and then we'll both be happy and Trump thinks, I might one day be as filthy rich as you are, Vladimir. That's the thinking. That's 19th century thinking. But I would like to say this 19th century thinking has been going on for a decade or more. in the Balkans because Europe has not sped up the integration of these countries. So everyone and their dogs are fighting for the Balkans. It's the Russians, it's the Turks, it's the Saudis by now, it's us. And then, of course, there's competition even between European countries. Some feel closer to Croatia.

Others feel closer to Serbia. You know all of that. Again, it's exactly the same game as in the 19th century. and it could also not end in the same way, you know, history rhymes, it doesn't repeat itself, but it could again lead to bloody conflict in that area if the prospect of EU integration isn't kept alive. And I strongly believe in this. If membership is not on the books, and I've argued this endlessly in the European Commission, at least offer them an energy union.

We all have an energy issue on our continent, and we can only solve that by reducing energy prices. The only way we can do that is speeding up energy transition to renewables. And the only way we can do that is if we do it on a continental scale. And Ukraine will be a huge asset in this. But also the Balkans can be extremely useful, especially because then interlinkages with Turkey can also be created in a positive way. So it is about our stability. It is about importing conflict if you don't export stability. That's the deal.

It's very simple. either we export our stability or their instability will be imported into the heart of Europe. What role did Brexit have in this reshaping that's going on? And what has the medium-term impact been to the rest of the European Union of the UK leaving? Well, for me personally, it had a devastating effect on me personally. I was depressed for a long, long time when it happened. I couldn't believe this happening, even though I had a wager with the then British commissioner. I said they'll vote to go out, and it was more trying to dispel my fears than that I thought they would vote to go out.

And they did. I kept the pound that I won in that wager as a moment of this, because it was a huge blow to Europe's position in the world. A huge blow. We tried to mitigate it, and I was in the commission with John Claude Juncker at the time, and he himself, and first he was very insulted by this, but then people with his very very very very. vision of Europe and a number of people around him, actually were happy with Brexit because they thought, then we can go along with the Europe like we wanted, because the Brits were always making things difficult for us. And I had the complete opposite view. British membership

of the EU kept the EU in balance and kept the EU in a place in international relations. The EU needs to be. And one of the reasons we're now on the menu rather than at the table is because the UK left. This didn't mean that the UK's all of a sudden became a global player. It really diminished UK's position in the world as well. So both of us lost tremendously. And I'm not even talking about the horrible economic effects on the UK of this. Is there something, of course it takes two to tango, but do you think there are things that the EU could offer be more generous and more imaginative to get Britain closer again? Well, I think Kirstama going to Paris for this summit, to me, has historic significance for a number of reasons.

First of all, the UK saying, we're in this together, and we are trying to be the bridge to the US, however difficult that is, is a huge gift to Europe. But it also strengthens the UK's position on the continent, but also internationally. So it works both ways. So I think this is a wonderful beginning. And my hope is that this will make the discussion. about getting closer to Europe in the UK easier. I think the public is ready for this, unless you correct me. This is how I see the British public.

The British political establishment isn't ready for this, and sadly the Labour Party isn't ready for this, but I hope the Labour Party will soon be ready for this out of simple necessity. And then Europe, the EU, the European Commission, leading nations in Europe, will have to be creative in offering things they can offer to the UK that are perhaps a bit out of the box, like looking at another way of creating free trade across the English Channel,

another way of involving, I mean, it would be a huge asset for us, EU, and for Britain to be part of the energy union. Why not? We share the shallow North Sea. It's the biggest source of our future energy. And Britain is an integral part of that. And Ireland is doing well at this. We could have an interconnection all the way from Ireland to the UK.

