The Rest Is Politics: Leading - 151. Prime Minister of Norway: On Trump, Tech, and Brexit Lessons (Jonas Gahr Støre)

Episode Date: August 31, 2025

Why is the nation with the world’s richest sovereign wealth fund not ‘universally happy’? What can the UK learn from Norway’s relationship with the EU? Is Jonas Gahr Støre really standing between Trump and a Nobel Peace Prize?  Alastair and Rory are joined by The Prime Minister of Norway, Jonas Gahr Støre, to discuss all this and more. Visit HP.com/politics to find out more. 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] Social Producer: Harry Balden Video Editor: Teo Ayodeji-Ansell Assistant Producer: Alice Horrell 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 therestispoletics.com. This episode is sponsored by HP. Now, Rory, I hear that Windows 10 is finally being put out to pasture this year. It is, and something pretty relevant for you, Alistair, given what I've seen as some of your technology. It's going on October the 14th, to be exact. And after that, Microsoft is, going to stop supporting some of those old laptops of yours. No updates, no security patches. So if you were still using it or a business was still using Windows 10, it would be really exposed to cyber threats,

for example. It would be like locking the door, but leaving the key in the lock. So it's time to move on and HP are making that refreshingly straightforward. Yes, they are. HP's latest business PCs comes with Windows 11 Pro as standard. They're faster, more secure built for the AI tools, which are already reshaping the way we work. And you don't have to figure out all in your own, HP's business advisors help you pick the right kit. So no baffing jargon, just practical advice. And here's the bonus. Restis Politics listeners get 10% of business PCs at HP.com using the code Trip10 term supply. So unlock efficiency and innovation upgrade to Windows 11 Pro PCs with HP and get 10% discount. Visit HP.com slash politics to find out more.

Welcome to the rest of this politics leading with me, Rory Stewart. And with me, Alast Campbell. And today we are delighted to have with us, Jonas Gar Stora, who is the Prime Minister of Norway. Now, Norway is one of those countries which is often said it punches well above its weight, not least because of its wealth. This is a country with a population almost identical to Scotland. And well, if only the UK had invested our oil money in the kind of sovereign wealth fund that Norway now has, which is pretty much the richest in the world. I first met Jonas shortly after he became leader of the opposition,

Labour Party in 2014, and his campaign team invited me out to see whether any of the lessons of new labour applied to Norway. It is a wonderful, wonderful country. Some of my best ever cold water swims have been there. And Jonas has a very long political career behind him. He was a special advisor to one, Prime Minister, Groh Harlem, Bruntland. He was Chief of Staff to another, Jens Stoltenberg, who then went

on to run NATO, and is now back as Jonas's finance minister. He, in turn, served Stoltenberg as a long-serving foreign minister. And I think there's going to be a lot of foreign policy that we're keen to discuss. Norway, let's remember, shares a border with Russia. Norway has also played a pretty historic role in the Middle East and Yonis has some pretty strong views on Gaza and Palestine. And then there's Norway's very special relationship with the European Union. So perhaps you'll have some advice on that for post-Brexit Britain. And of course, there's the debate about oil and gas and climate, not least the impact on the Arctic. And all this, Yonis, we're particularly grateful because you're actually in campaign mode. You're facing re-election. So thank you.

Thank you very, very much for being here. It's great to be here. I'm a pretty keen listener of your podcast, so when I go from my walks in the woods away from my wife, if she doesn't see me, I'm listening and following your podcast. So it's good to be here. Very good. Thank you. Prime Minister, thank you for joining us.

Just to give listeners Norwegian and also international listeners, a sense of who you are in your childhood. If you just read a brief bio of you, you can seem like a distinguished figure from the past because you went to Naval Officer School, you went to Science Po, you had a good education, the executive director of the World Health Organization, it sometimes seems like a sort of vision

of the kind of politician that we were all supposed to have in the past, but maybe that's not how you feel yourself. Maybe that's a misleading account of the kind of person you are. Well, you know, I feel I'm very much of a person. politician of today. I'm Prime Minister of my country, but, you know, we all have our backgrounds. I came late to politics. I came from a family with a lot of active discussion and engagement, but, you know, committing to a party was not really not where I started. But I've always, you know, seen that Labour Party is a popular party with an outreach to the whole of the population.

And those years, four years that I spent in Paris studying was quite, you know, the term. for me. I was seeing, watching my country from the outside. I was discovering some of its qualities that I hadn't seen that close since I grew up in Norway. I saw some of the inequality in France. I saw some of the great assets we had of trust among a people where, you know, we had equality, equal opportunity as a guiding principle. And then I spent nine years as a civil servant advising the prime minister. And six of those years was with Prime Minister Brunton, who was a modern social democrat who really anchored policy in these values. But modernizing Norway, taking us forward.

I worked closely with Jens Stoltenberg, same kind of brand. And for me, it was clear that the society I wish to see my children and grandchildren grow up in its country with those qualities. Could I have made more money for myself with another turn of society? Probably yes. Would that be a better society for future generations? Well, my conclusion was that this social democratic compromise between capital, labor, and what we do together, you know, that's the package I went for. There is no perfect alternative. You know, you don't find the kind of one-size-feet-all here. But I joined the Labour Party at the age of 35. I became party leader at the age of 45. And then now I'm prime minister. So if it's a politician from the past, I'm running in five weeks to become also a politician for the future, I can tell you.