Ukrainian-Russian border at some point. And I think we need to think in those terms about common projects that we need to work on. And then at some point, a relationship between the UK and the EU will develop that will be fruitful for both sides. I don't want to, you know, talk about membership. That's a very, very long process. But there are alternatives to membership. Necessity makes us, forces us to think in creative terms. And I suspect Norway will go more or less the same way. So that might make things for Britain a bit easier as well. You're back to the point about where the imagination is going to come from and we shall see. But just sticking with Ukraine for a moment, how do you see this ending given the move that Trump

recently made? In the blackest of scenarios, in the worst possible scenarios, and they strike a deal and we are too weak as Europeans to prevent that deal from happening. And they carve up Europe and they give Putin what he wants on Ukraine. And we would say, yeah, like with Czechoslovakia, 1938, yeah, too bad, nothing we can do about this. At least now he's satisfied and we've finished. Two things will happen. Putin will start rearming immediately and will take more out of Ukraine and will start

threatening other countries in the region. And if the administration in the U.S. continues like this. and they actively disavow Article 5 of NATO, then even NATO countries will be threatened, especially the Baltic states. So that is the worst possible scenario. And then in Ukraine, you know, the Ukrainians will not accept this, and you will have a resistance movement,

you will have civil war. I mean, this is a, I need to imagine it because it's possible, but it would be the worst possible outcome for Europe. But it's not impossible. this would occur. I hope this call to arms in Europe will lead to a stronger European position. I think, you know, this horribly inexperienced team that Trump is now fielding. The Russians are like a cat with mice playing with the Americans right now. And Trump is even echoing Putin's playbook on a daily basis, accusing Ukraine of having started this war, etc.

they're absolutely drinking vodka directly from the bottle right now in Moscow because it's all going their way. But this can't last. This is going to hurt Trump more and more also domestically if he continues along these lines. And then perhaps we will get a moment where Trump will say, okay, Europeans are needed at the table. We will not strike a deal without the Ukrainians being part of that deal. And then at the same time, we as Europeans, need to mobilize together with the Brits, as much money and weapons we can mobilize now to put Zelensky in the strongest possible position in the coming weeks and months so that he can continue this fight because it's taking a lot out

of the Russians as well. You know, 1,500 casualties in the Russian side every single day. Putin is not that strong. So we need to show our strength. That's the only language he understands. I met the man for the first time when he was deputy mayor in Petersburg in 1991. So I've known him for all these years. I've seen how he develops. This is the worst possible form of authoritarian ruler who will not stop unless somebody says stop and pushes him back. Okay, France, I'll let's a quick break. Hey, this is Michael and Hannah from Gollhangers. The Rest is Science. This episode is brought to you by Cancer Research UK. We often think of beating cancer as treatment, but imagine stopping it before it begins. After years of work, Cancer Research UK scientists are launching a

clinical trial of lung vax, the first vaccine designed to prevent lung cancer. It builds on TracerX, the world's largest cancer evolution study, which tracked lung cancer cells over many years to uncover the disease's earliest warning signs. Lung Vax is designed to train the immune system to spot these signs early on, destroying 40 cells before cancer develops. So it's not treatment, but preventative, with the potential to stop. lung cancer before it starts. The first stage of the trial starts this year, focusing on people at higher risk. It shows what long-term research makes possible. For more information about Cancer

Research UK, their research breakthroughs and how you can support them, visit cancerresearchuk org forward slash the rest is science. Hi everybody, it's Dominic Samark here from The Rest is History. Now, some of you may have heard me on your show, The Rest is Politics, when Rory was away, and I was filling in and enjoying Alastair Campbell's tremendous banter. And I'm back to tell you about our new series on The Restis History, which is all about Britain in the 1970s, a period with a lot of uncanny resemblances to our own. So right now we're living through a moment when oil shocks generated by war in the Middle East

are rippling through the world economy, when Britain feels like it's sunk in a bit of a malaise. People are arguing about Europe. The government has got a few issues with the trade unions. And we have a kind of, I suppose you'd say governing elite, a kind of political class that is really struggling to come to terms with all of these issues. And people are asking if Britain is governable at all. So there are a lot of parallels between that Britain that I'm describing, which is our Britain, and the Britain of the mid-1970s. So in this series that's coming out on the rest is history,

we'll be looking at these and other issues. We'll be talking about the rise of Margaret Thatcher, obviously a colossal figure in our political life even now, whether you love her or loathe her. We'll be talking about the very first Brexit referendum of 1975, a subject that I'm sure Rory and Alistair will have strong opinions about. We'll be talking about the fall of the Labour Prime Minister Harold Wilson and we'll be talking about one of the grimmest moments in Britain's economic history, the moment in 1976 when we had to go cap in hand, as people said at the time, to the International Monetary Fund, the IMF, for a then record bailout. Now, if that sounds good to you, how could it not sound good to you?

Of course it sounds good to you. We have a clip for you to listen to at the end of this episode. And if you want to hear more, just search for the rest. is history wherever you get your podcasts. Friends, it helped me understand what Trump's vision of the US and the world is. Because it's quite difficult to create a kind of theory of what he's doing. Traditionally, America had this very generous development aid. And in places like Nepal, they would say, you don't need to take a contract from China.

We will give you 500 million to build an electric network into India. India, you know, they would make Jordan very dependent on US money. They provide security guarantees to their allies in Europe. And there's broadly speaking an idea that American military, development assistance, trade policy for 80 years has created a sense of shared values, shared rules, shared allies. And suddenly, no, we have a man doing these things in Ukraine, doing these things in Gaza, doing these things with international development assistance. doing these things with Canada, doing these things with Denmark and Greenland. I mean, what is the theory here? What's his worldview? Roy, I always admire your analytical skills on these things. So I'll just give you my analysis.

To a large extent, it's all domestic policy. To a large extent, it's playing to what MAGA expects of him. To large extent, it's showing that America's respected again. I mean, it's quite the contrary. It's sometimes so Orwellian. Everything they say is, is upside down. Look at Vance's speech in Munich. And it's all playing to MAGA. But the consequences of this are phenomenal and horrible for the position of the United States. And we're just collateral damage in all of this. But the United States itself and its international position is one of the main victims. The only way I can picture what he's doing is like, you know, if you have a big city, let's imagine the world is a big city, and you have different gangs. And the gangs say,

okay, let's not have a gang war. Let's divide up the city. You'll carve it up and I'll have my part. You'll have your part and will be the sovereign in my part. I will not interfere what you do in your part. And by the way, to do that, I need Greenland. Okay, too bad for NATO partner Denmark. You're simply not in my area of influence. So if I want to take Greenland without any justification, if I want to take Panama, if I want to take Canada for that matter, I get to do that. that. And if Xi Jinping wants to take Taiwan, well, that's up to him. That's his part of the world. And, you know, Europe, let's divide it between Vlad and myself, and then we'll all be happy. I mean, I don't think it's much deeper than that, sadly. The only question for me is,

at what point is the United States going to wake up? And I take some comfort from Churchill, who said, you know, the United States, they always do the right thing after having done all the wrong things before that. So let's hope this will happen. But let's Let's hope it happens soon and before the consequences are so grave that we're hardly able to come out of them without huge damage to our position. You're being very, very frank. You know, you're now an elected politician and a leader of a political party in the Netherlands. Do you have any sympathy for those prime ministers and presidents of the smaller countries around the world who are thinking, well, maybe I do have to cozy up to him a bit.

Maybe I do have to tell him he's wonderful at golf or his Trump towers are all fantastic or we're going to do deals together. Or do you think actually now is the time for people who believe the kind of things which you're saying, which I think most people in Europe do, they've got to stand up and say so and be counted. Well, you know, if flattery could get us out of the situation anytime soon, I would be, you know, lying at his feet, kissing his feet, whatever would be necessary. but I fully respect the European leaders, being nice to him and doing whatever he really needs for his ego. If I were Prime Minister, I do exactly the same thing, to be honest with you. The only thing is, at the same time, you need to create a united front, because I remember vividly in the European Commission when he threatened Europe with trade measures. Angela Merkel had the foresight to say to Jean-Claude Juncker, Jean-Claude,

you are now speaking on behalf of all of us. That is not a point of discussion. We will not speak to them about this. You will do this. They tried everything to sideline the commission, to talk to individual prime ministers. And Angela had the clout to tell to the rest of the Europeans. Now, all of you, shut up, let Juncker do this job.