You actually at one point applied for a job with the Conservative Party. Well, at the age of 26, there was a job at the Conservative Party's foreign policy section in Parliament, and foreign policy has been my field of interest. And I ended up when I got that job not to take it. Because, you know, going around with myself, I felt that it is really not where I belong. And it took some more years to find out where I landed. But, you know, many of the people I work with now, they joined the party at the age of 14 or 15. And I have great respect for that.

You know, I have no judgment. But for me, this was, as I say, I think I became Social Democrat by maturing. And I became party member by decision. And that came at the age of 35. Looking from the outside, there seems to be more stability in terms of leaders in Norway, in terms of prime ministers, in terms of party leaders. in terms of a tradition of people being prime minister and then becoming leader of the opposition or being prime minister and coming back as finance minister, compared to the UK where we went

through five prime ministers and I don't know what it was, three and a half years or something. It seems as though there's a sort of cohort of people born in the early 1960s who've brought a certain degree of stability to Norwegian politics over the last 20, 30 years. Is that fair? Well, that's interesting. It can be observed that way. But you know, Norway is the only country in Europe where our constitution determines that you cannot dissolve parliament. So we have fixed periods. We know when elections come. They come every fourth year. So the result you get from election, politicians have to deal with that. And that's one reason why we've had majority governments and minority governments. And minority governments have been also able to, you know,

present great reform packages, have them voted. You know, I am a minority government now, and we have been able to land in Parliament unanimity on the defense plan for the next 10 years, unanimity on a Ukraine support, which is substantial in terms of financial and military aid. So that is a tradition, you know, that follows in a certain extent. Then I would say, you know, in terms of politicians coming back and the stability, I mean, the fact with Jens Stoltenberg, I think is interesting because he, I mean, he was everything in politics. He was a minister. He was prime minister. and then he left for NATO

and it ended up being 10 years he came back and when I in February was putting together a government of only Labour Party because the junior partner left I went to Jensen I said you know

you are still fully committed to you know the issues the values and having been finance ministers back in 1997 he took the challenge and said you know I go for another term so I mean it speaks volumes about him and his commitment

but also that, you know, I think you can approach Norwegian politics and say that there is a certain pattern of stability and you can achieve things through politics. You can do things with society, you can do things with the course we are on. How much should we compare your politics with ours? If we think of the left-right spectrum, I've always felt your party is very similar to new labor. I've always felt there's a real sort of connection there. You at the moment are leading in the polls, and behind you is not the traditional conservative party, but a more populist right-wing party. But I just wanted to know how populist are they?

Are they comparable with some of the other parties on the right in Europe? And you've got them parties to the left of you. How left-wing are they? So just give me a sense of that spectrum and how it compares to ours. Well, you know, sometimes often I'm asked that question to be kind of a, you know, a Norwegian sociologist explaining politics. But I think that's, you know, you have to understand the social context. And I would say that if you begin with our right-wing party,

I would say they belong to the populist right-wing family in Europe. But I've always said that, you know, they are not wilders. They are not Le Pen. They belong to a democratic tradition. And, you know, they had the finance minister for seven years in the previous government. So that's a difference. And it's even a difference if you compare it, I think, to Sweden and Finland. they are our main opponent. That's where the main challenge is. That's the biggest difference,

you know, how we approach politics. But for the Conservative Party, is of course a challenge to have something bigger on the right of itself. And I think you can see some links to what you see in Britain. Now, New Labour, you know, I have always been very interested in that. I came to know Prime Minister Blair quite well. We worked also when I was foreign minister on Middle East. I still consult him. We are in close touch. But there's one difference here, which I think is quite significant, and that is that Norway's Labour Party has maintained and modernized our relations with the unions. And to me, that has been important for the perspective of the movement. There is a link between, you know, the organized labor, the ears and eyes out there in the

labor daily working life, feeding in also into politics. My view has been, I can understand for different reasons that party and union have gone separate. ways in many countries in Europe. I believe that both parties have lost basically by that, because it has been a marginalisation, mutual marginalisation, and I hold very dear to keep those relations. You know, we are two different branches of the same movement, but I think the link to organised labour is also important for the reform efforts of this society. Prime Minister, to give you an opportunity to give us a bit of an electoral pitch now. Not too much.

Not too much. But your predecessor, Enosolberg, was prime minister. She's running again, I guess, leading the Conservative Party into the election. Explain why people should vote for you, not for her. What would be your criticism of her time in office and what would be your criticism of what would happen if she won? You know, I had two debates with her today very early and then in the morning. First of all, you know, this is Norway. I had great respect for Erlalberg.

You know, she's a long experience. there are areas where we also can work together. I would say the main difference here is that they run a policy of major tax breaks for those who are most wealthy. I think it's a bad deal for the total society. They are much more dependent noun of the populist right-wing party to the right of the conservatives. So they approach this by suggesting big fortune release taxes, which is going to increase that inequity, which I believe is quite fundamental to control.

Pretty determined policy of privatization, breaking up in health, and also, I think, on how we approach school and modernization of schools. So that's one area. Then we've had also, for the first time, you know, some disagreement on foreign policy. She said it was not time to recognize the Palestinian state when we did it one year ago. I very strongly believe it was the right thing to do. So these are some. major research. I think the major thing here is that she will now be much more dominated by her right-wing populist partner, which is going to make a strong pull on her. And what about you and the parties to the left of you?