And Juncker did. There's also, and this shows the genius of Merkel. She understood that there was also measure of misogyny in the game, especially against slightly older women. And she understood that that wouldn't be helpful. So that was also a reason to put Jean-Claude in that game. And, of course, the commission is responsible for trade. And at the end of the day, we struck a deal. And Trump said of Jean-Claude Juncker, he's a brutal killer, literal quote, I heard him say. You have to have this deference to a man who sees himself as a great leader or who needs to

confirmation that he's a great leader. But at the same time, you have to be tough against a man who sees himself as a tough negotiator and has respect for other tough negotiators. And as long as he can portray whatever he negotiates as a good deal for him, then he will let you have a victory as long as it's not seen as a victory. I don't want to flatter you too much, but it's quite unusual. We spend a lot of time interviewing frontline politicians and they're not usually quite as open or nuanced as you are. And Alastra and I listening to you as, you know, professional political people will think, and most, oh, that's quite a daring thing to say.

You know, the British press would have fun with that. They would attack you about that, etc. How have you got to where you are in your political formation? Why are you comfortable talking in this way? Comfortable admitting where you're wrong, comfortable admitting what you don't understand. I mean, tell us a little bit about what your philosophy is of politics and political communication. Well, I didn't win the election. I'm in the opposition. That makes things easier. I couldn't be saying these things if I were prime minister. And I wouldn't be saying them if I were prime minister. Let's be honest. You can't expect prime ministers to say these things. I didn't win the election. But you want to win the next one. Yeah. Yeah. I think I can win the election. And then everything you're saying now is used against you. Yeah. Fine. I don't mind. I am explicit today because I have a sense. of urgency today.

And if I were just thinking about what could be used against me once I would be in a position of governing, then I might have missed the opportunity to warn people about the things I feel today are topical and urgent. When I came back to Dutch politics, I wasn't prepared for the fact

that things had gotten so rough in Dutch politics. It's very personal. It's not as rough as in the UK, but it's also a lot more personal. The attacks, especially from people who disagree with me on the right, and especially on the radical right, are really very, very personal. I struggled to deal with that for quite some time because I wasn't used to it. I was used to be criticized about my policy, the Green Deal, et cetera, but I wasn't used to this being directed at me as a person. And at some point, I decided to just not care about that so much. It's like crossing a Rubicon.

I'm not sure this will work for me politically. I'm not sure, but personally, it works well. Personally, I sleep better because of this and I care a bit less. And interestingly enough, once the people who know it hurts you see that it doesn't hurt you so much anymore, they relent a bit. They don't continue in the same way. And I've been very open about my personal life in the last couple of months. I couldn't get my weight under control anymore, so I had a gastric bypass operation. And I decided to be very open about that so that people knew what I was struggling with and how I dealt with it.

And I think this is working well for me on a personal level. I have no idea whether it works well politically. It might not work well politically, but that's not my main concern. Francis, just to develop this one more time, we live in an age of politics where the populists seem to be winning. And it's an age that feels like performance, spectacle, attention grabbing, social media. And therefore, there's a lot of pressure on the old center left to change. You know, we will interview people on the podcast who will say, well, we have to be more like the populace. You know, we have to get out there and make more outrageous things.

We have to grab the airtime. We have to do all this stuff. What's your sense of this? What's your sense of what this new political context is? And what people from your side of politics should and should not do to respond to this threat? Well, I tried, and it certainly didn't work for me. It didn't work for me at all. And I struggled for six months in this parliament.

before finding my own voice again and just no longer trying to be like them and just be myself. And that works better. It's not perfect yet. You know, we're doing okay in the polls, but we're not growing yet in the polls. So I have a lot of work to do. I was reminded of something Bill Clinton once said to me many, many years ago, when these populists came up, how do we deal with it? And he said, well, I know one thing for sure.

Never get into a mud fight with a pig, because the pig feels really comfortable. and you look really bad. And he was so right because it happened to me. When I tried to match Gertrilders, I'm not calling him a pig, it's just a figure of speech. Certainly not calling him a pig because he's a very, very smart

and in my view, very astute politician with whom I profoundly disagree. But when I tried in a debate with his methods, he beat me so easily because he's so much better at it. And I felt really bad about myself doing this.

And people could, because I have a very expressive face, people could see it that I was feeling bad about myself. And so I stopped and now I address him in my own way. And that feels a lot better. Is it effective politically? I don't know. But I know one thing for sure. Don't try and be somebody or not because people see it

and people will not like you for it. And you certainly not add yourself for it. But the people that you're talking about, the Trumps, the Wilders, the, I would say the Johnsons, the Farages, these people on the populace right, I don't think they're being themselves because they project themselves as being for the people. But it's a schick. They're not for the people. They're for themselves. And so we do have to, when you talk about imagination, what's the imagination that's needed on the progressive left now to take these people on and beat them? What I believe is if I look back at our election in November 23, it was more like a Brexit referendum than an election because people were so fed up with the government not performing, with the government being in a number of real horrible scandals about social security, about ethically profiling people who had a right to social security, horrible scandals. And people were so fed up with the government and they took it out on the establishment. And, you know, even if we are not the elite in economic terms and financial terms, far from it,

we are seen as the elite in cultural and political terms, and they really took it out on us. And that is a phenomenon you see everywhere in the Western world. And it's also a consequence of a whole range of financial crises, of, you know, the really big downside of that's right economics, which has led to an explosion of what you can make with capital without hardly any gains of what you can make with labor and our taxation systems are so out of sync with our economies that these discrepancies, people aren't crazy, people aren't stupid, they understand that this is an unjust world,

that you can be filthy rich without working and that you can work two jobs and still can't afford to find a home. That's the reality for millions of people in the Western world. And if we don't fix that, they'll never vote for us again. And that's why I believe that Keir Stama is doing in the UK with all the difficulties there are. And however impopular he is today, he will have to change the system. And if you start changing the system, you hurt people. If the system then starts to perform, people will reward you for that.

And I really hope that this is what's going to happen to the Labour Party in the UK. But we will all have to go through that process to not want to please people, but to want to make sure that the injustices in our society are addressed much better than we've done in the last 20 years. And, Francis, listening to you, I mean, it makes me think that actually the left may need to be more confident about being left wing, that possibly the mistake that Kirstama has made is that he went into an election saying he was not going to raise taxes, which meant his hands were tied. And when I interviewed the leading labor politicians and said, don't you think there's something fundamentally wrong with the economic structure of our country, basically they didn't want to say that. They worried that that would make them sound too much like Jeremy Corbyn. So they tended to say, oh, no, the problem is that the Tories were a bit incompetent, but we're still going to keep the same, you know, roughly the same taxation system, economic system. We're just going to be technocratically more adept. my instinct is that that may not be enough.

And is that what you're saying, that actually we need to be a little bit more Bernie Sanders about the world? I'm afraid it is. And even at the risk of losing some of your voters initially, once the system becomes more just, the problem is we can no longer do this only on a national scale. You know, our societies were built on a national scale dating from the 19th century

where you control taxes on the national scale because those industries paying the tax, taxes could not afford to just walk away. And now the biggest industries in the world are footloose. They can go wherever they like in a millisecond. And that's why you have difficulty taxing them. But they still want to sell their products on your market. And they want to be active on your market.