Well, you know, on our side, they are, you know, with all respect, smaller parties. And I say, you know, if we get a majority on our side, they would prefer me as a prime minister. And when the Labour Party goes to work as a government, we say very clearly, there are three things that cannot be touched. One is our NATO membership because there are people on the left wing who are more skeptical. Second is this European economic area, the EEA, which is a fundamental for us. We are an equal part 11 playing field in Europe. And the third one is a tax and economic policy which is responsible. We have to have that package clear. And then we can find solutions with those other parties. And we've done it in the past and we will do so in the future. I mentioned in introduction

the sovereign wealth fund. And I sometimes when I'm bored, I look at the website where the number is just going up and up and up and up and up. And part of me thinks, if you're a social democratic country with that level of wealth coming in, seemingly on a never-ending basis,

why aren't Norwegians just sort of universally happy? Or does it prove that actually living standards is not the only thing that counts in politics? You know, this is the thing, Alasor. I think this is a philosophical question. You know, campaigning on Saturday up in Trondheim, I met a woman who just turned 100 years old, born in 1925.

And I asked her, when you grew up in the 30s, were you more happy, you think, than young people growing up today? And she was a sensible woman. She said, you know, from a material perspective, I think they are better off. But I think they have more worries. You know, they have the social media.

They have everything, you know, imposed on them. They have climate. They have wars going on. I think she was pretty right. You know, the sovereign wealth fund, we are very proud of the construction, which is about transferring values from under the seabed into a financial mechanism, which is basically there for future generations. So the fund is such that we can benefit from that by taking part of the interest,

but we will not touch the main chair. And this fund is invested in 6,000 to 7,000 companies. It owns about 1 to 2% of world equity, but it is not a strategic investor. We don't go in politically to decide to buy this, that and the other. It is managed by the Bank of Norway. And basically now the fund is growing by the financial investment is made, not dominantly by the income from energy. And I think, you know, the point here is to say that we can harvest from that and spend

part for our own budget, which is making Norway a wealthy country. But it is really there for children and grandchildren, and in principle, should be there forever, because we are never going to build it down. We're going to harvest. So we say up to 3% of return can be spent. In my budget for 2025, we spend 2.6, so we were well under. And in times of crisis, you may go a bit over. But this is a kind of, I think, it's also a fund where we now have ethical principles that, you know, it should not be invested in companies that are in breach of international conventions, for

example, a very relevant theme when it comes to Israel and Gaza. As such, it is the people's fun. I was talking to a friend today who was expressing great disappointment at European positions on Gaza, and I was trying to give Norway as an example of a country that's taken a slightly different position. Can you explain a little bit about what position you've taken on Gaza, why you think other European countries haven't come in as clearly behind you and what you think might happen in terms of peace and recognition over the next six to 12 months? Let me start with Norway's point of departure. We in the north of Europe, why are we, why do we matter here at all?

I mean, something happened in 1992, 93 when the Oslo Accords came about because a few very creative Norwegian diplomats were at the right time at the right place. and brought Palestinians and Israeli together, and you had the White House signing of the Oslob Accords and the starting of that process. So that got Norway's engaged. Then you may say that the vision of the Osloor Accords was mainly obstructed by new settlements on the Israeli side

and by terror from Palestinian jihad organizations. But it made Norway the chair of the donor support group to Palestinians, which we've had since, where Palestinians and Israelis came together, to see how we could build the Palestinian authority, so it could become the backbone of a future Palestinian government in a two-state solution scenario. Then our approach was that recognition of Palestine would come with the agreement of the two states. I was foreign minister for seven years, and I think we came very close in 2011. When Salam Fayed was prime minister, he reformed the

Palestinian economy, made great achievements, and the Palestinians had a more solid economy than some European states at the time after the financial crisis. Then I believe the right in Israel, Netanyahu, has never bought that vision of two states. And more and more deliberately and explicitly have said that is not where they want to go. And they ended up saying, we are against the two-state solution. It's going to be a one-state solution. And this is an extremist government, in my view, far-right government with the parties he is relying with, taking this in a quite different direction. Then came 7th of October, and Norway was clear to say,

this is a terrorist attack, will be condemned very, very firmly, and Israel has the right to defend itself. And then we have been explicit when this all started, that that response has been disproportional. It has not been, according to international law, a lot of acts really qualifying for war crimes. There is now running a case about genocide, which I think should be determined by the courts. But what we are witnessing when we are sitting watching is probably the biggest humanitarian disaster in our lifetime close to us. Because what's happening in Gaza with 2 million people,

80% of buildings having been destroyed, and people now starving, is of such a magnitude that it is of enormous proportions. Before that happened, you know, a year ago, we came to the conclusion that it was right to recognize the state of Palestine, even in these dire times. Why did we do it? Well, for me, the principle was this.