So controlling the tech moguls is going to be the first biggest challenge. And this is what Trump is going to try, bully Europeans in not controlling the tech models. And the fact that these tech modules, like the governance that Trump is offering, is because they know that government can then no longer control them. And bringing back control by democracies on economic actors, like we did in the 19th century, like we had to do after the first half of the 20th century, is one of the biggest tasks of politics, left, right and center. And I think the left should take a lead in this. I think if we cannot get the biggest conglomerates in the world under democratic control, yes, they can make money. They're wonderful if they are successful, but they cannot control our societies the way they want to control them.

They cannot have algorithms deciding on how our societies are structures without public authorities having the right to see what these algorithms are doing, et cetera. And if they are too big, they have to be cut up. They have to be carved up. That's what we did in the past. If they became too big, that's an instrument we will have to use in the future. If we don't do that, we will lose complete control. And then if we lose complete control, why the hell would people vote for us anymore? Franz, what is it like in the Netherlands at the moment? The Netherlands always struck us as one of those countries where life kind of chugged on and nice people and, you know, good-sized, middle European kind of country. I would have put it pretty low down the list of a country whose politics would be dominated by somebody like builders. But I'd be interested in what that has been like for people who are just kind of getting on with their lives,

to have this rather strange government where he's not in the government, but he's clearly got sway over the government. We have this former intelligence guy who wasn't even on the ticket who's now the prime minister. It feels very strange, but is it strange or are people just getting on with their lives? Well, if it feels strange to you, you can imagine how it feels to us. It's very peculiar. And the government is not able to do anything. I mean, we have complete standstill of policies.

Nothing's happening on this issue of migration. You know, it's typical for the one issue they want to tackle is migration. But because the leading party on migration is a populist, a radical right party, they apply the same rules as they all do. So they make impossible promises. Then it turns out they can't deliver on them, and then they blame somebody else for not being able to deliver. It's the same thing everywhere. It's the same spiel in Trump country.

It's what they do here. It's what Orban does and others do. But since we have a need of a coalition, whatever happens in this country, Vildes is not on his own. And my problem is not with Willis. He would have done this always. My problem is with the centre-right who are affording him a position as de facto, leader of this country because they thought they could beat him by taking over his agenda. And I simply don't understand why the center right keeps making the same bloody mistake over and

over again. Mertz made the mistake, but he made it early enough to be able to correct it. So Mets made the same mistake in saying, okay, I'll take the votes of the out of day. Huge public outlaw. People, I mean, the sad thing is Germans go into the streets. The Dutch don't do that. But Germans went to do the streets, which is obvious with their history, and Mech was smart enough to correct his course and at the last debate with the four candidates. He thrashed the AFD candidate because he needed to, not because he loved to, but because he needed to. So I hope this means that Germany will have some form of a grand coalition. And then Germany could perhaps lead the way and say, we can take care of these populists and the

concerns they represent, which are real concerns of real people, we can take care of these concerns of the people without allowing the populist's institute of government. And in that sense, Germany can be an example. They failed in Austria, as you know very well, because they made outrageous demands that even the centre right couldn't accept. So this is an opportunity in the Germanic world for the centre to reclaim its place. This is the offer I give to the centre parties in the Netherlands. We are a left-wing party and we will extend our hand to the centre. But then you have to come back to the center. If you stay where you are, my extended hand will never be far enough for us to reach a coalition. But if you come back to the center, we can have sensible policies

in the center. I will not get everything I need. You will not get everything you need, but that's how you find a compromise. And let's not vilify each other and cancel each other. Cancel culture is one of the worst, worst effects of this populism. And the fact that the left and people who see themselves as progressives have fallen into the trap of also applying cancel culture is one of the worst things we've ever done. And we need to stop with that immediately and just accept that people sometimes have views you find awful, you find unacceptable, and still have a dialogue with them. If we, if we don't do that, we will never win back the people we try to work for. Friends, we're in an environment now where the US Vice President J.D. Vance engages with the IFD.F.A. And where Elon