Since 1948, when we recognized Israel, and I come from a party that was a very, very strong supporter of Israel, I still am a friend of Israel. I really feel that with my identity. The part of that equation was that Palestine would also become a state on those other areas. And my main point has been to say, Palestinians have the rights to be treated

with the same rights and obligation under the UN Char. Carter as other states. Because if we don't do that, we leave the voice to the extremist and the terrorist and those who commit all those violent acts. And we did so in close coordination with Spain, Ireland and Slovenia for decent states. And since then, I've had very close dialogue with all the partners in Europe. And the fact now that France is coming along, Britain is coming alone, Canada is coming along, probably Finland coming along, I think testifies to the fact that sometimes somebody have to move ahead. And let me end by saying this, Rory, is that looking at the ground, we are far, you know, physically from a two-state solution. But we have no right to be

on the outside and say, we called it off because Israel made it impossible. By destroying Gaza and by now wanting to take the whole West Bank and imposing immense. pressure on the Palestinians. We don't have the right to do that. So I want to recognize the Palestinian state. It's their capital to handle that. You know, how they want to deal with that in future negotiation, we will see. So our demands are now very clear. There has to be a ceasefire. You have to get in humanitarian aid. You have to get the hostages out. And we have to start to think about the day after. And as in all conflicts, the main point is not only the day after, but the day after the day after. How is it going to be something sustainable? And that's why Norway for the last two years

has worked very closely with European partners and the parties in the region to create the political framework that can take this forward, build the Palestinian entity that can represent Palestinians. And I think we have been on the right course, but I would just underline, I was in touch with Israeli colleagues this morning. Again, to highlight, you have to do it differently on Gaza. The support scheme is just not working. You have to bring in the UN again. You have to bring in the most organized humanitarian organizations because this is the most difficult, dangerous humanitarian operation on earth, and it cannot be done by this incredibly different system that comes through this Gaza humanitarian foundation. And if that is not happening, you know, the disaster is going to

be even bigger for the people living there, but also for Israel. Because if people are starving, they will not be safe if food comes in tomorrow, because children are destroyed. And even I heard today from the ICRC, some of the most professional international committee of the Red Cross, even their people are now in short of food in Gaza. So this is going to get worse and I'm very worried about it. How does it get better when Trump and Netanyahu between them seemed to have manufactured a situation where they project themselves as though theirs are the only voice that matters? Well, you know, I've been very clear about that. You know, I think the only player that can move this really significantly is the US. So we have to work on them. You know, I'm trying

through my channels. I've been, you know, regularly in contact with Steve Whitkoff. I've discussed this with President Trump at several occasions. I think this is starting to make a deep impression on him as well. My sense is that Trump is really quite sensitive to these issues of people being killed, innocent people being killed. And the change has to come from there. What I have to tell my public opinion

which is really engaged in this is that there is no single action Norway can do that will change this. If I use this word or that word, food will not come in tomorrow but we have to work together and work tirelessly to change. And then hopefully

the US will also start to set the direction. Norway's influence in the world was very connected to an idea of a rules-based international order and international institutions. But we are in a very different world now. We're in a world in which the United States changes its mind frequently on what it thinks about Vladimir Putin, Russia and Ukraine, cuts funding for the World Health Organization, which I know you care about deeply trying to sanction British lawyers who advise the International Criminal Court, cutting USAID funding, vaccine alliances, malaria, etc. How do you make sense of what's happening to this world?

Because it feels very different to the world that you were working in in the 1990s. You're right, Rory. So I will not make any argument with that. And I think, you know, it is deeply troubling part of these decisions that the United States is taking. My role is to safeguard Norwegian interest. We are close allies with the US. You mentioned in your introduction that we are neighboring Russia. When I met President Trump, I said for me as prime minister,

it's important to look the American president in the eyes and say 100 kilometers from my border is the world's largest nuclear arsenal, and it's not directed against me, but against you. But we follow developments in the north, and this is a mutual interest. So it's not only one way thing this. you benefit from having allies in a strategic important region for you, and in return, we have this partnership. I think Trump takes that point.

But on all these other issues, I'm deeply worried about it. I still think that the world has some resistance to simply letting the rules-based order go down the drain. Having worked with global health, I'm deeply worried to see that this aid is being cut off by USAID. I think it is strategically very bad decision by the US, because this was cultural capital also for the US, very smart capital. I remember when I was at WHAO, we worked with President Bush, you know,

to do the prepar, you know, drugs and everything, you know, great work where the Americans really improve their position in many critical areas. And now basically the Chinese are coming in, filling the vacuum. So, you know, I agree with you, but we cannot simply think that this is in a way doomed. I think, you know, the European Union and the European countries have to work strongly together. I'm very happy to see now that Prime Minister Starmar is reconnecting, and we've been talking about that a lot, how we can work now as a Europe, which is slightly bigger than the European Union. And we have to work with our partners, Canada, Australia, New Zealand,

Asian partners, because there has to be also a will of reforming where we can reform, and also hoping that we can get the Americans along on certain areas. But the customs thing, the tariff thing, I think, is a very mistaken decision where American consumers stand to not to benefit. And we are changing 80 years of development where we gradually built down tariffs. Also in disarmament, we gradually build down on both sides. And one party just increasing it is not a good decision. Okay. Jonas, Rory, quick break and back for more. Hi, everybody. It's Dominic Samarok here from The Rest is History. some of you may have heard me on your show, The Restis Politics, when Rory was away and I was

filling in and enjoying Alistair 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 Alastair 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. Can I ask you by Europe and your relationship? with Europe and whether you think there are lessons for the United Kingdom in how we try to rebuild post-Brexit? How does your relationship actually work in practice? Well, it works the following way. When Europe started to make its internal market in the late 80s, the closest partner with the EFTA countries, Sweden, Finland, Norway, Switzerland, Austria, Liechtenstein, Iceland,

biggest partner for the European community then. So there was an agreement to say, okay, let's continue to keep this internal market combined. So the work was done basically to say that level playing field, same rules would apply. And in the meantime, bulk of these EFTA countries applied for membership, as we did. But the point is that Norwegian turned that down narrowly in 94 as we did in 72. To my regret, you know, I was part of the delegation negotiating this agreement, but that was decision of Norwegian democracy. So we got this European Economic Airway Agreement, which basically says that decisions that apply to the internal market, we take them and implement them in Norwegian

legislation. There's a democratic deficit in this, because these are decisions taking by somebody else. We can say no, but basically we have taken it on with some adjustments, being able to adjust, and I think it has worked fine. You know, 70% of our export goes to the EU. So this is quite obvious. So how is this useful for Britain? After Brexit, you know, colleagues from Britain came to Norway and say, tell us about it. And I remember Gordon Brown. I remember Kirstarmer coming as the Brexit spokesperson for the Labour Party. My view was this, this is not going to work for you. Because if you left the European Union because you thought there was too much European Union decision, you cannot take over a system where you basically take over the rules without. And I think, you know, this is

something to do with size, because a country of 5 million people, Norway, we can live with the fact that we basically adapt to international trade rules. And on 90% plus of that, it is pretty easy, standards, technical standards, you know, all kind of things. Then we can get some complications on areas where we are a bit apart. We are an Arctic country. We have an agriculture, which is outside the scope of this, and we have our energy resources, which, you know, demand some adaptations. But we have managed pretty well. So I think Ursula von der Leyen is saying that the EU has no better friend. We now provide 35% of Europe's gas.

We are, you know, important partner for Europe in a number of areas. We have expanded cooperation beyond the market to research, to students. We are part of Schengen. And now as industry, the military industry, gearing up in Europe, we are part of those projects as well. What's your feeling about Britain at the moment? Where do you see Britain in the European landscape and your relations of the UK now? Well, first of all, I think Prime Minister Starmar has done this quite ably. He has a Brexit vote. He cannot run away from that. He has to find the balance. I think he has pragmatically been able to demonstrate the important link between Britain and Europe. And I think the war in Ukraine has highlighted that Europe has to be all of Europe.

So, Britain and Norway and Turkey, and, you know, let me say Canada belongs to a bigger framework here of working together. So I can see that there are differences between how Prime Minister Starmour can approach Europe and from what I can do, because we are on the inside. But then I would say, you know, with Kerr Starmour, we are also significantly deeping relations between Norway and the UK. We are negotiating now agreements on defence, on green partnership, on industrial partnership and energy. partnership. So I think this is a government we know will be there for a number of years, and we know they have this approach of wanting to find broader solutions. And for Norway, that is a very good and dear partner. Prime Minister, I wonder whether I could push you to be more ambitious for your vision for the 10-year future of Europe. I sort of sometimes feel that

if there was a Jean Monnet today, he would be envisaging the UK, Norway, Ukraine, Turkey, Canada, and thinking both about idealistic vision, but also some concrete steps that we could achieve three years, five years, seven years to define this. Is this something that you think about, that we could be doing more on, that we could see more from you on? I do, because I think the European Union of 27, they have their internal life, some quite tough challenges, you know, with Hungary and decisions being made. they are considering enlargement towards the Western Balkans.

It's going to be a complicated maneuver. But there's also the European political community, which is basically all of democratic Europe. So that is all of Europe except Belarus and Russia. That, I think, is a framework that we need to work on and make more concrete because we have things we need to decide together strategically on migration, on energy, on some of those issues. Then there is work to be done on the regional,

European scene. And here, Norway and Britain are part of what is called the Joint Expeditionary Force, which is defense and security cooperation between Britain, Netherlands, the Baltics and the Nordics. And I've seen during my four years in office that this is taking on an important role of coordination also inside the alliance. I have seen that, you know, we are deepening our relations with the EU, but we are also significantly deepening with Britain, France, Germany, Poland, the Nordics and the Baltics because this Northern European scene has to work much more closely inside NATO because it is about delivering on the regional plans of NATO and it's also preparing for a US that will be less engaged.

Should it be this way or that way, I think the US will be committed because it really serves their interest. But no matter, if we are going to strengthen the European security profile, it will not be the EU. It will be Euro-NATO. It will be the European countries inside NATO. Remember, the European Union represents about 20 to 30% of NATO. The rest is US, Canada, Turkey, UK and Norway. So I think the big scheme is the European political community. It is in our interest that the European Union is doing well.

well because it's our most important market and our closest political partners. And then we have significant strategic work to do on security in Northern Europe. And there I think Britain can play now a very important role. So do you think Norway has given up on the idea of actually joining becoming a member of the European Union? Well, I think history decides. I have taken the position to say that that issue may arise. We've had two referendums, you know, 72 and 94. And people are saying, well, they are new generations, who have not had the ability to make their views heard. But here has been my position. Everybody knows where I come from.