Masque praises them and says they're the only answer for Germany and Hetwilders has praised the IFDA. And the impression given to British and American voters is, well, maybe these are just a perfectly normal party. Can you try to explain what it is that Americans need to understand about the IFDA, what it is that J.D. Vance and Elon Musk need to understand about the risks of this party or Kiko's party in Austria? The first thing I always say, and I keep saying it, take them seriously, but also take them literally. They're actually going to do what they say if they get the position to do it. Take them literally, stop thinking it's just bluster it, it's what they will do if they get the

power to do it. Look at what Trump's doing with the agenda 2025. This is what Avede will do. They will deport even Germans. They have introduced this whole. horrible thing called Bior Deutsche, which is another word for Aryan. This is back in the public debate in Germany. Don't think this is without danger and stand up and speak up because the vast majority, the vast majority don't want this and are abhorred about this. And, you know, the fact that the Kier de Vilders became the biggest party is because the centre right said we will not exclude governing with him. And by the way, his agenda is our agenda. That made him a potential leader of the country, and that drew a lot of people towards this party. Now, interesting election

you might want to follow is the Belgian election that came afterwards. The now new prime minister of Belgium is a man who's very pro-Dutch. He follows and that he wants to carve up Belgium, as you know, which is funny. He just swore allegiance to the king, which is ironic. Let's put it this way. But anyway, He is a man who saw the Dutch election. He was on the same agenda of migration. He saw that the radical right Flemish party was bigger in the polls than his party was because of this agenda. He saw what happened in the Netherlands.

He immediately changed tracks. He stopped talking about migration altogether. He only talked about people's incomes and the difficulty they have to pay the bills, etc. He said he would not form a coalition, the radical rights and he won the election. And the radical right lost a lot of support in the last couple of days before the election. So, you know, compare what happened in the Netherlands to what happened in Belgium, which is in many ways a comparable country, and see what happened in Germany. The out of day is losing, slightly losing, not in the East, sadly, but in the West is losing

support because Maths has been clear about this, also because they have quite a hopeless leader of the party with Ms. Vidal, who actually doesn't even live in Germany, and who's profiting from them not growing anymore on the polls? It's the Linker, strange enough, who are now at 9% of the polls. But the positive news is a grand coalition, whether it's between Mech and Schultz or Mech and Habek, is now a real possibility. My final question, if I may, is on this subject, because this debate is going on inside the Conservative Party in the UK. And there is this sort of sense that, you know, Farage is, you know, he doesn't want the absolute fascist inside his own party, sections of the public quite like him, therefore, why don't we try and sort of, you know, do some kind of deal. What would your advice be to

the new leader of the Conservative Party about that? Well, I'm still proud of the fact that Farage called me once the most dangerous man in Europe. What I don't understand, what I really don't understand with our experience in the Netherlands is why the leader of the Conservative Party keeps banging on about these cultural wars that are only helping Farage and not helping ordinary conservative voters and people who just want to make sure they can pay their rent, they can have a decent job, they can pay the bills, they can look forward to a conservative party that has their concerns, has their prime focus. I just don't get it. If you want to beat Farage, go and see what the people are worried about, and they're not worried about these

cultural wars. You can tie them to these cultural wars, but at the end of the day, centre-right voters, in my experience, care about bread and butter issues. And at the time when also British security is threatened by what Putin and Trump are doing. Are you really going to talk about cultural wars? Are you not going to talk about how the Conservative Party is going to help protect the UK, strengthen the UK, look for European allies to make sure that we help Ukraine overcome this incredible crisis? You want to talk about cultural wars? What does that do to your credibility as one of the most important European parties?

historically. You know, I'm a labor politician, but I do recognize the huge importance of the Conservative Party in the history of the United Kingdom. It's the Conservative Party in an alliance with Labour that got us out of the Second World War victoriously. We still have quite a lot of British soldiers in our Dutch soil who fought for our freedom. Keep that in mind and step away from these useless cultural wars. France, final question for me, and it's an unfair question, but give us a sense of optimism. Give us the best case scenario for the next 10 or 15 years. What should the world be thinking about in terms of our economies, our democracies,

our environmental green agenda, our international relations? What is the best path through that you can see over the next 15 years? If you're a European and you have the opportunity to travel, travel to Asia, travel to Africa, you'll find optimism. in quantities that you do not suspect exist. The global self is going through a transformation, is finding its destiny, it's working. You have millions and millions of young people with better education.