I was in favor. I believe that Norway should be part of this community. But I respect, you know, this is a decision taken. But the time we are living now calls for unity in countries. Because we are facing Russia with a war economy. It's our neighbor. They are going to be incredibly complicated to deal with during, Ukraine War and after Ukraine War. And I want to deal with political unity in Norway, which is

as united as it can be. If we launch now a process of membership application and referendum, it's going to be very divisive. And I always say, Norwegian democracy can manage that. We can handle that division. You know, we are strong democracy. But these time call for unity. Because there's so much we need to do on our defense, dealing with Ukraine, dealing with the Nordic partners, neighboring Russia. So we will see, but it is not for now. Probably the thing that will change the world more over the next five, ten years than anything else is artificial intelligence. It has the potential to generate new jobs. It has the potential to create massive unemployment in our economies. It can transform productivity,

economic growth, medicine, health. But essentially, these things are owned by the United States or China. The cloud computing, the data is held in the United States. These big, large language models are American or Chinese models. And if it turns out for the next five, ten years, that the most important things in terms of economy, health, and even national defense and security is AI, then Europe needs its own strategic autonomy

in relation to AI. What are we doing about this? Big question. I mean, the big tech is US dominated. Let's admit it. Look at our devices. Look at how we communicate now. So I think that is a clarion call for Europe,

not to say that, you know, we're going to replace that because I still believe there's going to be some kind of, you know, there are strengths and opportunities on both sides of the Atlantic. That is what is so disappointing if that's going to be a kind of a wall dividing us. But obviously, you know,

Being the Draghi report or the Letta report, there's a lot to be done on competitivity and research and strategic ability. I think this idea of fulfilling the internal market, which means that we'd need to do things on telecom, on energy and on capital markets, is probably right. And it's going to be not an easy road to travel. But in the meantime, I think Europe has to get this identity clear on legislation for artificial intelligence, for safeguarding our kids. you are right about what is going to do to productivity. I still believe that, at least in Norwegian economy, what we lack is available people to solve critical tasks. So part of that change could be taken advantage of.

I still belong to a social democratic mantra, which is saying, I don't fear new technology. I fear all technology. The worst thing is to be trapped with all technology, because then you're really going to lose. Last week there was news in Norwegian media that Open AI from the US was going to make its major installation in Europe. It looked to Europe and it decided it would invest in Norway. And it's going to invest in northern Norway pretty much for availability to electricity,

having a major investment to be on the European scene. So I don't want to create too many artificial hurdles between the US and Europe. We have to work in a way together. but obviously Europe has to get its united act together to be strategically more present in these technologies. One of the big figures, of course, in the whole tech world that we've seen more and more of is Elon Musk, who's been sort of in and out of favor with Trump. And last time I saw you in Norway, you were telling me that you got to know him really well

because Norway was really driving in terms of becoming, I don't know what the percentages are now, but your sort of use of electric vehicles is pretty spectacular. Just give me a sense, because I don't know that many people who know him well. If I can just ask you for a sense of whether he's the same person that you got to know a few years ago. Two things. I don't know him well. He has been a lot focused on Norway because Norwegian started to buy Tesla's far earlier than others because we had this quite progressive policies on favouring EVs, electric cars.

And the last new car sales statistic from last quarter was in the high, 90s of non-fossile cars. So we are basically transforming our whole fleet. And now we are moving on to more heavier vehicles and we're moving also to the ship fleets to electrify. So obviously Tesla was the country really where, you know, this all started for them, I would say. So he's been here several times. I debated him at a big conference a couple of years ago. Where I must say, I feel I met a completely different man from the one I've seen on the scenes of your American politics. He was, you know, a bit reserved

and he was, you know, having balanced views on renewable energy versus fossil energy, what would a transition be? And quite respected, you know, in having built this very popular car, you know, which is still selling well in Norway. And then I will refrain from commenting, you know, what happens inside the American political scene, which arena and the decisions he has been taking, you know, with Trump and now beyond Trump. But obviously, this transition, any energy transition for mankind is turbulence.

There's still more turbulence to come as we electrify and as we move into a new renewable area. One thing that is interesting, we've been lucky to speak to a number of heads of government recently. And you're quite unusual, I would say. To take a cliche, if you were the head of a smaller northern European country, you might expect you to be very, very aggressive against immigration, very critical of Islam, very defensive of the United States, and not talking very much about European Union enlargement or big international policy issues. But you feel a bit different. Your style of leadership feels a bit different. You seem to be more comfortable speaking about international affairs, talking about ideas. I just, am I wrong about

that? Well, it's you talking about your impression on me. So I can I'll say you're past a judgment of that. But, you know, sometimes I worry about in Norway that we don't fully appreciate that probably no country is more open exposed in our economy than Norway, you know, on trade. Look at our geography. You know, we have the world's second largest coastline after Canada. So, you know, just the impression of, you know, impressions coming in and good circling in and out. So I, it's always been my position that Norway, really, we are a country economically

and politically, I would say, in surplus in the world of very much deficit. And it is in our interest to try to influence that. On immigration, you know, I've always been of the view that there has to be a common European approach broadly on that. The acceptance of immigration depends on people's perception of integration. And if the integration doesn't work, people are legitimately against immigration. The big thing in Norway for the last three years has been Ukrainians coming. You know, we're almost 100,000 Ukrainians. If you take that to a population of five million, it's a big number. And they have been very well received for a variety of reasons. But again, you know, my read of Norwegian politics is that we have to be connected.

We have to stand for a certain set of values which have to be serving Norwegian interests, but you know, also with some ambitions the way we can contribute. You have this discussion about, you know, how should you talk to Trump? Should you be a different self? Should you try to appeal? Should you take the Mark Rutter approach? I will not pass comment on that. Simply say that, you know, every time you try to be a different version of yourself, you're a poorer version. So, you know, you have to be yourself. You have to be secure in what you stand for. What are the values you defend? What are the interests you pursue? And what is it what you would like to achieve? So when Jens Stolteberg and I met President Trump in the Oval Office in early April, you know,

that was a well-prepared visit where we could stand up for this country of five and a half million people and be respected. My final question, Jonas, thank you so much for all your time. It relates to President Trump. Do you understand that he will think you will be able to swing the Nobel Peace Prize? And does that bother you? Well, I hear he repeats that. But, you know, I've been in civil and political service in Norway for the last 30 years,

and that question has come from many sides. And we are pretty experienced in explaining that there is a committee of five people who are extremely independent and taking their mandate seriously. And, you know, we had these very difficult years with China after the Nobel Committee awarded a Peace Prize to a Chinese dissident. where basically political relations were very strained, and they took it out on Norway, whereas this was a committed decision.

But I take the view that I think it's a good thing that politicians strive for being candidates for the Peace Prize. Do you think it's better if they strive for peace? Yeah, you know, but my point is always, go back and read Alfred Nobel's will. It was written in the 1890s, and it has to be adopted. But read also the argument for how Nobel Peace Prizes have been awarded. It's the world's most prestigious price, and it has to be won by people who really make

significance and genuine contribution to peace, be it disarmament, be it a brotherhood of countries, these things that are considered by this committee. If you were looking for a way to describe the world from about 1989 to about 2014, you could say the world basically was trying to be Norway. Everybody had this vision in their head that that was the direction we was going. And this was what the end of history was about and Francis Fukuyama. We were all basically going to be Norway. And then from 2014, no one was the last 11 years in particular, very different forms of politics have emerged.

Populism or authoritarianism, democratic backsideing, collapse of the international rules-based order. Who would you compare us now, Rory? I mean, I don't know if I buy that Norway version, but who are we trying to look like now? Well, I don't know. I mean, I think the voices that dominate, the models that dominate now are not, unfortunately, so much being Norway, or if we don't want to be in Norway, be Denmark or something. Now the dominant voices are a new version of the United States, Argentina, Gulf states, China, populism in Latin America or Asia. I mean, it feels very different. The world feels very different in its values. I think Rukuyama has written well on that, you know, beyond his initial work, that history goes on. It doesn't stop. Obviously, you have Eric Hobsvon talking about the century that lasted basically from after World War I until the fall of the Berlin Wall. It was not an entire century, but it was the history of the Cold War. Then 89 to, you know, where would you put a date at 2014, perhaps,

starting in 27? You know, I have this strange experience, Rorya. I negotiated with Sergei Lavrov delimitation in the Arctic Sea. He was the foreign minister. next after the Swedish minister, who I'm dealt with most frequently because we were negotiating how to split 170,000 square kilometers in the Barrens and Arctic Sea. And in April 2010, we reached agreement, splitting that down 50-50. And I was saying, this is a country that went to war against Georgia two years ago, and now it strikes a very eloquent deal with Norway in 2010. So it was this kind of, where is Russia landing?

And today, the same people are ruling Russia, but they have moved into being this authoritarian, almost totalitarian regime. So it simply means that the world is complex. It is getting more and more interconnected, although we try to think that we can lock the doors and, you know, be at home alone, because technology and climate and these driving forces are going to make us interconnected. And the drama, I think, of our times is that these urgent messages, of climate, artificial intelligence, nuclear disarmament, they scream for cooperation,

for common approach. And there will be a price to be paid that this is being postponed, you know, dealing with it. But I still believe that we should always look for how we can, you know, bend history through political decisions. Remember, in 1941, democratic countries sat down and say, how should the world look like after the war? And this was even at the time where they did not know the outcome of the war. And I'm telling to my European colleagues that shouldn't we now have good discussions about what will the European security order look like after Ukrainian war? Because it is going to end at some stage.

And I think we have more meaningful discussions now with Kerstarmour, President Macron, Chancellor Merz, leading figures. But we have to spend time on that because history is an ongoing thing and it's just going to roll on. And it is a very different time now. I agree with you, but we should not give up hope because there are also, you know, good things happening and we should believe in what we can do together. And the fish deal has held? The fish deal has held and that that border was drawn.

You know, it's not an ideal situation to have a disputed border with either Soviet Union or Russia. It was settled and it was agreed. It was split down 50-50 and the delimitation line is according to the most updated principles of the law of the sea. So I'm very pleased that we got that in 2010. I think it will have been a far different game in 2025. Well, listen, thank you very much for your time.

Good luck. It's been great talking to you. Thank you so much. Thank you, Prime Minister. That was a great honor. I'm not sure we're allowed to say good luck in the election. But anyway, I hope things go well for you. Especially if it comes from you, I take that with great pride.