You have growth in income. You have growth in optimism in so many parts of the world. And they all see Europe as an example of where they would like to be as a society. We are still, to many, many people in the global south, an example that deserves to be followed. We've lost a lot of credibility because of our dual standards. We've lost a lot of credibility because of our stance on the Middle East. We've lost a lot of credibility by asking their support against Putin without responding when they ask our support in other issues that are dear to them. But there's a huge opportunity to reconnect with the

global South. There's a huge opportunity to create new international institutions, reform existing international institutions to get this feeling back that there is something like a global community. And don't underestimate the scale at which countries like China and India are transforming themselves, also in terms of their energy supplies, also in terms of the future economy. Don't underestimate the willingness of countries all across the world. They perhaps don't agree with the Americans. They don't agree with the Chinese, but they want to have good relations with both. That is a good starting point.

Obviously, this is one of the most gloomy weeks I've had in my lifetime. This is the worst situation we Europeans are in since the Cuba crisis. Don't underestimate that. But at the same time, there's a huge opportunity for us. If we rally together, if we get the Brits on board for our security, if we make sure we have a common vision about our relationship with the global South, if we are serious about helping countries in Africa and Asia, especially in Africa, which is our sister continent, to develop into the way they want to develop.

They have these resources. They can put them to good use. It will not hurt the climate change. It will help us tackle climate change. If we are serious about sharing our technology to help them adapt to climate change, if we do all these things, there is a bright future for all of us. And we totally underestimate the incredible force of humanity to adapt to new challenges and to come out of this even stronger than we are today. Thank you for talking to us. Thank you for giving us time. And we'll talk to you again in the future and we'll track the optimism at the end

with what that's happening in the real world. We'll see you again soon. Yes, and then you will confront me with all the horrible things I've said today. Thank you for your time. Thank you very much. Great pleasure to have you. Have a great day. As you know, Alistair, I'm totally in love generally with left-wing leaders with beards

of all sorts. And beautiful ears. Did he have beautiful ears? I couldn't see whether he had Corbyn't Easter, beautiful ears. Along with my crush on Bernie Sanders and others, I now have definitely a crush on France Timmermans, who I thought was so wonderful. I mean, do you agree with me?

There is something very unusual about a leading politician. You know, this is the guy that led the coalition that came second in the last election, talking with such incredible sort of humility, nuance, self-criticism. I thought he was great. I think he's one of those guys who takes the issue. who's very seriously. It doesn't take himself too seriously. Very honest about his ups and downs. I mean, for him to say that, could you imagine a current political leader in our country saying,

yeah, well, I sort of fucked up for six months. I couldn't really find my way. I was sort of being something I'm not really. And likewise, you know, I suspect the stuff he said about Trump was pretty full on, wasn't it? He was not holding back at all. Now, I thought there was a frankness and a freshness there, which I really liked. And also, I think he's, is genuinely still struggling to come to terms with and understand how this massive shift has happened and the extent to which he and people like him and people like us, as it were, are responsible. I think that probably does keep him awake at night. There is a sense also that he represents some of the best of Europe, I mean the best of kind of Jean Monnet's old 1950s vision

of Europe. He really believed in European enlargement and what that meant for democracies and for European security. He is serious about Africa. He's serious about climate. And it's rather wonderful to think of people like him. He was right at the very top of the European Commission that there are kind of statesmen like that in the European context. Yeah, lots to think about. I hope our listeners enjoyed it as much as we did. Okay, well, thank you. Thank you, Alasda, and see you very soon. And, you know, I'm definitely voting for him if I ever get Dutch citizenship. Right. Bye-bye. See you soon.