I can't Alisar to be on my team, but thank you. I've totally on your team. Thank you. Bye-bye. Bye-bye. See you soon. Rory, I should tell our listeners, we interviewed Jonas Garstora on the same day that we interviewed Nicholas Sturgeon with whom Rory appeared to fall madly in love. But I got the feeling,

is it? Are you just in a good mood, Rory? I got the feel you really liked Yodas as well. I did. I really liked him. I really liked him. Partly because, you know, I'm always grumbling that serving politicians are a nightmare to interview and serving politicians going into an election in another country are the biggest nightmare of all because they're surrounded by media advisors saying, then what the hell are you doing going on this podcast, talking to a couple of Brits. And, you know, we do have Norwegian listeners, but I'm afraid the vast majority of our listeners are not in Norway. So, and consequently, they might even feel tempted to say, they mean, don't worry, you know,

I'm going to be able to land this killer point, which is like, but he didn't. He actually really engaged with internationalists. He's completely unashamedly. He wasn't spending his whole time saying, yeah, but in the end, what Norwegians really care about his cost of living or immigration. He really was happy to talk about big ideas. And he was very nice about his opponent. Very nice about his opponent, which I thought was also striking. I mean, it is a pretty remarkable place. Geeky listeners can follow up on this, but the previous Prime Minister, the Conservative Prime Minister, has been in politics since 1989. It's a long time now.

And she was defeated, but unlike in British politics, she didn't then step down. She remained as the leader of the opposition. She's now running again as the Conservative leader. And he was of course, leader of the opposition for years before he became Prime Minister too. So I really, I get these sort of stabs of envy when I hear these people. And I don't know, you actually have the privilege of occasionally advising them. But there are moments when I'm listening to him and thinking, okay, I'm moving the family to Oz. So I'm going to join his administration. Well, listen, here's a great place. I think he's a very, very impressive guy. And it's interesting talking to him about we didn't really get into the Yentz Stoltenberg.

come back. But that was quite a big thing because he was struggling a bit in the polls at that time. This Progress Party, which is to the right of the Conservative Party, they've been on the up. And Stoltenberg is, I think the polls show that the King and Erling Harland and Erdogard, the two sort of big Norwegians and the Premier League, I think they're the only ones who are ahead of Stoltenberg in the polling. And it does seem to have given them new energy. But I think what came through, and do you know what? I add this. sense of him long before he became Prime Minister, he's somebody who's very, very, very comfortable in his own skin. And I think he's developed a lot of wisdom, most of which was already there.

You see what I mean. I think he's a very, very wise guy. Like you, I love the way he kind of explains the world in bigger terms and doesn't talk like the way that Nicholas Sturgeon was complaining too many left of center politicians do talk. Apart from when you asked him about the campaign. He didn't mention the campaign. No. It's a really, I'm a really fascinating. I mean, obviously there will be many, many other sides to Norway, and I'm sure Norwegian listeners will get back to us and point out there are many things that they're

angry about Norway. And I guess the Progress Party is going to be feeding into a real anger amongst many Norwegians about immigration, about standards of public services, about identity. But it was very impressive to see that. And this is something that I think makes him different to the Prime Minister of Denmark, for example, who we also interviewed. She comes from the left, from the progressive left, but her response to the far right to populism is to embrace an enormous amount of their messaging and story quite successfully. And I'm not saying it's not a good tactic in many ways she's neutralized the debate around immigration in Denmark by becoming almost more ferocious in her language than the right. But he is obviously a standard bearer for something else, which is holding to a downland that, you know, obviously it sounds fair to me to say that it sounds sometimes quite old-fashioned, but it is a very sort of dignified Nordic tone.

Also very interesting the way that he talked about the trade unions, very not, you know, and he was making the point, you know, he said without naming names that he meant us, he meant you labor and Tony Blair, didn't he sort of distancing themselves from the trade unions? No, I think he's a very, very, very smart guy, genuinely nice guy as well. Given how generally relatively well-off people are, you could argue that Labour should be sort of, you know, way ahead in the polls. But their system doesn't ever really work quite work like that. It's very rare that you see parties pushing beyond the 20s. But I'd be quite surprised if he doesn't hold on for another term. But anyway, I'm glad you.

I'm glad you like you. What did you think about the diplomacy of his answers? on the Nobel Prize. If Donald J. Trump was listening, what would he think Jonas was saying? I would take the message as being, dear President Trump, if you actually massively reembrace

the international rules-based order, bring peace of the world, you do have a chance for getting a Nobel Peace Prize. And I think that's the best approach anyone's ever come up to with Trump because it's the one thing that he wants. He's got all the money that he wants,

thanks to his corrupt business practices. He's got all the fame that he wants, thanks to his... Endless stuff. He's got the power. The one thing he wants in the world, the Nobel Peace Prize. And if we could use that to actually make him a positive force in the world, that would be extraordinary, but that would be quite a high wire act. I think with his friend,

Steve Whitkoff, who arrives in Gaza wearing his Make America Great Again hat, I think if they actually brought peace to Ukraine and brought peace to the Middle East, then even you and I would say, yep, they should be on the short list, but maybe as a runner-up. Absolutely. See how it goes. Anyway, thank you, Alastair for that. That was great. See you soon. Take good. Have a great day. Bye-bye.